Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
CCPC Agenda 05/03/2018
Page 1 of 4 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., MAY 3, 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 – April 5, 2018 and April 19, 2018 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: This item has been continued from the April 19, 2018 CCPC meeting: A. PL20160002727: A Resolution amending Development Order 84-3, as amended, for the Marco Shores/Fiddler’s Creek, development of regional impact, providing for Section One: amendments to the original Development Order 84-03 to retain the residential density of 6000 units and to retain the maximum commercial development of 325,000 square feet of gross floor area for Fiddler’s Creek; and to increase the business development area from 33.62 acres to 55 acres; and to add a conversion of multi-family dwelling units to single family units; Section Two: amendment to master development plan to increase the residential development area from 1226.89 to 1280 acres; to re- designate 140 acres to residential development area and/or golf and/or lake area; to allow that the remaining golf course may be constructed when feasible on the Estancia property Page 2 of 4 or section 29 in the parks development area; to add two new access points on US 41 and move the project entrance to the east; and to add residential including adult congregate living facilities east of Collier Boulevard in sections 15 and 22; Section Three: findings of fact including revised legal description and correction of acreage; Section Four: conclusions of law; Section Five: effect of previously issued Development Order, transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and providing an effective date. The subject property consisting of 3,932 acres is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and south of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) in Sections 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 and 24, Township 51 South, Range 26 East and Sections 18, 19 and 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] NOTE: This item has been continued from the April 19, 2018 CCPC meeting: B. PL20160002496: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 84-42, as amended, 96-74, 98-13 and 2000-84, the Marco Shores/Fiddler’s Creek Planned Unit Development, to retain the residential density of 6000 units and to retain the maximum commercial development of 325,000 square feet of gross floor area for Fiddler’s Creek; to increase the business development area from 33.62 acres to 55 acres; to add project entrances for US 41; to increase the residential development area from 1226.89 to 1280 acres; to provide for a conversion factor for single-family and multi-family dwellings without increasing the total number of approved dwelling units for the PUD; to re-designate 140 acres to residential development area and/or golf and/or lake area; to allow that the remaining golf course may be constructed when feasible on the Estancia property or Section 29; to allow golf course uses in Section 29 in the parks development area; to move a project entrance to the east; to add residential including adult congregate living facilities east of Collier Boulevard in Sections 15 and 22; to amend Master Plan Exhibit FC-A1; providing for conflict and severability; and providing an effective date. The subject property consisting of 3932 acres is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and south of Tamiami Trail East (US 41) in Sections 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, 23 and 24, Township 51 South, Range 26 East and Sections 18, 19 and 29, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] NOTE: This item has been continued from the April 19, 2018 CCPC meeting: C. PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element And Future Land Use Map and Map Series by adding the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict to the urban— commercial district and changing the designation of property from Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict to allow 60,000 square feet of commercial intermediate (C-3) uses and an air-conditioned and enclosed self- storage facility; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. The subject property consisting of ±5.8 acres is located on the south side of US 41, approximately one-half mile southeast of Manatee Road and, opposite and southeast from Naples Reserve Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion PL20160000226 Torres Family Trust PUDZ) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] NOTE: This item has been continued from the April 19, 2018 CCPC meeting: D. PL20160000226: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project known as Torres Family Trust CPUD to allow development of up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses including Page 3 of 4 air conditioned mini self-storage warehousing, and allowing assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of .60 and by providing an effective date. The property consists of ±5.8 acres and is located on the south side of US 41, approximately one-half mile southeast of Manatee Road and, opposite and southeast from Naples Reserve Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2) [Coordinator: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] E. PL20160003482: A Resolution of the Collier County Planning Commission for an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2008-06, as amended, the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD, to add two deviations relating to landscape buffers and fence/wall height, to delete one deviation relating to cul de sac length, to modify development standards relating to minimum principal and accessory structure setbacks, to add a new cross section exhibit, and to revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the site layout. The subject property is located on the east side of Livingston Road, approximately one-half mile north of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of ±17.52 acres. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner] F. PL20160002584: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map by revising the conditional uses subdistrict to allow for the construction of a church or place of worship. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 6.25 acres; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to PL20160002577) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] G. PL20160002577: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a church within an Estates Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PL20160002584) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] H. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to require permanent emergency generators at residential developments with a clubhouse or community center and at facilities with fuel pumps and assisted living facilities or nursing homes, to allow yard encroachments and reduced planting areas for permanent emergency generators at facilities with fuel pumps and assisted living facilities or nursing homes, to amend landscape requirements to provide minimum size of replacement trees in shopping centers and prohibit slash pine and bald cypress, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, Section 4.06.01 Generally, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, Section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of-Way, Section 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements, Section 4.07.02 Design Requirements; Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, including Section 5.05.04 Group Housing, Section 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps, adding new Section 5.05.17 Residential Developments with Community Clubhouses or Recreational Facilities; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, and Decision- Page 4 of 4 Making Procedures, including Section 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development, Site Improvement Plans and Amendments Thereof; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp April 5, 2018 Page 1 of 75 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 5, 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 Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative April 5, 2018 Page 2 of 75 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, April 5th 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: Ms. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. Mr. Schmitt is absent. Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt informed me he wouldn't be here today, so it will be an excused absence. Okay. Addenda to the agenda. First of all, the Board -- this panel the last time had a couple of projects that we approved, and rather than have them on consent, they asked me to -- they said they'd be satisfied with my proofreading them before they were brought to the Board in lieu of consent, and I did that. But one of them, which is the Creekside Commerce Park CPUD that we heard last time, had a concern by the applicant over something that was said at the meeting that may not have been necessarily understood by all of us in the same manner. So to be sure that we're seeing that as we wanted to, I asked that it be put back on the agenda for today's discussion; however, we can't hear it as consent because if -- the result of the discussion may provide other options that need to be considered for the PUD. On that basis I'm going to request that we move it from 8A, which is the consent agenda, to the first item up under the regular agenda, but because the regular agenda's already labeled, we'll call it 9E, but it would be first up as a supplemental hearing, and it would be limited to the issue at hand that's in dispute, let's say, and then anything related to that issue based on the outcome of the discussion. So with that, could I have a motion to move 8A to 9E and have it first on the regular hearing addenda? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Patrick, seconded by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) April 5, 2018 Page 3 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. Okay. With that, we'll -- Ray, let's move to -- oh, I think it's Planning Commission absences would be next. Planning Commission absences for the April 19th meeting. Does anybody know if they're not going to be here? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll have a quorum. That takes us to approval of the minutes. Ray, I think March 1st is the only ones we have. Has anybody reviewed those? Do you have any questions, concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. 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. Now it's Ray's turn. BCC report and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board of County Commissioners met on March 27th. They heard the City Gate PUD amendment and the development order amendment. It was approved 5-0 subject to the Planning Commission recommendations. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And there were some changes to our recommendation. So I'm assuming the Board, then, made those changes without our involvement, but they did get approved? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd be interested, Mr. Chairman, if we could have a brief summary of those changes just for my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not sure Ray's prepared. Do you know what changes there specifically were? MR. BELLOWS: That was Nancy's project. We can get those summarized for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next time around, just brief us on what those were, if you don't mind. MR. BELLOWS: Definitely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next up is Chairman's report, and in lieu of the fact we have a long meeting today, I'm not going to waste your time with any further discussion. And we'll have no consent items left. ***So we'll move right into 9E, which is the advertised public hearing. Well, it's been advertised as a regular hearing, but it was shown as consent. It was moved from consent. It was PL20170000425, the Creekside Commerce Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). It's for the Arthrex center up on Immokalee Road and U.S. 41 and Goodlette. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom on my right. MR. EASTMAN: None. April 5, 2018 Page 4 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I didn't even know this was happening, so how could I disclose anything? But I've got a question. Is what we're doing legal, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: I asked for it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I guess that's legal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, just to give you a word, I wouldn't have asked -- I wouldn't have gone forward with a new process unless I cleared it with the County Attorney's Office, so... Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nothing to disclose since the previous time it came before us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All my similar disclosures as previously on the project overall, but since that time I have talked with various staff members, the County Attorney's Office, I either talked to or saw emails from the applicant or applicant's team members. I can't remember all of it right now. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing since last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing from me. I'm just glad to hear it's legal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And with that, we'll move into -- Richard, if you want to start your discussion. MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. Good morning, for the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. As you know, one of the purposes of the PUD amendment was to allow for an additional hotel to be constructed on the east -- I'm sorry -- the west side of Goodlette-Frank Road. And we went through an extensive discussion of what Arthrex's current plans are for the hotel and that it was their intentions for -- from now until whenever, to operate that hotel for its use and for its doctors' use, but we made it very clear we don't know what the ultimate future may be. So we analyzed the hotel as if it were a regular hotel, any brand hotel it could possibly be. We did that from a transportation standpoint, we did it from an impact standpoint. The total analysis is as if it was a standalone hotel and not an accessory exclusively to Arthrex, because if it was -- hang on a second -- because if it was an accessory use exclusive to Arthrex, I wouldn't have even had to not -- I would have not had to have done the impact analysis we were doing because it would have been considered a medically related use which was allowed under the Comprehensive Plan. But because we knew we couldn't commit forever that this hotel would always be only for Arthrex, we did the analysis that's required under the Comprehensive Plan to make sure we were not increasing the intensity under the PUD by adding this hotel use. So we analyzed it as if it were a Hilton -- I don't know why -- I'm thinking I'm a Hilton Club member; that's why that's the only one I can remember right now. But a Marriott, anything like that. So we analyzed it like that. Mr. Bumpous was asked the question, do you intend for it to have a flag, and he said no. And I got up after Mr. Bumpous, actually in response to Mr. Fryer's questions about traffic impacts and said, we analyzed this conservatively as if it were a standalone hotel. That's how we analyzed it, that's how we intend to permit it, and that was our intentions all along is that some day in the future we don't want to have to come back in the future to amend the PUD to be allowed to put a flag on the hotel if circumstances change. That's what we understood the motion was. There was nothing in the motion that said thou shalt not have a flag on this hotel, because I would have got up there and said, whoa, whoa, whoa -- you know me, I'm not shy -- we can't agree to that condition. So it is our intentions to not have a flag. But we're not going to commit that forever there will not be a flag on that hotel. So our request is for our language that's currently being presented to you, and we hope the Planning Commission can support that on behalf of Arthrex and their goals to continue to be an economic engine here April 5, 2018 Page 5 of 75 in Collier County. And that's the confusion that exists. So our request is that you consider this as a regular hotel without a limitation on flags. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before the Planning Commission asks any questions, I think to put it all in perspective, I'd like to read the minutes from that meeting so we know exactly why the question came up. It will take a couple -- a few minutes to read them all, but there's several paragraphs. First of all, Commissioner Ebert said, I have a question. Is this a private hotel? Is this yours only? Mr. Bumpous: It is a privately owned hotel; however, again, to meet the AdvaMed requirements, if we were to create an independent private hotel only catering to physicians, that would violate some regulations, so we have to establish it as a public hotel. You will not see this in Expedia. You will not see this in Orbitz. This will not be something that's publicized. This will be a business hotel for our visiting surgeons and visiting employees that come in from Europe, from California, from other locations that would stay there as well. Mr. Klatzkow: So there's no flag on it? Mr. Bumpous: Correct, no flag. Mr. Klatzkow: Okay. Under -- Mr. Yovanovich entered into that discussion in the same -- second page later. Also, the way we analyzed this hotel is we analyzed it as if it were a public hotel, a real public hotel, like a Marriott or a Hilton, or whatever, from a transportation standpoint. We analyzed it that way, and we actually reduced the square footages in the PUD as if it were a standalone hotel open to the public and, therefore, the traffic -- the typical traffic impacts of that type of a hotel. So we reduced square footage in the PUD to offset those impacts so the PUD would not be -- so the PUD would be transportation neutral. So if -- you're really looking at this in the worst-case scenario as if it's a public operated open hotel for the general public when, in reality, it will be operated as a private hotel essentially for Arthrex visitors. Now, after that meeting we got to the end of it, there was a motion to approve, and Joe Schmitt said, motion to approve subject to -- and we can go through the paragraphs, but subject to the changes we discussed today. Mr. Strain: Okay. Then both of you are in agreement. This was between Mr. Fryer and Mr. Schmitt who were making the motion and a second. It was approved unopposed. So that's the discussion we're having today is try to resolve the issue of the flag. I've read to you the actual discussion that occurred, so now, Stan, I think you had some questions. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just the way the conversation started out, if someone were to read this, I assume by "flag" you mean not the code definition of flag but something else. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think they use the term when you put either a Hilton designation or a Marriott designation or whatever else is out there designation is a flag for a hotel, not a flag as in an American flag or some other type of flag. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: My vote last time was influenced by the fact that it was not going to be held out publicly as with signs, I suppose, is what I thought a flag meant, or otherwise advertised to the public as something that would be available for occupancy to anyone who might have read an advertisement. Now, I'm not sure exactly what flagged means. I personally would not have a problem if Arthrex entered into a management contract of some kind whereby a large hotel chain operated the place because I'm sure that they would do an excellent job operating it, perhaps better than if Arthrex went out and hired people to do that. And it seems to me that could be accomplished without it then being touted to the public as being a Marriott or a Hilton. And even if in fine print somewhere you said "managed by Hilton Hotels" or something like that, I don't have a problem with that. What the problem I have is is that if it becomes part of the public awareness that there is a hotel there, that would, I think, negatively influence the traffic, and it would take away from the arguments that I was persuaded by last time such as that it's going to keep more people on the campus. April 5, 2018 Page 6 of 75 MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, and it still will do that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if people are checking into that hotel for purposes other than spending time at Arthrex or attending seminars or meeting with people, if they're checking into the hotel in order to visit North Naples or downtown Naples or other places, I don't know that it would. But it seems to me there ought to be a win-win here unless I misunderstand what is being said. If the language here that has been suggested, the proposed new language, would allow for professional management but not being advertised as such, I think I'd be okay with it, although the language must be very carefully crafted. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me take a step back. This whole discussion is predicated on it is intended to be a hotel with a limited universe of people who will be staying at that hotel. But we've never said that -- we don't want to have to come back 10 years from now, times have changed, and now have to amend the PUD to be able to have that hotel be open to people who are staying at -- family members who are staying at Naples Community Hospital or family members who are staying at Collier's Reserve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I don't have a problem with that, really. It has to do with how it's held out to the public, how it's advertised, that type of thing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I understand that, Mr. Fryer. What we're saying, we analyzed it worst-case scenario; that if the world changes, we can advertise it and have a -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know you did, and that was appropriate and a conservative approach. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have got to let each other stop speaking. You're over each other, and we're not going to be able to record it properly. So one at time, please. Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that. I didn't mean to interrupt Mr. Fryer, and I'm sure he didn't mean to interrupt me, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not at all. MR. YOVANOVICH: We analyzed it worst-case scenario. We hope that worst case never happens, but we don't want to have to come back in the future and say we are now going to put the name Marriott on this hotel and let people come stay at it, because we've already analyzed it as if the name Marriott is there. We're not changing how we plan to operate this. We've always said we're going to have professional management of the hotel. We don't -- we're going to have professional management, whoever that professional management company may be. But we did say we don't intend to put the name Marriott there anytime in the near future. But to say we'll never do that, we didn't agree to that. We didn't think we said we would agree to that. We didn't analyze it that way, and that's why we're here right now is what happens worst-case scenario. Frankly, I think the people -- I think people in Collier's Reserve and Pelican Marsh wish this was open to their guests in our discussions with them, you know. So this hotel has received the least amount of discussion amongst the residents of Pelican Marsh and Collier's Preserve, because we reached out to them early, we reached out to them often, and they have no issues. And nobody's here to speak against it. And we're hopeful that we can live with our language. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there -- would there be a way to make going public with the name, advertising it, holding it out to the public as a Marriott or Hilton or whatever, that would first trigger another study of traffic implications? MR. YOVANOVICH: But we've already studied the traffic implications. We've already done that analysis. And we're going through that process right now -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm just saying that all of that was important to me, and your conservative approach was appreciated, but my vote was influenced in part by the arguments that were impressive that had to do with keeping people on the ranch, on the farm, so to speak. And to the extent that this would become the same kind of an institution as the Ritz-Carlton, that is not going to be the case, and that will result in more traffic. That's all I have. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I just say one point? This isn't something that's happening in the future. We're already in for our Site Development Plan for the hotel. So we're doing the transportation analysis as April 5, 2018 Page 7 of 75 we speak real time to -- with the assumption that the traffic impact is a regular hotel open for everybody. So those traffic impacts are being analyzed today real world, worst-case scenario. So we are factoring in those impacts today. So the reality is, we're going to get tagged, if you will, because I can't think of another word, as if I'm open to the public today, but we will not have that impact because we won't be. So if I do sometime in the future put the Marriott on there -- put the Marriott tag on there, or flag on there in the future, I've already been analyzed as if it's a Marriott today. I get it if I were coming in and it's going to be three years from now before we look at a hotel, but we're already in for that Site Development Plan with the hope that we're going to receive approval and have the hotel open when we're done building the office. MR. KLATZKOW: Yet there's an administrative parking reduction request that's currently processing through the system as well based on the fact that this is a private hotel. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. I'll tell you what -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going to get into that in a minute, Jeff. But I want Ned to finish his discussion first, then we'll come to you, and then Diane. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The traffic analysis helped me get to a yes vote. I appreciated it, but it was not the only factor that I took account of. I was also impressed by the fact that it logically seemed to be something that would net reduce the amount of traffic by keeping visiting physicians, drug reps, whoever else, on the campus. So -- and, again, I appreciate that your study was done conservatively and that that was the proper way to do it. But as far as my vote was concerned, that was only a part of why I voted yes. Now, let me ask a question, Rich, if I may. Let's -- I understand no one wants their hands tied forever, and I get that conceptually, and I also appreciate that it's not your client's present intent to advertise it, open up to the public, and make it like the Ritz-Carlton. But may I ask what opportunities are you looking -- not to foreclose in the future. Are you looking to make it a publicly advertised place where companies could come in and have retreats or families could come to visit the Naples area? What opportunities are you trying not to foreclose? MR. BUMPOUS: Good morning. David Bumpous, for the record, with Arthrex. To respond to your question, the intent is for our visiting surgeons, visiting guests from other locations within Arthrex. At the same time, we plan to host business partners, again, other companies affiliated and associated with us that we do business with, work with, that we oftentimes collaborate with and provide that opportunity. As I stated last time on the record, this is a public hotel, and while you may not find it on the Internet to book a reservation, if you call the number, any of you on this board, you would be able to book a room if one's available. So it is a public hotel as required. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Bumpous, I understood that completely last time. It just has to do with whether it's being advertised or promoted. I know if it were approved the way the language was and somebody called and tried to make a reservation, you would accept them; I get that. But how is it they would have found out about it? And the more advertising, the more promotion, the more signage that is used, the more that the public mindset becomes connected with the fact that that is a Ritz-Carlton or a Hilton or Marriott, the more non-Arthrex business will be done there. That stands to reason. MR. BUMPOUS: Absolutely, and that's why the traffic impact study was done at the max. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the traffic impact study was one factor that influenced by vote. MR. BUMPOUS: Ultimately, there will be no more additional rooms added. So whether it's full today or whether it's full in the future -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: But it has to do with how many people will be leaving the campus. MR. BUMPOUS: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: I guess the answer to your question was, we don't know what's going to happen in the future. So every smart businessperson has, what's my exit strategy if things don't work out the way I think they're going to work out. And I have a hotel there. And that's what every smart businessperson would do. That's what we're doing. April 5, 2018 Page 8 of 75 Now, since the window was opened up on this alternative parking calculation, and it seems to be something that is part of your agenda, you can do alternative parking calculations for purposes of a Site Development Plan to determine what should the parking be, but you always have to have the backup plan is what if you're wrong and your calculation is wrong and you need more parking than what you need. Now, what does this alternative parking calculation show you? Is shows you that we have a surplus of 423 parking spaces on the campus when we build the office building and the hotel. We only asked for a reduction of -- we asked for 111 to be the requirement instead of the 186 required by the code. If we had to do the 186 and identify them on the immediately adjacent Arthrex office parcel, we're still excess parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Rich, I don't mean to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: So that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- interrupt, but Ned didn't ask a question about the parking exemptions, and let's wait till that question comes up from the person who asked it, and then you can understand what the reason for the asking is, and we can respond to that one for that basis. MR. YOVANOVICH: Fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going off on tangents. I'd like to get to the next question if we can. I think you've answered all of Ned's questions. Ned, are you finished? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jeff, do you want to move forward with your question? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no. I just -- I'm completely indifferent as to whether this is a public hotel or a private hotel, whatever. What Rich is saying here is, in essence, they want it zoned to be a public hotel. That's what they're saying, which is fine, you know, but that's what he's saying. So all this talk about how this is going to be a private hotel and it's just for, you know, doctors, that's just talk. What the zoning's going to be is a public hotel. That's what he's asking for. Again, that's fine. You've got a parking exemption request. Again, the discussion was, is it going to be a private hotel? If what they want is a public hotel, again, that's fine. But, you know, staff's going to have to relook at this administrative parking reduction in light of the fact that this is going to be a public hotel because that's what the zoning's going to be if the Planning Commission agrees. That's all. I mean, we're trying to sell it in one way while really asking for something else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, Rich, do you want to respond to that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane, do you have a question? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. I asked Mr. Bumpous, I believe, if the public could use this hotel, and you said no. This is for doctors -- this is for doctors, and this is for people that come in from overseas. And when we have different meetings and everything, it's going to be -- this is going to be a private -- that is the way I gathered it more so was that it had nothing to do -- because I said, can the public stay there, and I thought it was said, no. And, you're right, I'd have to go back and look at the minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. I read them to you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The question was -- you asked, is this a private hotel? He said, it's a privately owned hotel, but they have to establish it as a public hotel. So they said that in the record. And I've just read the minutes from that. So he did answer your question, but I think there's a difference between private ownership and private operation. This is an operation as a public hotel, but it's going to be privately owned. That's what I think they intended. Does anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich, I have a few. And, first of all, you did approach the use of the hotel as ITE Code 310 in the PUD as a publicly operated hotel, and because of that your traffic count came out like any other hotel in any other part of the county that would have. And then you correspondingly said, okay, to make up for that traffic, we will reduce our square footage of other elements of our PUD so we April 5, 2018 Page 9 of 75 remain traffic neutral. I don't have a problem with any of that. That part fits even whether it's flagged or not. That part doesn't bother me as much. What bothers me -- because you proceeded it -- you moved forward as a publicly operated hotel. What bothers me is two things. Number one, the application for the parking exemption -- which I was a little disappointed to see staff would even have approved it without looking at the PUD, but it says, it will be a private hotel for use by Arthrex guests and employees. Now, again, we're looking at a limitation there which staff banked on for the approval of the parking exemption, but they also banked on the fact that you used ITE code for that exemption, No. 312. But in your PUD you used 310. I'd like to know why you changed from a hotel -- a normal operating hotel in your PUD to a parking exemption that was purely a business hotel. I granted that the trip counts are just slightly different, but why would you need to do that? MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. My name is Norm Trebilcock, and my firm prepared the Traffic Impact Statement and also the parking needs analysis for the hotel as well. The reasoning is in the PUD amendment we use 310, and that is -- for trip generation purposes, okay, and that is just to maintain consistency because that's what we had had -- you know, we already had hotel rooms for the project. And the business hotel is a public hotel use. It's just a different type of hotel. It actually describes what's happening more accurately. For the purposes of doing the traffic analysis, we maintain the 310 as a higher assumption. When we did the parking needs analysis, though, the parking needs analysis, what I wanted to do -- that is for this very specific parcel and type, and it's really an evaluation tool for staff. So I wanted to use -- and parking generation is not the same as the trip generation, but there are parallel numbers used. But I wanted to just be more accurate to the staff in terms of looking at that. When we do the traffic studies, a lot of that ties back into impact fees, and the county uses a standard for 310 for their impact fees for hotel. So we weren't looking to mix and match that. I think it would create more complications. But for this very specific use in this evaluation tool, it was really a deficit number to evaluate. I mean, the whole deficit, though, in what I call a remedy is still based on the Land Development Code standard, so our remedy for the parking needs is we have this adjacent administrative building that will take care of the parking needs in the event the assumptions are incorrect on that particular parcel, and that's really how it's described for everybody. So it's really just to try and be more accurate for evaluation in that very specific report. So it wasn't an intention to anything other than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it also helps that the number you used in the parking calculation has a different ITE trip generation than the PUD. MR. TREBILCOCK: It's a parking demand. It's not the same as a trip generation. It's a parking demand. There are differences, so I just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know why staff would allow you to use a different ITE code for parking when that's not the ITE code that's in the PUD. And I would suggest to staff in the future that they need to match up parking exemptions to what the applicant had applied for in the PUD, unless there's -- I still haven't heard a good reason why they wouldn't. I understand your reasoning. It's not theirs. MR. TREBILCOCK: No. And you make a good point. But the point of the matter is is when we look at a PUD analysis, we're looking at highest and best use, so we'll tend to go to a higher and conservative number. But really what we'd like to get to is actually the very specifics that you're doing. So there's nothing wrong with going with something that is more accurate to what you're doing. And if it has a lower assumption, that's helpful for staff to understand in their evaluation as well. So, yeah, we could have used 310 in the parking demand, but we know specifically that wouldn't be accurate to how this hotel's being used. Again, in the PUD, it was just a conservative, higher approach. And I don't see anything wrong with that. It's -- you know, again, we like to be conservative in the PUD level and then in the specific SDP, if we can hone in on the more accurate numbers, there's nothing wrong with that. April 5, 2018 Page 10 of 75 So I don't see a fault there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, the more accurate numbers, then, should have been the ones you used in the PUD since that came three months after the parking reduction request. Regardless, I think there needs to be some coordination between applications that go in on the same project and the numbers used to generate those applications. Let staff make the decision on how you're going to operate it versus on a narrative you provide, but they ought to match up. That's all I'm trying to say. That's my first problem. The second problem is we base -- you asked for a wellness center. You asked for a wellness center of 40,000 square feet. You asked for that wellness center under the basis that it wouldn't be counted -- because it's traffic neutral, it would have no impact on traffic because it's limited to Arthrex employees and guests and hotel guests; that it wouldn't be -- wouldn't generate any traffic and, therefore, the square footage shouldn't count necessarily against the overall square footage of the PUD because there are certain limitations. It's an industrial park. I didn't have a problem with that realizing that the limitation's on the hotel. Now, if you in the future convert this hotel to a Ritz-Carlton or whatever brand you'd want to put on it and it goes beyond Arthrex, that means the wellness center's going to see traffic that would now come on and off site that may be for a different purpose than what the original operation was conceived at. So all I'm suggesting is that to cure the problem that we're having today, is since this is going to be a more flagged hotel, if it goes that route, that the wellness centers are prohibited from using membership programs, meaning you can't have off-site memberships or people drive to the site to use the wellness center when they're not either an Arthrex employee or a guest at the hotel. And that as far as the square footage goes, the sentence that we've had is wellness centers limited to employees and hotel guests within the PUD should not exceed a maximum of 40,000 square feet and shall not be counted towards overall square footage so long as they remain traffic neutral as accessory only to existing uses. Again, no off-site memberships. That's all I'm suggesting. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm okay if we simply say "no off-site memberships." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then what's wrong with the last part of that where "so long as they remain traffic neutral"? That's the basis for not counting a stand-alone facility that's not accessory to the hotel lot. MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you -- are you -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go to 3.2 under your industrial commerce district general description. That's the added language I was just reading from. First paragraph. It's on Page 29 electronically and 3-1 in the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that's where I'm suggesting we add something to not allow membership programs. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm okay with that. But this whole "traffic neutral" language, I can't see it, I'm just saying, and we shall not be allowed to sell off-site memberships. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So we make sure that that first sentence that's underlined in the bottom of that paragraph at the end of it, instead of a period where it says overall square footage, comma, "so long as they remain traffic neutral as accessory only to existing uses." MR. YOVANOVICH: Where does it say that? It doesn't say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm saying add it. Read the -- go to the -- you're on Page 3-2? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm at 3-2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See the third line from the bottom, wellness centers limited to employees and hotel guests within the PUD -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- shall not exceed a maximum of 40,000 square feet and shall not be counted towards the overall square footage. And I'm suggesting we add, "so long as they remain traffic neutral as accessory only to existing uses." You can't have memberships, and they've got to remain traffic neutral. April 5, 2018 Page 11 of 75 MR. YOVANOVICH: So am I doing a -- how am I going to get -- my question is, someone's going to say to me, what did you do to measure traffic neutrality? I can easily measure I'm not selling memberships. I get that, and I can easily measure that it's Arthrex employees. I can easily measure that it's hotel guests. How do I measure traffic neutrality? If I'm -- you've already -- I'm assuring traffic neutrality by saying I can't sell outside memberships. I just -- I'm looking at what's the measurement tool. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, part of the traffic neutrality for that wellness center was its limitation of uses. The users would only be Arthrex campus employees or the hotel guests. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's there and I'm saying, and we'll agree to the additional concern you have, and we shall not sell outdoor -- I'm sorry, outside memberships. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if you feel you already meet the additional language that I'm suggesting, then why are you worried about it? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, what's the measurement tool? What's the measurement tool? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What's the measurement tools for yours? MR. YOVANOVICH: It's very easy. You're going to come in and you're going to say, hey, Rich, what are you doing here? You're not an employee of Arthrex, and you're not staying at the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the easy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that's all I'm saying. I'm making it very clear at the end of the sentence; "so long as they remain traffic neutral as accessory only to existing uses." MR. YOVANOVICH: We like the language we have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So be it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, I have another question. I mean, I'll be honest, this bothers me because I was figuring it was a private hotel. And you just -- can you say again what the -- what the Arthrex hotel parking spaces are required? MR. YOVANOVICH: I have to go back to the traffic parking analysis. Norm, is it 186? The hotel parking required as a stand-alone Marriott would be 186. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And you're providing? MR. YOVANOVICH: I believe it was 111 because it's being operated as a business hotel. The irony of the whole thing -- I'll be honest with you, I thought we were doing this parking -- alternative parking analysis because we were short on parking. I've got, like, 500 extra spaces. So we can have a parking agreement between Arthrex and the Arthrex entity that's owning and operating the hotel to address the 186 parking spaces if that's going to make everybody feel better. But we were doing a Site Development Plan based upon how the hotel was going to be operated just like any other hotel would go through. If it's a business oriented hotel, this is the analysis we would do with staff and we'd say this is the required parking. It's different than what your code currently requires. This is -- this is just a red herring. It has nothing to do with zoning. Nothing to do with zoning. We've said from day one this was a public hotel. We've been honest with you how we plan to operate the hotel. We've been honest that we need an exit strategy if things are different, and we analyzed it as if there was an exit strategy. We've done everything right. This is a business that has been nothing but good for this community and has told you what it wants to do and what it needs to do, and we're making this way harder than it ought to be when we have nobody complaining from the community about this hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think, Richard, that you're making it way harder than it needs to be. We're not asking for much. We're asking simply put your -- I guess your money where your mouth is. You guys said you weren't going to be -- you were going to be a private hotel, you have to be open to the public, but you'll be limited on the users of that hotel. I'm concerned more -- not as the hotel, because you did the right analysis on that. I'm not concerned about the parking exemption. There's no problem there. I don't -- I mean, that's not going to hurt anything. All I'm concerned about is the fact that wellness center isn't counted as square footage on an overall program, April 5, 2018 Page 12 of 75 and it's different. It's not necessarily -- it's not on the same lot. It's not attached. We're going to say it's an accessory to two other uses. Fine. Then just stick with that. As long as they remain accessory to the existing uses, then we can -- that helps assure the traffic neutrality. It's the only language I asked to add. That's too much for you, which makes me a little more concerned that there's something there we're missing, which means I think that language is needed now more than I previously did. MR. YOVANOVICH: You know what, I'm running out of gas. I originally called these things accessory uses during the original application, and because I called it an accessory use, we spent a couple of hours on the phone about how I'm not an accessory use. So now you want to put the accessory use back in that I had in the first place. So if we want to go back to my original language where I called it an accessory use, I'm at peace, but I was told to take the accessory use language out, which we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But they're now accessory uses to the overall project, not just an overall use where it's got to be tied to a principal use on the same lot. This is the overall project. It qualifies that way. You want to start up the whole -- you want to open the whole can of worms up again? MR. YOVANOVICH: We always said it was an accessory use to the Arthrex campus and the hotel. We always said that. And I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It started out as the hotel, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it never did, Mr. Strain. It never did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine with what I've heard to date. Anybody else have any other questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I want to summarize my concerns because they're slightly different, I think, than those that have been expressed by the Chairman and by the County Attorney. The proposed new language that we have before us now "and shall not be affiliated or associated in any manner with a hotel, motel, vacation," et cetera, that does seem to be too broad because having a management agreement with Hilton or some other entity that is acting as a silent partner, if you will, or supplying the back office would be an affiliation or association that I would not have any problem with. And so, to me, the proper language, the language that gets at the essence of my concern, would be something like this: Instead of what we have outlined in yellow, I would have said, "and shall not be advertised or promoted to the general public to any substantial degree as a hotel, motel, vacation resort company or any entity that falls under SIC Code 7011, hotel and motels, unless the resulting greater public occupancies will be traffic neutral." MR. YOVANOVICH: But I'm analyzing it today for purposes of my Site Development Plan. And correct me if I'm wrong, Norm, as if I am advertising to the general public a regular hotel. So I'm already having those impacts analyzed right now. So I'm already doing that for you, Mr. Fryer. So I think I've addressed your concern because my Site Development Plan is analyzing the traffic impacts today as if I am advertising to the world that they can come stay here. I'm not going to operate it that way, but I'm analyzing it that way for purposes of concurrency, which is what I'm required to do. So I think we've -- I think -- I really do believe I've addressed your concern about traffic impacts because we may some day advertise it to the general public. I'm doing it up front. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I appreciate your point of view, and I understand it. I just don't happen to be willing to place 100 percent confidence in traffic impact studies, and that's why at our last meeting I asked for some further explanation that followed a telephone conversation that we had about how this was going to keep the folks down on the farm to a greater degree than if you were using hotels in Estero or downtown Naples, and so that influenced my vote. And taken with the other discussion that we had about -- and I understand that if somebody wants to check in from the public with no association or affiliation with Arthrex, that you're going to accept those check-ins, but it has to do with the degree of public awareness that there is this very nice hotel in that location that, to my way of thinking, will add additional traffic. And if your traffic impact study says it won't, then I guess I disagree with your traffic impact study. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? April 5, 2018 Page 13 of 75 COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Unlike Mr. Fryer, I was told this is the Arthrex hotel. I thought I asked if the public could stay there; it was no. There is going to be a hotel on the east side of this project, so I assumed that is where you wanted the public to stay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, two things: We've always said we don't know whether or not the hotel on the east side will ever be built or not. We don't know. It could. No guarantee that it will be. It's not my client's property, Arthrex. They don't know what's going to happen there. We've analyzed this PUD as if both hotels were being built. We were clear in the explanation that this is a public hotel. I understand -- and that's why we're having this discussion is maybe you didn't understand it the way -- and we're clarifying how it's going to be operated. Make no mistake, this whole idea happened because of a lack of hotel availability to Arthrex and its professionals that are coming to stay. They need to have certainty that they'll have rooms for their guests, and it will be operated where doctors and other visitors who are currently staying in another hotel will now be staying at this, whether it's a Marriott, whether it's Innovation. Whether it's advertised on the Internet or not, it's still going to be Arthrex's guests staying there. We're just looking for the exit strategy in case things change in the future. 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: Any member of the public here who would like to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing and have discussion first. Does anybody have any discussion on it? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, a comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've had a lot of opportunity to visit Naples, North Naples Hospital in the last year, and I drive through that intersection frequently, and I never see any traffic problems. I'm not all that concerned. But I know people in here think that Immokalee Road is overstressed, but not that intersection; not from what I saw, ever. So I'm not as concerned as the rest of you. I'm just not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to ask, I guess, the chairman to -- before we vote to explain exactly what we're voting on and what the consequences of a yes versus a no vote would be in terms of what the County Commissioners did at the last meeting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In terms of what the County Commissioners did? I'm sorry. I don't follow their meetings all the time, so what did they do at the last meeting that I'm -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, part of Creekside was approved, was it not? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Creekside? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No? MR. YOVANOVICH: Not that I know of. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I misunderstood. Okay. All right. So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We only opened this up for just this singular item and any items that would be related to it as a result of this discussion, which means the PUD previously was recommended approval from us subject to clarification -- incorporating our comments from last time. In review of the last time, this was the one issue that wasn't clear. So I think the motion would stand to recommend approval, but if we vote differently on this issue today, I think this one issue may stand out from the rest of it. I'll turn to Jeff on any clarification he may offer. MR. KLATZKOW: No. Usually we request the reason for a negative vote, and that reason, then, April 5, 2018 Page 14 of 75 Mr. Bellows would put into the executive summary that goes to the Board. And so if there is to be a no vote, I just ask that you state your reason, you know, for the opposition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think the question was, are we voting no on the whole project now or just a singular issue that we -- MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's for the whole project. MR. YOVANOVICH: May I ask -- MR. KLATZKOW: I mean, it doesn't matter because the practical -- the practical consequence of voting no is that it doesn't go on summary. That's the practical consequence. When the Planning Commission is unanimous and there's no public opposition, a land-use matter goes on summary and is approved at the very beginning of the board meeting without further discussion. When there is a split vote by the Planning Commission, then it goes for regular public hearing. That's the practical consequence of a no vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Richard, you wanted to ask a question? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I'll be honest with you. I'm a little confused about the procedure. Are we back reconsidering the original PUD? Because we're not talking consent anymore. We've gone way beyond consent, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We announced that in the beginning this wouldn't be consent. And it was a limited discussion on the flagging issue that was brought up previously. MR. YOVANOVICH: So my question is, I understand the vote to be whether or not you agree with the language proposed by Arthrex or not. If you don't agree with the language proposed by Arthrex, you'd be voting no against the PUD, and we would then have a consideration by the Board on the regular agenda. Am I right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think that's what Jeff said. We're voting for the PUD. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So we're back to -- we're not voting on consistency with the original Planning Commission motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. That went away -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We're back now talking about we've reconsidered and reopened up the public hearing on the PUD itself. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct. That's correct. Okay. Ned, did you have anything else you needed to ask? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I'm going to explain my vote when the time comes, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one point of discussion. First of all, this is a good project, and I like the project. I thought it was well presented. I thought that everything went fine. I understand the traffic issue, and I agree with Stan. You seem to indicate, like us -- you were in agreement with the rest of us. I'm not in agreement where there's a traffic issue here. I'm worried about a traffic issue in the future. I simply -- now the only thing this boils down to -- and because it's not going -- because it's going to be more of a full operational hotel or it could be in the future -- and I think it's the future that I'm worried about. To allow 40,000 square feet to go uncounted on the premise that it will remain traffic neutral because the wellness center's going to function as an accessory to existing principal uses, and not allowing that language to be added, to me, means there's something else there that we've missed; otherwise, how does it hurt anything? It matches exactly what we've been told and what we voted on. So I'm going to have a problem with an affirmation on this without stipulations that add clauses that allow wellness centers to be prohibited from using any -- using membership programs and from adding the following language to Section 3.2 and the other section where we have wellness centers that says, "so long as they remain traffic neutral functioning as accessory to existing principal uses." Try to make that as clear as possible. And if those two things can be added as a stipulation -- I would have no problems, with those stipulations, recommending approval to the Board, and then let the Board deal with it. At least they've got the option to hear it clearly then. April 5, 2018 Page 15 of 75 MR. YOVANOVICH: We've already said we agree -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, this isn't a debating point for you. You've already had testimony. This is simply for discussion with us. So that's my position on it. And with that, I'll ask for a motion from the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to make a motion to approve the proposal with the stipulations that the Chairman has inserted. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Ned, seconded by Patrick. Is there any further discussion? MR. YOVANOVICH: Question. Point of order. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What exactly are we voting on here in this language that was the original -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're voting on the original discussion that we had at the Planning Commission meeting a couple weeks ago, and now we're voting on the changes to the wellness center designations as a result of the discussion this morning going on about the flags being removed. So, basically, it's everything we previously did that we already made a motion on with two additional clauses. It leaves the flag idea in place. They can have their public hotel. But it's the wellness center that really generates the unknown from this whole thing, and it's a wellness center that my concern was we need to address because they properly addressed the hotel in their original TIS. So with a hotel being more public than we thought it would be, by restricting the wellness centers as we described it helps keep that traffic neutral which is -- that's the big elephant in the room, basically. It's 40,000 square feet of space that's not counted, but it's only not counted because of the way it's tied to the uses that are there. So that's the discussion. I mean, does anybody have any comment on that? MR. KLATZKOW: Just one brief comment. And I understand where the Chair's going on this, and I can see that the applicant may not -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Agree. MR. KLATZKOW: -- agree to this. So this is going to be the issue for the Board of County Commissioners. So that I can have absolute clarity before the Board, if I could get staff to write that stipulation -- just table this for now, get staff to write that stipulation, bring it back, and make that part of your motion, I'll have absolute clarity before the Board of County Commissioners. Because this sounds like this is going to be a one -- just a single issue before the Board. The rest of it, apparently, is fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have a problem with the rest of it. I stand behind what I and the rest of us voted on originally. It's only this one change because of the re -- further defining of the hotel, and that, I think, buttons it up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I think that the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. Go ahead, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Look, we are the applicant. We have brought forward a proposed PUD for our property. Only the applicant can request PUD zoning on its property, and only the applicant can propose the terms it's willing to agree to. You have to either agree with our proposed language or not. You can't impose upon us conditions that we're not willing to accept. That's why I tried to get up there and say, Mr. Strain, we have no objections to adding we will not sell memberships and that it has to accessory to the uses of the PUD. We've always balked at the language; I don't know how to measure transportation neutrality. We're hoping by the fact that only Arthrex people can use it, only hotel guests can use it, and that we can't sell memberships to the wellness center, and it's accessory to those two uses, that that will provide you with the assurance that it will be transportation neutral, and that's all we're suggesting. We would agree to a condition that we can't sell outside memberships and that it be accessory to the PUD uses. We have no problems with that. It was, I don't know how to measure transportation neutrality. And I don't want to get into a fight with anybody about whether that has or has not occurred. That's the only April 5, 2018 Page 16 of 75 thing we're not agreeing to is the transportation neutrality language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And as far as us insisting on something with you, we are -- we merely recommend to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. No. Don't assume he's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a county ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was just trying to say. I don't think he's right. MR. KLATZKOW: You're the local planning authority. Okay. I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, I'm not saying -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: You condition your approval on a clause. You condition your approval on a clause. He doesn't like it, that's fine. It will go to regular -- he'll go to the Board. This is -- this is what they conditioned on. I don't like it. And then the Board of County Commissioners will make a decision. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. KLATZKOW: I've never heard of such a thing. It's my ordinance. It's not your ordinance. Once you walk into this -- once you walk into this room it becomes a county ordinance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeff, that's okay. We're all on the same page here. It's fine. We'll get there. So as far as I'm concerned, the motion and the second accepted the language. I will ask staff -- we'll take a break -- well, it's a little bit early for our court reporter, but we'll take a break anyway. We'll get staff to type it up, and we'll read it back into the record, make sure it's crystal clear, and then that will meet Jeff's needs, and then we'll go from there. So based on the motion that we have said, the two stipulations would be the wellness centers will be prohibited from using membership programs and that the last -- the sentence on 3.2 and the other section that talks about wellness centers where it says they shall not be counted towards their overall square footage, we'll continue with the following language: "So long as they remain traffic neutral functioning as accessory to existing principal uses," period. That's what was suggested. That's what the motion maker and second, I believe -- can I have a reaffirmation of that? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, is there a motion to approve? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, let's table it. We'll get it written up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we'll come back. MR. KLATZKOW: -- then we'll come back and vote on it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's table it for 15 minutes. We'll return at 10:15. And right after that we'll move right into Sand Banks parking exemption. We'll take a break till 10:15. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everyone. Welcome back from the break. The printed copy of what we were waiting for just came through the door. So this is basically for the Planning Commission's benefit and the County Attorney's Office to understand clearly what the motion was. So long -- in yellow is the highlighted part. Wellness centers limited to employees and hotel guests within the PUD shall not exceed a maximum of 40,000 square feet and shall not be counted towards overall square footage so long as they remain traffic neutral and functioning accessory to existing principal uses in the PUD. There shall be no off-site memberships, and that captured both items. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion maker satisfied? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the second? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair? April 5, 2018 Page 17 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, ma'am. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: There's one other change that should be made. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you use the microphone, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. There's just one additional change that should be made, which is that last sentence should say "wellness centers" instead of just "wellness center." So we'll correct that in the final. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Yeah, that's a typographical. So with that, there's been a motion made to accept this language by Ned, seconded by Patrick. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0 (sic). Oh, why don't you use your mike. I thought you were with us. Aye? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's still 6-0 (sic). Okay. Thank you. And that will end that particular discussion. It doesn't need to come back on consent. This is -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I voted nay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. Diane voted no. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I did. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I heard her say aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought so, too. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But she said it when you called for the -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Any opposed, I said aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. So it's actually 5-1. You still have a no vote. 5-1 in favor with the recommended language and one no vote. MR. KLATZKOW: And could we get the reason for the no vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. What's your reasoning for the no vote, Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Because -- my reasoning for the no vote is I thought it was a private hotel and that guests could not stay there other than doctors and employees for Arthrex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. With that we will -- this meeting -- that item's finished, and we'll move on to our next agenda item. ***Next up on today's agenda is Item 9A, and this has been continued from our March 1st meeting. It's for a parking exemption located between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to talk on this item, ladies and gentlemen, please stand up. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures. We'll start over with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just some correspondence from people. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? April 5, 2018 Page 18 of 75 COMMISSIONER FRYER: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: None, just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I have met with the applicant a couple different times, staff several times. I've also talked to some folks from the neighborhood at a meeting, and I've received some correspondence from them which was forwarded to staff to disseminate. I think it came in just after the application went out, so I'm not sure it got to everybody, but it was a summary of their concerns after a meeting with the applicant. Go ahead. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen's nothing. Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Fred, you can proceed. MR. HOOD: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering representing Sand Banks, LLC, the applicant for the parking exemption request. I just want to go over briefly the project description and location with you-all. As you can see on the screens, the property is outlined in red here with Ridge Street to the north, Tamiami Trail North to the west, and Rosemary Lane to the south. To the south of the site across Rosemary is Borelli Construction's new construction. It was a couple years ago that they built that. And to the north is Thalheimer's jewelry store, just to orient you. Here's the zoning map, and the property has the star spinning on it, which is no longer spinning. It's C4 and has RSF4 zoning to the rear of the site. The site is approximately 2.32 acres and, as I said before, bounded by Ridge Street to the north and Rosemary to the south. Just to give you kind of a better idea of what the location -- the locations of the zoning are on the property. The highlighted yellow hatched area to the rear is the RSF4 zoned property. The remaining property to the west is C4. Just to give you an idea of what's actually situated on the property right now, this is the existing shopping plaza that is just south of Mr. Tequila's restaurant. This shopping center is about a little bit more than 6,600 square feet. And, yeah, there's a few tenants in it right now. These are just some additional pictures; some views for you to take a look at. And there's Mr. Tequila's. Mr. Tequila is on the corner of Ridge Street and Tamiami. This is the site plan that we have come up with for the proposed parking exemption and the future Site Development Plan. This one differs slightly from what's in your packets. We had a conversation with Mr. Strain about the dumpster location. So in this master plan you will see the dumpster location that is just north of Mr. Tequila's restaurant. If you look in the upper left-hand corner of the property, we had to swap those areas. The dumpster could not be located in the RSF4 zoned property, so we put it into the C4 property closer to the restaurant. Just to kind of give you an idea of how the site is. Again, looking today, there is the 6,600-square-foot building shopping plaza to the south of Mr. Tequila's, and you can see it's kind of the aerial I've overlaid on top of the master plan just to give you an idea of what's going on here. Again, the site plan, just for additional reference, as I just spoke about, the original loading area was there in blue on the upper left-hand portion of the screen, and on the upper right-hand portion of the screen was where the existing -- or proposed dumpsters were. I've now swapped those in this master plan. This is the existing parking exemption that was approved back in 2009. It was for a 60,000-square-foot building, office building, five stories, 12,000 square feet each floor. On this particular master plan in the RSF4 designated areas, there were 63 parking spaces that were being proposed. It was also -- obviously, as you can see, this site was surrounded by parking. And, again, five stories maximum height in this particular scenario would have been 75 feet. Side-by-side comparison, what we have proposed versus what was already approved back in 2009. April 5, 2018 Page 19 of 75 We're looking at a one-story shopping plaza that will be replacing the existing shopping plaza that is -- if you're looking at this, the existing one is just south of Mr. Tequila's and in front of this proposed plus-or-minus 17,000-square-foot structure that we're proposing. I just want to kind of go into the conditions of approval, and I'll just go through them one by one. Fair warning, there's a couple of these that have changed. After we spoke with Mr. Strain and we discussed some items with staff, we organized, and some of these weren't necessary, so I'll get into that at the end of the presentation. So bear with me as I go through these. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and you had already modified some of them before you talked to me. MR. HOOD: I did, correct. And just to give you some background on that, staff provided us with a list of conditions of approval. We looked at those items, and we kind of made them more consistent with how the LDC is written today versus what they were approved of back in 2009. So that's the real difference. The ones that I will show you later are additions to those conditions just to make sure that we're meeting the intent of what we have been proposing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. So the first one is the restriction of the parking -- sorry -- the restriction of the allowable area of the parking exemption. It is accurately depicted on the conceptual plan. The second one limits the provision -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me, Fred. I have a procedural question; otherwise, I wouldn't interrupt you. MR. HOOD: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The material that we're looking at, the redlining, is this the first time we're seeing this? MR. HOOD: The redlining that I'm going to go over after this -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, this redlining -- MR. HOOD: -- or right now? COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- that's on the screen right now. MR. HOOD: This one right now is what you have in your packets. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, redlined? MR. HOOD: Redlined that has been in your packets through coordination with staff, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Mr. Chairman, do you have a page number for that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 30. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thirty, okay. Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MR. HOOD: No problem. Sorry about that. The second condition limits the provision of the typical parking restrictions and restricts for -- the use for the proposed shopping center and restaurant only. The third condition -- and you will see that No. 3 was from staff, and we struck that. That is a portion of the restructuring that I will discuss as I go through the rest of these. So now No. 3 is the condition restricts the parking within the PE area and to be a paved surface parking lot only. Number 4 restricts the use of the parking exemption area to normal business hours and the operation between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. So anyone who is parking in this area, there will be signs that will be available that says you can only park here between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. The next one, we're going into more detail about the lighting in the parking exemption area. We limited the lighting fixtures in this PE area to a height of no more that 42 inches. So in this area, as you can see on this slide, we've proposed bollard lighting. So everything that was in that previously yellow outlined box for the RSF4 area we've provided for bollard lighting. I know that there's snow in that picture. It was one of the better ones that we found that was an example, so just to give you a little Christmas cheer. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Northern Florida. MR. HOOD: And Northern Florida. Okay. Next, No. 6, the lighting, we provided at the rear of any building adjacent to the parking exemption area and adjacent to those residential lots, and I've identified those lots as Lots 57, 59, 18 -- and 18 April 5, 2018 Page 20 of 75 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision, shall be in the form of shielded structure-mounted sconces. So what I'm talking about here is any lighting that's on the back of that building will have to be structurally mounted. There is a change to this language that we'll go over later on, and I'll discuss why in a second here. These structures shall be placed no higher than 10 feet measured from the finished floor of the building or structure. Okay. Our next condition provides that all landscaping for the off-street parking areas shall be in accordance with Chapter 4 of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. Next, No. 8, through coordination, phone calls, and emails with adjacent property owners and affected parties in the surrounding area, we retained the six-foot wall requirement within the Type B landscape buffer. Per the Land Development Code, this wall has to be six feet from the common property line and, again, this wall will be adjacent to Lots 57, 59 and 18 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision. This graphic gives you an idea of where that wall will be placed, generally. Okay. Moving on to No. 9, perimeter landscape buffers, dumpster enclosures -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Your numbering doesn't correspondence to what we had in our package. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Well, it does mine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Number 10 is what I have showing perimeter landscaping buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. MR. HOOD: Oh, I'm sorry. These are my notes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: He called it No. 9. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's got 10 on here. Oh, okay. I was looking at what he had on the screen. MR. HOOD: Number 10, I'm sorry. So No. 10, perimeter landscape buffers, dumpster enclosures, screen, and additional screens between residential and nonresidential development shall be in accordance with Chapters 4 and 5 of the Collier County LDC in effect, again, at the time of building permit application. Number 11 provides the option for an enhanced landscape buffer if the applicant decided to do so. That would just be providing additional landscape materials if they saw fit, anything that was more than code minimum. I believe we're on No. 12. Let me go down here. Here we are. Let's see. Provides that there shall be no direct access from adjacent streets to the parking exemption area. This was a previous condition that was provided in 2009 so that no -- none of the parking exemption area could have access directly in that RSF4 area onto Rosemary or onto Ridge Street. So we've moved them -- and I'll show you again on the master plan when we get down here. You will see with the red arrows, the access points, the main access points, are to the north on Ridge Street and to the south on Rosemary Lane, and they are within the C4 area. We do have one emergency access for emergency vehicles that straddled that line, that yellow line that you see, and that yellow line is the zoning line. So we had to -- for circulation and emergency fire purposes, we added an emergency access point there. Okay. We are on number -- that's 12. Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Fred, on that last page, No. 7 -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- the last line, instead of shielded structures, you might say shielded fixtures. Small point; probably not important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if we can, when he finishes with his presentation, we can get into walking through it again with the questions. MR. HOOD: Sure. Okay. So now I'm going to go through the revised conditions of approval through coordination that we've had with the county and with our phone calls with some of the concerned neighbors. Okay. So this is the -- and, actually, I want to hand these to you-all. I have copies of them, if you wouldn't mind. April 5, 2018 Page 21 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, please do. And how many -- you need to make sure the court reporter and staff and the County Attorney's Office as well. And, James, when it gets to the staff report and you've heard everything, I'm going to ask you if you need -- how you would perceive this proceeding since you haven't had time to see these changes. I don't think any of us have. MR. SABO: Very good. I've made notes as well, so thank you. MR. HOOD: And if you need them, I also have copies of the PowerPoint presentation for the record, if you would like to have a copy of those. Okay. Going on to the first change, in No. 2, as you can see on the screens here, there was a concern about -- and there was a concern but there was also a practical reason why this one was changed. When we moved the dumpster areas, I no longer needed to say that I was going to leave this parking exemption area for dumpsters, vehicular circulation, and so forth, so the refuse collection was stricken there, and I added the word "vehicular" to circulation just so that we could say this is an area for cars. That's why that change is there. As I was talking about earlier, No. 3, that has been stricken in this copy. These were a portion of the conditions that we received from staff. We've reorganized those, and some of them didn't apply anymore, and most of them have just been added further down the line. So we'll go to the next one, which is No. 5. We added the hours of operation for the actual lighting. So you'll see there in red the text that says, "and be restricted to operating in the parking exemption area between the hours of 6:30 and 10:30 p.m." This is just for the lighting. So as I was stating before, the parking exemption area will only be available to people parking there between the hours of 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. I added an extra half an hour on each end just for -- you know, so the site illuminated before people arrive to park. And we discussed that point with two of the neighbors yesterday, and they seemed to be okay with that. The next one is about the restrictions. And so this is the one that I was talking about that we were going to change inside of the C4 area. For safety reasons, I couldn't just leave bollard lighting only in the parking exemption area, but to be able to light the drive aisle that is in that area, we are proposing for pole lighting no higher than 10 feet on the C4 side of things basically behind the building to be able to light that aisle. And so Dark Skies technology will be applied here so that there will be shielded fixtures that will be lighting that aisle. We also added the hours of operation for that lighting as well just because it's outside of the parking exemption area. I wanted to be very, very clear. So also 6:30 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. for that. We struck No. 8. This was a reference that had to do with the landscaping. It is already in the Land Development Code, so there was no need for us to reiterate it here, and No. 7, which was formerly No. 9, this was about the wall. The previous condition had the wall being four feet from the property line. The Land Development Code has since changed. It is now six feet from the property line, so we just made that update. Our next one, we removed 10 and 11. Again, these have to do with the landscaping. Number 11 was about the enhanced. If our applicant wants to go ahead and plant additional landscaping, that's not precluded by the LDC, so there was no point in us leaving that there. And No. 10 was, again, redundant because it is already in the Land Development Code, so we will be following that. And then the changes we had were to the master plan. These were just some housekeeping items. One was adding one story to the proposed shopping center, that 17,128-square-feet building that you see there in the center, and then the second ones were the addition of the words "with wall" to the Type B landscape buffers on the eastern portion of the site. "Contiguously" in that hatched area to the bottom right was spelled wrong previously, so we fixed that. And the last change was a question -- actually, a conversation that me and Mr. Strain had about how we would restrict access from the public for that emergency access. We coordinated a couple days ago with the fire district to see what they would like to be there, and we proposed putting a hedge there that they could just run over if they needed to access the site. They weren't very keen on placing that hedge there. So I've put the language in to coordinate with April 5, 2018 Page 22 of 75 North Collier Fire Control District to determine vehicular control method at SDP approval. We'll just have to discuss with them what they would like to see unless this board would like to provide an option for us to put something there at the zoning level. And that is it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start with applicant -- or questions of the applicant. Anybody? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, sir. Fred, would you please explain the legal relationship between your client and Mr. Tequila? Does Mr. Tequila own the property, or is it a tenant? MR. HOOD: Mr. Tequila is a tenant of the property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And I take it that under the terms of the lease with Tequila that you are able to speak for them -- MR. HOOD: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- on this kind of a matter? MR. HOOD: Yes. What we're doing, we're speaking for the property owner. They've made the application to reconfigure and redevelop their site. As I understand it, Mr. Tequila is just a tenant, and they don't have a power to dictate what we're doing in this application. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Power aside, I'm sure you've spoken with them. Are they satisfied with this -- MR. HOOD: Yes. There hasn't been any ill feelings towards the redevelopment. They are remaining in their building, and that building is not going anywhere at this point. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, you're wanting a reduction of spaces from 114 to 98. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that difference is whatever it is. Is that -- that's 16. Where would those hypothetical 16 cars or people now park? MR. HOOD: So what we have here, there's two applications that are in for review. Well, this one is here before you now for the parking exemption. Staff is also reviewing an administrative parking reduction application currently. What we have proposed -- because of the proposed development of the site, we've proposed a 16-space reduction of that area, and we had, for the -- reasonings for those, and I can go over those for you. We discussed the proximity of hotels in the area. We've discussed the proximity of pedestrian -- pedestrian facilities to get to the property, additional bike racks that will be provided at the time of SDP, so forth and so on. So we're asking for that reduction in a separate application. So what you see here on this master plan is 98 spaces of those required 114, but they will be reduced if we get approval. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It's your position that 98 spaces will adequately accommodate all vehicular traffic? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. And the other reason we believe that is because with the retail and office shopping plaza that will be built, they'll have varying operating hours between Mr. Tequila and that structure itself. Typically, if we have, let's say, a general office in there or a dog groomer or something like that, they have general hours of, you know, 7 to 5 or 6 p.m., and then the height of the hours for Mr. Tequila for their dining is between, like, 6 and 9. They're open a little bit later than that. So we feel comfortable that with these uses on site there will be enough area in between where there will be enough parking for everyone. And then -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here's my concern. MR. HOOD: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If you're not correct, if your assessment is not correct -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- I understand Rosemary and Ridge Streets, there will be no direct driving access. MR. HOOD: Yes. April 5, 2018 Page 23 of 75 COMMISSIONER FRYER: But, certainly, there would be the potential for pedestrian access; in other words, people parking on Rosemary and Ridge and walking over to this area. Would that not be correct? MR. HOOD: I can't speak to that because I'm not sure of how the county dictates people parking on Ridge or Rosemary, but I can't preclude it from our standpoint, no. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question then: There seems to be a discrepancy, and maybe it's been worked out through the various iterations of the paperwork, but at the beginning it seems as though we were talking about hours of operation from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. or at least the signage with respect to the PE spaces. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And then it jumped up to 7 to 10. Has that change been run by the neighbors? Have they had a chance to weigh in on that? MR. HOOD: I did discuss the -- this was last month before we were going to come before you before the hearing got continued. I spoke with two ladies that live in the neighborhood, and I think they're here tonight (sic), and I went over all of the conditions that we were proposing and all the conditions that were previously proposed. The reason for the change from 7 a.m. to -- 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. to 7 a.m. to 10 p.m., offices usually close at 6 p.m., so there was no reason for it to go beyond that. We are now proposing offices and retail. So for our purposes of being able to operate the site, we needed more time on that. So I've discussed it with them. I'm not sure how they feel about it. But when I did speak with them, I think they understood it at that point. But they can speak to that at the appropriate portion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question, and this relates to the hearing, the NIM that you had and the tape recording that I listened to -- well, it looks like it shows up on Page 47 of 62 on the electronic copy. And the question is whether the City of Naples has had an opportunity to weigh in on all this since what's happening is so proximate to the city. MR. HOOD: We have not heard any objections from the City of Naples, but I will also tell you that we did not send this to -- directly to the City of Naples. We figured this is a Collier County issue. We're before you to discuss it. I certainly can send them a copy, but it wasn't something that we did. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, in present -- in presenting at the NIM, you said that the City of Naples will have the opportunity to review and weigh in on the application, and I'm just wondering if that opportunity has really been extended. MR. HOOD: At this time I can't say that it has. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the dumpster. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Where will the dumpster be positioned? MR. HOOD: So the dumpster in the original master plan that you had in your packets, it was along the backside -- the northeastern portion of the parking exemption parking lot. We cannot put it there. It is not allowed per that residential zoning. So we have literally swapped it directly across from where the previous loading area was that was behind Mr. Tequila's. So the loading area is now where the dumpster was, and the dumpster is now where the loading area was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, help me. So you say you couldn't put it in the northeast -- MR. HOOD: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- corner because of residential. Are you putting it somewhere close to the eastern border of the property? MR. HOOD: No. It is -- if you look at this screen here and you look at the existing shopping center area restaurant in the northwest corner, the upper left. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Northwest, okay. MR. HOOD: And then there's that dumpster enclosure that's right in front of that building along Ridge Street. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I got it, okay. And just for my edification, that's going to be closer to April 5, 2018 Page 24 of 75 the outdoor seating of Tequila? MR. HOOD: The outdoor seating for Tequila, the main outdoor seating for Tequila is south of that about -- I'm not sure of the distance on this drawing. But if you look at that one box that says 784 square feet of outdoor dining area, it is there. That's where the outdoor dining is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Diane. MR. HOOD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You want to repeal the whole ordinance that the BCC did and get rid of that one? MR. HOOD: We're doing that because it no longer applies for the type of development that they're doing here. That was for a -- that was specifically for a five-story office development. We're not doing that anymore, so we've crafted our own new proposal, parking exemption proposal, that would be in a new ordinance to apply to what we are providing here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you want to repeal the whole thing? MR. HOOD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: The six-foot wall -- MR. HOOD: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- who will maintain -- MR. HOOD: It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain that wall. COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. On the other side you have six feet. MR. HOOD: Yes. So per the Land Development Code we have to plant landscaping on both sides of the wall. It is still their property whether the wall is there or not. COMMISSIONER EBERT: It is still their property? MR. HOOD: Meaning the property owner. It has to be six feet from that property line that they abut with the adjacent property owner. So six feet onto their property will be the wall. That six feet that is outside of the wall, that's still their property, so they'll have to maintain it. It's -- that's how everything is done in this county when you place walls outside of your property line. It's still your property. You still have to maintain it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And the owner in question is your client? MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's all for right now. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred, let's start with Page 2 of the staff report, which is Page 3 for Ned's purposes, electronically. Underneath the parking calculations section, you said something that you hadn't -- I hadn't heard before until you said it previously. Your reasoning for the reduction in parking spacing is because of the off hours of the different uses that would operate the new shopping center location and exist. MR. HOOD: Yes. That was language that is in our APR application, our administrative parking reduction application for reasonings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not asking for that now. MR. HOOD: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're asking for APR in conjunction with the parking exemption that's happening here. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So from -- procedurally, I didn't -- I didn't realize this until you said what these off-hours issues -- because basically you're calling for a shopping center. It doesn't say office. It says shopping center. The analysis on Page 2 refers to restaurants and shopping center as well. So generally when you do an APR you qualify the reasoning as to why you want a parking reduction, and staff ties the approval of the April 5, 2018 Page 25 of 75 parking reduction to the intent and discussion of the APR. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You haven't given us an APR. MR. HOOD: Not here, no. I haven't. I can discuss it with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I would think that before this day's over or before this next hour, or whatever it takes, is over, you're going to be coming back, and we're not going to vote on this today. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But my point is, staff analyzes an APR based on what you say, and you get the approval based on what you say. MR. HOOD: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You didn't give us that kind of information other than the verbal I just heard, and I have no commitment that 17,000 square feet is going to be part office. That's a huge difference in my mind because, you're right, you do have some off hours. So I would suggest when you come back, prepare a narrative to address the APR of how much office you're going to have out of that 17,000 square feet. MR. HOOD: Well, let me say this to you, because what we have to do per the Land Development Code and how we're looking at this, the restaurant plus the 17,000 square foot is considered -- those total 22,505. We are considered a shopping center under the parking standards in the Land Development Code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And why did you do that? MR. HOOD: So that's how we're looking at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. But why did you do that? You know why you did that? Because you get the best rate for parking; shall qualify as a shopping center. MR. HOOD: It was also because our client wanted this building, okay. I'm just being honest with you at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. HOOD: He wanted this building. He wanted it this size, okay, plus -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At this point. Does that mean the rest of what you said isn't? MR. HOOD: No, it does not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. HOOD: When we looked at this, we said, okay, what do we want for this new building that we're going to redevelop. It happened to be a 17,128 square foot building. We were keeping Mr. Tequila's, okay. So looking at the parking requirements that we had -- and I understand where you're going with this -- we said, okay, well, whether it's going to be all retail or whether it's going to be a mixture of retail and office we don't know yet because we don't have the tenants. So I had to look at this from a practical standpoint and say, what parking standards do we apply? So since we are over the 20,000 square feet, we applied it as a shopping center. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand all that. MR. HOOD: So that's why -- there's a portion of the justification for the APR and for our parking exemption. The APR's justification obviously stands on its own. It's something that staff is reviewing right now. We are asking for the parking exemption in this area that you see defined on the RSF properties to be able to park what we have. So we're using that parking to operate the proposed shopping plaza. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, James or Ray, are they also asking for a simultaneous parking exemption -- or APR for this project? MR. SABO: Yes, they -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then why are we considering that as part of this project? Because at one point in your staff report you even said the applicant's being proactive in asking for this parking reduction now. What does that mean? So you're processing a separate APR even though we're kind of reviewing the amount of spacing that's going to be allowed through the parking exemption. MR. SABO: Correct. Mr. Chairman. Commissioners, James Sabo, principal planner, for the record. April 5, 2018 Page 26 of 75 The discovery of about four months after the application for the parking exemption, the applicant applied for an administrative parking reduction. On the first of March we sent a memorandum informing the Planning Commission of that and, as such, we are holding on to the administrative parking reduction application and holding action on it until we have heard the issues related to this petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In this particular process, they're also asking for a parking reduction, more or less. It's not in the form of an APR, but they're looking at 98 spaces as the bottom line. So in order for us to understand how they got there, we would need the same evidence that you have through the APR. So when this comes back -- which I'm assuming you're going to probably suggest it needs to for you to rewrite your recommendations -- MR. SABO: That's an accurate assumption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I would like that analysis to be provided in what staff's position and analysis is as part of your recommendation so we have a package all tied up and we know what it means. Because if there are going to be office allocations as part of the reasoning for the APR, you're going to tie the APR to those. MR. SABO: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We need to know that as well. MR. SABO: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It will just make everything better. Okay. When we get to the emergency access for Rosemary Lane -- MR. SABO: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you will have time before you come back to work this out. I do not like leaving zoning issues like that in the hands of the fire department. They look at it from how fast can our trucks go out and come in. It's a different application. I know -- I can tell you I've used two methods before when I've done developments. One is to put a gate arm of some type that's tripped by a transmitter that they might have or a short hedge so that if they drive over it, you just replace a few plants, but they'd only do it for emergencies, which hopefully will never happen. Why they're saying to you now that that's not something they like, I don't understand it. But, regardless, it needs to be worked out so we can enter something in here that works for all parties. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You had written a -- let me see what it's titled; narrative and evaluation criteria, and in that narrative evaluation criteria, you had the last -- two questions, or last one question, actually it's No. 12, whether there are more viable alternatives available, and you basically said there are no more -- there are not more viable options. Well, yeah, there is. You can reduce the size of the structures there until a point it fits on the site. MR. HOOD: Yeah. And so we discussed that. And I agreed that that is something that is possible, but our applicant has wanted to move forward with this configuration. So I can adjust that if you'd like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I just want to make it clear for anybody else reading it. We're not -- I think we're aware that that may not be factually accurate, and I wanted to correct it. MR. HOOD: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the site plan that's in front of us, Ray, are loading zones allowed in the parking exemption areas? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The parking exemption process only allows the required vehicular parking spaces to be located on the residential tract, not accessory loading bays or dumpsters. Those aren't part of the process, so they would have to be located on site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So when you come back, you'll need to bring a master plan showing those as parking spaces, or whatever you want to do with them, but... MR. HOOD: Okay. Before I let Ray go on that one, because we are tying this proposed resolution to a number of spaces, so if I change that now and I put those parking -- put those parking spaces there, I can move the loading area. That's not the issue. I just want to make sure that we all understand that instead of there being 21 parking spaces in the back, as we've proposed now, there will be probably three more. So April 5, 2018 Page 27 of 75 we'll be looking at about 24. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But your overall parking reduction will still be requested at the same? MR. HOOD: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would expect that, so... On Number -- didn't you -- did you strike No. 10? MR. HOOD: I believe I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, you did. Okay. Because you had referred to a dumpster enclosure there and you had referred to one in No. 11, but both of those are struck. And No. 11, too, you referenced a fence waiver, but since that's gone, we won't waste any more time on that. And let me move on down my pages and -- well, the master plan's -- all the corrections have been made, so we're good there. And I did notice on your original plan, the 60,000 square feet at five stories -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you actually had a different configuration for the PE lots. You didn't use -- you used -- it looks like you used half of 18, 17, and, was it -- the 16 next to it, and then on the north end you used the same two you've got now. So that house on -- that's on half of 18 and 17, you're not tearing that down then? MR. HOOD: That house is remaining. And, yes, that previous PE was done by a different firm. But, yes, that house is remaining that was on Rosemary, and our applicant also owns that property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think that's -- I think that's all I've -- oh, yeah, and you are limiting it to one story as you said in the NIM. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that will need to be articulated in the document when it comes back. Okay. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the comments I have for now. MR. HOOD: Would you like it as a condition, or is it okay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you just put it in the parking -- well, the parking exemption will have to be based on the fact that the building that will be built on the adjoining C4 will be no greater than one story, and then if you change that, then you have to come back and remodify your parking exemption. That would probably be the best way. And you mentioned something about lighting that you'd have to add that would be Dark Skies, they would meet Dark Skies standards -- MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but you said you're putting them in because the bollards wouldn't give you the ability to safely light the parking lot? MR. HOOD: So what I was getting at there -- and I'll just go back to the master plan here. On the backside -- so I can't put bollard lighting in the middle of the drive aisle, obviously, and even if you were able to put it on the landscape islands that you see separating those parking spaces, I just wasn't sure if it was going to be enough light spilling onto the drive aisle. So I wanted to have the additional option to light that aisle from the C4 side that would have the same hours of operation for those bollard lighting just to light it from overhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how high would you expect that bollard -- that pole lighting to be? MR. HOOD: Ten feet. We placed a maximum of 10 feet as one of those conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's two locations that would be equally distant from that drive aisle. One would be on the west side of the parking up closer to the building, but if you do that, and especially if you're going to try to aim it towards the drive aisle, you're going to have probably more glare or spillover to a point where it will be more noticed by the neighbors. If you did that on the opposite side of that parking area and put the pole lights on the east strip of the asphalt facing towards the C4, you would probably reduce quite a bit of possibility of the neighbors being disturbed by it. Do you have a problem with that? MR. HOOD: I don't have a problem with that. That would just be a function of our Site April 5, 2018 Page 28 of 75 Development Plan and me updating these conditions to say that they would be in the parking exemption area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And if that -- when you come back, that would be good to show that -- indicate that the lighting will be on the east side facing towards the C4, then that way the neighborhood's protected a little bit better. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's been a while since I've been involved with lighting, and more for Ray than for Fred. We don't have a standard on how much you have to light a parking lot, do we? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. No, the LDC doesn't have specific standards in that regard. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Does the police -- I know we used to have a problem. The police department said parking lots weren't lit enough for safety. Do they get involved in this at all? MR. BELLOWS: I'd have to check with Chris Scott who handles the SDP reviews to see if -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Because I know that was always -- you know, we'd show up and we'd say Dark Skies, and the police department would say, it's not bright enough for safety. And I was just wondering, in seven years have we come any farther than that, and I guess not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know that in some of the road systems that I was involved in, we had to space our roadway lighting at a certain distance. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Roadway, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I don't know of any for parking lots. To that point, in Golden Gate Estates when we did the master plan there, we were insistent that bollards are the only thing that would be used in parking lots unless it was proven not to be safe enough. So, Fred, you may, between now and the return, take a look at that. And if you can do away with those pole lighting and just put a few more bollards, that might be a better way to consider it. MR. HOOD: Okay. I'll take a look at it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And maybe -- I don't know in our -- I don't know if anybody -- who on staff would have that knowledge. It might be just cross-check it to see what we have for codes. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, are there any public speakers registered first? MR. SABO: Yes, we do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: James, I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Actually, I had a question for staff, if it's appropriate to ask now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm sorry. We'll go -- yeah, we're going to get staff report, but we almost already had that. But go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. On Page 20, electronic Page 20 of 62, the form that was being filled out by Sand Banks, there's a line for corporations, individuals, and partnerships but not for LLCs, which, of course, have been in use, and preferentially so, probably, for 15, 20 years. Wouldn't it be a good idea to update our forms so that -- because in this case Sand Banks used the corporation line items and listed Sand Banks, LLC, as a corporation. Of course, it's not a corporation. It's an LLC. And Mr. Carr, as the sole shareholder and, of course, he's not the sole shareholder. He's a member. Just a thought. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Most of the applications I see, they do list the LLC. But if the application is confusing in that regard and needs to be updated, we'll look at it and update it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, James, I guess I should have asked for your staff report, although this is going to be continued for you to rewrite your staff report. Do you have anything that you wanted to asked from the staff's perspective before we go to public speakers? MR. SABO: Just very quickly. Based on the concept master plan being different than what you have in your packet, the parking April 5, 2018 Page 29 of 75 exemption conditions have been amended a couple of times. The planning and zoning division has not had the opportunity to research this. We would request that it be continued. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when we get to the point of continuance after public testimony today, between you and the applicant, we need to understand how much time you need, because he's going to have to redo the master plan again. And we do not want any more late submittals. From now on, things need to happen through staff. They need to come at the time of the staff -- before the staff report is distributed, so we'll have to discuss that before we get to a continuance date to make sure we work that out, okay. MR. SABO: We're good. MR. HOOD: We'll work as quickly as we need to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Under the conditions that Mr. Hood presented, the Dark Skies applies to the pole lighting on the C4 lot but not to the fixtures on the parking exemption lot. Would you like to see that in both locations? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're use downward -- down-washing sconces, right? MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Like you've used, like, on the Vanderbilt Commons project. MR. HOOD: Correct. Those ones are going to be in the C4 area on the building. I think Heidi's getting at the ones for the bollard lighting that would be on the RSF4 parking exemption area if I'm not mistaken. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. MR. HOOD: So for those, we can, I just -- at that point we're providing a six-foot wall, and our 42-inch bollard lighting is going to be way below that. So, I mean, we could, but I don't see a real reason, if we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Take a look at that standard. If it's a problem, let us know. MR. HOOD: Okay. Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, I mean, at 42 inches, you're going to be practically half the height of the wall, so I didn't see it as much of an issue. So thank you. With that, will you call the first public speaker. And when you're called, please come up to one of the microphones, identify yourself for the record, and we'd like to hear what you've got to say. MR. SABO: The first speaker is Martha Gill. MS. GILL: Good morning. My name is Martha Gill. I live at 1006 Ridge Street. That, on the plot plan, is Lots No. 57 and 59. I have owned the property since 2011. I did not realize at the time I purchased the property nor did the person -- the previous owner know that the property next to us had been rezoned. I had been under the impression it was still residential and would have another dwelling structure built upon it. I am concerned because his plans -- I've spoken with Mr. Hood several times, and we've asked for an 8-foot wall rather than a 6-foot wall because my home, the way that it is situated on the lot, has its front entrance, its main entrance, facing the west side, facing the parking area. I have -- my front door looks at the parking lot, and I'm on an elevation as such that I have to go up at least steps to get to my dwelling. So having a 6-foot wall is not going to be tall enough because I'm going to sit there and still look at lighting. Right now they are currently using that lot as a staging area for water redevelopment on the street, and I'm looking at tractor trailers and dump trucks that would go way over the height of a 6-foot wall. And when I asked about the reason why they wouldn't put in an 8-foot wall, he said it was too expensive; the client said it was too expensive. And I don't feel that's a good enough reason. I don't want to have to look at the glare of the lighting, so I'd also request that they remove the pole lighting. And I'm also concerned about the additional traffic that's generated by the shopping center. But my main thing is that the pole lighting be removed and that I have an 8-foot wall between me and the property. April 5, 2018 Page 30 of 75 Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Gill? MS. GILL: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you please repeat which lots you own. MS. GILL: I own Lots 57 and 59, which are the ones that face Ridge Street. They're the longest tract on that diagram. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you very much. MS. GILL: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. SABO: Next speaker is Warren Gill. MR. GILL: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I was more concerned about the traffic increasing on Ridge and Rosemary because right now that whole shopping center is coming in and off of 41. And Ridge, right now, is so busy and so much traffic. And with the improvements in the road, things are going to increase both speed-wise and dangerous-wise with all the kids on the road. So is there an alternative there that part of that could be back on 41, because it ties up there in the morning with the cut-throughs that -- it backs up 10, 15 cars, you know, past Thalheimer's, way past Thalheimer's. So that's my concern there, of something we can do to mitigate the traffic or maybe a left or right turn only, you know, so they can come in off there. Thank you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a question. I'm sorry. Mr. Gill, are you familiar with what the parking rules are on Rosemary and Ridge and what the signage might say with respect to parking? MR. GILL: No, not really. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. GILL: There is no signage. But, you know, again, all that traffic for the Peace, Love, and Little Donuts and the groomers are all right now coming off of 41. That's the only egress -- access egress. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you experience parking -- cars parked on Rosemary and Ridge? MR. GILL: Not really. I haven't seen that yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. GILL: No, I haven't seen it. Even with Mr. Tequila's, I think they tend to use Thalheimer's, but occasionally, like on Cinco de Mayo, yeah, they will park in that empty lot there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. GILL: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker? MR. SABO: Next speaker, Dawn Litchfield Brown. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: I'd like to speak last, please. MR. SABO: Dawn Litchfield Brown is not the next speaker. The next speaker is Wayne DiGiacomo. MR. DiGIACOMO: Hello. I'd like to introduce myself. Wayne DiGiacomo. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell that last name, please. MR. DiGIACOMO: D-i-G-i-a-c-o-m-o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. DiGIACOMO: You're welcome. I live on the property at 979 Ridge Street, which is going to be directly across from the new entrance to this parking lot. Right now I have so much traffic on that street I can hardly get my mail. My wife in the morning, when she goes to work, there's cars backed up, and my driveway would be right across from the new entrance. I also live right next to Thalheimer's, and they have a driveway, which is commercial, and I can't April 5, 2018 Page 31 of 75 understand why they wouldn't put the new driveway across from Thalheimer's. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They are. See that map right there on the wall? Do you see the driveway entrance on Ridge Street, and directly across the street it lines up with the driveway entrance to the back side of C4, which is Thalheimer's, and there's an attorney and an architect in there as well. So those driveways are lining up. I think that's probably why they did it. I'm sorry. From the audience you're not allowed to make comments. We can't get them on record if you do. James, did you take a look at that, and is what I'm suggesting accurate? MR. SABO: Yeah. For the record, James Sabo. Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that part of it, sir, it is not across directly from your house. It's across from the -- looks like the back parking lot of the Thalheimer's building. MR. DiGIACOMO: Okay. That I wasn't aware of. Also, I'd like to know what kind of buffer zone they're going to put so I don't see that parking lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's a Type D landscape buffer. That probably doesn't mean a lot to you. So I can ask that the applicant, when they come back, be prepared to show how that buffer's going to basically be portrayed on the site plan with the vegetation that's required. MR. DiGIACOMO: And last but not least, I'm representing my next-door neighbors also that have three children that go to school. There's a bus stop just down the street, and it's so busy right now we're worried about people. You know, no stop sign, no -- nothing -- people actually pass each other on that road, which they shouldn't be doing, with children catching the bus early in the morning and middle school, you know, a little bit later. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can concur with you on that. I use your road frequently, and there's a lot of people on that road. And it's tight, and it's narrow. There's no curbing on the side. It's just asphalt. And Ned's question about parking, I think sometimes people park just off the asphalt. So it makes it tight. I don't disagree with you at all. I think CubeSmart down at the end probably didn't help while it was under construction. But as a destiny (sic), those kind of facilities don't create a lot of traffic, so hopefully that will be less intense for you as a result of them than other uses that could have been there, so... MR. DiGIACOMO: Okay. I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Sir, is the traffic limited to, like, an hour in the morning that's really bad, or is it, like, all day long? MR. DiGIACOMO: It's bad most of the day because it's used as a throughfare now. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, cut-through. There's only a few between Goodland and 41. There's Ridge and, like, two or three others. MR. DiGIACOMO: Right. Rosemary doesn't go all the way through, so they don't use that. Creech is the one that's used, and then ours is the next. But ours is really used. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I was curious if it was, like, really bad, like, maybe between eight and nine and not the rest of the day. MR. DiGIACOMO: Oh, at that point it's really bad. That's when it's really bad. When my wife has to go to work, she can't get out of the driveway. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How far is it backed up; how many cars? MR. DiGIACOMO: Fifteen sometimes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Cool. MR. DiGIACOMO: No, it's not cool. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. I sympathize. Thanks a lot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other registered speakers? MR. SAWYER: Just one more, Dawn Litchfield Brown. April 5, 2018 Page 32 of 75 MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: I'll go to this side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one's okay. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: I have to balance everything out. Okay. Hi. I'm Dawn Litchfield Brown. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Litchfield, could you spell that name for the court reporter just in case. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: L-i-t-c-h, f as in Frank, i-e-l-d. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Okay. And I do want to start by saying that I think Fred Hood and his teams have tried to be really good neighbors. We've had some great conversations with him, and I appreciate his time. I do feel like he hasn't been all that successful with the owners of the property to be a good neighbor. You've heard some specific things from neighbors living right around. And I'm representing a lot of neighbors. We had about 30 people show up at a neighborhood meeting about this. And I realize that you have to look at this project as a silo and how it's currently zoned and what can be done, and while we have traffic issues and we have other issues, maybe it really isn't under the law that you have to look at right now. But with all the traffic conversation that Arthrex just had -- and I understand it's a different zoning and a different issue -- this is far, far more important. And I'm going to ask you to try to open your mind up a little bit and not look at it as just a silo project. The lighting is a problem; the wall is a problem; the entrance is a problem. You can see on Rosemary the entrance is closer to 41 -- if I'm looking at it right, it's closer to 41 than it is on Ridge Street, which would take it away from Wayne DiGiacomo's house a little bit there. You know, we want a nice plaza there; we do. We're asking them to do something to help us, like how has this impacted the sewers that we now are being forced to put in there and the drainage issues? We have no idea what's happening there. The traffic impact, they have to do no traffic study because they're not C5, as I understand. And you know. You've been on this street trying to get either way. There has to be some help. I asked them personally if they would consider setting aside a small -- well, it wasn't a small amount -- set aside an amount of $250,000, asked them to put that in escrow to be held to bear interest to help the county with their funding for traffic issues, and that was just a no, you know. And the wall, that was just a no. Okay. So the lighting is back to the 42 inches with 10 foot. Okay. That didn't really, I feel like, be working with the neighbors at all. So all in all, you know, when I look through all the things on the list that we had, you know, if you get the lighting at 42, that's grand. So they're going to park there; we can deal with that. We can deal with some of these things. The noise issue, it looks like now you're going to have some office buildings there. Please correct me. Is this two stories or one? Okay. I thought I heard two in there somewhere. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They had said at the NIM that they'd be one story, so they'll be stipulated and now it will probably be written in their final that it will be one story. Currently they're approved without a public hearing to go to five stories and 60,000 square feet, and they just could go in and get a building permit and do that right away. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: And I don't know that that's a bad thing for us right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Five stories looking down at your homes? Okay. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Well, the office hours would be less. The traffic would be less. We've talked about it, and maybe that's not such a bad thing. Because you gave us that very good advice that be careful what you ask for because you might get something you don't want, and I took that to heart. But I do think there could be some more neighborly cooperation here. And that's the biggest thing. We can deal with a lot of the things. The lighting, the wall will help, anything to do with traffic calming, moving -- I know you can't move the entrance so that it's on any residential area there. Maybe it could go up a little bit more. Because right now there's -- if you want to say there's no traffic issue, right now getting into Mr. Tequila's or into Ridge Street coming from either way, the traffic backs up on 41 already so much. That's how much traffic we have coming on there. April 5, 2018 Page 33 of 75 Coming from Goodlette, it is the same thing, because it's the only way you can go both ways. It is 15 cars sometimes. They're backed up even, you know, beyond the turn lane on Goodlette, way back out there, and that is now. We had nothing to say about CubeSmart. I know you don't think it will impact traffic much, but I'll tell you, people use storage units a lot, and you know how they're going to get there, because they can't get there from Goodlette and they can't get there from 41. They can't get to his development from 41. There's only one way you can get there. So we are asking them for a little neighborhood cooperation to help us get some traffic calming that we've been working on and have had petitions, and traffic studies are getting ready to be done. I don't know how this is affecting the city sewer issue and the drainage issue. I'd like to know those things before we, you know, say, yeah, this is great. We think it's a great idea to improve the area. That little plaza's kind of dumpy and trashy. Although we love Peace, Love, and Little Donuts, and they're very concerned. And they know the rent's going to go up, so that might be sad, but it's a fact of life. So I'm sure my time is just about up, but I would like to know the impact on the sewer and all of that kind of stuff as well as ask you once again to have your owner consider setting aside some money to help with a problem that you will be adding to. I don't know if there's anything I've forgotten, but after you have your discussion, I'd like to reserve the right to come back up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we're not going to have you come back up today. We're going to continue the meeting, and you'll see a new program, a new layout, a lot of answers, and at that time we'll be glad to hear you again. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: And will we get what you guys get, ever? It's like you have all that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can have it. See that fellow there? His name's James Sabo. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Hi, James. Nice to see you again. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He can send you all the files we get every time we get them. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Okay. I think you have my email address and that information; do you? MR. SABO: I do. I have your card. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Okay. But we would like to get that so we don't come in blind. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question for you, Ms. Litchfield Brown. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you for your testimony and, also, I saw your letter of March 28. I'm unclear, though, who exactly you're representing and in what capacity. Is there a homeowners association? MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: No. This is just the neighbors -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Informal? MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Informal neighbors and all those who have signed that -- we have little petitions going out for three different issues. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Without holding you to an exact number, but how many people would you say that you're speaking for? MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Ninety. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ninety. Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other registered public speakers, James? MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Any other questions? MR. SABO: I have no more. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question for the lady. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you see a lot of people going from the Tequila parking in Thalheimer's? MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Well, I wouldn't see it as much because I live a little bit down the road. I think Muffy and Wayne said that they do, yes. And those are just times there's not enough parking April 5, 2018 Page 34 of 75 there, because it's just a big empty lot, and people don't want to park in the dirt, so they park over there. Yeah, it's -- you know, we're not trying to get rid of them. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And yet they want reduced parking spaces. Okay. Thank you. MS. LITCHFIELD BROWN: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- James, there's no other public? MR. SAWYER: No other public speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is there any members of the public that are here who have not spoken who would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Fred, this will need to be continued. There are some issues that I think you need to address. You've heard some of them. I'll reiterate some of them and, for the benefit of the Planning Commission, if they have others, we can make sure. But most of the discussion's been had. MR. HOOD: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When this comes back, it would be better if you and the -- you were either -- if you're objecting to certain staff recommendations, let's address those, but let's not change any of the others unless they're a result of something like that. We need the analysis for the parking reduction, and that analysis will then tie it to the number of parking spaces based on what you've written in that analysis, so we need to know that, too. Language needs to be added to limit it to one story. Your backside lighting, which I think is going to be 10 feet and the Dark Skies basics that you're referring to if those light poles are needed, but I also think you need to research and find out if you really need those or not, because we have bollard lighting as a requirement in Golden Gate Estates in the Growth Management Plan. And I know we've built projects out there with bollard lighting, so I'm not sure you really need to go to the pole lighting, and that would solve one of your problems. The neighbors are asking for an 8-foot wall. If your applicant's reasoning for not providing that is because of the two additional feet of masonry, remember, you might want to remind him of how much wall he's not being asked to build, and that might -- he's still way to the plus. You need to have the provisions we normally add -- well, I shouldn't -- the buffer. It would be nice to show the buffer that you're having along the Ridge -- Rosemary and Ridge Streets. MR. HOOD: I can speak to that if you'd like me to now or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know it's a Landscape Buffer D, but you have -- MR. HOOD: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just -- no, next time you come back, bring something that portrays the vegetation that you're putting in there. I think that would be to your benefit. MR. HOOD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Also, the traffic before and after. Again, it's not necessarily something tied to this, because you're not required to do that, but I think it would help us understand the arguments of the neighborhood in regards to -- I can't imagine anybody would want a five-story, 60,000-square-foot building, but if that's what they think is better than this and traffic drives that, I'd like to see an analysis of some kind showing the different traffic calculations. MR. HOOD: Yeah. We can do a quick calculation for that just to show existing versus -- well, existing approved versus what we're proposing. I don't think that's a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Okay. And then I think that covers all of the issues other than the stuff you have made notes on probably while we were -- oh, the loading zone. You've got to move that from that area, so we've got to make that correction on the master plan, but that's the bulk of it, I believe. Anybody else? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two things from me. First of all, since you did indicate to the people at the NIM that you were going to ask the City of Naples to weigh in -- MR. HOOD: I wanted to talk to you about that. My associate, Jessica, just reminded me, I think at that point we were talking about the city utilities, and that also came up. We wanted to make sure that -- and April 5, 2018 Page 35 of 75 we will have to, when this application comes in, make sure that the proposed development does not negatively impact the utilities that are being constructed currently. So I think -- and I'll look back at my notes, but I think when we were discussing whether the city would have an opportunity to review, it was from that perspective looking at the utilities. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I thought your comment was a little more broad than that. But this is a very unique site because it's almost surrounded by the City of Naples. It's almost an island. And I think due to its uniqueness, it would be fair and -- MR. HOOD: We'll call them. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- and certainly helpful to me to have (sic) the city the opportunity to weigh in on whatever concerns they may have so that we can consider them. And the other point that I had is that -- whether this is for staff or for the applicant, I'd like to know what the status of -- what the legal status of parking on Ridge and Rosemary is. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just one comment. In the list of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- addresses that the notice of the NIM was sent to was the City of Naples was one on the list, so they were notified. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Anybody have any other comments? Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just, what is county staff doing about Ridge Street? Is Ridge Street a problem? Is there any plan to widen Ridge Street? Is there any plan to put traffic calming in? Is there any plan to do anything on Ridge Street? Because it's a cut-through. It's always been a cut-through. And, apparently, it's pretty crowded. And, you know, I don't think that this project is going to make it worse. I don't think it's going to make it better. But what does staff know? MR. SAWYER: For the record, Mike Sawyer, transportation planning. Currently right now there is a joint city and county project that is improving utilities, stormwater, and roadways, including sidewalks, within the neighborhood, generally. It's a larger project, primarily designed to help stormwater because of issues related to stormwater issues. We have received from the neighborhood a neighborhood traffic management request. We've got that. We will be implementing that as soon as the project is completed. Right now things that we've worked with our stormwater staff on, that particular project coming in, is to try and narrow the drive aisles along Ridge in particular as narrow as possible so that we actually have the striping pulled in. Again, psychologically, trying to reduce the speed a bit, and also improving sidewalks through there. So hopefully -- with those improvements, we're hoping that there might be a change from what existing is. We will not know that until the project is complete. And at that point, then we'll start doing our traffic studies and working with the neighborhood as far as whatever can be done as far as education, enforcement, and then any potential engineering solutions as well for traffic management. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: What I'm hearing is, though, that speed is not a problem. Calming is not a problem. Volume is a problem, and the only way to stop the volume is just to stop people from traveling the road, and you're not going to do that. MR. SAWYER: Quite honestly, I don't know that because we have not done a traffic study to find out, is it a traffic problem as far as volume or is it speed? And those are the things. We definitely look at both of those. We even look at the type of traffic that happens -- Is it mostly trucks? Is it automobiles? -- when we do those studies. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Well, if there's 15 cars lined up at that intersection, I guarantee you speed's not a problem. MR. SAWYER: Commissioner, I don't know that. I don't have the study to back that up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know. Thanks, Mike. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically you said there's going to be improvements on that road system. MR. SAWYER: Yes, sir. April 5, 2018 Page 36 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you, by the time this comes back, give us some approximate dates in which the neighborhood can expect to see things -- some of those improvements implemented? MR. SAWYER: Chairman, I will definitely check that. My last update was that that project, if it hasn't already started, is going to be started within the next several weeks. But I will get that information to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be great. Thank you. Anything else? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Thanks, Mike. MR. SAWYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Fred and James, time frame? In order for you to have this prepared for a meeting, James, you're going to need it how far in advance? MR. SABO: Yeah, the next meeting is the 19th. I don't know if Mr. Hood can make that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one after that is the 3rd of May. MR. SAWYER: May 3rd. That's probably better. May 3rd. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Fred? MR. HOOD: I can make the 19th. It's just whatever you need me to get to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, James will have to review it, you're going to have to get with the fire department, the other entities, and at the same time rewrite the recommendations to coordinate to those extent that he agrees with and those as well he may not. I just want to make sure we don't have any flurry of last-minute changes again. This is not the way to do business. MR. HOOD: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: James, I'm going to -- I'm really going to take your lead in this. Fred feels he can get you something by what date, Fred? MR. HOOD: Next week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, next week's long -- five days? I mean, are you talking -- MR. HOOD: Five days -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: See, he's got to have a staff report into Judy by, what, the 11th? What's her due date? MR. SABO: Yeah. That's, I think, when it's sent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. That's when it's sent out, so you have to give it to her Monday or Tuesday, which means -- and today's already -- you're not -- let's make it comfortable. I would rather not have another flurry of last-minute changes. This is not helping anybody. So let's make the 3rd of May the date. Does that work for everybody? MR. SABO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So with that, is there a motion from the Planning Commission to continue Item PL20170002686 to the May 3rd hearing? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make that recommendation. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Diane, 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. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 6-0. April 5, 2018 Page 37 of 75 Thank you. Thank you, Fred. MR. HOOD: Sure. Oh, just one followup. Do you-all want copies of this or no? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just provide the electronic version to Ray, and if we need it -- or James, I'm sorry. And it will be part of the record, and then if we need it, we can ask James for it. Thank you. MR. HOOD: No problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, it's 11:30, and we normally try to break around noontime. And I kind of query the Board. We can take -- we can do a couple of different things. I know there's some members of the public here who may not want to sit and come back after lunch. We can let the public speak and then take their comments into consideration as we hear the applicant's presentation. We can start the project, go through the presentation to whatever point but break at noontime, or we can break now for an hour and come back at 12:30. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, there are three members of the Naples City Council here and at least two senior staff members who have been sitting patiently all morning. And I know that they are very busy, as we all are. And if there's some way that they could be accommodated so that they don't have to endure the rest of the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's why I suggested that as one of the opportunities. I wanted to make sure you guys were all -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Let's move forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we're -- the following three items will be discussed simultaneous but voted on separately. They're all for the same project. ***The first item is 9B. It's PL20160003084. It's for the mini-triangle mixed-use subdistrict located at the corner of the intersection of David Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East. The second item is PL20160003054. That's for the MPUD. And then the third one is for an LDC amendment, and it's LDCA-PL20160003642. All of these have been continued from the previous February 15th meeting, then the March 1st meeting. 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: I notice some of the people who might want to provide testimony didn't rise. If you're going to speak on this matter or you'd like to speak on this matter, such as Ms. Penniman's handing a speaker slip, you need to stand back up, and we need to swear you in. And I didn't know -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, also there's some confusion resulting from advice that the city councilors have received from the City Attorney regarding Sunshine Law and the extent to which they are able to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure if they intend to -- City Council people intend to speak, they've -- and I noticed Ms. Penniman has put a slip in. So you'll need to rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, all. And I think what we'll do is, first of all, I'll explain to everybody, this has come back before us twice previously, and we went through a long discussion of probably a better way to approach the project from the Planning Commission's perspective. The applicant has reworked their project narrative and their project request. It's now in a different format than we've seen before. We have not, obviously, discussed that yet. We will do so today. We will be breaking at lunch. So what I'd like to do is turn to any public speakers now to hear what you have to say before we have an opportunity to break for lunch. We'll still, if we have time, continue into the presentation, but I wanted to make sure if you can't come back after lunch you have an opportunity to speak right now. So are there any members of the public who would like to speak on this item who cannot come back about 1:00 and address it later in the afternoon when we finish with it that would like to speak? Okay. Ms. Penniman, we'll start with you, and then the gentleman in the back. MS. PENNIMAN: Good morning. My name is Linda Penniman. And I want to make it abundantly April 5, 2018 Page 38 of 75 clear that I'm here speaking for myself. I am not speaking for my colleagues in the city nor anyone else in the city. I'm here to speak for myself today. I want to remind the Planning Commission as well as the developers today about this particular area. This particular area depends upon development and it also depends a great deal upon tourism. Now, how is tourism promoted in this area? Tourism is promoted in this area by way of our beaches. When we look at this particular project, the beaches are west of this project which means that anyone that is -- there's a possibility with this particular project of 605 units, some of which are multifamily, some of which are transient. These people are going to want to be accessing the thing that we promote time after time after time, which are our beaches, which means the impact on our neighborhoods in the city is going to be tremendous. I also wanted to remind the Planning Commission that we are county residents. Yes, we live in the city, but we are county residents. We have not been contacted by these developers about this particular project. We know nothing of it. The only reason that we know about it is because we are here. Yes, they contacted our city manager a year ago, but common sense would tell you that if you're going to have an impact on a particular neighborhood, that you would come and talk to that neighborhood about this particular project so that we would have had the opportunity to express our concerns about this particular project. So shame on them, in my opinion, for not having contacted the city on this particular project. I'm concerned about many things right now, the four corners, which is arguably maybe 400 yards from this particular project. Right now the LOS on that particular corner is an E during the season. When not during the season, it's as low as a C -- as a D or a D minus. So now we're going to add additional impact onto that. Stormwater is a real concern of mine. I think that the planning board needs to increase -- whatever the maximum treatment could possibly be for this particular project on stormwater must occur. Again, arguably, this project could be as close as 3- to 400 yards from Naples Bay, which is currently highly impaired. And we're going to add much more stormwater that may not be well treated into that particular project. Look what you're doing. You're covering this thing completely, almost, with buildings. And, again, you know, this is being built as an iconic project. One of the buildings is going -- could possibly be as high as 168 feet right across the street from this building, maximum height 42 feet. This isn't an icon. This is a monster. So there's -- this is not being built with any kind of sensitivity to the area around this particular project, so far as I'm concerned. This is really going to have not only a visual but impacts in terms of traffic, in terms of pedestrian traffic. There are no plans, so far as I know, with this project having to do with how they're going to improve pedestrian access into the city. You know, we've got two skinny little sidewalks that could possibly be used, but that's not going to handle this kind of an impact at all. So, you know, it isn't just the triangle. You can't just look at it as just the triangle. This is going to have tremendous impacts on the surrounding area. It's meant to be a catalytic -- this is used almost exclusively and consistently through the narrative on this project, a catalytic development when it's sucking, in my opinion, practically every bit of infrastructure that could possibly be needed going east of here. I just -- please, please take all of this into consideration; the traffic impacts, the stormwater impacts, and the impacts on the neighborhood that -- of the city that, oh, by the way, are also part of this county. And I think heretofore, or going forward, when we have projects that have to do with the county, let's remember that the city is a part of the county. We are county residents. And the planning board, I think, needs to start to insist that if you're going to have projects that are that close to the city, that they must approach the City Council on this, apprize them of that and give us an opportunity and give our people, give our citizens the opportunity to comment on these projects. And I'll end by saying this: We just -- I just came off of five weeks of a campaign, and what I heard consistently from our residents was the word that is anathema in this area so far as our citizens are concerned, is Miami, Florida, and this is going to look like, feel like, and be like Miami, Florida. What a shame. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I was remiss in asking the Planning Commission if they have any other disclosures since the last April 5, 2018 Page 39 of 75 meeting. So we'll start with Tom just in case you have anything to add to your previous disclosures. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just saying hello to Bob Mulhere; that's about it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I've had conversations with city councilors and senior staff of the City of Naples. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just staff, which I tried to get ahold of; transportation. Mainly staff, and I met Mrs. Penniman this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I, too, have had conversations with staff, with the applicant's team, with Ms. Penniman, a couple of our county commissioners, and I think -- and, obviously, the County Attorney's Office. Okay. Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing since last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Nothing since last time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, the next speaker -- we have another public speaker, I think the gentleman. Can you call his name, please. MR. JOHNSON: Well, for Item 9B, we have Gary Price. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Price. MR. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. I appreciate the opportunity. My name is Gary Price, City of Naples. Again, I stand here to speak for myself. I don't represent the voice of the Council or the residents, but I can tell you that I've spent the last 18 years fighting either on a planning board or a City Council position to fight to keep what we think is unique and special about the character of our community, and I've never seen Naples separate from the county. I've always thought of us as one Naples where we both have to succeed for everyone to succeed. So I don't look at this as an us-versus-them issue. What I can tell you is that I've been fighting every day for 18 years to try to keep the density, intensity of especially this particular area down. I find out to no avail a couple weeks ago on a three-acre parcel to rezone it from C2, which is 40 percent lot coverage, to D downtown, which prevailed at 100 percent lot coverage. So we're fighting every day to keep what we think the residents of our community want, which is a special, unique place. It's not dense and intense. I don't know what you do with -- and I'm sorry I'm not going to be able to sit for the entire hearing. I don't know what you do with this kind of density, intensity, and traffic. Honestly, I don't know what we do with what we have today. And so all I can tell you is that I'm matching my effort with what I hope you'll match your efforts, which is to try to make this one Naples and consider the impacts of our community right across the bridge and make sure that as you look at the exceptions and the effects that it has that -- not just what it has on the City of Naples, but the county and all of its residents and know that we're fighting and I'm fighting every day to keep that character special for all of us, and I appreciate everything you're doing. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Do we have any other registered -- well, first of all, if you cannot be here at 1 o'clock or when we return from break, is there anybody else that would like to speak now? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So we don't need to call any more. Just whoever's still left, we'll assume they're going to come back at 1:00 to speak. MR. JOHNSON: Item 9B, Robin Singer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I think he's -- yeah, we'll just wait. And he didn't stand up when I just asked, so I'm sure he's going to be here at 1 o'clock. April 5, 2018 Page 40 of 75 MR. JOHNSON: She. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I don't know everybody by -- now, with that, Bob, it's yours for presentation. MR. MULHERE: Thirty seconds. For the record, Bob Mulhere here on behalf of the applicant. With me also this morning, this afternoon -- almost this afternoon -- this morning -- Jerry Starkey, Fred Pezeshkan, Alex Pezeshkan. Norm Trebilcock is our transportation consultant, and Barry Jones is the civil engineer on the site. I want to take -- initially, I just want to speak to the public speakers that have spoken so far. I want to take exception to the suggestion that we had not communicated. Not only did we provide all these documents to the city staff, who certainly could have communicated or provided that information to the people they work for, every time we made an amendment those documents were provided. And on 5/25/16, an email was sent by my client to Bill Moss. And I'll read this for the record. In followup -- this is -- I just want to make sure I got the date. That was 5/25/2016. In followup to our telephone conversation yesterday afternoon and yours with Mr. Fred Pezeshkan, I have attached the Gateway Triangle Redevelopment summary and Gateway presentation, both made available to you to share with your City Council members and development directors. Mr. Moss, we share these details with great enthusiasm and encourage further communication as to better address this product and the positive impact it can hold for the future of Naples and the community. We look forward to your feedback. Now, we have had some feedback with staff, and we feel we have addressed the staff comments. This is our third Planning Commission hearing. I take exception -- we had a neighborhood information meeting, and we had nearly unanimous support at that. One person spoke with questions. So -- and just -- thank you. And just yesterday we made a presentation before the Community Redevelopment Agency, a followup advisory board. The place was packed, not necessarily for our petition, but because they had issues with -- related to, apparently, murals, but we were happy to see the crowd there. Unanimous support again second time around. Their only question was, when will you close on the property? Now, I don't mind constructive comments, and we will always work with people to address those comments, but to suggest that we haven't been 100 percent open and communicative is not the facts. Thank you. Now, Mr. Chairman -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You started out with a rebuttal. MR. MULHERE: Well, I felt it was important. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. MR. MULHERE: I do want to -- I'm going to take a breath. I don't want to be Rich Yovanovich as he was this morning. Let me take a deep breath. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Now you're in trouble. MR. MULHERE: Mr. Chairman, if you would assist during this process, because we do get a copy of everything that you get, but we don't have those electronic numbers. So just in case there's any confusion, I would appreciate that assistance. I'd like to start with the memo -- and I'm asking for your direction. But my thought was to start with the memorandum which -- or the letter which I provided that summarizes the changes we made based on our last two planning board hearings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's on Page 3 electronically of the -- I'm working off the MPUD. MR. MULHERE: Okay. That's great. It's the same letter either way, so... And so I thought I would summarize those. They fall in all three categories, the LDC amendment, the GMP amendment, as well as the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Bob, just so you know, we're going to break at noontime for an hour. MR. MULHERE: I know. And I think I -- and then my second, sort of, part of the presentation would be to go over some relatively minor but additional changes that I want the Planning Commission to April 5, 2018 Page 41 of 75 hear about, and then I would just open it up to questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All right. Well, we can certainly start you and then finish after break, so... MR. MULHERE: So we -- in working with the Naples Airport Authority -- and they are present here today to speak to this issue as well -- we've resolved their concerns. We're in agreement. And I'll go over the exact changes, but I just want you to know that both the LDC amendment language and the PUD conditions, we've come to agreement, and I'll go over those in detail as I move through the process. As far as the GMP goes, we did reformat the -- I want to -- before I continue, I just want to express my appreciation to all the staff, CRA staff, planning staff, transportation staff, legal staff. It's been a lot of time and a lot of meetings, but they've been very, very willing to meet with us and address all of the issues on it. It's been an ongoing basis, and it's really been a pleasure working with them, so I just wanted to say that. We did reformat the document. We did make changes. You'll remember the more complicated conversion matrix that was in the PUD, which also complicated the GMP amendment. We've eliminated that and made it very clear. And I'll go over that in detail in a minute. I'm just giving you an overview now. We also clarified, as was requested at the last planning board hearing, that we base our trip cap on net new trips, and we can talk specifically what that means in just a few minutes. It's important because the overriding concern that I hear expressed is traffic and transportation, and the overriding limitation that we have imposed is also on traffic. So as far as the MPUD, again, we simplified the document. It's a lot shorter and cleaner and, I think, easier to read and I think much easier for the staff to implement, which was a concern that was raised. We simplified by creating two separate exhibits related to building height. There are actually four ways that we have to deal with building height. There's the FAA, which is from mean sea level; there's the Naples Airport Authority, which is from the established elevation of the Naples airport; then there's the county, which has the zoned and actual height. The measurements start from a different location in all four of those, but they all end up at the same place in the sky. So we've simplified that by creating two exhibits, one for the county measurements and one for the FAA and Naples Airport Authority. We added quite a bit of text as it relates to limiting and/or addressing unintended consequences related to a car dealership that have typically been added to car dealerships. We've added some additional stipulations, I hope, that will get to some of the questions that were raised as to here's what you said you were going to do now, help us feel comfortable that that's exactly what you're going to do, which is in terms of multi-story structures, no single -- no free-standing uses other than office and hotel, those kinds of things. And we can go over those in detail. I just wanted to give you a summary at this point. And I've already addressed the fact that we have, as of yesterday, finally come to complete agreement with the Naples Airport Authority. So at this point, it's 11:50. I'm happy to start with -- do you want me to start with the MPUD, which is a little more -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you know what, Bob, why don't we just take an early lunch. That way everybody can make sure they get into a restaurant in time. We can just come back at 10 minutes to 1:00. Well, why don't we just come back at 1 o'clock. That will make it even better; round it off. And that way people can get into the restaurants and get back. We seem to have a problem with that sometimes. So, okay, we'll break for lunch. We'll come back at 1 o'clock. We'll resume with your presentation on probably the MPUD. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. (A luncheon recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Everybody, welcome back from the lunch break. When we left off, Bob was just getting warmed up. And so now we'll continue with his presentation on the mini-triangle project. And we're listening to all three applications; we'll vote on them separately. The three applications are GMP amendment, Planned Unit Development, and the Land Development Code amendment. Go ahead, Bob. April 5, 2018 Page 42 of 75 MR. MULHERE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm starting with the -- well, let me start with the LDC to tell you that the document that you have in your packet dated March 26th or March 16th has not changed. There are no changes to that, and the airport -- the Naples Airport Authority agreed with that language. Actually, we worked with them to come up with that language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: The GMP, I'm operating from the 3/26/18 document. I'm on Page 1 of the GMP amendment. The footer would say 3/26, and so I'm not sure what page that is for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the staff report starts on Page 2 electronically. Is that the one you're going to -- or are you going right to the language page? MR. MULHERE: Right to the language. Page 1. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we had a confusing submittal on that from the Planning Commission's perspective. We had one that has a bunch of handwritten notes on it, which probably shouldn't have been in our packet, and the second one that we probably want to work towards is the one that starts on Page 10 electronically and it's the -- starts with Paragraph 19, mini-triangle mixed-use subdistrict. MR. MULHERE: That's it. I think those handwritten notes were Heidi's comments, and they are reflected in this document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: She has disowned those from last time. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's the one we weren't supposed to see. MR. MULHERE: Right. Where's Eric? MR. JOHNSON: I'm over here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's not moving. He's safe. MR. MULHERE: I only have one change. And I appreciated David Weeks bringing this change to my attention. One of the SIC codes that we have in the PUD would allow for museums and art galleries, and that was not really reflected in the GMP. So if you look at Paragraph 3 that starts under C, C3, it starts, movie theater, bowling center, physical fitness facilities, yoga studio; I would strike through that end. Continuing: Bicycle rental; museums and art galleries; or museums and art galleries. So we would just add those two uses to that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And while we're on the GMP, David had a couple of other -- well, at least one other change I can recall, and that is, instead of restaurants, I think you called them something different in the PUD, and he wanted to make sure the language was consistent. MR. MULHERE: Yes, it is. He was okay with it in the GMP using the word "restaurant," but in the PUD you have to use the SIC code. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, here he comes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Which is eating and drinking establishment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So I think that's what David wanted this change to do, right? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning section. We would like the language in the GMP to also say the eating and drinking establishments; reason being, because restaurants is a type of eating establishment, but not drinking, so just to put the two in the same -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. Thank you. So we'll revise that to reflect, instead of restaurants, eating and drinking establishments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: That's the only change that I had. Those two changes are the only changes to that 3/26 document. I would go right into the PUD, also using the 3/26 date, and I'm not sure what page that's on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am going to -- MR. MULHERE: -- electronically. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- get you there in just a second. 3/26 date would be the first -- right after -- it will be on Page 5 of the electronic version. MR. MULHERE: Most of these changes are relatively minor, but I'll read them into the record. April 5, 2018 Page 43 of 75 On Page 1 of 31, under principal uses Paragraph B, it reads commercial uses, paren C Table 1 for a minimum and maximum, and then there's the word "required." The word "required" needs to be struck through. It's no longer necessary. It simply provides for minimum and maximum square footage. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Bob, are you making the same change on (1)(a)? Because it also has the term "required." MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. MR. JOHNSON: So we're going to delete that also? MR. MULHERE: Yep. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: There is a change on Page 2 under No. 9 under the bullets. The first bullet would be struck through entirely, and that is because if you count down, including that first bullet that we're striking through, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 to the ninth bullet which starts out, vehicular access, slash, overhead doors. We don't need the first bullet because we're dealing with it here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: And there is a change to that. I had the pleasure of working with Peter Shawinsky and Mark Templeton from the staff. We worked together to get this language to where it was succinct and address their concerns. I'll read that for you. But, yes, you had a question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Can I ask a question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Well, why don't we -- yeah, why don't we catch the questions as we go along. Does that work for everybody -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's perfectly fine by me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in this particular document? COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're doing questions as we go along? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If that's okay with you. MR. MULHERE: It's perfectly fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I figure that way it will expedite it. But since we've seen this twice before, hopefully we're not going to be -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You added used cars. That was not in -- MR. MULHERE: It was not in the original, no. We added -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's right. So this is added, this last one? MR. MULHERE: We did add it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: And I'll be very honest with you, if you would have had No. 9 with these words in it at a NIM meeting, this car dealership would not be there. MR. MULHERE: Well, the only thing I can say in response is that we have had conversations with some very high-end antique and collectable dealers. And there's one located right on the corner of Airport Road and Davis. Not just off the corner; behind the Porsche dealership. And so that's why we did put the limitations in the value in there. We don't necessarily -- I mean, we don't think that would be a detraction. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Do you have a signed deal with them? Because looking at this, of what you're putting in with all the things that you can stuff into this -- MR. MULHERE: No, we don't have a signed deal. That's why we put that minimum value of $80,000 per vehicle in there so that we would guarantee that it would be high end. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have you ever seen an $80,000 used car? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Really? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Was it looking like an old used pickup truck, or are they something nice? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no, but that's -- April 5, 2018 Page 44 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've never seen a used car that price. I can only imagine it's going to be something rather elaborate. Is that a kind word? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Exotic; vintage. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Exotic. That's even better. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mark, this is supposed to be a redevelopment project. To me, a car dealership is not. If they want something like that, you can just go out this building down two doors. This, to me, is not redevelopment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where in Collier County do you buy -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's my thought. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- an $80,000 used car? I don't understand. This is -- you can have a new car for $20,000, but an $80,000 used car is the minimum they can have there? COMMISSIONER EBERT: We have car dealers that have that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, anyway. MR. MULHERE: I didn't want to prolong the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's okay. MR. MULHERE: I just want to say that this will be entirely enclosed within a multi-story building. It isn't the same as the used car dealership that's on the corner of Davis and Airport. It isn't the same, and we've structured it that way, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's too bad. That's a new Porsche dealership. MR. MULHERE: Not that one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. MR. MULHERE: And by the way, that business has been there for many, many years. I'm not -- nothing derogatory against that business. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If I can follow up with Commissioner Ebert's question. In addition to adding the used car, the word "dealership" was also pluralized. Do you intend to have more than one? MR. MULHERE: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why was it pluralized? MR. MULHERE: No. I mean, it was just new or used dealership. We can take the S off the end of that. Not a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Hey, Bob? MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Shouldn't there be a D on the end of used? MR. MULHERE: I think that's been corrected. Yeah, it has been corrected, yes. Thank you. Getting back to that ninth bullet that begins vehicular access/overhead doors, the second sentence starts, SDP plans shall show lines of sight. That entire sentence would be struck through based on my discussions with Mark and Peter. And it would read as follows instead. A new sentence would be added: Overhead doors visible from any road -- overhead doors visible from any road or access -- or internal access, excuse me, will utilize the roll-down security gate style door or fully glazed overhead door. And I can read that again. My notes were a little -- so it should read, overhead doors used from any -- visible from any roadway or internal access will utilize a roll-down security gate style door or a fully glazed overhead door, and that would be consistent with the LDC. On the next page -- I don't have any changes on that page except I wanted to call your attention to another change which might result in a change to that page, and I wanted to ask you about this. The green space requirement, which is on page -- well it's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on Page 9 electronically. MR. MULHERE: We've had some discussions in our meetings with various planning board members and other staff in particular over the full duration of this review process that really, other than the deviation to 15 percent, the rest of this green space is consistent with the existing LDC definition. All this can be used in green space with a couple of exceptions, and that is -- and that's why we added them, and that April 5, 2018 Page 45 of 75 is the food trucks and the mobile kiosks. So there was a suggestion to take this out entirely. Now, if you go back to the other page, 3, I think it would be, your electronic Page 3, under accessory uses, B, commercial uses, we would like to add those under a new Paragraph 4 to list food trucks and mobile kiosks. So we -- you know, we don't need the entire paragraph on green space, but we'd like to add those there. They would be approved through a temporary-use process -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then what happens is your deviation addresses a 15 percent, so you don't -- MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- need Paragraph C for that. MR. MULHERE: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the LDC addresses the rest of it as it exists today, so you don't need Paragraph C for that. MR. MULHERE: Including the temporary-use permit process for those two uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. So, okay. MR. MULHERE: So then we would flip over again to Page 4 which contains Table 1. We only have one table now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've got a question back on the page we just left. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you mind adding after Roman Numeral III, interim use, where it says on the end, early by agreement of the parties of the lease and/or their successors and assigns. MR. MULHERE: Oh, on the cell tower? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: Let me just read that again. Tell me where you wanted me to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: At the end of the paragraph, add the words, "and their successors and assigns." MR. MULHERE: Sure. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair, did you say "and/or"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter. Just "and" is fine. One's equal to the other. MR. MULHERE: And the successors and assigns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, successors and assigns. MR. MULHERE: Okay. So on the next page Table 1, you can see now this is much more simple. We've eliminated the conversion matrix. You have maximums and minimums. And the heading tells you which of the uses -- for example, in the commercial general medical office, Section A.1.B.U.6 tells you that's office and that's got a minimum of 30,000 and a maximum of 60,000. So as applicable, that's provided for all the uses. One minor change under the last column where it says new car dealership, obviously, depending on what your recommendation is, we would strike through the word "new." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. MULHERE: Again, I express my appreciation to David Weeks for his very detailed review on Item No. 3. The way I worded that, I said, subject to the minimum amounts required in Table 1 and overall maximum of 200,000 square feet of any combination uses allowed in A.1.B.2 through 11. Well, that includes the ALF. That was never subject to that 200,000. That has its own restrictions. And so I would reword that to say uses 2 through 6 and 8 through 11. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be consistent with the GMP language. MR. MULHERE: Yes. There's a floating No. 10 at the bottom of the page. There's not anything missing. As I often do, I must have hit return, and the 10 came up. On the next page that will go away, Paragraph C. On the next page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 10 electronically. MR. JOHNSON: Mr. Chair? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: On Page 5 of 31 in your PUD document, is the intent to delete the whole April 5, 2018 Page 46 of 75 paragraph? MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: Will that be an issue with respect to the master plan? The master plan, I think, identifies a Tract C, and if we don't have a Tract C listed anywhere in the PUD document, is that an inconsistency? MR. MULHERE: Well, maybe we just retain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, wait a minute. Just go to the master plan. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, I'm looking at the master plan, and I don't see a Tract C. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't either. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. All right. MR. MULHERE: You know why? We didn't put it on there because we weren't exactly sure all where it would be. It's not one single location, the Tract C, for open space. It's throughout the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's on a rooftop on the building, you couldn't put it on the parcel. MR. JOHNSON: All right. So if it's not listed on the master plan, then I don't have a problem with it not being, you know, here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. But I know what you want to say. You want to say when we get to the deviation language, we've got to strike the last sentence because it mirrors that paragraph, and we don't want that there as well, right? MR. JOHNSON: I wasn't going to say that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sure he was then. But that's going to have to be the case. The last paragraph -- the deviation language has got to be changed to mimic this language, so... MR. JOHNSON: While we're still here, just for my clarification, the last sentence of Tract C, you know, GO, green open space, Mr. Mulhere talked about food trucks, mobile kiosks, signage and outdoor dining facilities. Is the idea that we're going to put those four things or those three things -- listed as exhibit -- in an Exhibit A, accessory uses? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the commercial use is exhibit -- under accessory uses 2B. He was going to add 4, and No. 4 would be food trucks and mobile kiosks. The other, outdoor dining facilities and all the other stuff, are customary accessory uses, so I don't think there's a question. MR. MULHERE: It's not only allowed; it's actually encouraged by the overlay. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So 2.B.4 is going to say what? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Food trucks and mobile kiosks. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: I don't have any changes on -- I'm trying to remember what page -- I'm on 6 of 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're on Page 10 electronically, Exhibit B, the table for the development standards. And there is one change that Heidi brought up to me yesterday that I made a note to bring up today, and that is the adjacent to a public street, 20 feet, and it's common (sic) measured from the MPUD property line. And as she pointed out, our definitions, I think, require it to be measured from the right-of-way line. MR. MULHERE: They do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We can't change definitions. So I know what you're trying to do, and I don't think there's any objection to that in regards to a decel lane. MR. MULHERE: I've done it this way on several PUDs recently. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- MR. MULHERE: That's why I was very specific. Twenty feet measured from the PUD boundary line. I know there's a definition, but in a PUD you can vary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can change your development standards. That's what they're for. Heidi, do you -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: He did it for a project where there was some issues with the utilities department that needed to be fixed after the fact, and so that's why it was allowed on that project. But, essentially, I don't know where the property line is because I don't know whether the roadways are owned in fee simple or easement, because the property line could really be the center of the road. And what he's trying April 5, 2018 Page 47 of 75 to do here is say that you're -- if he has to do a decel lane, then it's going to be a zero foot -- MR. MULHERE: No, it will be six. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- setback, which is going to impact the buffers that he's got on there, so... MR. MULHERE: That's why I asked for a deviation from the buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But let's look at your master plan. The lines on your master plan, why don't we refer it -- like we did on the one that she's talking about where you had to fix it, we referred to the lines that were on the plan, I believe. Why don't we just use that -- MR. MULHERE: PUD boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, the PUD boundary, and that would get us there. And wherever the right-of-way has to change because of the decel lane, it's covered. MR. MULHERE: So instead of "property line," we'd use the word "boundary." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just put PUD -- as measured from the PUD boundary. Heidi, does that cause you any heartburn? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, as long as everyone understands there's not going to be a landscape buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There is a landscape buffer. It's the DOT that may not provide a landscape buffer. MR. MULHERE: But there still is. I just want to -- we requested a deviation from the otherwise required 10-foot landscape -- or 15-foot landscape buffer there. By the way, the overlay only requires 10; we agreed to 15. But we asked for a deviation for that to go down to six feet only in the event that we have to put in a right-turn deceleration lane. So we still would have a 6-foot buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you just reminded me of something. I did have conversations with the FDOT, and I have sent them all of your plans and all of Trio's plans. So whatever they come up with is going to have to be what's required, and I don't know what that is today, so... MR. MULHERE: I got it. And by the way, I did talk to Mark Templeton with respect to that 6-foot buffer width. And, Heidi, he mentioned that we could still fit royal palms and a reasonable hedge in that width. So I did have a discussion with him, so we will still have a land -- it's just not going to be as wide. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Just as long as you know what you're approving. That's what my goal is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that will be from PUD boundary. MR. MULHERE: Yes. MR. JOHNSON: That's going to be on Page 6 of 31? MR. MULHERE: It's adjacent to a public street, that setback; 20 foot measured from the PUD boundary. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Bob? One quick thing. You said royal palms? MR. MULHERE: Yes. You could put other palms, but -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Royal palms in how big of an area? MR. MULHERE: Six-foot planting area. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Uh-huh. It won't work. MR. MULHERE: I only talked to the landscape architect about it. I mean, he can use something else. He might have to put a smaller -- a smaller -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Foxtail. MR. MULHERE: -- species. Yeah, that's fine. That will work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, whatever you put there that the landscaping department approves is what will happen, so... MR. MULHERE: I have no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if they want to -- you should have a conversation with Mark and explain to him your concerns, and that might solve the problem. MR. MULHERE: Yeah. No problem. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They have them in the medians in the road there on Davis. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I know. April 5, 2018 Page 48 of 75 MR. MULHERE: The next page is the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which one? We have two pages. It's electronic page -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. Sheet -- it should say Sheet 1 of 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's Page 12 electronically. MR. MULHERE: There is -- I failed to make one correction on that, and that is that on the side yards, so if you want to -- have you got that up? So if you look, the side yards are right there, and then the other side yards are on the other side. All the way over. Yeah, right there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're taking the "zero or" off and leaving the "five feet"? MR. MULHERE: In one location I left it. If you look up in the top, right there. So that has to be struck through. There is a -- on Page -- Sheet 3 of 5, I made this correction in a few places, but I failed to make it here. God bless you. Under landscape standards, No. 6, at the very end, it says -- the last part of the sentence says, where the buffer abuts a right turn decel lane, and I think Heidi had made the comment in the PUD document to spell that out, and I'll spell it out here, too, deceleration lane. MR. JOHNSON: It's on the overhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. MULHERE: So then the next two pages are the separated, now, exhibits depicting the building height, and it's a lot cleaner than trying to show all four ways of measuring the height on two separate exhibits. No changes have been made to any of the renderings, landscape renderings or architectural renderings. There is a change on the legal description, which is Exhibit D. I have Page 23 of 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is Page 27. MR. MULHERE: If you'd turn to Page 28, I'm sorry, the next page. There is a typo one, two, three -- you're there? Oh, he's got it on the screen. Thank you, Eric. MR. JOHNSON: You betcha. MR. MULHERE: Instead of "form," it's "from." And those -- you know, you've got to be careful with those caps. There's no spell check. So that's the legal description just a minor correction. I'm now in Exhibit B, list of deviations from the LDC, Page 27 of 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: At the bottom of the page, No. 6, that same correction should be spelled out for decel lane. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And there is a typo in the citation, so we'll fix that. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's missing a little a, I think. MR. MULHERE: Oh, yes. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The following page, Bob, the open space, you need to drop that last sentence, remember. MR. MULHERE: Yes. So that -- under open space, it will just be the first sentence. Yep, the second sentence will be struck through. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've got to do the same thing on that master plan page, too. Yeah. MR. MULHERE: On the exhibit. You know what, let me just turn back to that real quick and make note of that. Got it. I think we were on -- we're now in Exhibit F, which is the list of developer commitments. I wanted to point out to you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Wait a minute. MR. MULHERE: Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have a question on one of the deviations. MR. MULHERE: Yes. April 5, 2018 Page 49 of 75 COMMISSIONER EBERT: The no building permit will be -- MR. MULHERE: So that's the timing. COMMISSIONER EBERT: On the last of three, you don't even know if you're going to build three, you told us last time. MR. MULHERE: Tell me where you're at because I'm -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm on Page 11 of 13. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eleven of 13? Okay. MR. MULHERE: Is that the staff report? That's the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You're not on the document. I was going to say, you're way outside the document. Maybe not. There it is on -- MR. JOHNSON: Page 4 of 31. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4 of 31. MR. JOHNSON: Note number 4. MR. MULHERE: Four of 31. It doesn't matter how many buildings. It's the last tract. So if you build fewer buildings, it still applies. It's the last tract, not the last building. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, you also mentioned that -- a three-story building. MR. MULHERE: You mean in here? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. MR. MULHERE: There was a place where I think it's a minimum. MR. BELLOWS: Number 9. MR. MULHERE: Number 9 says there should be a minimum of two multi-story buildings. There is -- I'll find it. Here. Number 5. What that says is no individual commercial use may be located in a building less than three stories in height. So let's use the movie theater as an example. That would be an individual commercial use. It could be the only commercial use in that building, but that building has to be a minimum of three stories in height. And it will be, because there will be parking underneath. But that was all going towards the idea of this looking like what we suggested. Yeah, urban and multi-story with structured parking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What page have you left off? MR. MULHERE: I think we were on Page 29, and I don't have any changes to Page 29. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What -- that is your -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. It's the developer commitments. I apologize. Exhibit F. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I noticed on the developer commitments you dropped the transportation PM peak -- MR. MULHERE: Oh, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- to 628. Now, just so we've got the right perspective, the project that was supposed to be produced had 210 residential units, 152 hotel units, 74,000 office retail, 60,000 office, and then there was some -- part of that could be car dealership, like we've described, a high-end car dealership and potentially a storage facility, and then you had ACLFs. Now, that combined package, no matter what the mix-up is, will never exceed the intensity that was previously approved by the contract you guys have. MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which that -- if you looked at just those purely as stand-alone, forgot the mixup, just say, okay, what do these come to? Six twenty-eight, that's the intensity you were already -- MR. MULHERE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you already all had discussed with the Board, and that's the intensity for that site. Now, this is going to provide you with that flexibility you need to make the site work. And, basically, no matter what way you mix them up, you're never going to exceed the original intensity that was approved for that site. Is that what the -- MR. MULHERE: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the direction you're heading. That's what I thought, and I just April 5, 2018 Page 50 of 75 wanted to make sure it was clear. MR. MULHERE: I just want to add, yes, that's the cap no matter what, so we're never going to exceed the trip cap that we would have otherwise been able to achieve in what you just described originally, but also we have agreed to a whole lot of other conditions, minimums and maximums. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's what this whole document's about. MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to understand. Make sure we were on the same page. Gotcha. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm glad you -- I was going to raise that, so I'm glad you reminded me. So, really, the next significant change of any kind is on the last page of the PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there is some -- I just want to make sure, Page 31, which is 31 of 31 -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and Page 35 electronically, the new -- the language from the Naples Airport Authority, now, are you all in agreement on this thing? MR. MULHERE: Well, it's changed since that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what we're looking at is not what we're dealing with? MR. MULHERE: No. We actually just had a final agreement, but it's very minor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, why don't we address it as we go through the document then and catch it at the same time. MR. MULHERE: Let me get this portable mike. Oh, here it is. A couple of items with respect to this change. This change reflects the language, really, with maybe a few minor changes, but really reflects the language that the Naples Airport Authority requested in their March 26th letter for the PUD. So there's -- as you can see, there's an opening sentence that talks about the Exhibit G, the declaration form, and then there's four paragraphs. This represents -- so there's -- I realize the -- I printed this on an email, and it didn't come out the same way it would in Word. But you can see there's a little i, double i, Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 4. This represents the language that the Naples Airport Authority -- and let me slide that up a little bit so you can see the last two. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I can comment, the only change I would make is to remove the exhibit, because we don't -- you know, we don't attach restrictive covenants as part of the law. MR. MULHERE: And we don't have an argument. We agreed to include it because we certainly wanted to resolve all the issues with the Naples Airport Authority. They'll probably speak to this issue, I would image. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Bob, you can include the reference, but just strike the parenthetical. MR. MULHERE: Yes, we could. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That still says it's out there, right? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. And then Exhibit G I would give to the court reporter so it's part of the record as to what the city was asking for. MR. MULHERE: Okay. Well, I have a copy of their letter, so I would just -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And, you know, your client could state that he's going, you know, to assure that's going to be recorded when they ultimately own the property. MR. MULHERE: And, you know, that's, I think, Heidi's call. I just know that the Naples Airport Authority wanted it in there. And we didn't object to that. I have a couple of other, I think, minor changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. MULHERE: I think Eric brought to my attention a couple of standard stipulations that somehow maybe didn't get in there and should, and they are right there. Pretty boilerplate-type language. And we would add those to -- I guess they'd be developer commitments, right? MR. JOHNSON: I think Heidi wanted it to be No. 7 -- MR. MULHERE: That's what I thought, No. 7. Yep. MR. JOHNSON: -- miscellaneous. April 5, 2018 Page 51 of 75 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's fine. MR. MULHERE: Okay. I'm just making sure there's nothing else. I don't -- I think that covers it, from my perspective. I'm happy to answer -- and, of course, we have Norm here and Barry, and, of course, my clients. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane's got a question. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Going back to the airport. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That -- the purchasers of these condominiums or whatever they will be -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- they will get a -- they will have to sign something saying that they know they're within one mile so expect noise? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. And I don't know if they have to sign it. They're going to get a declaration in the deed. There'll be a restrictive covenant on the property, which is typically how that's handled. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Just double checking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a number of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Going across the GMPA and the LDC, if I may. MR. MULHERE: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, I certainly appreciate the efforts that have been made to reach an accommodation, and I also understand and completely agree that there's no question about the good intentions or the good faith of the developer here. And I am hopeful that if this does eventually get approved that those expectations will be fulfilled. My concern, though, is that, as the advocates for the applicant have presented, it's been presented in terms of best-case scenario. And maybe it's my legal background that causes me to look at worst-case scenarios and consider those, particularly when it comes to balancing risks. And, again, I have no doubt in my mind that if the economy continues booming, that the what we call high-end, first-class words that haven't found their way in, of course, would be exactly what was built, and everybody would be happy. But what happens in the event of an economic downturn? And that's my concern. And I know you have endeavored to strike a fair balance between the reasonable needs on the part of the developer for some level of flexibility and the reasonable expectations on the part of county and the county taxpayers and residents going back to two years ago with the articles in the Naples Daily News that I mentioned either at the last meeting or the meeting before that. Expectations were raised quite high, I think, by that press coverage. Again, you don't control the press, but that's what was put out there. And given the fact that there's -- nothing can be done with respect to Davis and the East Trail to widen it or somehow mitigate the consequences of any kind of a significant redevelopment program in the triangle or the mini-triangle, since inevitably there is going to be more congestion, my earnest hope would be that we could attempt to find a way that the congestion is caused by high-end, first-class uses and activities. Now, back at the March 1 hearing, I had requested that the applicant consider in lieu of words like "luxury" and "high-end" and "first-class" calling out certain design, finishes, construction criteria, improvements, et cetera, that would exceed standard construction as a means of going some of the distance, at least, to fulfilling our expectations for the mini-triangle. I take it this solution didn't appeal to you, though, because it didn't appear in the amendments, and that's fair. But I'm still struggling how to get to yes on the GMPA vote and perhaps -- I'd just throw this idea out as another idea. Perhaps a solution lies in increasing the minimum size of the residential dwelling units. If all 105 units were at least 700 square feet, that would go a considerable distance for me toward assuring that we're talking about higher-end occupancies versus B and Bs and rentals and the like. And so that's one thing I'd ask you to comment on. And also, I'd like to suggest to you that with the transient lodging language that has found its way April 5, 2018 Page 52 of 75 into the proposal, it's awfully broad. And I have difficulty understanding how it would be -- how it would prevent a concern and eventuality that I'm concerned about. And let me say this: Your language says, a minimum of 228 hotel suites, rooms, or other transient lodging uses including, but not limited to, interval ownership or vacation rental suites may be permitted. Well, if this is a subset -- if transient lodging is a subset of hotel rooms, that means that the square feet of these individual units, there's no lower limit to it, correct? It's not 700? It's not 500? MR. MULHERE: No, I think there is a square-footage limitation, but it's relatively low. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Per unit, per hotel unit? MR. MULHERE: I'd have to look at the overall -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I couldn't find it. In fact, I found language that indicated that they were not subject to -- MR. MULHERE: Typically they're not, hotel rooms, because they vary if it's an interchange hotel versus a resort hotel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'm concerned that in the event of a downturn, because I'm not suggesting for one second that this is anybody's current intention. I think we all have the best of intensions here. But in the event of a downturn, what, given the language that is in front of us now having to do with transient lodging, would prevent the construction of 228 units that were very small and identified as transient lodging, which is a subset of hotel which in my view would not be subject to the minimum square feet? All of a sudden you'd have 228 Airbnb potentials, and you'd have another 20 with your exemption from the 700 square feet that we've already talked about. MR. MULHERE: I'm going to ask my client to speak to that issue. I have a couple of observations, but let me let him -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Please. Thank you. MR. STARKEY: Jerry Starkey, for the record. There are some inherent attributes of our zoning that will assure that it's a higher-end, more luxurious project based on the fact that we have limited surface parking, we've required multi-story buildings, we are going to have structured parking. And when you look at the minimums, even the resulting minimums for 105 residential units and 37,000 foot of retail or commercial uses and 30,000 foot of office -- so that would be sort of, in your scenario, the downside, the smallest possible mixed-use development gets built. It's still going to be multi-story. It's still going to be structured parking. So why do I bring this up? Well, in a structured parking environment, you're spending 20- to $25,000 for every individual parking space; whereas, if you go build a home in a subdivision, you know, it's costing you 5- or $6,000 a parking space, or if you're in a shopping center, the cost is much lower. So the inherent nature of a mixed-use community that's multi-story like we have provided for just inherently has much higher construction cost, much higher infrastructure cost, which then pushes -- pushes your cost to a point that you have to reach a luxury point just economically. The way that we arrived at when we transient -- that's actually been in pretty much from the beginning, but the thought actually came from high-end luxury. If you go to Aspen, Colorado, or you go to other ski resorts or some beach resorts, Ritz-Carlton, Four Seasons, and others are doing these members clubs where you actually pay a million dollars, a million and a half dollars, and you get the right to use the property for, say, six weeks out of the year. In these residents' clubs, you're not even really getting a deed to an individual property. You're getting a right to use. They're quite expensive. They're quite luxurious, but it would come into the transient zoning definition. Just like the way the used car scenario got into the code or our proposal is that someone from California came and said, we are -- we have a collection of Concours cars. It's a consortium of owners, and they have many cars, and they're looking for a home. And sometimes they'll sell these cars. Mostly it's a place to store the cars. These are cars that are a half million, million, you know, very expensive cars. So we scratch our heads and we say, we'd love to have that. It would really be, to your end, luxury high-end, but it's not new car sales. We can't -- it won't work. But we wouldn't want to foreclose it. So that's when we, then, added "used car," and we thought, well, let's put a real high number because, you know, I April 5, 2018 Page 53 of 75 mean, a 2000 -- you know, 2008 Bentley or '9 Bentley is, you know, $80,000. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Pardon me for interrupting, but you've already won me over on that point. I came in here quite concerned about new and used car dealerships, but now we've taken it, we've de-pluralized it. It's now singular, and you've tacked onto $80,000 -- so I'm okay with that. But I remain concerned -- MR. STARKEY: So on the residential, I think we have a limit to 20 percent of the units between 500 and 700. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You do. MR. STARKEY: So if we reach the minimum, you would basically have -- you would have 20 units -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Roughly 20. MR. STARKEY: -- that could be below 700, and you would have 85 units that would be above 700 feet. So, again, I think because we've agreed to a percentage restriction as the project -- as the community scales up or scales down, I think we've accomplished your objective of protecting the risk on the downside of value. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Again, pardon me for interrupting, but I want to be sure that you're focusing on the questions I'm asking -- MR. STARKEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- as opposed to things where I don't have a problem. And the issue that I'm wanting to talk about now is the transient lodging which would create potentially 228 units without a lower limit on the square footage so it could be, let's say, 300 square feet. So now you've got 228 at 300 square feet and potentially 21 at 500 square feet. And your response so far, which again, it helps me understand, is your point of view that the parking limitations would push that toward the high end. There would be insufficient parking to jam in a lot of people. MR. STARKEY: Well, I think the practical aspect is that it's not financially feasible to build a 250-square-foot hotel room in Naples, Florida, with the cost of structured -- and I don't know that there's a demand for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't -- and something to help Ned's question. No matter what you build as transient lodging or others, no matter what size it is, you've still got to provide check-in services, housekeeping services, amenities such as dining facilities, meeting rooms and recreational facilities. By the time you put those together, I mean, you're never going to make it work if you build something as small as that. I think that's part of what is the package that you're offering. MR. STARKEY: The square footage for the room would be less than the square footage for the parking infrastructure. Plus, for every room you've got to have a housekeeping -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: In a solid -- and I saw that, too, and that gives me some comfort, the ancillary systems that have to come along with it. MR. STARKEY: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Although, presumably ancillary services would come along with the 21 dwelling units at 500 square feet. I'm just using -- again, I'm looking at worst case. That's why I call it 500 square feet versus 600 or 700. And, again, in a solid market, this is what's going to happen. But in a downturn, usually you would expect business entities to identify ways of cutting costs and maybe not making as much of a profit but maybe -- or maybe losing money but trying to, you know, contain your losses and manage your losses. And those are the considerations that I'm worried about. And what would the occupancies look like if -- with all of these control features like limited parking and the ancillary services, if you ended up with 228 very small efficiency units that resembled the 21 at 500, and I just -- I'm concerned about that, and it gets back to my point. It has nothing to do with questioning your good intentions. I'm convinced of those. But my concern remains fair allocation of risk versus -- the county versus the developer. And I think April 5, 2018 Page 54 of 75 each of us needs to take some risk in this. And, from my perspective, we're just sort of haggling over where you draw that line. MR. STARKEY: You know, I think the example I used at the last meeting was all of the 500- to 700-square-foot units in Olde Naples that are selling for 500 a square foot if they're 1960 vintage and not rehabbed or 800 a foot if they are rehabbed. And so, you know, there's plenty of those units along Broad and down on Third and in downtown Naples -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Even though I live in Old Naples -- MR. STARKEY: -- and, you know, they're good -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- I don't have to worry about their zoning. Let me transition to a different point and see if -- MR. MULHERE: Before we leave that, just a couple things. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry. MR. MULHERE: The transient -- the form of ownership is really not -- you know, not in question here under the zoning. You have residential uses, and then you have transient lodging uses by definition. Hotel rooms are transient lodging uses. Time-share units are transient lodging uses. So all of those examples that we have in there parenthetically, all of those fall under the same restrictions and allowances as does a hotel, and they have to, as Mr. Strain indicated, operate in the same way. There is basically a definition of a resort hotel and, presumably, this is exactly what this would function as, as a resort hotel, given its location. The -- by definition, you have to have leasing periods of at least as little as one week. It doesn't necessarily have to be daily, but it has to be at least one week. So they're not permanent residential structures. My second point is that the county has very stringent architectural standards -- because you spoke to the design element, the construction materials -- and probably some of the most restrictive design requirements in the state, and those dictate colors, they dictate -- or they prohibit certain colors, they dictate materials and, particularly, they address how long a wall can proceed without being broken up and how you handle the roof treatments. I mean, they are extreme. There's probably 20 or 30 pages of architectural standards and site design standards. So, you know, I feel very confident that those are -- in addition to what we've put in here and in addition to the renderings we've provided, those will result in you getting what you want to get and what they want to build, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: My next question has to do with the use of the phrase "multi-story." That's two stories or more, I guess. MR. MULHERE: I'm just going to get to the -- I want to get to the page where it's used or the context. I think it was in those conditions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Notes to the table, I believe, Bob. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It appears in numerous places. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Page 4. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's where I'm at. So two multi-story buildings, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's two stories? MR. MULHERE: Two stories or more, the way it's written, yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That surprises me, I guess, because first of all, the renderings, the images that you've submitted, I see two, possibly three high-rises. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, 15 stories. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And that's a lot of -- that's a lot of variation from what pictures we've seen and the flexibility that you're asking for. MR. MULHERE: Well, the intent wasn't to provide us with a great deal of flexibility, but we do think -- there is possible (sic) that a third building -- there may only be two buildings, or if there was a third building, it could be six or seven stories, say, just with the movie theater or with the movie theater and some other restaurant-type uses. I've got to defer to my client but, I mean, it's not our intent to build a two-story building, so, you know -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm sure it's not your intent at present. April 5, 2018 Page 55 of 75 MR. MULHERE: I mean, the thing is, one building -- I just want to make sure. One building could be lower. Certainly, we would go -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Lower than what? MR. MULHERE: Lower than, could be, three or four stories, and that's the discussions we've been having, with a couple floors of parking and a movie theater, for example, that could be three or four floors. Now, we still are going to build the other two, you know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, but you could -- and if market conditions pointed you in such a direction, you could build three, three-story buildings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, first of all, they'd have to fit the minimums, and the minimums are going to cause them to have 105 units and the minimum amount of general medical and the other condition. So I'm not sure how you're going to get all that in three two-story buildings. MR. STARKEY: The commercial and the office is 67,000 feet, which is one-and-a-half acres. That's almost half of the developable site. You can't do 100 parking spaces. In fact, to meet the parking spaces, if you did those in two stories, you wouldn't have enough parking on the rest of the land. I mean, this is a mixed-use project in a 5.3-acre site, and to accomplish the minimums, multi-story will be required. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's not a great term to use, I don't think, with all due respect, because multi-story, as we've established, could mean two or more. MR. STARKEY: Well, you're right. You couldn't do it in two stories. You couldn't build 100 acres -- you couldn't build 100 units on five acres in a two-story product with 67,000 square foot of other uses and parking of 5- or 600 cars. It's just impossible. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The exhibits, which are exhibits to the ordinance, I guess, Exhibit C1, are the pictures that you've supplied. And there's one very prominent one, very attractive one that depicts what looks like two 12-story buildings, I guess, I don't know, and then maybe something that has different roof levels. MR. STARKEY: Those buildings are all 160 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are they? MR. STARKEY: Yes, sir; 150 plus. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Maybe this question should be asked of staff or the County Attorney, but by -- and I know this is commonplace to do, but when a depiction like this is attached to the ordinance, is it in any respect obligatory on the developer to even come close to what has been depicted? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It depends on the way that the ordinance and PUD document is written. And there's nothing in this PUD document that states that the pictures have to look like the pictures (sic). COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or even close. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So they're provided as reflecting the intention. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, which is -- MR. STARKEY: We've always presented these as conceptual, and we like the architectural vernacular. Everyone in the community that's commented seems to really embrace it. But if at the end of the day the windows were shaped differently -- the railing now is popular to be glass. If next week it's bars again, you know, these are things that shape the way the community looks. But at the end of the day, you know, if you drive down Park Shore Boulevard, you have a variety of high-rise condos on the beach. They're all pretty attractive. Some of them I like. Some of them I don't, but, you know, they're different styles. It's a little bit like art. So at this stage, you know, this has always been presented as conceptual drawings. We like it. This is what we're planning to do. If we bring in a partner on one of the buildings and they have a slightly different idea and it still keeps with the character of the overall community, then certainly, you know, it might not look exactly like this. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And there's really no obligation at all for you to even substantially match or be similar to the drawings that are exhibits to the ordinance. MR. STARKEY: Well, we definitely have to follow the ordinance. We have to follow the architectural -- April 5, 2018 Page 56 of 75 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah, but these are exhibits to the ordinance, and I think the County Attorney said that the way this particular one was drafted, it just reflects your present intent. MR. STARKEY: Right. These are conceptual. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. STARKEY: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And so they don't really obligate you in any respect at all. MR. STARKEY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Right. Okay. Traffic. We -- and I went through and looked at the TIS and didn't see any redlining or indications of strikethroughs and add-ins, so I assume that this is the same TIS that we saw in February. MR. TREBILCOCK: For the record, Norm Trebilcock with Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, professional engineer and certified planner. We prepared the Traffic Impact Statement for the project. And based on the guidance from our last meeting, this was a major update of the overall thing that we used the 10th edition of the ITE manual, so that would change all the numbers for the project, so -- but that's the main thing there. And we also used -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I tried to familiarize myself with the difference between the 10th and 9th, and there is a matrix online, Google. And are you saying that as a result of using the 10th now rather than the 9th, you were able to get the projections down from 875 to 628? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. The 875 was based on gross trips for the project, which would not deduct for internal capture or pass-by. And as the Planning Commission, you had requested that we provide the trip cap based on the net external. So we did those subtractions. So the gross trips using the 10th edition is 841 trips for that same that was 875 under the 9th edition of the traffic study. So it's -- this is a parallel traffic study with the exception of the updates for the 10th edition trip generation rates that are in the appendix of that, and also we did use the 2017 AUIR as well. So we updated that, because I know that's been a concern of yours in the past. So instead of having the whole thing struck through, the document is prepared with that specific information. But it runs parallel to the exact same document that you were provided before. But, again, from a gross trip standpoint, it changed from 875 to 841. And then we used the net new based on your guidance, because -- and you-all made a good point, because what net new really requires is it requires it to be a mixed-use where you get the internal captures and the benefits of having those different mixed uses interact with each other. So I think that was a beneficial point that you had made at the last meeting, and that's why this isn't based on gross trips. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that's the only traffic question I had. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Going back to the permissible uses, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, the way they're numbered, in that fashion. We've talked about the new car, new/used car dealerships, and I'm satisfied or more satisfied that that's been favorably resolved. But I want to talk now about No. 6, which strikes me as ambiguous, or at least I'm not smart enough to understand what it means. It says, indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and/or self-storage. Now, what exactly does that mean? MR. MULHERE: I hear your question. I just was a little -- I was a little confused about the number that you said, because you said 6. I show -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: He's looking at the GMP language. COMMISSIONER FRYER: GMP language. Yeah, sorry. MR. MULHERE: Awe, that helps. Either way it's -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same language. MR. MULHERE: So what is your -- I think we should go to the PUD because it's much more specific, and your question is about specifics if I -- your question is what does that mean, right? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, if this, what I just read, is the language that is proposed to go into a GMPA, why don't we talk about it? MR. MULHERE: Well, that's fine. April 5, 2018 Page 57 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the specificity of our code is supposed to be in the LDC. It's the implementing code for the GMP. So we're supposed to be vague in the GMP and then we're supposed to refine that in the LDC. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vague, okay. MR. MULHERE: General. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Confusing, not okay. MR. MULHERE: So I'll go to the GMP. I definitely don't want -- I'm not trying to be argumentative. Let me get to the GMP language. Okay. Here we are. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The words that I'm most concerned about, there's an and/or, and between the words -- hyphenated word and/or, there's the word "vehicle" and the word "self." MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So are they to be juxtaposed one against the other? MR. MULHERE: No, it could be either or both. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But what does -- so it's either passenger vehicle storage or self-storage? MR. MULHERE: Or both. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Or both. MR. MULHERE: Let me -- passenger vehicle, as Jerry explained, is that there has been a market and there is a market for indoor protected storage of, generally, pretty expensive vehicles. You wouldn't spend that money to put the clunker in there, you know. So there could be a market even generated by this project or, perhaps, generated from, you know, some folks in Olde Naples for storage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So if I store my expensive car, that is not considered self-storage? That's considered -- MR. MULHERE: Well, it is self-storage, but it's actually very specific when we say vehicle storage. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It is a form of self-storage. They're leasing a space for an individual property owner to store personal belongings, whether it's a car or anything else. MR. MULHERE: And you're right, that overall use when we get to the PUD, I forget the number 80 -- I don't remember the SIC code number. That use, that self-storage use, also allows for vehicle storage. We just didn't want to have any confusion moving forward as to what our intent was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. I think I understand what you're saying. So that takes us back to the entire storage capability or function could be consumed by non-vehicle self-storage. MR. MULHERE: Yes, it could be; yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And that could be in a -- housed in a two-story building as long as there was another use associated with that same building; is that correct? MR. MULHERE: I think -- I've got to get to the language. Let's see what it says here. No individual commercial use may be located in a building less than three stories in height. So to answer your question, three. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So a three-story -- it could be in a three-story building. Would it then have to be neighbored by another use, or it could all by itself, three-story? MR. MULHERE: You can have -- well, let's see what it says here. Let me just -- other than -- it also says other than office and hotel, no single tenant stand-alone commercial uses are permitted in an individual building. So to answer your question, yes, it would have to be -- there would have to be another use in the building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Let's see. I think I have just two more. Oh, the catch-all use -- and I don't have it squarely in front of me. MR. MULHERE: I know what you're talking about. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Any and all other uses that are comparable. That's -- I've objected to the use of "comparable" before but, of course, our code is loaded with that word -- MR. MULHERE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- so it has to mean something, but it's awfully broad. April 5, 2018 Page 58 of 75 MR. MULHERE: It is broad. If it gives you any sense of comfort, it's determined by the BCC. So most likely you would see it and the Board of County Commissioners would see it in order to determine whether we can demonstrate that it's comparable and/or compatible. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Gives me some comfort. Then come to this question about the Emergency Management division asking for a generator. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I understand that that was a fairly easy one for you to concede. And it certainly is sensible in all respects with the possible exception of it being maybe an exaction. And my concern -- and this was expressed by Commissioner Schmitt I think at the last meeting -- that whatever we might agree to now on these generators in order to resolve any differences that we have today doesn't close the door on a class action two or three years from now where all kinds of petitioners or applicants who've had to supply the funding for this now sue for restitution and the county has to disgorge itself of all that money, so -- MR. MULHERE: I'm sure nothing can stop some form of class action suit under any circumstance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did someone present this to you as a demand? MR. MULHERE: Well, what happens is the statute just -- the statute says -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. Did you -- are you putting a generator in because someone said that if you don't put it in, I'm going to object to your project? MR. MULHERE: No, it was recommended -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you did it voluntarily to be cooperative with the emergency services? MR. MULHERE: Well, it was recommended as a means of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just trying to understand the basis for a lawsuit if you think you have one. MR. MULHERE: May I say it was like any other condition that the county puts on us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good point. MR. MULHERE: It's to mitigate for the impacts. I just wanted to say the statute says that you can increase the density in the Coastal High Hazard Area as long as you mitigate for the impacts, and that's why we went to see the Emergency Management. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So your client did it voluntarily? MR. MULHERE: Yes. We can put that on the record. Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Oh, here, one other. On Page 44 of 137 on the electronic copy, there's a reference, all necessary utility infrastructure improvements will be the developer's responsibility to design, permit, and construct. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I assume also to pay for? MR. MULHERE: Yes. It's at the developer's expense, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That wasn't in there, but... MR. MULHERE: I think it's implied, and we know it, and we know the county's not going to pay for it. Any upgrades -- they have capacity. They have capacity to serve the project, both water and sewer. Water's the city; sewer is the county. There is capacity. There is a question as to whether the infrastructure is adequate to provide that treatment and/or water. And if there are any improvements necessary to achieve the delivery of water and the treatment of sewer, those will be the obligation of the developer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think that this next one will be my last one. I'm sorry for dragging this out. Over the lunch break I had a conversation with a Naples City Councilor, and this councilor wanted me to ask, in connection with your discussions with the city going back two years ago, were the discussions exclusively with staff or senior staff, or did they also involve the City Council? MR. MULHERE: I didn't have any discussion with City Council. I don't know -- I mean, we sent an invite to make a presentation to them. MR. STARKEY: I think Bob read it into the record. April 5, 2018 Page 59 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to need to -- Jerry, you're going to have to come up to the microphone, identify yourself, and use the mike. MR. STARKEY: Jerry Starkey. Earlier Bob read an email that was from Fred's assistant to City Manager Bill Moss where they -- memorializing a conversation they had the day before and sending a copy of our filing and presentation and asking him to share it with each of the council members and in -- offering to come and present or discuss with the City Council. That was done at the same -- within a week of us signing a contract for the property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. How about discussions after 2016 as the project evolved? MR. STARKEY: I think Bob has had conversations with staff, and we've had individual conversations with individual councilmen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You have? MR. STARKEY: Indeed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You've had conversations, okay. MR. STARKEY: With individual councilmen, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you-all have responded to and answered all my questions that I have. So pending public comment, I may have some after that. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know you don't want to hear me, but you're going to anyway. The density of these, can you show me in the county where we have 39 per acre -- MR. MULHERE: I can show you -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- or we have 75 per acre? MR. MULHERE: There are places where the -- I'm sure that the net density -- the net density, a high-rise on a two- or three-acre parcel equals that number. MR. STARKEY: I've -- excuse me. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I'm asking -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. He's the applicant. He can answer the question. Go ahead, Jerry. MR. STARKEY: If I could, respectfully. I've probably built 40 high-rises in Naples ranging from 100 to 250 units in a building each time on one or two acres, and I know that along Park Shore there have been many, many similar buildings built like that. So almost all of the coastal development and the high-rises in Bay Colony, Pelican Bay, Park Shore are all -- buildings sitting on their lots between 75 and 150 units per acre. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Boy. MR. STARKEY: I mean, it's the nature of a 15-story building. So in the one conversation we're having, we want to make sure it looks like this. Well, if you build a 15-story building and you put condos in it, that net density there is going to be, you know, the 30, 40, 50 acres per unit (sic) for the whole community. And if you look at it on just the one acre that it sits in, then it's going to be, you know, significant, but not -- you know, unlike a lot of other developments that we have in Naples. They just tend to be the beach. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But this is a multi-use. Those -- what you're kind of saying is residential. There is a difference in these. And I don't know. I've not seen 39 or 70. I mean, when this was done with the special overlay, this was -- they upped it to 12 units per acre. And, I mean, that's more than three times that amount. MR. STARKEY: And I would respectfully say that that's probably one of the reasons over the last 20 years no development occurred because there was the idea in the overlay that you could go up to 112 feet or 125 feet with the density or with the height, but the density at eight or 12 units per acre, you know, you only need to go three or four stories to accomplish that; two stories, frankly, at eight units, 12 -- you've got 12 units per acre in quadruplexes. So the initial overlay that said it wanted transformative, iconic, it wanted stimulative, all of the ideas April 5, 2018 Page 60 of 75 of not having a limit on commercial, not having a limit on other uses was very good, but to have vitality, you've got to have residential or hotel density. And so, economically, there just wasn't a plan that would work because of the pricing. I mean, the proximity, it's really close to downtown. It's close to the beach. It should be a really good location but, unfortunately, the county had a set of parameters that just didn't work economically. So we were asked, along with the rest of the public, to make a proposal for a catalytic project, and so we proposed our project. We were selected by the CRA and the Board of County Commissioners. We've gone through this process. And based on all of our public meetings, the people that show up are excited, they can't wait to see it built, and they want to see the restaurants and the movie theaters and the activities and the office and the people living there. And so, you know, density equals vitality. And so I think that, you know, what you're asking for -- when we talk about make sure it looks like this, well, if it looks like this, that's the density that's going to occur. COMMISSIONER EBERT: You also are going to try and set a precedence with the height of this building. You could not go across the street and build it because it's in the City of Naples. That's 42 feet. MR. STARKEY: Yes, ma'am, and that's -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Here you are -- here you are -- it's like taking -- if you're coming out in the City of Naples, it's like hitting a brick wall. I mean, I'm looking at this, and I'm going, yes, it's going to be glass, so it won't be a brick wall. But I'm going, here's 112 feet, and you're going to 168. I think the height is excessive for what's in here, and it will set a precedent. I'm not -- I am just really not pleased with that portion of it at all. And the traffic also bothers me, but I will ask Norm about that. MR. STARKEY: One thing I will offer on the overlay -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. MR. STARKEY: -- is that, you know, without our height deviation, the height could have been 112 plus -- like, so, 125, I think, is what Trio's going to be. That is limited to the 13 acres that is between Commercial Drive, 41, and Davis. So whatever precedent is set, whether it's 112 or 168 -- and all we're focused on is our 5.3 acres -- it will be contained in that one special area that was desired to be a catalytic project. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Well, we don't have anything down here. I did ask the airport authority what are the tallest buildings down here. This building you are in right now, the county center, these are 100 feet. If you go out in that parking lot and look up, that's quite high. Now you add 68 feet on top of that. MR. STARKEY: Are you angry at me? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No, no. But you have to -- MR. STARKEY: I only want to build something to make this a beautiful community. COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- something, my feelings are on my sleeve. I show my feelings. And I'm just a very emotional person when it comes like that. And I just don't see where there's this much density in an area. And I'll just go to Norm. I mean, we were given this, Norm. We changed kind of the way we -- unadjusted trips to trip cap, but I don't even know how -- I feel sorry for you, because I don't even know how you do it when you have a minimum and a maximum. What do you take to do their traffic analysis? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We explained that earlier. He took the basis of the contract that he has with the Board of County Commissioners to establish the maximum intensity based on that contract, and the mix would never exceed that. It doesn't mean he's got to recalculate a thousand different varieties of mixes. It doesn't matter. The mix that the contract was for was the basis for the intensity. We'll never ever exceed that. That contract was signed by the Board of County Commissioners. It's done. So I'm not sure what the debate is with Norm coming up with different scenarios. They're never going to exceed 628 -- and, by the way, you said that's new external trips. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you subtract from that number the external trips already existing from the uses that are on the site? MR. TREBILCOCK: No. We treated this -- April 5, 2018 Page 61 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So it's not new external trips. It's greater than new external trips. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. MR. TREBILCOCK: We said from a basis of zero and didn't -- you're right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. I just wanted to make sure. So to get to Diane's point, they're not as conservative with that number as they could be if they took off all the existing trips for the amount of acreage and businesses on that location. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They didn't do that, to leave it a little more conservative, so I'm -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Right. And we excluded the conversion matrix, because that seemed to be confusing and really will be -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, it was. MR. TREBILCOCK: -- based on actuals, which I think is a good thing for you. You know, it's more intensive for us in terms of an effort. But you see it each time as we do a Site Development Plan, so it's very manageable. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. I didn't like the conversion matrix. MR. TREBILCOCK: Correct. Yeah. And I respect that. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your question, if that conversion matrix was still here, it would have been a harder issue to deal with, and that's one of the reasons it's gone. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we did that last meeting. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. Is there anything else I can help with? COMMISSIONER EBERT: No. MR. TREBILCOCK: Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions before we go to staff? And before we go to staff, there's this tough guy to deal with in the county that wants to speak. And since he's so busy, I thought we'd fit him in. And, Nick, it's all yours, sir. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. CASALANGUIDA: For the record, Nick Casalanguida, Deputy County Manager. I worked on the purchase and sale agreement for this property. And while the contract buyer is here, it's county property. So I want to make sure we cover a couple things. I spoke to David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning manager. There may be a possibility this deal doesn't happen because of an issue with the cell tower and a lease and the reconstruction of that cell tower or not. What I have on the viewer is the location of the leased parcel. What I want to do is make sure on the record we understand that the contract buyer may not close on this, but the zoning would stay in place that we have today. If there were any changes by the county later, we would have to come back not as part of the GMP because it sets the ceiling, according to Mr. Weeks, and we'd have to modify sections of the PUD if we needed to go back out to the market again. What I do want to put on the record also, is -- this is an opinion. I believe the cell phone tower company is being opportunistic in this relocation process, so I think it may jeopardize the sale. What I'm concerned about is if we go forward, that if the buyer does take possession of the property -- and there are restrictions regarding how they develop and what intensity and these ratio of uses -- that we potentially consider allowing a phasing of some of those projects that come online so -- if they could build something in Phase 1 and leave the tower in place and wait for a period of time for Phase 2, because I think there are some restrictions in there regarding ratios of uses. So I just want to make sure, you know, we allow ourselves the flexibility to do that and that the county has on the record that we are the owner. And, going forward, we may just keep possession of the April 5, 2018 Page 62 of 75 property if it doesn't close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the opportunity for the applicant would be to build -- leave the third parcel unbuilt, and that would be the parcel that would sit there until they work out the situation, if it needs to be. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Right. But I want to make sure -- there were some ratios of what they can build, so if it can be done in phases, then we're in good shape. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Question for the Deputy Manager. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Casalanguida, the contract that has been referred to, the cell tower contract, now there seems to be an agreement that it would be temporary in nature and would terminate the privilege of -- being located at the current location would terminate when the contract expires. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When I looked at that, it occurred to me the contract, though, could be extended indefinitely and, therefore, not expiring. MR. CASALANGUIDA: The county has no plans to extend that contract. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. But if the parties agreed to extend it under the current language, it could be extended and extended and extended indefinitely. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Commissioner, I can tell you, the county has no plans to extend that contract. And it's an encumbrance on the property. It provides very little value to us in terms of a return. We've had several conversations with the owners, Crown Castle. We've offered a fair, I think, relocation offer, and it's not working out that well. And I want to be prepared for contingencies with the Board should those settlement agreement relocation talks with Crown Castle fall apart. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. CASALANGUIDA: You're welcome. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anything else, Nick? MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. And with that, we'll turn to the staff report. And, Eric, what I'd like to do is understand from your -- you had five recommendations. Based on what you've heard today, we need to understand what changes to those might be applicable. MR. JOHNSON: Will do, Mr. Chair. For the record, Eric Johnson. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think Bob -- Bob needs to hear this, because he's probably the one that's going to have to debate it with us, so... MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Bob. I've asked Eric to readdress his five recommendations to see what extent they're needed or need to be -- MR. MULHERE: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- changed or modified. MR. MULHERE: Hopefully he got them all. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. Let me provide a little context. After the last time we met in this, we received a PUD dated March 16th. I routed that through the relevant staff and heard back from them except for Ms. Lockhart, who works for the school district. I still didn't receive a response from her yet. I don't think it's too much of an issue because I was looking through my email archive, and when I sent her the PUD document that was dated -- or the email that was back in October of 2017, the maximum of square footage -- or the maximum number of dwelling units was 400 dwelling units, and I think the maximum number of dwelling units of this is a little bit lower. So I don't think anything has changed in that regard, if I had to speak on her behalf. Then prior to printing -- that generated a 13-page staff report, which you have in your packet today. I just wanted to point out that there are some scrivener's errors, I believe, on Page 1 of the staff report -- April 5, 2018 Page 63 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Eric? MR. JOHNSON: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, are they significant? What I'm suggesting is, do you still recommend approval for the project? MR. JOHNSON: Oh, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After what you've heard today? MR. JOHNSON: Well, I just want to make sure -- after what I heard today and speaking with staff beforehand, I believe we can eliminate Condition of Approval No. 1.A, 2, 3, 4, and 5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only thing you're saying you need to leave is 1B and C? MR. JOHNSON: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I wanted to understand. Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: May I continue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. JOHNSON: Okay. So with the staff report, which is Page 36 of your PDF, instead of it being 5912, I think it needs to be 5921, No. 3; summary of changes Exhibit A of the PUD document, No. 3. We worded A.1.B.2 to include the following limitation on 5921. And then on Page 46 of your PDF, or Page 11 of the staff report, this language that I'm showing on the visualizer would change with the March 26th version that Mr. Mulhere provided in the packets as well as what we discussed today. And then -- MR. MULHERE: Can we be clear? That language is reflected in the March 26th -- MR. JOHNSON: Yes. My staff report would change to reflect the same language that's on the March 26th version of the PUD document. I wanted to say that for the record. Yes, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So these are your changed findings. Can you give a copy to the court reporter for the record. MR. JOHNSON: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Thank you. MR. JOHNSON: And then on Page 4 and 15 -- I have it on the visualizer. It's February 15th rather than February 14th. Again, these are very minor. Page 4, and this is Page 5, February 15th in lieu of February 14th. I had the opportunity to circulate the March 26th changes that were provided to us. I believe that the changes were made on Pages -- on Pages 2, 3, 4, 10, and 31, and I received feedback from Comprehensive Planning from our landscape reviewer and our architectural reviewer. I'll let Heidi speak on behalf of the County Attorney's Office. But I hadn't heard back from the transportation reviewer, and I think, if I'm looking at Mike Sawyer right now, you didn't have a -- did you have any issue with the changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, while he's walking up, Eric, in your recommendations, 1.B I believe is included on Page 2 of the thing where it says service areas including service drop-off and pickup shall be located fully within the building. It says, vehicle delivery, showroom, car washing areas, overhead access doors, vehicle access overhead doors, all that in that bullet says it will be fully located within the building and not visual from a public roadway or a driveway internal to the project. So does that meet your 1B requirement? MR. JOHNSON: I'm going to put it up on the visualizer. I believe this is what you're talking about? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. MULHERE: As we amended it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought. MR. JOHNSON: I'm getting the thumbs up from Mr. Shawinsky. Yes, 1.B can go away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the only thing left that you have in your recommendations is 1.C, which says basically, locations for offloading of vehicles will be internal to the site. That is actually -- isn't that the yellow that you have on the last of this page? I mean, doesn't that -- is that what you're trying to say, or do we just need to change that so we can have met all of your recommendations, is what I'm trying to get April 5, 2018 Page 64 of 75 to? MR. MULHERE: The way I had it worded, I had offloading of vehicles is prohibited on any public street. The way you have it worded, shall be internal to the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Same difference. MR. MULHERE: I'm happy to, you know -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you satisfied it's the same thing? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. It's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So then all the staff recommendations have been met, and we don't have to deal with them at the meeting at this point because they're all consistent. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay, Diane. MR. MULHERE: I'm sorry. I thought Mike was going to speak. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have one question for you. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, sure. COMMISSIONER EBERT: When you talk about these -- the 60,000 square feet of vehicle or storage, is this for people who live there, or can people from the outside store something in there? MR. MULHERE: It would be -- it would be potentially for both. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So, in other words -- which I'm very familiar with, this is kind of a man cave? MR. MULHERE: I mean, that use is allowed under self-storage, yes. I mean, we're not even suggesting we're going to do it. We just want the flexibility to do it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's probably a good location for it. They're a quarter-million-dollar units plus a quarter-million-dollar cars. I mean, it reaches that threshold of luxury that we've been looking for. COMMISSIONER EBERT: But we had it with the man cave, too, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, we -- it didn't get voted in. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I understand. But -- so I just wanted to clarify that. MR. MULHERE: Yes. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So you can be outside and rent one of these -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. It would be -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: -- for storage? Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Eric, you had wanted Mike to address us with something? MR. JOHNSON: I just wanted to make sure that he didn't have any issue with the changes that were made between March 16th and March 26th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, do you want to tell us if you had or not? MR. SAWYER: Again, for the record, Mike Sawyer, Transportation Planning. We did review the various documents that were sent to us, and we didn't have any issues with the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan? MR. JOHNSON: That's all for my staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the staff report. We're going to go to public speakers after break. Before we take a break, David might have something he may want to add. MR. WEEKS: Commissioners, for the record, David Weeks, Comprehensive Planning staff. For the Comprehensive Plan amendment, I just wanted to mention that you had been provided with a staff report addendum which identified five items to be addressed. And I just want to say on the record that staff is recommending approval of the petition. All five conditions have been -- well, four of the five have been addressed. The fifth one we are withdrawing, and that specifically is that -- I'd identified the preference to have minimum thresholds in the subdistrict itself. But given that the subdistrict requires that this be a mixed-use project and requires that the PUD contain the minimums of the different types of land uses and contains trigger mechanism, as well as the fact April 5, 2018 Page 65 of 75 that this was in the redevelopment area and the other things that have occurred here, the contract with the county and so forth, staff is finding it acceptable not to have the minimum thresholds in the subdistrict itself. And I wanted to specifically state that on the record because we may, some day in the future, get another request for an amendment for a mixed-use project, and I'm not so sure that staff would support not having the minimum thresholds for subdistrict itself. Last point I wanted to make, which was touched on earlier but not provided in our original staff report or the supplemental, is that the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 12.1.2 reads very similarly to what Bob Mulhere stated as being in Florida Statutes, and that is that a Comprehensive Plan amendment that increases density within the coastal high hazard area, which is the Category 1 hurricane zone, must provide -- well, let me read it directly. It's one sentence. This is Policy 12.1.2. Land-use plan amendments in the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times, and that has been accomplished by the commitment in the PUD to provide a generator. With that, I'm done. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I'm going to mention one thing, because this came up before, because I've asked Mr. Summers about this. At times he would rather have the money, but they cannot accept it. It's something that we will have to start doing since the hurricane went through. So you do have to provide the equipment, and so that way it's not monetarily. It's that you're giving the equipment is -- from what I understand from him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But there's no standardization to it, and that's the problem. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: These guys are getting hit for a 45 -- 47KW generator. Another group said -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sixty cots. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- you've got 240 -- no, it was 50, I believe. But regardless, they're just going to provide a handful of cots. The rational nexus to determine how we establish a set fair, equitable way of getting this into an exaction that's legal and regulatory, that's the piece that's missing, that's the piece we don't have, and that's the piece, I think, that's troubling me the most. And I know Joe Schmitt last time expressed that. David, I appreciate your clarification on that. It just says something can be obtained, but I think it needs to be standardized so government is not seen as unfair from one party to another. MR. WEEKS: You're right. It's done on an ad hoc basis right now, piecemeal, one project at a time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. With that, let's take a break. We'll come back at 2:42, that's 10 minutes from now, and we'll resume. We'll go to public speakers. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we went for break, Heidi had indicated that she wanted to talk about some additional language she saw as a possibility to the Naples Airport Authority, and she had to step out for a moment, and Eric said I'm not supposed to tell you where she is, so I'm not going to. And she'll be back shortly. And with that, we'll turn to the first public speaker. Eric, will you call the first registered public speaker. MR. JOHNSON: Speaking on Item 9B, as in bravo, Robin Singer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What will happen is between public speakers, when Heidi gets back, we'll go right to her issue. Oh, she's back. MS. SINGER: Do you want to take her comments first? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Go ahead, Ms. Singer. That's fine. Thank you. MS. SINGER: Good afternoon. I'm Robin Singer. I'm the planning director for the City of Naples. April 5, 2018 Page 66 of 75 I wanted to start by saying there is cross communication between the county staff and the city staff relevant to projects that are within a half mile of the city's boundaries with the county. And in this instance, whenever I get a package of materials, it is distributed to staff and, basically, we're looking at technical review, utilities, because a lot of those projects are going to fall within the city's utility service areas. And then I do share them with the City Manager, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they get shared with City Council on a regular basis. And I think also, because sometimes they are technical documents, the City Council wouldn't know, absent a presentation, what they were looking at. So I think that's an area for improvement that we can work on that when there are neighborhood meetings, we make sure those notices get out to the elected and appointed officials so they can attend those meetings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You may want to slow down a little bit on your speech. She's got to type as fast as you talk, and you're a little bit like me in talking fast, so... MS. SINGER: Sorry about that. With respect to this particular project, I think it's less about what could be built, because we don't dispute your staff's review of the project and what they find under the code and under their Growth Management Plan, what could be built, but it's more a matter of maybe the nuances of what should be built. And some of the concerns that we have with this project being on the boundary with the city and particularly at the end of Fifth Avenue South, is that a lot of this project -- and we think it's probably one of the main amenities for building at this location -- is access to Fifth Avenue South and all the amenities that the city provides in that area, and that includes the beach, that includes Cambier Park and the activities that occur there, that occurs -- that also includes the commercial establishments along Fifth Avenue South, the shopping and dining, dog parks, other kinds of amenities that the city offers in close proximity to this project. And part of the issue with that is this project tends to be sort of an island, and the only way off the island is by vehicle. Now, you are providing for a bus transit stop, and I think that's a good thing, particularly if there are other transient improvements that allow for people to take advantage of that and would maybe encourage them to take advantage of that, but also we're looking at possibly some pedestrian improvements particularly at the intersection of, you know, the tip of the triangle. I don't know what might have been approved for the other project to the west, but if there weren't already some crosswalk improvements proposed for that area, definitely we would encourage you to do so. If all the residents from this project decided they wanted to go and take advantage of an event that was happening down on Fifth Avenue, they could easily fill up both the structured parking garages on Fifth Avenue. So it's really our -- the city CRA paying for those parking garages at the expense -- you know, at their expense when it's a -- the project that is benefiting it's benefiting the county CRA. So it's kind of a tradeoff of the two CRAs and making sure that the amenities that make this project attractive in terms of their proximity, that they don't denigrate those amenities by overuse. And so one of the things, I think, is pedestrian access. Limiting and reducing your vehicular traffic off the site definitely would be a benefit. I know there's some internal trip capture, but it's likely not going to be enough to -- you know, people are still going to want to come to events at Cambier Park. I think also looking at other -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just slow down. She's -- MS. SINGER: Okay. Other kinds of county amenities in terms of proximity to this project, for example, Sugden Park and East Naples Park, improvements that could be considered for those parks that, as the population increases in the county, particularly close to the city, that you can look at other kinds of events and activities and improvements to those areas that can provide amenities to keep some of the county residents happy in the county as well as using the city amenities so that there's a tradeoff and there's some -- the need is kind of expanded and it's -- and the use and the provision of those services are expanded throughout the county and in proximity to a development with the density and intensity that this project has. And some of the other things that I think have already been alluded to do, and Ms. Penniman April 5, 2018 Page 67 of 75 indicated, the city has a charter amendment that limits the height of buildings, nonresidential buildings, to 42 feet and three stories, and that is what would -- the maximum what would occur across the street from this development. This is going to be a very tall, very dense project. It is going to stand out. It's kind of an interesting conversation to hear today that you're almost wondering if it's big enough, and that's not a conversation we often have in the city. I think, you know, we're looking for something that blends nicely with the city. This is a gateway project for us as well. I think it's definitely a needed project, but I think considering the impacts on the community and particularly on the city -- that's what I'm here to speak about, and I appreciate any consideration that the county can give towards those kinds of improvements that will reduce vehicular traffic, reduce the parking demand in the downtown of Fifth Avenue South, and also reduce the use and demand for other city amenities, recreational and entertainment and the beaches and otherwise. So with that -- also I have one question. It was about the timetable of the project, because -- I mean, it's probably been covered a number of times, but I just didn't know. MR. MULHERE: You know, it's a little bit hard to answer that because there are -- we expect to close, potentially close, as long as all of the conditions in the contract -- maybe late summer. You know, then when we own the property, we can go through the site planning and permitting process. But before you can do that, you've kind of got to make sure that you've got your tenants, at least your initial tenants lined up and things like that. So I don't really believe we have a formal schedule. I defer to Jerry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you do have one attached to your contract. Do you believe that's still involved in the process or not? I mean, you've got a -- MR. MULHERE: I'll defer to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your RFP response had a schedule, a bar chart, that provided general times. I don't -- I'm looking it up trying to figure out what your general dates were for breaking ground. (Multiple speakers speaking.) MR. STARKEY: I think within a year of closing we would be breaking ground on some aspect of the project, probably before that, the infrastructure, and then if we provide -- if we're able to hit the market and build all three buildings at once, I would say it would be a three-year project. And if we end up phasing it a little bit because of demand, then maybe it's a five-year project. So complete -- you know, start really soon, and the market will dictate the pace. MS. SINGER: Are any of the entitlements or approvals time limited? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not land use. From the land use perspective, they go with the land. They'll stay with the land. And if they don't close, then the county will end up having the property zoned, so... MS. SINGER: So there's no commencement requirement? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Well, not that I'm aware of, no. If they were to come in for an SDP, there's a deadline for an SDP to be enacted upon. Their SDPs, originally, by the original schedule, were supposed to be applied for at about 12 months after contract. We're well beyond that now, so I think it's been delayed because of the processes you're going through. And your construction time frames do vary by phase, there's three phases, and they were starting about two years from the initiation of the contract, which would be, what, May of next year? Yeah, something like that. MS. SINGER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the stuff that you just talked to us about, the concerns that you had, have you expressed those -- and the reason I'm asking this is because these two roadways are controlled by the DOT. I've actually been in touch with a Mr. Wheeler with the DOT -- he's got all the plans on this project -- to ask him, take a look at this, and hopefully if there's issues that he feels his department needs to address, they'll be addressed. Do you go to the MPO meetings, or do you reach out to the DOT yourselves on these? MS. SINGER: Our staff from our Streets and Stormwater Department staffs the MPO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because if you are working with the MPO and there is guidelines to April 5, 2018 Page 68 of 75 improve the walkways and things like that that are needed from that level, they've still got to go through all the SDP process and stuff, and that will be a good timing to get that stuff on the books. MS. SINGER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can I ask something? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, did you have something? And then Stan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. Ms. Singer, have you had a chance to look at the Traffic Impact Study? MS. SINGER: Gregg Strakaluse is also going to get up to speak. He's the director of our Streets and Stormwater Department, and I believe he has looked at the Traffic Impact Study on that. I have not, in detail, looked at it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'll hold my question, then, for him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It's a while since I really paid attention, but Goodlette and 41, Grand Central Station, has anything been built there? MS. SINGER: Yes. Currently, there's two buildings out of the Naples Square project, that's in the area of the D downtown, and it's the -- two of the buildings -- there's 300 units that are approved for that project over about 16 to 20 acres, so it's -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Out of how big a site? MS. SINGER: That's what I'm saying, about 16 to 20 acres over the whole site. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That whole site is 15 to 20 acres? MS. SINGER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, okay. So there's -- MS. SINGER: That includes a commercial component. So it's -- I think the density is somewhere around 24 units per acre. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: How tall a building? MS. SINGER: I believe -- those are residential-only structures, so I'm trying to recall. I think they're four stories over parking. They're about 59 feet. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So what used to be Grand Central Station is now going to be entirely residential? MS. SINGER: Not entirely residential, no. There is a mixed-use component to it. There is going to be a commercial component, and we're also talking about a performing arts facility that's going to be located at First Avenue South and Goodlette Road. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Cool. Thank you. MS. SINGER: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Our next registered speaker. MR. MULHERE: Can you hold off? I have just a couple of comments. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You'll get a rebuttal when all the speakers are done. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Chair, would you like me to put the language on the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good point, yes. I'm sorry, Heidi. I forgot you came back, yes. Let's talk about your language to the Naples Airport Authority issue. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: During the break I did speak with some representatives from the Naples Airport Authority and Mr. Mulhere briefly, and I think everyone is in agreement with the language that I put on the visualizer. So 6A, the first sentence would read, the developer shall record a restrictive covenant, comma, using the Naples Municipal Airport agreement and declaration of height restrictions and covenants, and a form approved by the Naples Airport Authority, comma, in the public records of Collier County that stipulate. So that would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- the change that we're recommending. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Bob, you guys have no problem with that? MR. MULHERE: We're fine. April 5, 2018 Page 69 of 75 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Of course, the Airport Authority's probably going to speak. Go ahead. MR. STARKEY: The Airport Authority is here, and that's referencing the agreement we have in place. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Next register speaker. MR. JOHNSON: Item 9B, Gregg Strakaluse. MR. STRAKALUSE: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Commission. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Streets and Stormwater Department for the City of Naples. There are concerns as to the density and intensity as they relate to traffic and stormwater, particularly upon U.S. 41 and intersecting streets within the downtown Naples area. As of March 2018, just last month, U.S. 41, over the Gordon River Bridge, had 65,633 trips in the peak season peak day over that section of roadway. That's a lot of trips. Methods used by reviewing agencies don't typically look at the peak hour peak season, the worst-case scenario, but, really, that's what most motorists demand that we improve. The city just completed a downtown mobility study with the assistance of the Florida Department of Transportation, Collier County, and the MPO. They collected vast amounts of data over an 18-month period. And it was determined that -- the data collected, it was determined that the level of service impacts to U.S. 41 were actually at 20 percent higher in terms of what is typically used by DOT in terms of adjustment factors to look at level-of-service impacts on a roadway. So what this means is that traffic planners likely will see a 20 percent more road capacity than there really actually is in the peak season. So what I'm saying is that there's less capacity than what we might see when you look at it through the formulas in the math that DOT uses. So, therefore, on behalf of the Streets and Stormwater Department, we ask that you carefully consider conditions of approval that minimize or eliminate methods that are currently allowed by the trip generation manual for internal capture rates or pass-by trips that are allowed to reduce the total trip generation for the site. Moving on to stormwater. There are concerns about, again, the intensity and density as they relate to stormwater. Naples Bay is an impaired water body and, typically, the regulatory agencies, the South Florida Water Management District or the DEP, will require 50 percent more water quality volume improvement for their stormwater systems for discharges into impaired water bodies. That's not necessarily a guarantee, but that's typically what they accept. So as this commission moves forward, it may wish to consider certain conditions of approval that require the additional 50 percent water quality volume treatment by this site. It may wish to consider not allowing any other county stormwater facility or feature that already exists that's helping water quality in Naples Bay apply credit for that to this particular site, and it may also wish to consider additional best-management practices for development of this site, such as pervious pavements. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And I think there was a traffic question. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have. Yeah, you've looked at the TIS. MR. STRAKALUSE: I have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Do you have any comments or, going beyond what you've already said with respect to 65,000 trips, any additional comments that you would offer as to the impact on the North Trail and Fifth Avenue South? MR. STRAKALUSE: We think the internal capture rates and the pass-by trips that are being allowed to deduct from the total trip generation may not be the proper reduction of trips. We think that -- we think that we should start at zero with no pass-by or internal capture and then move up from there. I think Collier County is unique, especially between the months of January and March, where all bets are off in terms of internal capture and pass-by rates for trip generation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Stan? April 5, 2018 Page 70 of 75 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, question. If I'm looking at the proposed plan correctly, the district doesn't usually worry about quality runoff from roofs, right? It's mostly from asphalt paving? MR. STRAKALUSE: They allow a rooftop exemption or adjustment. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. And this is going to be mostly roof, from what I've seen. So you're not going to get a lot of runoff from the asphalt. So I'm not sure the quality is going to be one of your problems. Quantity may be. But the district is -- I don't really have an objection to his request for, you know, something extra with the quality, but I don't think you're going to get anything out of it. MR. STRAKALUSE: Well, I'm not familiar enough with the project to understand if there are recreational facilities on the rooftops. Typically in some Naples projects we do have pools or entertainment areas on the rooftop, and we don't qualify them as the standard rooftop for exemption in terms of water quality. We'll ask them to count that area. And I'm not familiar enough with this project to know if that's applicable here. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. I'd be thinking even those areas aren't a big problem. All you're going to get up their is bird crap maybe. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bob, you're going to have rebuttal, so no. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I was -- just a thought. Thanks, Gregg. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next registered speaker? MR. JOHNSON: Item 9B, Katie Cole. MS. COLE: Good afternoon. I think, actually, I should have written 9C because it's the language in the MPUD. Katie Cole representing Crown Castle International who has the wireless tower on this site, and we appreciate the inclusion of the interim use and look forward to continuing to work with staff with respect to the termination of the existing lease and reaching an agreement on that as best we can. Yes, ma'am. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Katie, I have a question for you. When does this lease expire? MS. COLE: 2026. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Oh, okay. Makes a big difference. Okay. That's -- and am I correct, I believe I talked to you before, that it's 182 feet tall? MS. COLE: That's what we have in our records. I believe the FAA clearance is 196 because of certain antennas and towers. So they give us a little bit extra room. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Is the lighting on there or is it extra? MS. COLE: The height that we have internally is 182, but the FAA clearance letter that you-all would see is 196 because of how the FAA measures things. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Katie. Appreciate it. Next registered speaker. MR. JOHNSON: Last registered speaker, Item 9B, C, and D, Chris Rozansky. MR. ROZANSKY: Good afternoon. Chris Rozansky, executive director for the airport authority. I submitted my card before County Attorney's Office proposed those changes to that language pertaining to the covenant and agreement. Just for the record, developer and the NAA have already satisfactorily negotiated the agreement, and we appreciate consideration of inclusion of County Attorney's language. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. There are no other registered public speakers? MR. JOHNSON: No others. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are there any members of the public here who have not spoken that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move to the rebuttal for Mr. Mulhere, or whoever on the team would like. April 5, 2018 Page 71 of 75 Bob, in your rebuttal I need you to address -- there was a couple things from the last meeting that I hadn't -- wasn't sure if they were addressed in your package or not. One is, we asked for no shooting ranges. MR. MULHERE: Yeah, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then prohibiting sexually orientated businesses. And I didn't see -- MR. MULHERE: I don't think I specifically added that. I took out the shooting ranges, but I don't think I specifically used normal language. I will add that to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. MR. MULHERE: I don't have any really substantive rebuttal. I think those were constructive comments. We appreciate those comments. You know, we're always -- we're always willing to work with any jurisdiction. As a member, long-standing member of the Regional Planning Council, I'm used to working with other jurisdictions. I point out on the aerial the site. You can see that right now there's probably -- I don't think there's any water-quality treatment right now. After we complete the project, there will be significant water-quality treatment, and we will meet whatever the requirements are, or exceed them. And to the degree that we can -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bob, your voice dropped off. You said after -- MR. MULHERE: Meet or exceed the requirements. COMMISSIONER FRYER: After the project is done, you will meet or -- MR. MULHERE: Yes, yes. There's little out there now. And the other thing I wanted to say just was that I'm sure that anything that we can do to help in the process, which is bigger than just us, of helping to facilitate pedestrian traffic, makes sense. We want to get, you know, people across Davis and 41, too, safely. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would suggest when you do your SDPs, work with the DOT to see if you can improve the crosswalks, because if I was staying in the facility, the last thing I'd want to do is get in my car. And if those crosswalks are adequate, it would be a nice walk into the City of Naples to utilize their facilities there if there's something going on, so... MR. MULHERE: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that's rebuttal then, and we'll -- at this point is there any other questions of anybody before we close the public hearings? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll close the public hearings, and we'll go into discussion to start with. I've made some notes. I don't know what the intent of the Board is. But I'll read the notes I've made. They've agreed to add the language to prohibit sexually oriented businesses. They've required the language that was introduced by the County Attorney's Office to record -- to address the FAA issues, would have -- would need to be accepted, and we would require the recordation of covenants that meet the intent of the airport. The stipulations of staff are all met, so there's no further stipulations there, except for there's two standard stipulations that we usually put in PUDs that were on the overhead. Those need to be added. And then those are the notes that remain based on what I've seen here today. So I'll leave the rest up to the rest of you. Anybody else have any discussion points? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I do. First of all, I have complete faith in the good intentions and high expectations that the applicant and the applicant's agents have for this project. And believe me, if this passes at the Board of County Commission level, which is really the only level that matters, I'm going to be right in there hoping with you for an outstanding project. I -- since the beginning I have not had a problem with the greater intensity and density because I accept the concept that in order to have a viable mixed-use development in an area such as the mini-triangle, you're just going to have to have greater intensity and density. And when combined with the fact that there can be no expansion of the two adjoining roads, Davis and 41, we're going to have more congestion, that's a given and with that congestion is going to -- in that area is going to come flow-through problems into the City April 5, 2018 Page 72 of 75 of Naples. But in order for the county to have a first-rate, excellent downtown area which, to me, is properly located in East Naples, we're going to have to accept more intensity, more density, and more traffic. The only problem that I have is the same problem I had all along: I don't think we've struck a proper balance, though, between the reasonable need on the part of the developer for flexibility and the reasonable expectations of those in the county for a high-end, first-class development. And recognizing that some of the expectations were set by forces outside your control, i.e., the media -- and you shouldn't be held responsible for that, but the fact of the matter is whoever set those expectations, they do exist today. And before our February and our March meeting, I heard from a lot of homeowners who remembered vividly how the project had been portrayed to them and had hoped that it would remain at that very high level. So, for that reason, not without trepidation and not without misgivings, I'm still going to have to vote against it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. I'm sorry to say, so am I. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there's not been a motion made, so we're not voting against anything yet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I know. I know. We're just -- our opinion. I've spent a lot of time on this project and, you're right, we've met here three times trying to go through all of this. It's very difficult. Change from the matrix. We've done several things. I did not see the contract with the developer and the city, but all I'm really -- to me, if I had to tell someone what this project is, I really couldn't. There is no reliability. You're only talking flexibility. And I'm going, wow, how do I say what this really is? It's just too difficult. It's too many things. The height bothers me more than anything because that sets a precedent. And I noted in the minutes, the NIM meeting minutes, that people were very concerned about the height. And the comment was, well, we've had a cell tower there, and that's 196 feet, and it's been there forever. Well, a cell tower and huge buildings are different things. So that's my reading on this also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: No. I'm going to make a motion -- are you going to say anything? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I've just got something to say because we've been -- this is the third meeting. The applicant has gone a long distance to finally get to a point where we -- now, unlike you, I have and can describe this project. I know the variables. I know what it means. I know what they're going to have to do to make something minimal there. And even if it's a shallower building because the market dictates it, it will be a better quality building than what we started with. So I'm pretty confident we're going to see something better there. And as the CRA looked at it, they approved it in the manner in which it is, but they also realized -- and I asked one of the CRA members this specifically -- well, what if it was less of a building? Any new structure there from their perspective is an improvement to redevelopment, and they want to see that improvement there because that will hopefully start a sweep of the area. I share Ned's -- not concerns, but Ned's belief on the density. That's the reality of the urban area. If we want to stop urban sprawl, we're going to have to look at doing density in a different way. This project does that. I also went back and looked at the history of this particular project. It went through an RFP that was publicly vetted. It went to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board awarded this applicant the RFP and the contract for the land. Not only that, the Board did an addendum to the contract that was very specific, and it was approved on 9/27/16 for the height, for the intensity we're talking about today. That has not waivered on this project since we started. The only thing that's waivered is the ability not to have it so minimal it wouldn't work for what we April 5, 2018 Page 73 of 75 envisioned but putting enough in it so that we've got a better product and a multitude of different buildings to the extent that they're described. I'm very comfortable with it at this point, and I would strongly urge a vote in favor of this particular project. So, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd like to make a motion, because I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- this is something East Naples is looking for and it's something the CRA is looking for to happen. And shall I do them all separately, Growth Management Plan? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's start -- well, let me read them. I'll read off. The first motion we should have is for the GMP amendment, and it's 9B. It's PL20160003084. It's the mini-triangle mixed-use subdistrict. Is there a motion for that item? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll make a motion to approve that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I'll second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made by Karen, seconded by Stan. Is the motion made to the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: To all the changes that happened -- (Multiple speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- any changes in the addendums that we've just discussed here? Okay. Second agree to that, too? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 3-2. Next item is 9C. It's PL20160003054. It's the mini-triangle MPUD portion of this particular project. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve with the changes that we -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: -- we had today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve with the changes -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: With the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- by Karen, and seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Two opposed, three in favor. Motion carries. The last item would be LDCA-PL20610003642. It's amending the LDC 04-41 to exempt the mini-triangle subdistrict from a portion of that particular section of the Land Development Code. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. April 5, 2018 Page 74 of 75 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion to approve. Seconded by Stan. Discussion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER EBERT: May I ask a question? Was this Jeremy's portion of this right here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's the one that's in our packet. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't got yours. I only have my electronic one. It's the one that's in -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: This is the height, I think. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It's the LDC element that's in the packet. Okay. A motion's been made. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Nay. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 3-2. And that wraps it up. I want to thank the applicant for working with us for three meetings. We'll look forward to see the results from the Board of County Commissioners. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, all. MR. MULHERE: Appreciate all the time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes us to, I think, the end of our meeting, but let me double-check. Yes. New business; we don't have any listed. Old business; we don't have any listed. Is there any members of the public here for public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seeing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Make a motion to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 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: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. April 5, 2018 Page 75 of 75 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:14 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. April 19, 2018 Page 1 of 9 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 19, 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 Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn Diane Ebert ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative April 19, 2018 Page 2 of 9 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the April 19th 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: The secretary, Ms. Ebert, is not here. I'll move forward with the roll call. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Ebert's absent with a medically related issue. Chairman Strain is here. Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Dearborn is absent with a business-related issue. So with that, we'll move into addenda to the agenda. We're going to have a discussion under this, something different than we normally do due to the differences that are occurring today. First of all, Items 9A and 9B are being continued to the May 3rd meeting. Both of those are companion items for a project near Fiddler's Creek. It's up by U.S. 41. It's the Torres Family Trust. It's a six-acre commercial parcel, moving the GMP amendment and the PUD. First I'd like to continue those two to the May 3rd, and I'll read them off one at a time. 9A is PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2. That's the GMP portion. Is there a motion to continue to the May 3rd item (sic)? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion for continuance. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All favor, signify by saying aye? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. The second item that needs continuing to that date is 9B. It's PL20160000226. It's the CPUD portion of that application. Is there a motion to continue that to the May 3rd meeting? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Moved. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. April 19, 2018 Page 3 of 9 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. That takes us to another issue for addenda to the agenda, and this is a little complicated. Actually, it's the first time I think it's happened in the 17 years I've been here. We have a need to have a quorum present and voting to have an effective meeting on issues. And today, while we have a quorum sitting up here -- we have five out of seven members. We only actually need four -- the Fiddler's Creek's issues are particular because myself, because of my past history with Fiddler's, and Mr. Schmitt, because of his history, will be conflicted out and not be able to vote on that particular -- those two items on the project. In addition, Mr. Dearborn had a conflict this morning that he can't be here, and Ms. Ebert had a medical emergency in her family that she can't be here. Well, that takes it down to three voting members, and the law does not allow us to vote on something unless there are four members present and voting. So what's going to have to happen is the Fiddler's Creek issues are going to need to be continued to the May 3rd meeting as well. There's nothing we can do about it. It's the law in Collier County. County Attorney's Office, I've spoken with them at length this morning trying to figure out a way around it so we could at least hear it. And, Mr. Klatzkow, have you got anything you want to add to that. MR. KLATZKOW: No. The ordinance specifically requires that you must have four votes to make a recommendation, and you've only got three. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So under that, I will advise the public further down on the agenda, there will be an opportunity, if you cannot speak and attend the May 3rd meeting, you could speak on the issue today, but then on the May 3rd meeting you would have to defer discussion to others. And there will probably be people additional on this panel that wouldn't have heard you unless they go back and watch the tapes. So we will accommodate, as a courtesy to the public, anybody that cannot be here on May 3rd that has to address, we'll make that work today. But other than that, the rest of the issue will need to be continued until the May 3rd meeting. So I don't have anything more to say on it. I'll ask for the continuance now. We'll move to public speakers if anybody wants to stay and talk when we get further down the agenda. And so, based on the explanation I just provided, is there a motion? It would have to be by three members who can still vote; Ned, Stan, and Karen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make the motion. I'm also going to want to ask a question before we vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let me read the two items. It will be 9C, PL20160002727, and that's for the Fiddler's Creek project, and that's -- the it's not CCPS. That's the GMP portion of it. Is there a motion to move that to May 3rd? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. But I assume it's legal for three of us to do that. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It takes four to make a recommendation; three to carry on business. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now those three of you that would be voting on this, any further discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. If we allow for public speaking, which I think is a very good idea in fairness to the people who have showed up here, provided we're not making any recommendation, shouldn't we also hear from the developer April 19, 2018 Page 4 of 9 and any questions or comments that we might have, as long as we don't make a recommendation? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Only if the developer's not going to show up on the 3rd. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well -- but is that derived from the ordinance or the Chairman? MR. KLATZKOW: No. It's a courtesy we've done as a custom in Collier County for all advisory boards when there's not a quorum present and there's somebody who can't be at the following meeting. They've taken their time to come down here and, as a courtesy, we allow them to speak. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, there's been a motion made to move to May 3rd and a second. All those -- those three of you, all in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody of the three opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nothing. So the motion carries three -- actually, would it be it all of us having to vote on the continuance, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The next item that would be considered for continuance is PL2016002496. It's the Planned Unit Development portion of the Fiddler's Creek project. Is there a similar motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 3-0. Okay. So our entire agenda now has been continued for those advertised public hearings to May 3rd. I would like to now go to Planning Commission absences. Is there anybody here today who cannot be here on May 3rd? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's a possibility I will not be here on the 3rd. I'm still working on travel, overseas travel arrangements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other than that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I may miss the 3rd. If I'm here the 3rd, I'll miss the other one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: After that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What's that meeting look like in May? MR. BELLOWS: May 3rd? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mid May, I think he asked. MR. BELLOWS: May 3rd there's -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, we know it's on May 3rd. What about the 17th of May? I'm going to miss one of those two. I haven't decided which one, but... MR. BELLOWS: Let's see what's on the 17th. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we have a quorum either way, so you could work out the details with Ray afterwards. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, all right. So you'll have a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Also, under normal business, we have the approval of the minutes on March 15th. We got those electronically. April 19, 2018 Page 5 of 9 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What about the 30th? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was going to bring that up. I started on this, so I was just going to go back. I was going back to that right now. But let's talk about minutes first. Anybody want any changes to the minutes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval of the minutes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned, seconded by Stan. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. As Karen noted, I forgot to mention the Planning Commission absences on March -- or April 30th. It's an evening meeting. I think it's 5:05; is that correct, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: I don't have that schedule in front of me, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, it is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And it's on one item, I believe. It's the medical marijuana issue. Does anybody know if they're not going to be making it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Looks like we have a quorum for that one, too. Stan's just grinning like a cat over there. BCC report and recaps, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. On April 10th the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Calusa Island Village in Goodland, and that was approved on their summary agenda subject to the Planning Commission vote. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Chairman's report: I'll pass on that today. Consent agenda, there are no items. And so what we'll do is if there's any members of the public here who cannot be here on May 3rd that would like to address the Commission on the issue that they came for today, which is the Fiddler's Creek project, either 9C or 9D, please raise your hand, and I'll call you up one at a time to come to the microphone. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So that means we'll look forward to hearing all of you on May 3rd. And that will take us to the next item on the agenda, and I think, Joe, you had asked something -- well, first of all, is there any new business? Did you have any new business? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, new business. I was contacted about providing the read-ahead packets to residents who wanted to get access to the Fiddler's Creek staff report. Because of my conflict, I didn't want to forward anything to any of the residents. I suppose I could have, being under the Planning Commission. But I told them to contact Nancy directly. My concern was that there's no way for the public to -- I didn't realize this. I thought at one time we always had access through an NTP site or another site where the public could easily download a PDF version of the staff report, and I understand there's no way for the public to have access to the staff report. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. We do have access to the public through the GMD portal through CityView, but there aren't instructions for the general public on the CCPC website for them to do that. April 19, 2018 Page 6 of 9 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. MR. BELLOWS: So they typically would contact the planner, and the planner would forward them copies. But we are going to put the instructions on the web page, so everybody looking at the CCPC agenda will be able to use the portal that way. We also have plans to possibly utilize something like the boards agenda central for the Planning Commission in the future as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You can go onto the Planning Commission website and download the agenda, but you need something, as you just said -- MR. BELLOWS: Directions that lead you to the portal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I think it would be easy just, instead of going through the portal -- now, if you go through the portal, you're downloading and converting to PDF, or is it in PDF format already? Or are you downloading in Word, which could be a huge file? MR. BELLOWS: PDF files. They're scanned in as PDFs, and they're viewed as PDFs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well -- but the Fiddler's Creek's PUD was something like 82 or 92 megabytes. You can't send that out. So the planner could not send it to the public. Anything over 20 won't go out in the servers. MR. BELLOWS: That's why the CityView portal is important, because it organizes -- it gives the person a link into the system. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they don't have the staff report in the collated manner it's issued to the Planning Commission. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the public really can't -- they can only get bits and pieces of reports -- pieces of the report out the CityView? MR. BELLOWS: You are correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what Joe's saying, where's the collective package, and I think you're saying the Accela program or one of the others is going to be initiated for the Planning Commission just like it is for the Board, and everything will be eventually. MR. BELLOWS: And that's a perfect system, in my book. You can click on and get any of the documents the Board gets. The same would be true if we implemented it for the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, why can't you have some kind of an NTP site that somebody can go in and download the entire packet off of an NTP site? MR. BELLOWS: We had explored that a few years ago, and I think it had worked for a while, and I'm not sure if there were problems that occurred later, so we stopped -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, we need a solution, because folks were asking for the traffic study. They were asking for all the other enclosures. The master plan is in there, and then there's other data associated with the master plan that people wanted access to. MR. BELLOWS: I think the best solution would be Accela. It works very well for the Board agenda items, and I think it would work great here, myself. And it would be nice if everybody on the Planning Commission accessed it from -- electronically as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So what's the timeline for trying to accomplish something like that? MR. BELLOWS: We'll get back to you on that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to echo what Joe said, because it seems to me that it would solve -- personally, it would solve a lot of problems for me during the summer, because I'm coming back for each and every Planning Commission meeting but, otherwise, I'm going to be in New England. And if I could have access to the packet -- the package and the agenda the same way I get it delivered to me, I'd be able to work on the plane, and I could be very efficient, and it would really enable me to not have to pester you about sending me overnight thumb drives and the like. MR. BELLOWS: I agree. The preference of staff is to use something similar to Accela and it be all electronic to the Planning Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. But we're talking about a file transfer protocol, right? April 19, 2018 Page 7 of 9 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And that's not rocket science. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's not. Set up an FTP site and give them directions to download. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, did you have something you want to add? MR. BOSI: Yeah, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. Jamie French, the deputy head over at Growth Management, has directed all the advisory boards to make the transition to Accela. The Planning Commission was the last that we wanted to do just because of some of the past resistence to going to an all electronic type of a medium. But we're at that point where we need to get there. We need to eliminate the distribution of paper. And the Accela system is that avenue to get us there but also to provide to that visibility to the public that you've described that should be made available with these documents in the way -- in the manner that it's provided to the Planning Commission, because, you're right, through the portal they can gain access to the documents, but not being familiar with how the documents arrange themselves, I imagine the general public would be almost overwhelmed with the amount of information that's there to make -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Out of fairness to some of the Planning Commission members, not everybody may have a laptop or a computer that they can bring to these meetings that can -- is compatible enough to utilize the electronic versions of these downloads. That's number one. And, number two, not everybody may be able to print them out if they've only got a desktop at home, and some of them are 935 pages. So I would still suggest that staff needs to accommodate those members of the Planning Commission that want hard copies. They're volunteers. Unless you want to issue printers and/or computers, I don't think it's fair to demand everybody who is somewhat resist -- I don't agree. We need -- I don't agree that someone can't do it electronically, but there are issues in regards to that cost-wise and economically that, if you're going to insist on that, Mike, they need to be considered for those members that don't have those capabilities right now. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They do that for the Board. They'll -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the Board doesn't -- the Board of County Commissioners, yes, but they provide them with everything on the BCC. We don't all have county computers. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We need paper for people who want to stay -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They can print it. That's what I'm saying. But I want to make sure we still accommodate that. MR. BOSI: Understood. And that's one of the discussions we were going to -- we're going to engage the Planning Commission on, and with the -- with the intention to make that conversion, we know that these are points that we need to address before we finalize the plans or put into place the plans to make the conversion based upon the individual preferences in terms of if there's still commissioners that want to receive that hard copy. MR. KLATZKOW: This is two separate issues. The issue that Commissioner Schmitt brought up is a public issue to give the public access to this. Now, whether or not you print out the agenda with the backup for individual Planning Commission members is a completely different issue. Is there a budget constraint with respect to putting the Planning Commission documents on Accela? MR. BOSI: That -- I would have to have further consultation with operations side of GMD in terms of what's the full impact in terms of from a fiscal standpoint in terms of -- but I imagine we are going to make it available. The reason why we're talking about it and intertwining it at the same time is because the Accela program, which eventually we want to move to, provides that visibility of that porthole for the access point for the general public to gain the information and documents. MR. KLATZKOW: Does the Planning Commission want to make a motion on this to direct staff to migrate? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it would be better if staff took a look and see what it would take to migrate and then get back to us the report, and when we have a full planning (sic), we can discuss it further then. April 19, 2018 Page 8 of 9 Out of deference to Diane, I know she relies on her hard copy. She just does not have that understanding of electronics to make it work for her. I'd rather she participate -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's two separate issues. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two separate issues. MR. KLATZKOW: It's two separate issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, as far as the public goes, anything we can do to make it more accessible, fine. But I thought -- Judy told me we were already flipping over to Accela for the Planning Commission, so I thought we were. MR. BOSI: That's the intention. The Planning Commission is going to be the last of that conversion. We have to have that conversation. Two separate issues. We'll deal with it as two separate issues, and we'll bring it back to the Planning Commission. Two separate solutions. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I leave in June. Will it be running in time for me in FTP so that I can have electronic access to documents? MR. BOSI: Whether it be an FTP or an Accela system, those are the determinations that we're going to be making. Will it be available by June? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the question. MR. KLATZKOW: I'll talk to Jamie. You're the most important board we have. I don't know why you were last. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the meantime, would you make sure there's some kind of instructions on the Planning Commission site so people can get access? MR. BELLOWS: Will do. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us back to the agenda then. That was new business. Is there any old business? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I just have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: For, Ray, I guess. We've put four items now on the May 3rd agenda, which is fine. Just out of curiosity so that I can know how much coffee to bring, do we know how many other -- how many other agenda items there are coming up on May 3rd? MR. BELLOWS: There are six items currently listed, but that includes the one you -- of those that you continued. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A total of six including the ones that we have acted on today to postpone? MR. BELLOWS: One of them, so it will be seven total. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Seven, okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, eight, because there's two today. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, but that was -- the one today was already listed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You had four today. Two of the four were for -- MR. BELLOWS: Oh, well, yeah, companion items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have four new agenda items. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. Technically, yes. They're companion items. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those four will be first up when we start, when we assume on May 3rd. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Judy usually does that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So two thermoses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Good luck with that. Okay. That's old business. There's no members of the public left for public comments, so that's not going to happen. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Ned. April 19, 2018 Page 9 of 9 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Stan. All those in favor, signify saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) 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 9:20 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. AGENDA#9C COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SMALL SCALE (ADOPTION HEARINGS) Project/Petition: PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 ,SgS4 { ry'e war a�c�w u I Z CCPC: MAY 3, 2018 [Continued from: April 19, 2018] BCC: JUNE 12, 2018 Clerks Office Table of Contents SMALL SCALE GMP AMENDMENT ADOPTION HEARING PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 CCPC APRIL 19, 2018 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: P L20160002 771/CPSS-2016-2 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENT: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text (and/or maps): PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2; 3) TAB: Petition DOCUMENT: Project PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement LLE:: Agenda Item 9. Ifreie STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: April 19, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [ADOPTION HEARING] (Companion to Torres Family Trust PUD rezone to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) PL20160000226) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) APPLICANT/OWN ER/AGENT Applicant Torres Family Holdings, LLC & Owner: 7742 Alico Road Ft. Myers, FL 33912 Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Attorney: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North Naples, Florida 34110 Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION The subject property comprises approximately 5.8 - acres and is located on the south side of US 41, IIIL approximately one-half mile southeast of Manatee Road and opposite the Walnut Lakes PUD ry (Reflection Lakes at Naples), in Section 12, , Township 51 South, Range 26 East. OVA REQUESTED ACTION The applicant seeks to establish a new commercial „ Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text and Future Land Use Map Series of the Growth " Subject Management Plan (GMP), affecting fewer than tens Pro Pert (10) acres, by: rir 0:6 � �Ii; -._ 1) Amending Policy 1.1 Urban — Commercial �' �.. `= ' . •{ Ysir District to add the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict name where District and Subdistrict designations are identified, —1 — CPSS-2016-2/ PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. 2) Amending Urban Designation provisions to add the new Subdistrict name where various Subdistricts that allow non-residential uses are listed, 3) Amending the Urban —Commercial District to add the new Subdistrict provisions, 4) Adding the title of the new Subdistrict map to the itemized Future Land Use Map Series listing, and 5) Amending the Countywide Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict, and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Exhibit"A". PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The petition is proposed to establish a maximum of 60,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of new commercial development. A companion petition [PL20160000226] will rezone this property from the A, Rural Agricultural zoning district to the Torres Family Trust Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). STAFF ANALYSIS FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, ZONING AND LAND USE: Existing Conditions: Subject Property: The subject property, which comprises approximately 5.8 acres, is currently designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, allows residential development, community facilities such as churches and other places of worship, day care centers and nursing homes, essential services, parks, open space, recreation uses, and so on. The subject property also lies within the boundaries of the County's Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). It is zoned A, Rural Agricultural and undeveloped. Surrounding Lands: North: The Future Land Use Map designates land located north of the subject property, across US 41, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; also, this land is within the boundaries of the CHHA. This area is zoned Walnut Lakes Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and is developed as Reflection Lakes. The Future Land Use Map designates lands lying across US 41, to the northwest, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural and is undeveloped State lands. The Future Land Use Map designates lands lying further north, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD)— Receiving Lands; also, these lands are within the boundaries of the CHHA. The areas to the north, (Naples Reserve Golf Club) and to the northwest, (Winding Cypress DRI) of Reflection Lakes, are zoned Residential PUDs, and developing residentially. East: The Future Land Use Map designates land immediately east (and south) of the subject property as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. Land lying east of the subject property is within the boundaries of the CHHA. It is zoned TTRVC, Travel Trailer Recreational Vehicle Campground, and is developed with the Imperial Wilderness RV Resort (RV park); further southeast, property is zoned Paradise Pointe RV Resort PUD and is developed with an RV park; the next property southeast is zoned Charlee Estates PUD, [surrounds a US 41-fronting church property] and is developed residentially. —2— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. The Future Land Use Map designates land lying further east, on the north side of US 41, across from Paradise Pointe RV Resort and Charlee Estates,Agricultural/Rural, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) — Receiving Lands; also, this land is within the CHHA. An approximate 1,700 ft. length of C-2, Commercial Convenience zoning district fronts US 41, with a single convenience store with fuel pumps located northwest of Joseph Lane. South: The Future Land Use Map designates land lying further south of the Imperial Wilderness RV Resort, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Land lying south of the subject property is within the boundaries of the CHHA. This area is zoned Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Residential Planned Unit Development(RPUD/DRI)and is developing residentially. West: The Future Land Use Map designates land immediately west (and southwest) of the subject property Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. Land lying west of the subject property is within the boundaries of the CHHA. This area is zoned Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD/DRI), is developed residentially, with an undeveloped 14.5 ac. commercial component fronting US 41 approved for a portion of the 325,000 sq. ft. of commercial building area allowed in Fiddler's Creek. The Future Land Use Map designates land lying further west Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict; also, this land is within the CHHA. It is zoned A, Rural Agricultural and is the site of the Manatee Elementary School and Manatee Middle School. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and current zoning, in the area immediately surrounding the subject property are primarily residential or recreational vehicle communities, residences or residential lots. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Criteria in Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3187, to Qualify as a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan (GMP)Amendment: The process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) the following statutory standards be met, [followed by staff analysis in bracketed text]. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a ±5.8-acre property.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small-scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [Other small-scale development amendments are pending but only one, involving 5.34 acres, is scheduled to be heard prior to this proposed amendment. No small-scale amendments have been adopted in 2018.] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly-related text changes.] (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. —3— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [Internal consistency will be maintained between and among elements if the amendment is approved.] In addition, Chapter 163, F.S., Section 163.3177(6)(a)3.g. requires the Future Land Use Element to include "criteria to be used to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses". Such criteria are typically expressed through measures of allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a GMP amendment, then present and defend as necessary, that data and analysis. Refer to application Attachment "B", Justification & Supplemental Information for the Proposed GMP Amendment. BACKGROUND, CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS This section addresses the amount of [commercial] land needed to accommodate anticipated growth based on projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. This is accomplished through the analysis of the subject property and the surrounding area that includes inventorying the supply of existing commercially-developed and potential commercially-developable land, determining population growth, estimating the amount of commercial development that population will demand, and determining whether the Future Land Use Plan allocates a shortage of commercial land, a sufficient amount, or an excess amount over what is needed to accommodate growth. Commercial Analysis Commercial Development: Staff studied the area and found commercial development proximate to the subject property—at the following location: • A convenience store with fuel pumps occupies a portion of the aggregation of US 41- fronting commercially-zoned properties located northwest and southeast of Joseph Lane [0.6 miles southeast] (2,400 sq. ft. is developed of approx. 11,000 developable sq. ft./on approx. 4.0 of 11.0 ac.) [6,6002' undeveloped sq. ft/approx. 7.0 ac.J. Suburban-style residences, residential lots and recreational vehicle parks otherwise exemplify the developed land [uses] in the immediate area. A small portion of undeveloped land [uses] in the area includes the internal commercial components within a few of these residential developments and recreational vehicle parks. Commercial development, however, characterizes developed and undeveloped land [uses]within a larger surrounding area comprising a ten-minute drive time*from the subject property—where approved projects are visible at the following locations: * [Staff used the same geographical area defining the ten-minute drive time* provided by the petitioner's Commercial Needs Analysis] • The unnamed (non-PUD) aggregation of commercially-zoned properties located in the northeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and US 41 intersection—commonly known as —4— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. the CVS/Tractor Supply corner — [2.1 miles northwest] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 18) (74,676 sq. ft. is developed/19.7 ac.) [98,000± undeveloped sq. ft./approx. 9.8 ac.J. • Tamiami Crossing CPUD located in the southeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and US 41 intersection — commonly known as Tamiami Crossing — [2.1 miles northwest] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 18) (approx. 119,188 sq. ft. is developed of 235,000 sq. ft. allowed/25 net ac.) [115,812± undeveloped sq. ft./approx. 12.0 ac.]. • Artesa Pointe PUD located east of Collier Boulevard and south of Pasedo Drive intersection — commonly known as the Walmart Supercenter — [2.3 miles northwest & south on SR 951] south of MUAC 18, in the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict (approx. 242,693 sq. ft. is developed of 325,000 sq. ft. allowed/34.1 ac.) [82,307± undeveloped sq. ft./approx. 4.6 ac.J. • The aggregation of commercially zoned properties located in the southwest quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and US 41 intersection — commonly known as the Shops at Eagle Creek area— [2.1 miles northwest] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 18) and the commercial PUD across Price Street (approx. 232,838 sq. ft. is developed/35.26 ac.) (69,500± undeveloped sq. ft./approx. 6.5 ac.]. • Lely Resort PUD/DRI located in the northwest quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and US 41 intersection — commonly known as the Freedom Square area — [2.3 miles northwest] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict(MUAC 18) (approx. 350,294 sq. ft. is developed of 484,000 sq. ft. allowed/54 ac.) [133,706± undeveloped sq. ft./approx. 6.9 ac. Staff recognizes these maximum developable square feet will not be achieved, as only about half the acreage need to accommodate it remains available = 69,000 sq. ft. used as reasonable figure]. • Vincentian Village Mixed Use PUD located in the southeast quadrant of the Southwest Boulevard and US 41 intersection [3.8 miles northwest] [full amount of 250,000 sq. ft. allowed is undeveloped/30.7 ac.]. • The unnamed (non-PUD) aggregation of commercially zoned properties located in the northeast and southeast quadrants of the US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection—commonly known as the Naples South Plaza area—[5.6 miles northwest] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 17) (approx. 133,987 sq. ft. developed/16.43 ac.) [no undeveloped sq. ft. or remaining acreage]. • Sabal Bay PUD located in the northwest quadrant of the US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection—commonly known as the Shoppes at Hammock Cove area—[5.6 miles northwest] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 17) (approx. 179,832 sq. ft. is developed of 182,000 sq. ft. allowed/14 ac.)[2,168± undeveloped sq. ft./approx. 0.68 ac.]. • The aggregation of CR 951-fronting and commercially-zoned properties and PUDs located in the northeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection [6.6 miles northwest & north on CR 951] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 7) [Good Turn Center, McMullen &Hammock Park Commerce Center= aggregate amount of 445,000 sq. ft. allowed is undeveloped/68.3 ac.J. • Hacienda Lakes PUD/DRI located in the southeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection [6.6 miles northwest & north on CR 951] in a —5— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 7) [full amount of 397,500 sq. ft. allowed is undeveloped/34.1 ac.]. • Sierra Meadows PUD located in the southwest quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection [6.6 miles northwest & north on CR 951] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 7) [full amount of 260,000 sq. ft. allowed is undeveloped/30.2 ac. —all ALF to date]. Edison Village PUD located in the southwest quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection, adjacently south to Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict(MUAC 7)—commonly known as Edison Village—[6.4 miles northwest&north on CR 951] (approx. 31,321 sq. ft. is developed of 54,000 sq. ft. allowed/5.7 ac.) 122,679i- undeveloped 22,679+undeveloped sq. ft./approx. 1.1 ac]. + Naples Lakes Country Club PUD located in the northwest quadrant of the Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road intersection — commonly known as Naples Lakes Village Center— [6.6 miles northwest & north on CR 951] in a Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (MUAC 7) (approx. 76,373 sq. ft. is developed of 110,000 sq. ft. allowed/15.3 ac.) [33,627+sq. ft. left undeveloped/no undeveloped acreage]. Cumulatively, the above-locations provide for no less than 3,376,795 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial land use opportunities on approximately 393.8 acres within a ten-minute drive time*from the subject property. Approximately 1,470,452 sq. ft. (less than 44%) of the total commercial floor area [on approximately 212.1 acres] previously granted in planning and zoning approvals have been realized as existing commercial development. Approximately 1,906,343 sq. ft. (more than 56%) of the previously approved commercial space [on approximately 181.7 acres] has been appropriately planned and lies in commercial zoning districts — but has yet to be developed [on just 46% of the commercially-approved acreage] and can be characterized as potential commercial development. If all commercial development is taken into consideration within the area comprising the ten- minute drive time from the subject property, the total existing commercial development is approximately 2,040,470 sq. ft., while the total amount of vacant commercial acreage is approximately 191.1 acres. These additional amounts derive predominantly from the older, strip commercial development found along US 41. Sources:November 2017 Planned Unit Development(PUD)Master List(prepared and maintained by the Collier County Transportation Planning Section)and the Collier County Property Appraiser's Parcel and Building Footprint GIS databases Generally, commercial development can be categorized as strip commercial, neighborhood commercial, community commercial, regional commercial, and so forth, based upon shopping center size, commercial uses, and population/area served. Based on specific studies and/or demographic data for an area(such as population, income, household size, percentage of income spent on retail goods, etc.) an analyst can estimate supportable commercial square feet for different commercial intensities for that geography by shopping center type. It is important to note that the above commercial inventory includes strip commercial, neighborhood commercial, and community commercial whereas the subject petition is expected to provide neighborhood commercial only. —6— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. Petitioner's Commercial Analysis: The firm of Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. prepared a Commercial Needs Analysis, dated January 22, 2018, independently analyzing market conditions for this petition (Exhibit D-1). This type of analysis provides context for assessing a specific selection of goods and services' requirements of the emerging population within the market area identified. The petitioner's needs analysis is premised on the proposition that a need is evident for additional commercial acreage and that this location is appropriate to fulfill this need. Those sections from the Analysis providing the pertinent parts of the data and analysis are included below. Section 2, Population Growth Around Subject Property, defines a market area covering a 10- minute drive time from the subject property. This irregularly-shaped area contains the population that constitutes the customer pool and influences commercial activities [and is depicted in Figure 2.4.1 on page 8 of the Needs Analysis]. Businesses on the subject property will share a customer pool with several existing and planned commercial developments, including those located at prominent commercial intersections such as US 41 and Collier Boulevard, US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. This section categorizes the type of retail commercial center intended for development as a Neighborhood Center, providing a selection of retail uses and office uses. This section summarizes how population and retail demand were calculated for the current year and years 2020 through 2040, and provides the following figures: • current population is estimated to be 26,519; • year 2020 population is projected to be 32,022; • year 2030 population is projected to be 43,428; and, • year 2040 population is projected to be 58,359. Section 3, Market Analysis, utilizes the amount of commercial square footage... divided by the population in the market it serves to arrive at a [per capita] indicator of 71.1 sq. ft. per person for projecting further market demand. This analysis estimates: • 32,022 people will support 2,276,777 sq. ft. of commercial activity by 2020; • 37,700 people will support 2,680,461 sq. ft. by 2025; and, • 58,359 people will support 4,149,295 sq. ft. of commercial activity by 2040. The allocation ratio [supply:demand] for each of these interval years is 1.43, 1.22, and 0.79, respectively. [refer to Tables 3.3.1 & others, beginning on page 15] Section 4, Conclusions, summarizes findings from previous sections to state, "the addition of the subject property to the... commercial inventory will not adversely affect the balance of commercial supply in the County". Appendices Appendix Table A, Developed Competing Commercial Parcels Inventory identifies floor areas, acreages and zoning designations for commercially developed properties with "competing uses" located in the same, drive-time market area. Approximately 904,347 sq. ft. of commercial floor area on 162.4 acres are identified as businesses competing with those allowed by this Subdistrict; Appendix Table B, Undeveloped Competing Commercial Parcels Inventory identifies potential commercial acreages for commercially undeveloped properties to provide "competing parcels" located in the same, drive-time market area. Approximately 422.6 acres are identified as parcels competing with this Subdistrict. —7— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. Appendix C, Developed Non-Competing Commercial Parcel Inventory identifies floor areas, acreages and zoning designations for commercially developed properties with non-competitive uses located in the same, drive-time market area. This table does not provide summary totals for the floor areas or acreages; nonetheless, they have summarily been eliminated from consideration as properties with "competing uses" in this needs analysis. Staff Assessment of Petitioner's Commercial Needs Analysis The market areas described in the Commercial Needs Analysis submitted with this petition and available County resources are used to assess the proposal, with the following results: The County's PUD Master List and PropertyAppraiser's database report approximately 3,376,795 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space is available in the market area. An estimated 32,022 people will support 2,276,777 sq. ft. of commercial activity by 2020; deriving an allocation ratio [supply:demand] for year 2020 of 1.43. While approximately 3,376,795 sq. ft. of existing and potential commercial space will still be available in the market area, an estimated 37,700 people will support 2,680,461 sq. ft. by 2025; deriving an allocation ratio for year 2025 of 1.22. And, as the County exhibits characteristics of build-out, when land uses are allocated and lands are developed, a projected 58,359 people will support 4,149,295 sq. ft. of commercial activity by 2040, expecting an overallocation (under 1.0) for year 2040 of 0.79. Staff has accepted previously, and the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) has supported, allocation ratios of up to 1.25 during periods of development. Such is the allocation of retail demand [commercial floor area] to the subject property after a brief period of time; reaching 1.22 by year 2025. This assessment lends support to the Analysis' proposition that a need is evident for a future land use change to introduce additional commercial acreage and land uses to this area, and that this location may be appropriate to fulfill this need. The Commercial Needs Analysis does not however, account for the County's Future Land Use designation of lands located approximately a mile to the east, on the north side of US 41. These lands are identified as RFMUD Receiving Lands,and may one day be developed as a rural village, and provide additional shopping opportunities. Also, a rezone petition is pending to amend the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD to re-allocate a portion of the 325,000-sq. ft. of commercial building area allowed in Fiddler's Creek from an undeveloped commercial tract along Collier Blvd. (SR 951) to the undeveloped commercial tract located immediately west of the subject property, across Creative Drive. The impact from this petition cannot be determined, as the re-allocation may be as little as no commercial uses [but Community Facility uses on just 4 ac.], or as large as 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial space on expanded commercial use acreage. These two commercial centers provide for 330,000 sq.ft. and 250,000 sq.ft., respectively—which are apples-to-oranges comparisons, ostensibly reduces the commercial space figures by approximately 580,000 sq. ft. — leaving lust the properties analyzed in the Commercial Needs Analysis to compare the subject property. Again then, an allocation ratio for year 2025 of 1.22 — or a 22% surplus of commercial inventory— may not be unreasonable. —8— CPSS-2016-2/ PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. Appropriateness of the Site and the Change: The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) primarily directs new commercial development into Mixed Use Activity Centers, and gives preference to commercial expansion adjacent to both Mixed Use Activity Centers and other commercial designations when additional demand can be demonstrated. Activity Centers in Collier County provide ample commercial development opportunities. These planned locations are purposely sized and spatially arranged to encourage and support a healthy business environment throughout and proximate to the coastal urban area, and to discourage and avoid over commercialization and strip development. This amendment introduces new commercial development, uses, and activities to a location where commercial development is not now planned. The subject property is not located within or adjacent to an Activity Center; however, it is located near other commercially-zoned land. Internal commercial components — developed and undeveloped — lie within or adjacent to neighboring residential developments and recreational vehicle parks. Goal 12 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) seeks to ensure the public safety, health and welfare of people and property from the effects of hurricane storm damage. CCME Policy 12.1.2 reads, Land use plan amendments in the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. This Plan amendment proposes primarily commercial land uses, and does not affect residential density, with the exception of development of senior housing. CCME Policy 12.1.14 reads,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 fora period of no less than seventy-two(72)hours. Following Hurricane Irma, Florida's Governor set new emergency requirements mandating that this capability be extended to ninety- six (96) hours, including an appropriate amount of fuel. This core area is encouraged to be constructed with emergency electrical power and potable water supplies; provide glass protection by shutters or other approved material/device(when open to outer halls or corridors); and provide for sanitary facilities and first aid equipment, telephone, automatic external defibrillator (AED) and battery-operated radio with NOAA weather Specific Area Message Encoded capability, if not already required by the "State Requirements for Educational Facilities" identified above. The companion rezone petition for this project has been recommended to contain [conditions of approval requiring] developer commitments regarding sheltering residents and staff on site in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and other such licensed facilities, as described above. Environmental Impacts: Passarella &Associates, Inc. submitted an Environmental Report (Exhibit C-1) dated February 2017. Collier County Development Review Division staff reviewed the Report and provide the following [bracketed] evaluation: —9— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. [The subject property is 5.81 acres and mostly covered with native vegetation. Native habitats on site are dominated by slash pine, with areas of cypress, cabbage palm and hardwoods also occurring on site. A listed species survey was conducted in April 28, 2016. No listed species of wildlife were documented on the project site. One listed plant species, wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) was observed throughout the site and will be retained or relocated on site in accordance with the requirements of LDC section 3.04.03. The general provision for protection of listed plants is in CCME Policy 7.1.6. A letter from the Florida Master Site File dated December 20, 2016, list no previously recorded cultural resources on the subject property.The site will be subject to the requirement of accidental discovery of archaeological or historical sites as required by CCME Policy 11.1.3. The provision is also included in LDC section 2.03.07 E. The subject property is not located in any County wellfield protection zones. The proposed GMP amendment will have no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and LDC section 3.05.07.] [Summer Araque, Principal Environmental Specialist, Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division] Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, P.A. submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis(Exhibit E-3), dated May 9, 2016. Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed the Analysis and provide the following [bracketed] evaluation: [Capacity is available on County roadways to accommodate (traffic generated by) this development; therefore, the development is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. The companion PUD document for this commercial project contains a developer commitment limiting the maximum number of p.m. peak hour two-way trips under any development scenario.] [Michael Sawyer, Project Manager Transportation Planning Section] Public Facilities Impacts: The petitioner submitted a Public Facilities Impact Report, dated March 1, 2017 (Exhibit E-1). Staff reviewed the Report and provide the following [bracketed] remarks: • Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems: The average daily water demand and wastewater flow for the commercial project is estimated at 7,500 gallons per day (gpd); while 10,125 gpd is the estimated peak daily water demand and wastewater flow. [The project lies within the potable water and the south wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water- Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontage on Tamiami Trail East. System capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review, and a commitment to provide service will be established upon permit approval.] [Eric Fey, P.E., Senior Project Manager Public Utilities Department] —10— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. • Solid Waste Collection &Disposal:The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2016 AUIR notes that the County projects more than 50 years of remaining landfill capacity [as does the 2017 AUIR]. • Stormwater Management System: Development will comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of stormwater events by both on-site and off-site improvements. • Park and Recreational Facilities: No adverse impacts to park facilities result from the proposed commercial development. • Schools: No impact on the demand for public school facilities result from the proposed commercial development. • Emergency Medical (EMS) and Fire Rescue Services: The subject property is located within the Greater Naples Fire District. [A fire station is collocated with EMS services provided by Collier County, located at 6055 Collier Blvd.] No adverse impacts to these safety services result from the proposed commercial development. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05.F. was [duly advertised, noticed and] held on June 29, 2017, 5:30 p.m. at the Auditorium of Rookery Bay Reserve, located at 300 Tower Drive, Naples. This NIM was advertised, noticed and held jointly for this small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment petition and companion rezone petition. Approximately thirty-five people other than the applicant team (predominantly from neighboring communities of Imperial Wilderness RV Resort, Paradise Pointe RV Resort, East Trail RV Park, and Fiddler's Creek) and County staff attended—and heard the following information: The agent(Robert Mulhere)representing this applicant, provided a full description of the proposed changes to the group, including how the two companion requests (GMPA/PUDZ)cover the"office and retail" uses, consistent with C-3 district uses — and self-storage warehousing [which is consistent with C-4 district uses]. Mr. Mulhere clarified no gas station is proposed. Some of the features specific to the project property were described, including size and location of the preserve, how combining the "more-lush", type 'D' buffers with walls and berms will provide 8 ft. high lot line features, the shielding and directing of outdoor lighting, how certain uses would be prohibited from locating within 75 ft. of southern and eastern boundaries and, a 45-ft. height limitation. Some of the uses to be allowed on the property were discussed, including "ALF's", or Adult Living Facilities. An attendee asked about the number of living units that could be developed on the property. Mr. Mulhere explained how the County limitation is not acreage-based—so a maximum number cannot be given. Instead the County utilizes a Floor Area Ratio(FAR)for this calculation. Another asked if the type of adult living facilities proposed included a"CCRC", or Continuing Care Retirement Community? It could, was the reply. Attendees discussed access to the subject site, hearing how commercial traffic will be using the (to-be-improved) local roadway located along the westerly boundary of the property (Creative Lane)for access to US 41. Options for parking and lighting were discussed. Speakers explained how seasonal residences near the site have their share of damages, break- ins and thefts — that will increase commensurate with the arrival of people visiting businesses locations here. Discussion surrounded security issues attributable to the new development, and —11 — CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. were interested in hearing specific approaches designed to address these issues, and reduce the chances of increased crime. The applicant team responded how these potential problems could be addressed by specific measures in the PUD. The audience showed concern over the wide array of commercial uses [being] proposed. Mr. Mulhere explained no firm plans for any specific use or uses are in place. The landowner explained the lengthy list (of allowed uses) is needed to account for working with jurisdictional agencies like the South Florida Water Management District or Corps of Engineers, and requirements they may yet impose; and for marketing this small property to interested commercial end-users with viable projects. While no one present expressed opposition, several people showed interest in additional meetings between the applicant/applicant team and their neighboring communities'groups. The information meeting was ended at approximately 6:20 p.m. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The following findings and conclusions result from the reviews and analyses of this request: • The property is presently zoned "A" and undeveloped. • There are no known historic or archaeological sites on the subject property, and environmental impacts from the proposed development do not pose concerns. • The infrastructure needed to serve the proposed development can be provided without related levels of service concerns. • This amendment introduces new commercial development, uses, and activities to a location where commercial development is not now planned. Though the subject property is not located within or adjacent to an Activity Center, it is located near other commercially-zoned land. • The proposed development is generally compatible with existing and allowed development on surrounding properties. • Based on data and analysis submitted for existing and potential commercial development within the study area for the subject property, the need for the commercial development contemplated by this amendment has been demonstrated. • A companion rezone petition has been submitted concurrent with this GMPA petition. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS A copy of this Staff Report was provided to the Office of the County Attorney and has been approved as to form and legality. In addition to pertinent small-scale (GMP) amendment criteria in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3187 addressed above,the criteria for land use map amendments are in Section 163.3177(1), and 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 8., Florida Statutes. [HFAC] —12— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to the below non-substantive edits (for proper code language, format, clarity, etc. only — not intended to change allowable uses, intensities, development standards or other items of substance). [Note: The petitioner has reviewed these recommended edits and has indicated they are acceptable.] Note: The entire subdistrict provisions are depicted below as new text, then reformatted to use single underline/strike-through to depict staff-recommended changes Policy 1.5: [Page 10] The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: *** *** *** ***text break****** *** *** *** C. URBAN —COMMERCIAL DISTRICT *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** 11. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 12. Davis— Radio Commercial Subdistrict 13. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 14. East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** ****** I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 25] *** *** *** ******text break*** *** *** *** *** Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: ****** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** b. Non-residential uses including: *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** ********* 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the ...Urban Commercial District, ...Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict; Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict District, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** ********* C. Urban —Commercial District [Page 67] ****** ****** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict This Subdistrict, comprising ± 5.8 acres, is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately,-2.2 miles east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East, one- -13— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. half mile southeast of Manatee Road, within Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. It is --- - - - •' - - -e e. • - -- - -- •• - . -- - - - - -' - .. '4. Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD; it is depicted on the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map. The intent of this Subdistrict is primarily to provide for neighborhood commercial uses, to serve the emerging residential development in proximity to this Subdistrict as well as the traveling public, while providing for a transition from the higher intensity uses permitted in the adjacent Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD Business tract located to the west to the lower intensity uses permitted in the Imperial Wilderness RV Park located to the east and south of the Subdistrict. Allowable Uses in the Subdistrict shall be limited to up to 60,000 square feet of those uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C 3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 01 11, as amended, and warehousing only) The development of this Subdistrict shall comply with the following restrictions, limitations and standards: a. Allowable uses are those permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, and to an air conditioned and enclosed self-storaqe facility. b. The maximum floor area shall be limited to 60,000 square feet. The rezone for the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict shall is encouraged to be in the form of a Commercial Planned Unit Development (SPUD). The PUD will, and to incorporate the following conditions: a: Vehicular interconnection to and/or shared Tamiami Trail East access with, the adjacent Fiddler's Creek PUD Business Tract is encouraged., and a development designed of-the Subdistrict shall include provisions to provide fora such potential future interconnection and/or shared access. -- - - • -- -- - -- - - - -- - -e. - :1 1 - Z:91 . *** *** *** *** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page 144] *** *** *** *** ***text break********* *** *** Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis— Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map —14— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Agenda Item 9. PREPARED BY: DATE: 9_1 -lex tP CORBY SCHMIDT,AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: / /5" � DAVID WEEKS, AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: .- 8 MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR, ZONING DIVISION AP' ' eiVED BY: ,► DATE: 3 S FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PETITION No.: CPSS-2016-2 / PL20160002771 Staff Report for the April 19, 2018, CCPC meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 12, 2018, BCC meeting. — 15— CPSS-2016-2/PL20160002771 Torres Family Trust: Establishing the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict ORDINANCE NO. 18- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN— COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN COASTAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT TO EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) USES AND AN AIR-CONDITIONED AND ENCLOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING OF ±5.8 ACRES IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41, APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE SOUTHEAST OF MANATEE ROAD AND, OPPOSITE AND SOUTHEAST FROM NAPLES RESERVE BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL201600027711 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Tones Family Holdings, LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the East Tamiami Trail Infill District; and [16-CMP-00973/1399079/1)67 Words underlined are added,words atFuel' have been deleted. East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict GMPA/PL20160002771 3/7/18 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on 2018 considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on , 2018; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development [16-CMP-00973/1399079/1]67 Words underlined are added,words struck-through have been deleted. East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict GMPA/PL20160002771 3/7/18 Page 2 of 3 permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment& Map Amendment [16-CMP-00973/1399079/1]67 Words underlined are added,words struck through have been deleted. East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict GMPA/PL20160002771 3/7/18 Page 3 of 3 Adoption Exhibit PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 EXHIBIT "A" FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Policy 1.5: [Page 10] The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: *** *** ****** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** C. URBAN —COMMERCIAL DISTRICT *** *** ****** ***text break*** *** ****** *** 11. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 12. Davis— Radio Commercial Subdistrict 13. Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 14. East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** *** ***text break*** ****** ****** I. URBAN DESIGNATION [Page 25] *** *** *** ******text break*** *** *** *** *** Urban designated areas will accommodate the following uses: *** *** ****** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** b. Non-residential uses including: -- ****** ****** ***text break*** *** ********* 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the ...Urban Commercial District, ...Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict; Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, Logan Boulevard/ Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict District, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** ****** ***text break *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban— Commercial District [Page 67] *** ********* ***text break*** *** ****** *** East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict This Subdistrict, comprising ± 5.8 acres, is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately, one-half mile southeast of Manatee Road, within Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. It is depicted on the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map. The intent of this Subdistrict is primarily to provide for neighborhood commercial uses, to serve the emerging residential development in proximity to this Subdistrict as well as the traveling public, while providing for a transition from the higher intensity uses permitted in the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD Business tract located to the west to the lower intensity uses permitted in the Imperial Wilderness RV Park located to the east and south. 1 Words underlined are added;words straw are deleted. Adoption Exhibit PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 The development of this Subdistrict shall comply with the following restrictions, limitations and standards: a. Allowable uses are those permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, and to an air conditioned and enclosed self-storage facility. b. The maximum floor area shall be limited to 60,000 square feet. The rezone for the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and to incorporate the following: a. Vehicular interconnection to, and/or shared Tamiami Trail East access with, the adiacent Fiddler's Creek PUD Business Tract, and a development designed to provide for such potential future interconnection and/or shared access. *** *** *** ****** text break*** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page 144] *** *** ****** ***text break*** *** *** *** *** Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/lmmokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map 2 Words underlined are added;words stFuek-th-reugh are deleted. . EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160002771 /CPSS-2016-2 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT j COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA dillillir ...fa." ill R \5 I" I al _ or m U W NNW I Mow 1— IMI Td Um 0INE �� INE a ! iMI 7 • aft. 'cii co IP Tx El, = so i.o .N. . - :Jr, ,„,,i . ,4, 6 0 41 bi. �� �► \ ' , Nlirror.OT ,', PSITE PSS-2016-2NN... �', e 11111110 Gl 1 tor OW N 0 Cap ,I 011# 1 re tIW co no me im 11. nu MN gm it_j ono R 1BO1 �, III�tt ,ikei -!r {Imo 2 I� Ca ley ,��111i g 1- ,� * ,_SIMI :32 2 Si la _uInt IIIII ism ma erNE2 - - v i- = Bobcat RUN�,,, E 2 I- �-Tesoro LN/ '= = •40111111111" , 1111 al Min no w NE I ■t . . m ow i0, v - INN . • ca MN = � NM CC �` S. - an NI - N 'I 4010).k \------------ X. \ fil ill 3 I2 a WI i ,__j ... vom a.4,,, E • NO g 81111 ! _ in i pard LN \vll1* LEGEND PREPARED BY:GIS/CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 0 270 540 1,080 Feet %/A SUBDISTRICT DATE:6/2016 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ' 1 1 YO J I I 41 I t YO J I •�..v ...Au 1 II 1 WI* I 1,LJ I 103* ' m $H �zewgm4- ti.-4.:-; '27 ,;,`".."nwwoo > mR.4 . ➢ W E E O F O F f��2.82 u= ='Lg84gE.tZakiggg1 4.5gC471,!0°oZw2oi oo 9 o o.2'67g77 o?o � p..2.61§:W 'r g w W w° °m o o c w o n w oz fi wow,-24o W0000Qo` 9900 0 � p' » a 3 E t a yds � p z z z z z z° i i i z 'z i zo`°z�w z °zy oi�io ?i i z `aVaJ zo Qo I E ; 1 z' a i i . 3 ga f$iii -tiv s 1 i 3 ill l a a a a I l a a a < a < 1 a s a < 1 i N a l ¢ < < gci :� � 9 1 1111 7 01:1-00 PPO ill V f49ki "," Mr ( fl v z ap N� gg li q d f .5 x 8$ Sby(yf:G 5 z Ili 3' 15_5 E € 5 I. d <o 1 S a lira in 11111/1[ 110111 _ 0i1 �tl .5a - s ' W aa$ 9 3 et c 1 i ? e gill i g S " it 1 I € "f3 t 2 u g � i ;� E II p6 m � — ua a ; a MN 1 131 ii 3l I 1 iiL2013111RIgiligi 'IS .; a I W 110 Emill11 III!�'1111� E 111 q i .s i I / M ' K ( .L / 5 1( rA .-rt' Ee �� a / i — i N a Ce 11���m I _ = epB 1111111111s: ii NI ii < 3 a g, 0 i... v----,. ...-:.; ,. i # t E =Br . W D 5 &��' —n \ _ PH �. rN ► •Zw HP< ` t� �®Im ��gi�ce if U I _- © g W = , b// %/- N f N ( �i['s T4s '3c w = 0� ,---_-.7.---------'—.°- %./ i C n _ 5 LL itiW _a' t M e e $a O 2$ ,ssgg 3€ u l f ioff 'a . APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY.GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER PL20160002771 DATE RECEIVED 10/7/201.8 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE Pre-Application Mtg . Waived DATE SUFFICIENT This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples,Florida 34104. 239-252-2400(Fax 239-252-2946), The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination, If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application,see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant David E.Torres,Manager Company Torres Family Holdings, LLC Address 7742 Alico Road City Fort Myers State Florida Zip Code 33912 Phone Number 239-208-4079 Fax Number 239-334-1399 B. Name of Agent*Robert J.Mulhere,FAICP,VP,Planning & Business Development • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Hole Montes, Inc. Address 950 Encore Way City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239-254-2000 Fax Number 239-254-2099 Name of Agent* Richard D.Yovanovich, Esauire Company Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North,Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239-435-3535 Fax Number 239-435-1218 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record Torres Family Holdings, LLC Address 7742 Alico Road City Fort Myers State Florida Zip Code 33912 Phone Number 239-208-4079 Fax Number 239-334-1399 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. 1 II. Disclosure of Interest Information: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock • C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Torres Family Holdings, LLC 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers. FL 33912 David E.Torres Revocable Trust 33.3% Sergio F.Torres 33.3% Andres F.Torres 33.3% If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation,Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries,or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: 2 F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties,list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership,or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired (x) leased ( ):12-20-2012 Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy,indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A" Warranty Deed B. GENERAL.LOCATION 14050 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34114,south side of Tamiami Trail East approximately 2.2 miles east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East. C. PLANNING COMMUNITY Royal FakaPalm D. TAZ 343.3 E. SIZE IN ACRES 5.76 F. ZONING A G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN See Exhibit "B-1" Future Land Use Map H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT(S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste,Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element • • X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan 3 B. AMEND PAGE (S) 67 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit "A", adding Subdistrict name in Policy 1.1.B;within the Urban Designation;and in the Future Land Use Map Series C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict TO Urban Commercial District, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) FLUM E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE:ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exhibit A-1 Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's,existing zoning) with subject property outlined, Exhibit A-2 Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries,source, and date. Exhibit A-3 Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exhibit B-1 Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands,with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. • C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exhibit C-1 Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE:THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. Exhibit C-1 ' Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. •4 D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2(Copies attached). l. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area.of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). If so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) Y Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) N Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Exhibit D-1 Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial,industrial,etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use,and of environmentally sensitive land,ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Exhibit E-1 Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exhibit E-1 Potable Water Exhibit E-1 Sanitary Sewer Exhibit.E-3 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS See TIS Exhibit E-1 Drainage Exhibit E-1 Solid Waste Exhibit E-1 Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density,or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS,indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exhibit E-2 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e.water,sewer,fire protection, police protection,schools and emergency medical services. • 3. Exhibit E-1 Document proposed services and public facilities,identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools,fire protection and emergency medical services. 5 F.OTHER r Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Exh.F-1 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence,if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary,if applicable • Y Coastal Management Boundary,if applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport,if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G.SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION . N/A $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) Yes $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) Yes Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Att.A 1 Original and 5 complete,signed applications with all attachments including. maps,at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed,25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. • 6 LETTER OP AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Ioban J, Mulhere, FAICP, Mice President Planning and Business Development. Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard Yovanovich, Esquire, Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, P,A,to serve as my Agents In a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property Identified In this Application, Sined: Torres Famil Holdings,LLC Date: g Y (Name of Owner(s) of Record) I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the fore.•ing a •llcaflon r nd e apt cation is true,correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. f /Mr Slgnatu" of A•pH,ant D•vd E '•W= u.e.•o Name- •ed or Printed STATE OF (FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ( ) • o a • 'scribed before me this day of ,2016 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: • •ry Public 1Rr'ouc Notary Pubic Stale of Florida Maritza Agutar • " • My Commleelon FF 078191 tCli,,OS ONE OP THE FOLLOWING: 'kw" Explro.iS10012017 '..1who is p ersonally known to me, who has produced as identification and take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE-BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.1)6 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement.In writing,with the Intent to mislead a public servant In the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500,00 and/or maximum of a sixty day Jail term." INSTR 4780016 OR 4869 PG 2269 RECORDED 12/27/2012 11:15 AM PAGES 3 DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA DOC@.70 $525.00 REC $27.00 • CONS $75,000.00 • THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY:: James D.Vogel,Esq. Fla.Bar No.0051373 Vogel Law Office,P.A. Suite B,Midwest Title Bldg. 3936 Tamtami Trail North Naples,Florida 34103 • (239)262-2211 PREPARATION ONLY WITHOUT OPINION • WARRANTY DEED THIS WARRANTY DEED made the 20th day of December, 2012, by TUCKER P. ROONEY and MARIE D.ROONEY,husband and wife,hereinafter called the GRANTOR,to TORRES FANIILYHOLDINGS,LLC,a Florida limited liability company,hereinafter called the GRANTEE, whose post office address is 3921 Prospect Avenue,Naples,Florida 34104. (Wherever used herein the term"gr., 0 r'ta�'��lrn• a; :11 the parties to this instrument and the heirs,legal representatives la 40 a.s of the indivitl r' s : •d the successors and assigns of corporations). WITNESSETH: Th.t th grantor, ='r: • in con•'deratio. of he sum of$10.00 and other . valuable considerations,re,elp 'r`{`• •b = s p'. he -by grants,bargains,sells, aliens,remises,releases, c mnv'. :1 d or{fnsa -e ::.i ee all hat certain land situate in Collier County,Florida,vi.,( t LJ _ Ems+ 'E ATTACHEDE It ", �o Property T.D.:00737000 lO [[ J 4� TOGETHER with all the tenem � f�svand appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. AND the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple;that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land; that the grantorherebyfully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances, except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,2012;zoning,building code and other restrictions imposed by governmental authority; outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any; and restrictions and easements of record. 1.la7.E5 10160111214Tdud 01.wp4 - ATTACHMENT"A" OR 4869 PG 2270 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written, Signed,sealed and delivered in our presence: Witnesses: (Sig _. 410, _I(PrintN:fe) aE �;. o Ater (Signs VA/ ':• . t! I _ TUCKER P.ROO Y (Print Name) QU. ((A. 4°cal1C vi (Sign) 4-4a .•1 (Print N - (Sign)• '\FT1� �� ; 4,11-411I4 • '117 .41'e OONEY (Print Name — �!_��- ��i%�+�Ir�.,� STATE OF FLORIDA- 0 • (E- COUNTY OF Cf3L-EfER--- v • The foregoing Warm.''t,) ed< was acknowled:=±..- ;,r� 1 s 20th day of December, 2012, by TUCKER P. RO,� � ' who is personal y o me or who has'produced Florida Drivers License get '.entification, C► J �. Si:i,.ture of Notary JEANNE PARKINSON STATE OF FLORIDAN e Jiz.S e Y Notary Public COUNTY OF Gt it-- 0 c.ec3-i... State of New Jersey My Commission Expires Jun 10,2017 The foregoing Warranty Deed was acknowledged be ore me t i's s t •:y. e e e .•r, 2012, by MARIE D. ROONEY, who is personally known to me or who has produced Florida Drivers License as identification, Sit.)S .ofNotary JEANNE ry PARKPublINSON Notuic W,1F11131161160211214TdccdOL .( Mite of New Jersey My Commission Expires Jun ICI,2017, *** OR 4869 PG 2271 *** • EXHIBIT"A" STARTING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S.41 AND THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;AND PROCEEDING SOUTHERLY ALONG THE SECTION LINE FOR APPROXIMATELY 870 FEET,THENCE EASTERLY FOR 330 FEET,THEN NORTHERLY FOR 660 FEET,THENCE WESTERLY ALONG U.S.41 SOUTHERLY RIGHT- OF-WAY FOR APPROXIMATELY 390 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING , DESCRIBED PARCEL: COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S.41;RUN SOUTH 54°24'20"EAST 377.86 FEET ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;CONTINUE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE 12,14 FEET;THWI. °01'20"WEST 100.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH • 88°58'40"WEST 10.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 1°I' T etty ' TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. o Ca CC ii V f-q . E CMC • LalLEVmi 6oru I4ra°od 01..R4 ATTACHMENT "B" EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT JUSTIFICATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The subject property is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East approximately 2.2 miles east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East. The property contains 5.8± acres, is within the Urban Mixed Use District and Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict (see SSGMPA Attachment"A" for the legal description of the subject parcel) and within the Coastal High Hazard Area. The parcel is zoned A Agriculture. The surrounding lands are designated and zoned as follows: North: Tamiami Trail East (6-lane arterial), beyond that, Walnut Lakes Residential PUD; FLUE Designation—Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Residential Subdistrict East: Imperial Wilderness RV Park, Zoned TTRVC; FLUE Designation — Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict South: Imperial Wilderness RV Park, Zoned TTRVC; FLUE Designation — Urban Mixed Use District,Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict West: Fiddlers Creek PUD/DRI Undeveloped Business Commercial Tract; FLUE Designation— Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Requested Changes This proposed SSGMPA would change the designation from Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict to Urban Commercial District, East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict. This will require amending both the FLUE and the FLUM. Justification for Request The subject property, along the west property line, is adjacent to a recorded 60' ROW easement (Creative Lane) and then the commercially zoned Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI Business District. The Subdistrict is generally consistent with the Office and In-fill Commercial Subdistrict provisions and limitations,please see the analysis,below. 5. Office and In-fill Commercial Subdistrict The intent of this Subdistrict is to allow low intensity office commercial or infill commercial development on small parcels within the Urban Mixed Use District located along arterial and collector roadways where residential development, as allowed by the Density Rating System, may not be compatible or appropriate. Lower intensity office commercial development attracts low traffic volumes on the abutting roadway(s) and is generally compatible with nearby residential and commercial development. The criteria Page 1 of 6 H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B-Justification and Supplemental Information(3-I-2017).docx listed below must be met for any project utilizing this Subdistrict. For purposes of this Subdistrict, "abuts" and "abutting" excludes intervening public street, easement (other than utilities) or right-of-way, except for an intervening local street; and "commercial" refers to C-1 through C-5 zoning districts and commercial components of PUDs. a. The subject site is in the Urban-Mixed Use District. The subject site is in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. b. The subject site abuts a road classified as an arterial or collector on the Collier County Functional Class Map, as adopted in the Transportation Element. The Subdistrict is located along Tamiami Trail East, a major arterial roadway, where residential development is not compatible or appropriate. The Subdistrict limits the subject site to lower intensity commercial development, which generates low traffic and will be compatible with adjacent land uses. c. A rezone to commercial zoning is requested for the subject property in its entirety, up to a maximum of 12 acres. For a property greater than 12 acres in size, the balance of the property in excess of 12 acres is limited to an environmental conservation easement or open space. Under this provision, "open space" shall not include water management facilities unless said facilities are incorporated into a conservation or preservation area for the purpose of enhancement of the conservation or preservation area. The subject property is less than 12 acres in size(5.8±acres). d. The site abuts commercial zoning: (i) On one side and that abutting commercial site is not within an infill Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District or the Urban Commercial District; or, The site abuts commercial zoning on the west side (commercial tract within the Fiddler's Creek PUD/DRI) and that abutting commercial site is not within an infill Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District or the Urban Commercial District. (ii) On both sides.N/A e. The abutting commercial zoning may be in the unincorporated portion of Collier County or in a neighboring jurisdiction. The abutting commercial zoning is in unincorporated Collier County. f. The depth of-the subject property in its entirety, or up to 12 acres for parcels greater than 12 acres in size, for which commercial zoning is being requested, does not exceed the depth,of the commercially zoned area on the abutting parcel(s). Where the subject site abuts commercial zoning on both sides, and the depth of the commercially zoned area is not the same on both abutting parcels,the Board of County Commissioners shall have discretion in determining how to interpret the depth of the commercially zoned area which cannot be exceeded, but in no case shall the depth exceed that on the abutting property with the greatest depth of commercial area. This discretion shall be applied on a case-by-case basis. The subject parcel is deeper by approximately 100 feet than the abutting Page 2 of 6 H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B-Justification and Supplemental Information(3-1-2017).docx commercial parcel. The applicant is proposing (through the associated PUD rezoning application) that portion of the site be limited to preserve uses. g. Project uses are limited to office or low intensity commercial uses if the subject property abuts commercial zoning on one side only. For property abutting commercial zoning on both sides, the project uses may include those of the. highest intensity abutting commercial zoning district. The subject parcel abuts commercial zoning on one side only. Proposed uses are generally C-1 to C-3 uses, with the addition of one C-4 use, mini-self-storage warehousing. The use is prohibited(as are several others) in the associated PUD from locating within 100 feet of the abutting TTRVC zoned property to the east. h. The subject property in its entirety was not created to take advantage of this provision, evidenced by its creation prior to the adoption of this provision in the Growth Management Plan on October 28, 1997. The subject property was not created to take advantage of this provision as the parcel has existed in its present configuration prior to October 28, 1997. i. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting one side only: (i) commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met; and, The commercial zoning has not been previously applied and will not be expanded beyond this site. (ii) uses shall be limited so as to serve as a transitional use between the commercial zoning on one side and non-commercial zoning on the other side., Uses were limited as indicated previously so that only office-type uses are allowed within 100 feet of the TTRVC zoned site to the east. While TTRVC is generally considered a commercial zoning district, for purposes of this specific policy, it is not. j. For those sites that have existing commercial zoning abutting both sides, • commercial zoning used pursuant to this Subdistrict shall only be applied one time and shall not be expanded, except for aggregation of additional properties so long as all other criteria under this Subdistrict are met.N/A k. Lands zoned for support medical uses pursuant to the "1/4 mile support medical uses" provision in the Urban designation shall not be deemed "commercial zoning" for purposes of this Subdistrict.NM I. Land adjacent to areas zoned C-1/T on the zoning atlas maps, or other commercial zoning obtained via the former Commercial Under Criteria provision in the FLUE, shall not be eligible for a rezone under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, except through aggregation as provided in Paragraphs i. and j. above. N/A m. For purposes of this Subdistrict, property abutting land zoned Industrial or Industrial PUD, abutting lands zoned for Business Park uses pursuant to the Page 3 of 6 H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B-Justification and Supplemental Information(3-1-2017).docx Business Park Subdistrict, or abutting lands zoned for Research and Technology Park uses pursuant to the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict, shall also qualify for commercial zoning so long as all other criteria under the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict are met.N/A n. At time of development, the project will be served by central public water and sewer.Public water and sewer are available. o. The project will be compatible with existing land uses and permitted future land uses on surrounding properties.Allowable uses shall be limited in order to serve as a transition between the commercial zoning on one side and non-commercial zoning (TTRVC) on the other side. The Subdistrict is compatible with existing land uses and permitted future land uses on surrounding properties. p. The maximum acreage eligible to be utilized for the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict within the Urban Mixed Use District is 250 acres.N/A Collier County limits density and expenditure of public funds within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). Commercial uses will not add population within the CHHA, and the subject site is within a developed area where public facilities currently exist. Statutory Requirements Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3177, sets forth criteria for evaluating amendments to comprehensive plans. Please see an analysis of how the proposed amendment complies with these criteria, below. 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys.— (6) In addition to the requirements of subsections (1)-(5), the comprehensive plan shall include the following elements: ... (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth.A Commercial Needs Analysis is provided with this application demonstrating the need for additional commercial acreage in this area of Collier County. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. Commercial land uses do not add population. Page 4 of 6 H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B-Justification and Supplemental Information(3-1-2017).docx c. The character of undeveloped land. The site is suitable for development as demonstrated by the environmental data summary provided with this application. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. Services are available and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the development allowed by the proposed Subdistrict. Please see the Public Facilities Report and the Transportation Impact Analysis included with this application. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community.N/A f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations.N/A g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02.N/A h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The subject site is within a developed area of Collier County that has public services (utilities, roadways, etc.) available. Therefore the proposed Subdistrict does not encourage urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. Please see the Commercial Needs Analysis. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions.N/A 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. Services are available and there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the development allowed by the proposed Subdistrict. Please see the Public Facilities Report and the Transportation Impact Analysis included with this application. b. An analysis of the suitability of the planamendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. The site is suitable for development as demonstrated by the environmental data summary provided with this application. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section.A Commercial Needs Analysis is provided with this application demonstrating the need for additional commercial acreage in this area of Collier County. Additionally, the proposed amendment may be adopted as a small-scale amendment, pursuant to Chapter 163.3187 of Florida Statutes,please see below. Page 5 of 6 H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B-Justification and Supplemental Information(3-1-2017).docx 163.3187 Process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment.— (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer and: The subject site contains 5.8±acres. (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. The County has not reached the 120 acre limit. (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. The amendment is site-specific and text changes are related directly to the subject site. (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). The subject site is not within an area of critical state concern. Commercial Needs Overview A Commercial Needs Analysis is provided as supporting data and analysis for the need for additional commercial acreage within this portion of Collier County. Environmental Overview See the Environmental Data Summary prepared by Passarella and Associates. Traffic/Transportation Overview • See the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Services. Conclusion The request to create the East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict is justified and will better serve the needs of the community than the existing zoning or potential residential zoning on the subject site. Page 6 of 6 H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Attachment B-Justification and Supplemental Information(3-1-2017).docx ATTACHMENT C EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL COMMERCIAL SIJBDISTIRCT LEGAL DESCRIPTION Starting at the Northwest Corner of the property at the intersection of the South Right-of-way of U.S. 41 and the West line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida, and proceeding Southerly along the Section Line for approximately 870 feet, thence Easterly for 330 feet, thence Northerly for 660 feet, thence Westerly along U.S. 41 Southerly Right-of-way'for approximately 390 feet to the point of beginning, less and except the following described parcel: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida, and the Southeasterly Right-of-way of U.S. 41; run South 54°24'20" East 377.86 feet along said Right-of-way line to the point of beginning; Continue along said Right-of-way Line 12.14 feet; thence South 1°01'20" West 100.00 feet, thence North 88°58'40" West 10.00 feet; thence North 1°01'20" East 106.89 feet to the point of beginning. H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\2nd Resubmittal\ATTACHMENT C Legal Description.docx EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Insert in FLUE on Page 11 Policy 1.1: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: ... B. URBAN- COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4.Business Park Subdistrict 5.Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 6. Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 9. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 10. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 11. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 12.East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Insert in FLUE on Page 49 19.East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict This Subdistrict, comprising ± 5.76 acres, is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East, approximately 2.2 miles east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East within Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East. It is bounded to the east and south by the Imperial Wilderness RV Resort and to the west by the Marco Shores/Fiddler's Creek PUD. Itis depicted on the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map. The intent of this Subdistrict is primarily to provide for neighborhood commercial uses, to serve the emerging residential development in proximity to this Subdistrict as well as the traveling public, while providing for a transition from the higher intensity uses permitted in the adjacent Fiddler's Creek PUD Business tract to lower intensity uses in the Imperial Wilderness RV Park located to the east and south of the Subdistrict. Page 1 of 2 H.\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit A GMPA Amendment Language (1-22-2018).docx Allowable Uses in the Subdistrict shall be limited to up to 60,000 square feet of those uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate zoning district, as listed in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended, excluding Automotive vehicle dealers (5511); Drinking places (5813); Homeless shelters; and Soup Kitchens. In addition, motor freight transportation and warehousing (SIC Group 4225, air conditioned, mini-self-storage warehousing only) shall be permitted. The rezone for the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict shall be in the form of a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The PUD will incorporate the following conditions: 1. Vehicular connection and shared Tamiami Trail access with the adjacent Fiddler's Creek PUD Business Tract is encouraged. Development design of the Subdistrict shall include provisions for a potential future interconnection and/or shared access. 2. Outdoor amplified sound is prohibited, except in conjunction with an approved temporary use permit and in such limited cases shall be restricted to the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. No single use may exceed 45,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Insert in FLUE on Page 145 FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Page 2 of 2 H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Exhibit A GMPA Amendment Language (1-22-2018).docx J110 %Y. ! I 1 I i it - _ -3 I t HUAI!1 -, oo 00 00 o L._ II tj - i --- _ ,- 00 00 :0 0 0o 1 ) 1 ,-' §r • .. .-. 0 00 00 00 0 00 u - N - ,‘ • 0 ---- '-- - -- 00 ao , 0 00 0o ) - / : W L I O 0 00 00 0o n0 00 - r / O ET, Q Q a 0900 x 0 // / Q 111 II J/* ,o 00 ooNoo op oo o0 00 0 /N /l y A W m 3 O '''`.'ii t 0 00 io 00 00 ED0 00 Uo Ao,' U //r /�r7 x,! a W o 0 0:-i 00 0 o a0 vo T —� 00 00 oq 00 00 00 .✓ j / ..i toy O LLI • • T� ,./,v):-.•- � t_. �? // / O 'er Z O / 1:1- %i1SHoryyyp - Q c.0,-.--.), y` N't5SV8 �Vj [� T 0 J.4 3, \ -,.:'_-s:'/ ,,� rn 'moi-- Q / ° " ,,,----s-,-.7.J / y, . _ Haq ? 5 o p; . \ - 3 onlq3naa saco idvri LL �� ' Z Z •. Q W // /r ar-,o 0 / s� Q / / /� Q 3:r N �- a r W x J o Z ' /ate f-`% wz g N t g•./ / _ — w 3 Z W m o _-_ /4 j — _� asnty }f�.r O C vi .:t== m M"N avow /N '' p V] � W ° 43 4-1 ! V,/ 1 �`--_-- 0 z o o i/ 1 U LU 0 W --- o t`Q �� 1t c Q0 a_ � w o '4 ,! \ a �QUW a �_ w--- , Z� % / CO tools _,�-- ,.�, 1' ow / fi; /' ,- w i w Qz J Lw f __U W tY 2 F2 LL Z OUm ,:...C. Q J c=ry _ U 1L Q •II Z w w .*, J r CO i� U F' H' u W $ a V-I' V v h I--' ' W N n l n 5i w C) 0 0 ;4); �• {.,, .,`1�= U COWN N N 0 Z Ul D.- 4.0 Ce O O D S m s3 I 0. „ J }ZmN.m ti � a��� Z N c4 E i � � ,�" t ,r is f i-g ,7,.:, � O. 1 { W 03 m O ° , + . ;� .',.7.:',.".,.;-:". ° X w w o ^ WI 8 HI �-1 3 "r '4- W r Sa �.J 1,� tr a iii . . x 1333 /ry�' y� 7� '. -.. 3 S1i A -..--;,,,r,„-y., v } 1 f, rr` ^ — J >– it 1 r Yi,. •' `�� �!y r` r f i *9Sy(.�..,,,wa rr ,��. U J - s asix. 7-i:-IA'Pj .f„ ,f' N r- . „s L7 ry 0 +`. r Ry , �..[ t,.. � g fes, W LQLta_ W r "" i':t41:;41S.11: + - x . i .• a ,i.- .Iii .�.1kk _�W " �, C . ;s.� 1 N t �;F: #- W V J co ix � � 'OT'18 VWO--pia.' _ � _' { x H � - D LU �p ,_. ti ..‘ , _J . '0,4* •4:$pd 44 , 413-4 ' M 7* .# jy {�rY���pL 7� Q! 43f ` �` '''j---- 7, tt tit 7r(9n� orq gv .,4 6�,�S�I Sri' 14, ".,f i x 1 a a` prtr l C tLi.N' . {1M/ yc '''1 1 I'. "iii c4 i� W m O } ,... .,-., ) .F. iau �y /.� •{ ri: # Li #ter` i `a I 3� `'u _t (Yi pg V] ,' li p m 0,...,v i e Z o A, ' $Ai • '!.— 4 t y� ---i! 3 . I#1*W` i o, F". Q ;.- t£ `Jj r. }' 07 d 1 r r\. 'l,, scL -d a. _ - t ` . Lllt 1 r i r w 3 1,..F.-0- fig,^} '#,. . .' r°uLtrn�,,;ki x`"yt ',Lt.--I i, aw 0 r f Tai lii Q w 0 t 0 OW FyYG' � Sar` ' �4 `� t s ' t �/ O z# n �� " - r 2 o , y g 0.1 i< .'� � _�` Q is �J U ~ 2 F– a 1 �F ty W 4 •f73' a 2 - at f Rt .C��SSVIN� V ao � r D J . * '&'''''',,.1.:` to is sem= _- —7,:s. �r I— p,-1'.- ,, i k r `*��llriali.lilrtr1"I fl4- li1�Fr♦ ; A '^ Z ‘'';‘,.#1,j.:4, 7+" It��,;' rI �lR a, d ,'{� i+ 1'u"G f j3 r����, r�11 Oat ".lK YwiY►I. ',Amor*. LU p U2 1�, I' A! � .'�=`rR'. d Fzj ' ,-,t-7,.. }.�- or�'oty Qr'pQ ;w tj`;`F ?� ,� I `onwituti ` - slr.I Yid £ Manx g3 Inr�(� -- _ /tom. >t..a mi Ym 1a bE S Q M g 16 I— ick g - ___ � • / ! w o yaz° + �i / _ 1 o g co Waa o Ne i = W N 5— ,,,L.' v 9 F 3 3 ca � II I?�, i, B v N• /� ,� _ r _� mss' - d f-7 ---_ � -ao m'a )^`mint] , // U / V f E 3 c�c. �_ y f , J a>H55v Bt \J,/ / i (i 7 % /1 t E rte, N .,3crN'i i c_` - b -- = - /N / / Q CD Neie4a 4� . — 3 k = Z S np Pp S :e �;I rTiW r N y 7 w 3 I! AAS WIONOS.-. _,:a. L-- H U�j riJ \U :tj m O 0 11 / 011 III 1n`q ttifie ,. _ __ A in d.�i �`r \ ?] _ , �. , 0ulun/ "►.wtiiN ' rc2 La _ o z ..0 0 `/\C ' t� .-„-r,,,,, -•*• ,, _ wits . L. '� U� _V W ( oPcr o o”a' JW �y A F- r„,[__ . � � /noun ' % › . , _ r; . = 2 oco a ;�x a i 11 r Y J/// I/O�iilAm 8 ``�' . H c4 w Q , _r __ __ _—.�.�,A�39 a _ EfA19 awxneaL imam &� `;‘,17-. _'12-__- .'r' /.:_r-a, .. _— IP 1 Z a / 1 a c _ M iE W i /4 - i.. �• --�? U V45W 1P-1w ,4 > r-X / � / ~/` 0 $ ` O1\--- / W Et //;/ '':',�/' .is 1- l\Q _- 2 I— Y . 1 — — (l � � r S_ 'PA WU W i1T(• A.' )-) ' 3� CI r r J CD a:_- r' tw J_ v- 4, W °g cue/ i I 11 ; W c. re,-x< ‘._ , , , yJ��,yyl -1 i• --. "p; L5 T t.: �1� r 3 �B �Z4 o 0 0 p., try — TRE � ! m z -I1 I- Q r t a a n v_ w w m o 0 z z � -I � w Q la) 1 - Qwo ao8 '=1,3 co °- Fz-- a m ()_ cn Q CO I- x o LuM 0 • 0 ccH Ix � UC=!) wEi _ 4 c° cn ZW w � � /� � '� O w Qa Qz Q0 = =U' W N si N • 132 wc7 crre ww = z =cn I1 m m \\ ~Ili v Ce \ � ~Owp 0 zu) c) Zd N w� w - 2 U i I H: II w s Z < H J y z°O N /v)i W j'Yjya n3tsa+.nvqc UW 7LL Q ,I ZF- arae vwoNos H Vr p O: Y 0 U/ w H U] 5 ry i a., CC In e ^F -1 Q -4 N' + — VNwz Ci 4 CO te L1 mn$o a c omob3S3 . LOMvw ry Ni ` - /( H mo : O , 8 Z oo.,a _ _ r W © a \ Hasonny W m Q I o 1 w Nm � . i z F _a � O. Id ;so o W o� o //� oa F. = 'o D O o, i LWWT] \Wj ,7. W a .3sn - Uzi/ �14g )/// 41-' W a x J N U I— co � � 1 i GAO ///�� `� z cove —F, A n 2 u J wr moo: o J CD al fY J J U � Q - r F- Z 1— 1- P co cn in /� a..soo. JZ aP w :C;3-) 9;.atm, al o ' we N• N $4 Z / :41/2/1 . Q O5-tNtNia l� 8 Ft p4Z 2 — tn W m 2 /�� W O D • - -' - ---- [..r oA r O >0 0U3w W 1 o 0 .- Oy-.O 0z� 1," . H aoWF r-0Q Es 0 NQs N co •Q Zu.W- OSQ: T O W w Ow xmmf i = 0 N0. U JZELO 0zx._. o cD ax 0z 01-732 OYI W 4 N g1- N HV) UJWW-1NW U.d � 0Q .0 —JW U o wSzxUQ7 U Li. 7 - ct. 1- ,70Nc9MOenv�U CO W ccLLI _ t.% e/% 0 —z W 0 s — W F 1. ,o UH LT 111 �'� v J J 00m U z - /�/� LiJ ` ' A O rO'-NW li57 ly i .- n NWD o Li _ . - w _ • ,i3 oz. 8 E- r WNO OiU•,- Om O L ".�r Fn w ''moi t pp,.,,xx,,h d N ..1. -,44,,-* -, LO 2 .' �e mi w g W� w J C . `r + 1� Z� ',4 r• "' 1 rt •icy 1 _ Ow . - .moi J. . 'r„,,..,., ,t -,c*C - s . 1 LI 4t, �_ de o- w A. w r \ p bt _ u_ �/ :�: Fn. 4:i" In 77.--,7,..--1.---,-1-� 1 Ah; •, EC- ___. U f— �.' .-.- 0 ;--s - a U L W fY c W=r Uad r cn - a . a Lu oQ U—��. 4.6' ',,y4'. ti` Z 2� �m _ -11-.1 _ 1- L7: z,04,,r,s‘,,,,,, , fhit.',%, -- \ ,, < J thii v'' C7Q Z L1. U W iY� L -..I J rT Q Q W o 1 +„i-j It tc' �' - 0 n n n Li w y 0 0 0 o �n F z yr - � z > y gNN • _ SSb tom„ , .., T gTd o U. 0LL I ALL, co CO ?lb a1Nqr c.)az VOw Li oo� m -IQ a W CD 2 Q o`� C J LT. G Q Q CD . , CS.9Jf ,� ) / L . E"C Lm • . PRP \-1- p-,----?, ;L,E--=:0)-rE: 77:1 q•-•7',. E',-- .-...--:..-.e:. / , , es*c ; i , . . � �� f ! 7/ t F O 3 O m S2 Z t � 10_N w !tiCCCI` / LU QiM C1' N.E C ; ' t� / / 0 Om O oMh 4' Pi JO�� F4 � / w z o • - . . if un Tn „ m C m-7 _ Q� ,,,, , .,C ii II ' Ti, gI I-� /..in ad u; W W E I ( - fi7-7.---/ - i- 7- IN\ I, 2 _,.,ffi ow . //: LfomW i _ , `-W - FLL y _-Q / / l � / / O Q /� / � - - - r � zC� rl I- , / / ' J u______-^ ,A x V / ' a I-/mo _ Sw q / QCa II \ >' /- ~ LL. / n l '. Z / t -410 ti - l _ _�`_ —-- — C\ r __—I i` -.l_vim' .�-._—. 1);'-1.' \ n r r- W N�uN NjZ 1N.1NeNQ O O i i mm Na.” 1Q § S • • 1 • . • •EAST••TAIVIIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT - = • - . • 'GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN.AMENDMENT • . .. • .. ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT . • ' Revised"-February 2017 : ' 1 - - • •• Prepared For: - - - ...... . Torres Family..Hotdm s LLC. . . 3921.Prospect Avenue • _ • ; • . :.• .• ' Naples, Florida 34104 - _ ; • - • . - . - • • : . ' (904) :762-4454 " . • •• Prepared By; -. - • , -Passarella 4 Associates,Inc. - .. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, &rite 200 • ' • . - • - • .Fort Myers, Florida 33912 - •(239) 274=0067 . • . • • EXHIBIT C-1 . : .- . . ." • Project No. 12GGL215?._ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Vegetation Associations and Land Uses 1 • Soils 5 Jurisdictional Wetlands 7 Listed Species 7 References 8 i LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure f. Project Location Map 2 Figure 2. FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map 3 Figure 3. Soils Map 6 ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary 4 Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS 7 Table 3. Wetland Acreages by FLUCFCS Code 7 iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit A. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map A-1 Exhibit B.• Listed Species Survey B-1 iv INTRODUCTION The following information regarding site conditions and environmental considerations has been prepared for the proposed Growth Management Plan(GMP)amendment for the East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict(Project). The 5.81± acre Project site is located in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County(Figure 1). More specifically,the Project is found at the southeast corner of the intersection of US 41 (a.k.a.Tamiami Trail East)and Fiddlers Creek Parkway. The Project is bordered by US 41 and the Reflection Lakes development to the north;the Imperial Wilderness development to the east and south; and undeveloped land,Fiddlers Creek Parkway, and the Fiddlers Creek development to the west. The Project site is comprised mainly of forested uplands and wetlands that have been disturbed by the invasion of high levels of exotic vegetation including melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquinervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). The Project site itself is comprised mainly of forested uplands and wetlands that have been disturbed by the invasion of varying levels of exotic vegetation and an altered hydrologic regime. VEGETATION ASSOCATIONS AND LAND USES The existing vegetative cover and land uses on the Project site include a combination of undeveloped, disturbed land and forested uplands and wetlands with varying degrees of exotic infestation. The vegetation associations for the property were delineated using January 2012 rectified color aerials(Scale: 1"=200`). Groundtruthing was conducted in November 2012. These delineations were classified based on the nomenclature of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Levels III and IV (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote disturbance and"E"codes were used to identify levels of exotic species invasion (i.e., melaleuca, downy rose-myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), and Brazilian pepper). AutoCAD Map 3D 2015 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapped polygon,produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS map(Figure 2 and Exhibit A). A total of nine vegetative associations and land uses(i.e.,FLUCFCS codes)were identified on the property. The dominant habitat type on the property is Pine,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics)(FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3), accounting for 28.2 percent of the property (1.64± acres). Exotic vegetation documented on-site includes,but is not limited to,Brazilian pepper,melaleuca,java plum(Syzygium spp.),earleaf acacia,and wedelia(Sphagneticola trilobata)(formerly known as Wedelia trilobata). The degree of exotic infestation ranges from 50 to nearlyl 00 percent cover. Table 1 summarizes the FLUCFCS acreages and a brief description of each FLUCFCS classification follows. 1 : CO , 849 _ G L AL * "1111110 OIL WELL RD ,, \miI , .... ,1 11" ell Tr44014; � 5, L %tallt o ¢ I, p ' GOLDEN GATE BLVD 29 r"cN N i Z OIli 41 IIIII i rrarF41A ``4' fM E ,p Ar N z �,�111114 ,RT4,44EKOALE 0 440W KEYNES"( ¢ ` m. ✓ I I � pF I I t., �� -QTS '�'` ,,4,ao 4-u�/�/ ti- r iiiik\ y ) r, Y �I' �FRICE ST {� Aye a �� I -� ii i r ,--- ,_ – I1 + \ T`D I I t`"" ' �' "'r I '`ow ,� -j— �- - �`� w �,,� � so 1 4 ' li\1.'1"A.G‘ — / z i , 1f ..�' h -e PALM DRT �Z�'. 11/ !' I. ' I 1-7 4,...--,a,,,:?,....,:....,4 a-' : tai s, ''' �n 4. , .s TOWER',R � ( RW�"4 HE __ - - y J�{'`'� NS:� OOpi b _n E1R DR ' --- - __.__ _ _,I e' ( i` z =MANATEEtRD`� _.,.., �} P / I 1 'i ''3 0 rl ! C . I ^7 ." ��.,} .1 a — r.w OP r irr , I,,,' .a ":z _ • - .> O- ` ,'t x' ,w_,—FR,ITCHEY_RD� n a, ....ma 4 �' - 0 Z px i Ci,, �, o • N PROJECT LOCATION '' Eci i N' N-,, ry ' a U� SEC 12,TWP 51 S,RNG 26 E , - •o ,t m` X 7ARETE�DR del' ,l 4, { 1 -� •°'SNE NETEEZ µ I yf„,y4 MA CIR fy mS:V 3Cc = E Ofl C �P i 04tlR( 4 ! o r. CRA}'M!F>tl_ONSM/P },j�w:lm" � t ,�{'',F z jy. ,_ , �. '1 a$; r' '�1CHj7jyy 7_� q ��z � _____,,,S.;;,.Sto (� : i i1‘7".'44 i O • a�n� 9N�DP`�P'ER'OR ¢,i '...e-&" ~a c, r' 4'll, TREUVL -- .x i °#i c A ¢� ¢F b lbst, c a ..= 7 '� I ,�w- Y ry y \ I Q� y� r 1a yc^ �� J � I PORT.AU PRINCE DR m$ Q. .mo,,-.169;'4:1 s° 3;D L -f,. ' s ,alt. q _ ,,,a• 74cE 2, - - ' , -__.-1 , 4.4. 4. Mr-'4 LATER 3`' .:....Z"...� _1 �`�- iir `\_ ,/ V.‘' -%;", ,R , LN .. MAPS 'a� ( _ - ' 'x.. A ::� ' '� AryO RO N. E'�� - 'i'VA W P� /a {x' '�.. I 4.11,:. • ''� ,'y', � i' o ,l, . g fi �'I 7\ -, '( DRAWN BY DATE " D.B. 10/3/16 N FIGURE I.PROJECT LOCATION MAP REVIEWED EE"�"E°'Y DATE 0/3 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT B.B. io/3/16 -fAPASSARELLA ��'�°s& ASSOCIATES a REVISED DATErolof�so D.B. 2/9/17 FLUCFCS %OF CODES DESCRIPTIONS A ACTOTAL 4159 E3 PINE,DISTURBED(50-75%EXOTICS) 1.64Ac.± 282% 4279 E3 LIVE OAK,DISTURBED(50-75%EXOTICS) 0.10Ac.± 1.7% 4349 E4 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED,DISTURBED(76-100%EXOTICS) 0.48 Ac.± 8.3% 6215 E4 CYPRESS,DISTURBED AND DRAINED(76-100%EXOTICS) 0.69 Ac.± 11.9% 6219 E4 CYPRESS,DISTURBED(76-100%EXOTICS) 0.74 Ac.± 12.7% N 6245 E3 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM,DISTURBED AND DRAINED(50-75%EXOTICS) 0.19 Ac.± 3.3% 6249 E3 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM,DISTURBED(50-75%EXOTICS) 1.49 Ac.± 25.6% `,/ 740 DISTURBED LAND 0.31 Ac.± 5.3% SCALE:1"a 100' 7401 DISTURBED LAND,HYDRIC 0.17 Ac.± 2.9% TOTAL 5.81 Ac.± 100.0% 4349E4 (0.48 Ac.±) W W 740 W W W x(0.15 Ac.t) W W W 740 W w W (0.01 Ac.t) ` W W W WW W W 4279E3 . 6215E4 W W W W (0.10 Ac.t) (0.07 Ac.t) V rs W 6249E3 WW W W 4444 W W(0.42 Ac.±) W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W WW W W W W W 6245E3 7401 (0.19 Ac.t) (0.13 Ac.± W W W W P/L 4159E3 W .....---..„, / (1.64 Ac.±) 740 IMPERIAL (0.11 Ac.t) , WILDERNESS w FIDDLERS _/CREEK W WWW N a CL W W W W W W W W Li W W W W W W W W X W W W W W W W W IZ W W W W W W W W Q W W W W W W W W IL W W W W L W W W W W W W W W W `9 W WW W W W 4 W W W W W W W W W W W W W 3 • 6249E3 W * W LEGEND: Y W * W (1.07 Ac.±) W W W W W W W • O- W W POTENTIAL SFWMD AND COE WETLANDS W W W W W W W W W W W W (2.40 Ac.t) U1 W W W W W W W WWW W W W W W W W W W W W W W , \/ SURVEYED WETLAND LINE a U W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W cn W W W W W W W W W W W W W J W W W W W W W W W W. W W W W W W W W W W W W W i C2 W W W W W W W W W W W IT ��74W W W 01 W WWWWW W W W W W NOTES: WWWWyWW (0.04Ae.t) W4. WW w WWWW WW PROPERTY TY BOUNDARY AND SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER TRASK SURVEYING DRAWING No.16-24SR-COPY.DWG GWWWWWwW WW W DATED JANUARY 26,2017. WWW W W W W W WWW WWW W W W W W FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM I'=200'AERIAL W * W 6219E4 W W W W . W W PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. LL W W W(0.74 Ac.±)W W W W WW W W W W 0 W W W W W WWW W W W W W W W W FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE,COVER AND FORMS i W W W W W WW W W W W CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM(FLUCFCS)(FOOT 1999). f W W W W 6215E4 UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED W WWW 740 BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TO (0.04,Ac.±) (0.62 Ac.t) CHANGE. Pt DRAWN BY DATE D.B. 10/4/16El n PASSARELLA FIGURE 2.FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP BB"�". 10/4/16 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICTDATE REVISED &ASSOCIATES a y D.B. 2/9/17 3 Table 1. Existing Land Use and Cover Summary FLUCFCS Percent Code Description Acreage of Total 4159 E3 Pine,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 1.64 28.2 4279 E3 Live Oak,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 0.10 1.7 4349 E4 Hardwood/Conifer Mixed,Disturbed 0.48 8.3 (76-100%Exotics) 6215 E4 Cypress,Disturbed and Drained(76-100% Exotics) 0.69 11.9 6219 E4 Cypress,Disturbed(76-100% Exotics) 0.74 12.7 6245 E3 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed and Drained 0,19 3.3 (50-75%Exotics) 6249 E3 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed 1.49 25.6 (50-75%Exotics) 740 Disturbed Land 0.31 5.3 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 0.17 2.9 Totals 5.81 100.0 Pine,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E3) This upland habitat type totals 1.64±acres or 28.2 percent of the Project area.The canopy includes slash pine(Pinus elliottii),cabbage palm(Sabal palmetto), and Florida strangler fig(Ficus aurea). The sub-canopy also includes cabbage palm and slash pine along with Brazilian pepper and earleaf acacia.The ground cover consists of spermacoce(Spermacoce verticillata),little blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muhlenbergium), and live oak(Quercus virginiana). Live Oak, Disturbed(50-75%Exotics)(FLUCFCS Code 4279 E3) This habitat totals 0.10±acre or 1.7 percent of the Project area and is found near the north boundary of the site. The canopy and sub-canopy include live oak, earleaf acacia, and melaleuca. The sub- canopy also includes cabbage palm.The ground cover contains spermacoce,muscadine grape(Vitis rotundifolia), caesarweed (Urena lobata), greenbriar (Smilax sp), live oak, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Hardwood/Conifer Mixed,Disturbed(76-100%Exotics)(FLUCFCS Code 4349 E4) This habitat totals 0.48±acre or 8.3 percent of the Project area and is located in the northern most corner of the site.The canopy consists of slash pine,cabbage palm,and live oak.The sub-canopy is similar with slash pine and cabbage palm,but it also contains Brazilian pepper.The ground cover includes Brazilian pepper, caesarweed, dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), muscadine grape, cabbage palm, and Virginia creeper(Parthenocissus quinquefolia). Cypress, Disturbed and Drained(76-100%Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6215 E4) This habitat type totals 0.69± acre or 11.9 percent of the site. The canopy is dominated by bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and also contains slash pine, cabbage palm,live oak, swamp laurel oak(Quercus laurifolia),and earleaf acacia.The sub-canopy is dominated by Brazilian pepper and also includes cabbage palm, earleaf acacia, Florida strangler fig, and myrsine cubana (Rapanea punctata). In this community, the ground cover consists of swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), 4 Virginia creeper, wild coffee (Psychotria nervosa), caesarweed, bay Biscayne wedelia (Wedelia trilobata), and myrsine cubana. Cypress,Disturbed(76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E4) This wetland community extends along the south side of the Project area and totals 0.74± acre or 12.7 percent of the site. The canopy vegetation includes slash pine, bald cypress, cabbage palm, earleaf acacia,melaleuca,live oak,and swamp laurel oak.The sub-canopy includes Brazilian pepper, myrsine cubana, earleaf acacia, cabbage palm, and Florida strangler fig. The ground cover for this habitat type is made up of swamp fern,myrsine cubana, Virginia creeper, wild coffee, muscadine grape, caesarweed, and greenbriar. Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed and Drained(50-75%Exotics)(FLUCFCS Code 6245 E3) This habitat type exists along the eastern boundary of the Project site and totals 0.19± acre or 3.3 percent of the site.The canopy includes slash pine,cabbage palm,and bald cypress.The sub-canopy is dominated by Brazilian pepper and includes cabbage palm as well.The ground cover consists of spermacoce,myrsine cubana, little blue maidencane,poison ivy,muscadine grape, and greenbriar. Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E3) This habitat type is the most dominant on the property,taking up 1.49±acres or 25.6 percent of the site.The canopy and sub-canopy are dominated by slash pine and also includes bald cypress,Florida strangler fig,cabbage palm,and earleaf acacia.The sub-canopy also includes Brazilian pepper.The ground cover consists of myrsine cubana,swamp fern,Virginia creeper,caesarweed,and poison ivy. Disturbed Land(FLUCFCS Code 740) This area is located along the east side of the site that borders a neighborhood.The area totals 0.31± acre or 5.3 percent of the Project area. The canopy and sub-canopy vegetation is scattered earleaf acacia.The ground cover is a mixture of species typical of disturbed areas and includes spermacoce, caesarweed, and poison ivy. Disturbed Land,Hydric(FLUCFCS Code 7401) This area is located on the northeastern side of the Project site and accounts for 0.17± acre or 2.9 percent of the site. The canopy consists of melaleuca, slash pine, and swamp laurel oak. The sub- canopy is made up of melaleuca,Brazilian pepper,and earleaf acacia.The ground cover for this area includes spermacoce, caesarweed, little blue maidencane, and poison ivy. SOILS The soils for the property,per the Natural Resource Conservation Service(MRCS)(formerly the Soil Conservation Service), are shown on Figure 3 and listed in Table 2. Y5Y 5 1 1 i----...k\ .- i' .. \'' 'N-,'' .. 4% . '': '..-'". %,,' . ' .1, : I. i s \ 4 iii i v i. '' '' i PROJECT \ N � LOCATION 4 3 N, N. , ... . _., . „„ . „..,.. ., , „......, ... . t,c, ...., ..., ,... %,:- .. .. ... .. . .. , . . _ . .... __ ,„ . , ..... ,.... .„ ... 2 t k • ,...# .• : .-- 32 `ilk. /. , , ("7- •4 ry,.. c . .m., ' Ya ` " -. i-N''..*.'''ir aaii i., lale � It 111� NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH FLIGHT DATES Soli Unit Description Hydric OF DECEMBER 2015-FEBRUARY 2016. 2 HOLOPAW FINE SAND,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM YES LEGEND 3 MALABAR FINE SAND YES PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER TRASK SURVEYING 14 PINEDA FINE SAND,UMESTONE SUBSTRATUM YES 32 URBAN LANGDRAWING No.16-24SR-COPY.DWG DATED ;I EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT NO JANUARY 26,2017. .3 ---- - - -- _-- -----------'------- ROADWAY NETWORKS WERE ACQUIRED FROM THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE. 0 100 200 SOILS MAPPING WAS ACQUIRED FROM Feet THE FLORIDA GEOGRAPHIC DATA LIBRARY WEBSITE OCTOBER 2007 AND CREATED BY THE NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION q SERVICE 1990. riDRAWN BY DATE F. T.S. 7/7/16 FIGURE 3.SOILS MAP REVIEWED BE DATE PASSARELLA li, B.B. 7/7/16 Con,,,1r1„g EAST T�TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT ,,. DATE "clis" & ASSOCIATES T. D.B. 2/9/17 6 Table 2. Soils Listed by the NRCS • Mapping Unit Description '. 2 Holopaw Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum 3 Malabar Fine Sand 14 Pineda Fine Sand,Limestone Substratum 32 Urban Land JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS The subject property was reviewed for wetlands using the"Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters"(Chapter 62-340, Florida Administrative Code). The Project site contains 2.40±acres of wetlands(Figure 2 and Exhibit A).The wetlands identified by FLUCFCS code include approximately 1.49 acres of Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed(50- 75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6249 E3); 0.74± acre of Cypress, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E4);and 0.17±acre of Disturbed Land,Hydric(FLUCFCS Code 7401). The estimated wetlands for the property are shown in Figure 2 and Exhibit A. The wetlands by FLUCFCS code are summarized in Table 3. Table 3. Wetland Acreages by FLUCFCS Code FLUCFCS Description Acreage Code 6219 E4 Cypress,Disturbed(76-100%Exotics) 0.74 6249 E3 Cypress/Pine/Cabbage Palm,Disturbed(50-75%Exotics) 1.49 7401 Disturbed Land,Hydric 0.17 Total 2.40 LISTED SPECIES A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by Passarella&Associates, Inc. on the Project site on April 28, 2016. No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species surveys or other work conducted on the Project site. Common wild pine(Tillandsia fasciculata)was observed throughout the Project site. Common wild pine is listed as endangered by the Florida Depai lment of Agriculture and Consumer Services. The listed species survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit B. 7 REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. . 1 9 t.nk} 8 EXHIBIT A AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP I tt. • } ii A .y \ ��a FLUCFCS %OF \ ' CODES DESCRIPTIONS ACREAGE TOTAL • \ 4159 E3 PINE,DISTURBED(50-75%EXOTICS) 1.64Ac.± 28.2% `_. 0.10Ac.± 1.7% + ' 4) \ \ 427903 LIVE OAK,DISTURBED(50-75%EXOTICS) 0.48Ac.± 8.3% ,' \ 4349 E4 HARDWOOD/CONIFER MIXED,DISTURBED(76-100%EXOTICS) 0.69Ac.± 11.3% 6215 E4 CYPRESS,DISTURBED AND DRAINED(76.100%EXOTICS) 9% \ 6219 E4 CYPRESS,DISTURBED(76-100%EXOTICS) 0.74 Ac.± 12.7% \N� \ 6245 E3 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM,DISTURBED AND DRAINED(50-75%EXOTICS) 0.19 Ac.± 3.3% 2 6249 E3 CYPRESS/PINE/CABBAGE PALM,DISTURBED(50-75%EXOTICS) 1.49 Ac.-.."-- 25.6% 740 DISTURBED LAND 0.31 Ac.± 5.3% 0.17 Ac.± 2.9% SALE: i'' 1°iY 7401 DISTURBED LAND,HYDRIC TOTAL 5.81 AC.± 100.0% 4349E4 (0.48 Ac 11 \ \ ' V A\\ 4 (0.154AC +) i i •i 741 A w \ A ` , ` . i (O.D(At.:, v v i w . . 427903 621,5 \ "`� \ diteitittit r (0.10 Act) (0.07 AC.x, \ -Sb 624903 i a • + (0.42 Ac±) • .. \ ,, � i Y i ` \ i i V i V W + i i \ itit 6245E3 740 44 N (0.19 Ac±) (0 13 Ac.± 415903 4 (1.64 AC.±) � Tao I IMPERIAL (o ii Ac t) WILDERNESS :_FIDDLER ., _ CREEK o i r ♦ • r i i i • i i'. • r' . *•i +W.•i'`V••• i•ii •i iii•i .}♦i.Vr V V ' Qa s, , s • + i c ss • • + ` LEGEND: +• i62 - - • POTENTIAL SFWMD AND COE WETLANDS ETLANDS ▪ a (1,07 AC.s) * * i d! • (2.40 AC.t) ' `.,, SURVEYED WETLAND LINE W V VV i .. • Vi .. . • i '.' , c C V 414;11: V i V • + V V + i V V i i t 0i Ce •V • • •. • • • i + • • W V • • W 1 i • i + • ii r • �i �� • • • ` • • + ` ` • + + i _. NOTES: 1 ' ` i ` ` i ` . + • inill AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE 4 IT 7401 • • ` i COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH t +(0.0k Ac.t) ` • * * + • • + + FLIGHT DATES OF DECEMBER 2015-FEBRUARY 2016. + y ` i ` • + jimiN PROPERTY BOUNDARY AND SURVEYED WETLAND LINES i .. i L i i` •i i •. r PER TRASK SURVEYING DRAWING No.16-24SR-COPY.DWG i up! i ` ` DATED JANUARY 26,2017. . ` ` 621904 + ` • i i + i i i + + . i FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM I'=200'AERIAL ` +i(0 74 U.t)* i • PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. � ` . r + * + + ` k FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE,COVER AND FORMS + + + y • s i + + ' CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM(FLUCFCS)(FDOT 1999). ` i li --.. • 740 621504 UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED 1 6 ,, (0.62 Ac i) .r {p.04Ac.t) EMI BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TO �. 4CHANGE. 9 DRAWN BY D.B. 1°°All PAS SARE LLA EXHIBIT A.AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP "�'E°BY °">E unail � EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT B.B. 10/4/16 REVISED DATE cEca1agaiong& ASSOCIATES z - D.B. 2/9/17 EXHIBIT B LISTED SPECIES SURVEY EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT LISTED SPECIES SURVEY July 2016 INTRODUCTION This report documents the listed species survey conducted by Passarella&Associates, Inc. (PAI) on April 28, 2016 for the East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict (Project). The purpose of the survey was to review the Project site for plant and wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC), the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, species of special concern, or commercially exploited. The survey is also intended to be consistent with the environmental data submittal and protected plant requirements as outlined in Sections 3.08.00.A.4.b and 3.04.03, respectively, of the Collier County Land Development Code(LDC). The Project totals 5.64± acres and is located in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the Project is found at the southeast corner of the intersection of US 41 (a.k.a. Tamiami Trail East) and Fiddlers Creek Parkway. The Project is n bordered by US 41 and the Reflection Lakes development to the north; the Imperial Wilderness development to the east and south; and undeveloped land, Fiddlers Creek Parkway, and the Fiddlers Creek development to the west. The Project site is comprised mainly of forested uplands and wetlands that have been disturbed by the invasion of high levels of exotic vegetation including melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquinervia), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), and earleaf acacia(Acacia auriculiformis). METHODOLOGY AND DISCUSSION The listed plant and wildlife species survey included an on-site survey conducted on April 28, 2016 and a literature search for local, state, and federal listed species. The field survey methodology consisted of qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects across the property (Figure 2). The transects were generally walked approximately 50 to 100 feet apart depending on habitat type and visibility. The weather during the survey was sunny with partly cloudy skies, light wind, and temperatures in the mid-80s. The literature search involved an examination of available information on listed species in the Project's geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species (2015); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al. 2006); and USFWS and FWCC databases for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),red-cockaded woodpecker(Picoides borealis) (RCW), Florida black B-1 bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and wading bird rookeries (such as the wood stork (Mycteria americana)) in Collier County. The results of the literature search found no documented occurrences of listed wildlife species on-site (Figure 3). The FWCC and USFWS database information is updated on a periodic basis and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information that was reviewed is current through the noted dates for the following four species: Florida panther telemetry—June 2015; bald eagle nest locations — August 2015; black bear telemetry— December 2007; RCW locations — August 2015; scrub jay locations — August 2014; and wading bird rookeries — December 1999. RESULTS The results of the survey identified no listed wildlife species on the Project site. Two squirrel nests were observed on the Project site during the survey; however, no Big Cypress fox squirrels (Sciurus niger avicennia) were observed during the time of the survey. One listed plant species, the common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), was observed throughout the Project site. The FDACS lists common wild pine as endangered, but it is not a federally listed plant species. This species is also listed on the"Less Rare Plant"list per Section 3.04.03 of the LDC. The literature search found no documented occurrences for listed wildlife species on the Project site(Figure 3). The closest documented bald eagle nest is CO-037, which is located approximately 1.80 miles south-southeast of the site. The nest distance is beyond the USFWS and the FWCC recommended 660-foot buffer protection zone for active and alternate bald eagle nests. No RCW colonies or cavity trees are documented within the vicinity of the Project, per the FWCC's database (Figure 3). The closest noted RCW colony is located approximately 2.83 miles northwest of the Project site. This location, along with the others documented west of County Road 951 (a.k.a. Collier Boulevard), are considered relic or historic locations as there are no currently known active cavity trees west of Collier Boulevard, based on PAI's survey experience in this region over the last 20 years. No Florida panther telemetry is located on the Project site(Figure 3). The closest telemetry point is a historical point located approximately 0.40 mile northwest of the Project. This historical telemetry point was from Florida panther(FP)No. 146 and was recorded in December 2007; due to the failure of his tracking collar, the status of FP No. 146 is unknown. The property does not occur within the Florida panther Primary Zone(Kautz et al. 2006) (Figure 4). The Project site is not located within the 30 kilometer(18.6 miles) Core Foraging area (CFA) of any documented wood stork rookeries(Figure 5). The site's wetland communities predominantly consist of a mixture of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), and cabbage palm. These communities would provide some suitable foraging habitat for the wood B-2 stork; however,the heavy invasion by exotic species, such as earleaf acacia and Brazilian pepper in the canopy and sub-canopy strata make it difficult for the birds to access and utilize. As a result,the property's foraging potential is rather poor. SUMMARY The April 28, 2016 field survey documented one listed plant species, common wild pine, on the Project site. No listed wildlife species were documented. The literature search and review of agency databases found no documented occurrences for listed species on the Project site. The Project site is not located within the Primary Zone for the Florida panther or within the CFA of any wood stork colonies. The Project site is located within approximately 2.83 miles of one historical RCW colony. The Project site is not located within the vicinity of an active bald eagle nest. B-3 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2015. Florida's Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non-Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133 Logan, Todd,Andrew C. Eller, Jr.,Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the t Southeast Region. } 2 gg 1 B-4 ALIc•RD LEE .._-I _ 82 -.. _—� ,i) la vvimuii Ps. ____, �. P CU 01914, . al LP LE WI 4451,1 i{ ;(0'i I 49 I • � 111 � • ( . • • -""'-1 I 46 _ I EACH o 1 OIL WELL RD 58 Q —__-- O GOLDEN GATE BLVD Ci��LLI�R ,� r. 75 ,..„ .ex 1 E ww g * , .! [ ' W � N w i'• o W ___....;'>.I.;:..7....-.- °r, al }y 1 fiff4z Gu V Pt�{tE4, O Madge ► 11, mCI s • :k ._4 ��;- KEYWAY -, .;.,- ,..0,, ',1Figr tifo 114\iNtr T- ''P:.7 CE a* A4 444. % rw ate- I IP 1 s :i '.t:' , ,;-,-.,....- ,,-.. , ,i6---,,,ti, t . ii- - ,1 T ,� �i r'4c ORT.p 4'y� � 'EA'u!��gFfKpR,-, tI' .a -; _ ..', ._ '.t4.Fr I __ - - - o.,051_1,c '-++" � :12. \14„..-.3- i -- PAL DRY t'z\ i - 4.. N R A Lug e 11 I L ,�--�.�-.�.I 1..:� !,I r t11. �' � i It ,-.-114 ,,,';,...._.j0 of Ef3?Ds- 1. ERiwoo 7 _.1zF,m F PROJECT LOCATION -- ys . � �90 y � s`,ER SEC 12,TWP 51 S,RNG 26 E ? •_:,I ' •MANATEE'RD, f^P�G -L.,a, c cn ,° • .. z a v •,r,: JP i�-s¢ � � � ' .FRITCNE..Rp__i " . ASO _ O --,� +,.y ./ _ -,- " -.. a¢i l i \r Nl � �P2I c.' IN ` � �`rA�0. ,-i- � --.. y p • Y ..,, .' A4rr c-ei .�,y m • : .` , • •..1 SJR a �" ____- a I SILVER LAKES 9LVDjii 2.00-' - - .. �. q I• „_ c Zy�E �_A E AV MAR SIR �- - 1 i7-1,11.4 ILE - Uu R Ftxa«s a 1 j�# ` s; ill P., :CHAMRIONg /.., 'N C 4' + ri �•4. 4Se 7u a ' �+ .111:' � rn Z R � 'TJx S - �R k; : b ,.a -1----, va ' TREUX„LN•:!�.r '�-•• ' ... --Q '''' •¢ • 4N P D r. i`\ ..e • 4` Z a �io.i ^' a0 ”''.r.'*+.,a,_ y,0 4 ...:c7:,£k! it 1 ji-E . --=',1 I � PORLALIPRINCE DR m� 4 C(�6 ,-.:z� ':r - 1 r- : a �C� 1 LENTER tBV�� '''''.11- � _ • :,a�� ! ; '�tV'Y ,•o,•qW `}{N AR5H D9 x- q ..' �1 YYYY H. i4Y�• '=, 6 ii DAWN BY °A'[E H.H. 5/11/16 FIGURE 1.PROJECT LOCATION MAP REVISED 'E`' °BY °"'� PAS SAKE LLA Al EAST TA.MIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT K.N. 5/11/16 �O zU,,,�s °"� E�°'°g�� IST... ASSOCIATES z i - -..„. -irAtik -„,N \ "L„,. t ! , —-V t'‘''' . - s'ilefl' TDI ASN-2, \ ,, i •�� \ ° � i 1 4 \ �< �. —�--P/L v 1 1 < . t� s IFS ' FIDDLERS,: . ,,°13 ;3 ” . + RE- tC h SN-1 ' * .. n I P * I` ,.. ., r E 4 , A p Q 9 g T x I w< � � ,, I lir - VI"- * 1 1-; g=', i � 3 I A_ Y , E $ LEGEND: I + 0 SN-7 SQUIRREL NEST LOCATION SURVEY TRANSECTS .. NOTES: 1 ,s.. Z i 1 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH I till° FLIGHT DATES OF DECEMBER 2015 TO JANUARY 2016. iPROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RHODES AND RHODES LAND t. SURVEYING,INC.DRAWING N0.14050 TAMIAMI TRAIL /10 STATE PLANE.DWGD DATED SEPTEMBER 29,2016. 44iiii p FIGURE 2.AERIAL WITH SQUIRREL NEST T.S.,H.H. 5/11/16 PAS SAR E LLA i AND CAVITY TREE LOCATIONS , h c.��u�g& ASSOCIATES EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL INFILL SUBDISTRICT D DA Emlogis U N D.B. 10/5/16 In m _ N L w j .N OZo �N wK �� 1-1 N UZ � U CC r r W wNdn Q OQZW813w Z J O Z J N 2 3� amn UW N yr v Z J J o p I N Zrrn Zrrn awn a' y` w7 O a r = r —s' N Og Og >dW O VS K? F w = m p m u z /I\ N r S Ua uac EN 3a aN 0„: r^ �(/�� J E Z Z —1 Z J DU �Un WUO OW p SVP' Vl Vl a � a a 3 a } r� ',,0- P4: wi :q rc o (�� t 0 a J U a a a F- r a >� r I-- la a m 3 o z= ml=-z� wT oa 1}_ urZ F- 4 K U U U Z S ! V, 4 of 3 3 3 w &? goy zo�'U 1' o:o 0o (.. .0 O aaQ K a • Ww UD: a0:� V.1 CO LL U. U.. � N Z WLL mLLU LL�N K3 NLL �iLLU 0 i • P / •• �• • w : _,1 CNIIO N ca w W 3 o Hfz ZA otN C m N C \I/ h }r-Ni V W ai cel z z \ N ` < O C7 Q uDN WE Eg UH-fir<J d rn am nfl z a s P1 Q1--i if,. 6 ' !, b A'-1 Arl A i--I N N try Y z r w / r sxlz• i .. 1 I by"ubrW gam ` s X e '-„7 s U J. 1 VV' se c oI 1, ti. ooA Y SPP ) tu t ZCO r•a �I m, �� - N cd o _ _ W Fyyfe� _ w �J �h G- d' �� _Jab13aOHSAV9 y— 1 co) fry-ft WV ZZ LO:01 O LIOZ/01/7-O0H'S3HOZ713HIN,d'y'3b001j\53SnOId\SS1\9102\SID\SSIZ7002I\ZIOZ\f W o w ,ei am U o W i a �3 11-- l 1 N w Ei w o z I z,. P4 U wY v �o o o z i� ,, N of �u r"o Jo I. ou . r� Cn 01' C )� ) O o-o zcoi 3 o a o w Z ai o�s 0 ¢ O K z u2.3a of 0 Q au_ •o m yt n 3, 1 I vz D E -- P� - N m ax R a if r of I6 .., , . , ...„. t\ . •... ,__ , v,.-.. (jam] ...„. ,,,„ `rte 4_ � L'� r- _ ,. _. _____ r „. • 1 2 ..,,)1 i _ -_— —._-.-- 0 g UgA ---•\-----`,...—______ —) ,• a O. 0 0 g E * \ . ui P U " � a � \. QO cno U Hi IIIf .I — :[.:o 0 LIO -•XWw' III ON I-no. aois••o• ,a \-••- 1'ri 1519\SSIZ'1saZl\IWVf COMMERCIAL NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 14050 TAM IAM I TRAIL EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA January 22, 2018 Prepared for Torres Family Holdings LLC 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, FL 33912 Prepared by !JIJ. Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Suite 100 707 Orchid Drive Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 269-1341 Ree-i.Com EXHIBIT D-1 Background Torres Family Trust LLC ("Client") is preparing to submit a Collier County Growth Management Plan ("GMP") amendment to change the zoning on a 5.72 +/- acre parcel located at 14050 Tamiami Trial East approximately 2.5 miles southeast of C.R. 951 (Collier Boulevard) in Collier County, Florida. The property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District and Urban Coastal Fringe Sub district and is currently zoned A, Rural Agriculture. The Client is seeking to change the zoning to Urban Mixed Use District, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Sub district. The Client is interested in developing the property as a C-3 Commercial site including 60,000 square feet of retail and office space ("Subject Property"). The Client has retained Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. ("Consultant") to prepare a Commercial Needs Analysis to determine the potential for developing retail and office space on the Subject Site as required by the Collier County Future Land Use Element ("FLUE"). The FLUE requires a commercial needs analysis ("Study")with the submittal of a commercial rezone within a Mixed Use Activity Center. The proposed Sub district is not located within an Activity Center. However, Collier County staff has requested a basic commercial needs analysis. The Consultant is well-versed in preparing real estate market studies especially in the Southwest Florida marketplace. This Study is comprised of four parts; the site assessment, the demand component, the supply component and the demand/supply comparison analysis. 1.0 Site Assessment 1.1 Subject Property Attributes The Subject Property is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East (US41), approximately 1/2 mile SE of Manatee Road and opposite Walnut Lakes PUD (Reflection Lakes at Naples), in Section 12 — Township 51 -- Range 26. The site attributes data and aerial photo in Table 1.1.1 on the next page was obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector's websites for the Subject Property. Located on the next page is a summary of the Subject Property's legal, location, zoning, 'and land use attributes. 1 Table 1.1.1 , , �" i .< s�t! ,,,, Ak 7"Ip*. �� 4< '141 ,. F 1 e i r s ', 1 Yr t !*"' lit - y F 3 y ,ti �..... _... t4 /ilUllr''— ' . • "Mi .PAW...d&'►K.H'�1 r . 2 �isit— v .44/ • - •. Nw�i101�a lil4".7�liw ,0 A <.. r Imo 4`;•Z1 COMA ,r �pl.�e LK �` I `�, Y IMtC 0/1 IMis ��•M SItT <."61 rr�}'**,4S •y '1L. lJi+4.3 RCt L1R�L t4*SJO►: • r r ,+ './ /' ..........4,.....„..,....,,..„........;...x,,.. • MwL,40tNL•M1u 'T •. .., 7 '",.. 4� .,, a y11 -4. � tom *. • c f.:g���4.,,t j a w _ '1 21M fririrlinNry+Wirr YI/►Miii.,l�l�>'�..f�riallwlts#A�i w..Il..ill�4"."4"..4".•I'I r+r 4".".r+,rs-"ar.s-. wwsIwo. w .�+wa+N—ws Com►� 3/'M�R PrepietySuittrgiary 1111114 Am* Te1�1 ►MAFNatOOK111C I i_ Crs FIORDS sem/1t I 211"In Mg". 1 SAN.. S ._!. * Ilw�. Ao�..�r aszg" ON111enw12 f 12 j I i i 171 gin 25 CO101 Of IafEC CFS Nit 41,W SWCI IU SLG RK T.1171FT a„it.IlT Legal NWLY MG SNLY 1/W US 1117/FT TO P01.I. SN11/fTOmen c MFT AID ISS051.1tK1pSFA! 42 SJSAC OR SLIM 2S/ emiummta - .<...... tiaraliet`*5 �_ ii— Imo_AcSore/ cow1"11 N S1- �iAQNOT 2�Af T it i 121i y [2S1 11-513 Latest Sates History nu y Tax Reg lylr.HrwWi.ra11wW1/ w+MrrN.Mq 1! ! .414/44i; { iw..t la�thlll. SWAM' wise saw W....r_v.. $iL1Ms i•-.IRO. t7klilj M Messiv in T1i�121� 1y SIi.Airu1kV .* SaL;1M1 iK i1a111WYe .. .. .... ..- t 71117: rrhrl... __ _.._ __a..rirlr.li.lrrrrM Source: Collier County Property Appraiser, September, 2016 2 1.2 Location Analysis The Subject Property's strategic location allows reasonable access to the site and provides for an ideal location for commercial activities. The Subject Property is located approximately two-miles from designated Activity Center 18 shown in Figure 1.2.1 below. Figure 1.2.1 ACtIYRV oRR In. i 1 ��� U "7 i #i&S\ . illINN#)) . 44ppop/..4 4.14011( I1nurnIbw?#t 111111111111 4/11;,zi 4 ` i \ `` m.aj MUSA-MAMA 1A Atli Q11 Ila 1gHi) siig :°4 P 4 No../ 0.i._II. loin ® , 114 ill 2I WOW 1 A : �� i — �l;ir,! __ )agar mro wwrr 6141 As. i ...,,,,,,,,„ ,,... _c i.. JJ r __...• �IIIIIIIIIIf I'.I '. ''.�� Source: Collier County Growth Management Plan As noted above, the Subject Property is strategically located to accommodate the proposed commercial uses including retail and general office. The commercial offerings will have high visibility to Tamiami Trail East and provides easy ingress and egress access to the northern extension of Collier Boulevard immediately north of Immokalee Road. The following figures show the location of the property and the property up close. 3 Figure 1.2.2 r O . p t ''.-. 2', ' ehl,:g_:''''..**k '- t ' ' N K -Nb . 1*1 '' . ' . '41*/ ‘,„it .r: w " 3 ,,, t }Dlif • fig 14,'...-v9," *.` ` ". x°Aa .r -- a...H,. �,.r.74 " tfi -' 0 ,,.,1 '4-,, * V ' -- ...=pilifie 0 E:GOOGLE MAPS SOURC Figure 1.2.3 ' 4111,111. **Ik. 0 lik ; , ''":".4'. ' '.*4*'*':':lk'' -4:' ..4. '74 44i14:k.'75,,,,:;111'", i''' ,,,,..,,,111,,,,,,: lilt" 40t4. :, ,,,..mors..if.,,,,''''' ' 4,,,,,.,„, .14irk:. sit\11(11\ N41/44,\N r s '~ - p- 1 : : - I. .,,,,7,' 11, -ie. gm it SOURCE:GOOGLE MAPS 4 2.0 Population Growth Around Subject Property 2.1 Overview of Florida Population Florida is currently the nation's fourth most populous state, home to an estimated 19.1 million people according to the Census Bureau. By the year 2030, Florida's population is projected to total 23.6 million people according to the medium range series from the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. This represents an increase of 245,000 per year. Florida's population growth is depicted in Figure 2.1.1 below. This shows the latest projections of growth by county for the year 2030. As you can see, the most heavily populated counties in Florida are Broward, Miami-Dade and Palm Beach counties in Southeast Florida; Hillsborough and Pinellas counties in the Tampa metro market; Orange County in Central Florida, and Duval County in the Jacksonville metro area. Figure 2.1.1 2030 Population Projections by County FloridaPrAliklirt Ira iiitt API Counties Population Projections 2030 1.1 I l 100,00ar 0 MO 100,001- -25250,000 -250,001-500,000 —500,001_1.000,0. _1,000,001+ 45 SO ISO Akles w{ �E Source:University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research 2.2 Overview of Collier County Population Growth. Currently, there are an estimated 347,158 people living year-round in Collier County. Since the 2000 Census, the County's population has increased by nearly 35%, the equivalent of 89,232 new residents as shown in Figure 2.2.1 on the next page. Looking ahead, the County will continue to gain new residents at a rate greater than that of the state of Florida. 5 By the year 2045, the population of Collier County is projected to total 553,509 residents. This is a projected annual growth rate of just under 2% from 2015 to 2040 compared to Florida's annual growth rate of 1.08% during the same time period. Figure 2.2.1 Countywide Total Population Growth 2000 2010 2014 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Pemnanent Population Estimates and Forecasts 257,926 322,653 340,293 � 5-year Percent Increase 7.59% 9.96% 8.07% 6.46% 8.02% 8.02% 8.02% Average Annual Growth Rate between 2015 and 2045 8.02%=Average 5-Year Growth between 2010 and 2030 to forecast 2035-2045 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section May 26,2016 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Population growth in Collier County is primarily due to the in-migration of the ongoing arrival of baby boomer retirees. The number of baby boomers reaching retirement age peaks in 2020. 2.3 10-Minute Drive Time Demographic Detail The Urban Land Institute ("ULI") defines commercial shopping centers in three categories. The categories are neighborhood, community and regional. Those categories are characterized by drive times and size in square feet as shown in Table 2.2.1 below. Table 2.2.1 Neighborhood 10-Minute Drive Time= <100,000 Sqft Community 20-Minute Drive Time= 100,000 to 300,000 Sqft Regional 30-Minute Drive Time= >300,000 Sqft Source: Urban Land Institute, Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, 2008 6 The Subject Property proposed development plan would categorize it as a Neighborhood Center. ULI defines Neighborhood Centers in their 2008 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers as follows: "A neighborhood center provides for the sale of convenience goods (foods, drugs and sundries) and personal services (laundry and dry cleaning, barbering, shore repairing, etc) for the day-to-day living needs of the immediate neighborhood. It is often built around a supermarket as the principal tenant and typically contains a gross leasable area of about 60,000 square feet. In practice, it may range in size from 30,001 to 100,000 square feet." Drive times are calculated by Environmental Systems Research Institute ("ESRI"). The ESRI Business Analyst program calculates drive times by actual street networks and posted speed limits. In general, Neighborhood Centers have a drive time area of 10 minutes, Community Centers have a drive time area of 20 minutes and Regional Centers have a drive time area of 30 minutes. Since the Subject Property is proposed for 60,000 square feet of commercial space, it falls within the Neighborhood Center category and the supply/demand analysis will be performed within the 10-minute drive time market area. Figure 2.4.1 on the next page depicts the 10-minute drive time area from the Subject Property. (Rest of Page Left Intentionally Blank) 7 Figure 2.4.1 r esri 14050 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL -- 10-Minute DHve Time Map 4: !•;41.4r(!:„.;;;;',71'r41,'ill'::41:4;•*';,I.';:451717:*a:7 74191-11ri i::('''' ':T41E '4'' ' ' ' . —i- . . .6 , ,.,,. :,, . . .„:„..„ ..,, ..,.. ,.. ., 'r '' X10-7nirfrc ^�'?' _ . „ ....„:„....,. ,,,,...:_s , , . \ . . .,. .,,,,,.., t iA _ t car ,i T i t i t r.•.n�.6.,vitt? • • M l , .= 3 oaf-'t , i 411114, _,,, 47 ,. 2,,\1 -4._*\ ..„,, , J” 1 7 t♦ /.._+.t1" Y irA ,t � i, `..YP` `Fi. '•SAY. V1•A'°` L�. iu y�14,2016 Source:ESRI ArcGIS Business Analyst Mapping System The following table on the nextpage shows the demographic profile of the population that lives within the 10-minute drive time of the subject site. The population grew at an annual rate of 2.5% during the 6 year period between 2010 and 2016. That rate was more than the 1.98% annual growth rate the County realized over the same period. The growth rate for this area is expected to grow significantly over the 2.5% and exceed the county growth rate over the next 10 years as development reaches maturity along the coastal urban area and moves southeast along the Tamiami Trail East Road corridor. 8 There are a number of current real estate projects under development surrounding the Subject Property and more are in the planning stages around the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located right in the path of this future growth. Table 2.4.1 • Oesrr Demographic and Income Profile 14050 TanUan 4 TA E,NApies,Florida,34114 Prepared by 6571 04.4e erne:10 Rllntl66 WWI Smnsery Census 2010 7016 2021 FbPrtllau 23,069 25,519 31.83E Households 9,115 10,556 12,645 Faniles 6,450 7,386 8,930 Average Houte2oid Sue 2.51 2.49 246 Owner 0mple]15721;LOIS. 6,651 7,1E2 8,619 Renter Om2ed Hbu9tp Units 2,464 3,374 4,227 Metal Age 45.1 49.7 53.2 Tteeduc 2012-2021 Annual Rete Arae Slate National Poptfetlen 3.72% 1.29% 0.84% Fweehold% 4.00% 1_21% 0.79% Farah, 3.25% 113% 0.72% Orme-tab 3.72% 1.09% 0.73% Meaen%lowseho0 lrr-rne 1.53% 2.52% 1.6[6% ]011 2011 pelodaide by income Number Patent f4urnber Pomp .$15,000 8900 8.3% 1,961 8.3% $15,000-$24,999 1161 1115% 1,513 11.9% 525,000-534,999 1,430 135% 1,368 10.6% 535,000-$49,999 1,576 14.9% 1,521 7.1.8% 550,000-$74,999 2,225 21.1% 2,973 231% 575,000-099,999 1,131 103% 1,501 11.7% 9100,000-1149,999 1,147 10.9% 1.552 12.1% 5150.000-9199,999 495 4.7% 757 5.9% 6200,000+ 504 4.9% 591 4.6% Meehan tlelaa2 [Maine 551,707 655,755 Average House.fil income $74,606 $79,702 Pa Capita!Woe 629,936 531.915 Crew 2010 2011 2021 Popslstlao by Ate !lumbar Pretest ?Punter Paean Number Percent 0-4 1,423 6.2% 1,465 5.5% 1,640 5.2% 5-5 1,424 6.2% 1,422 5.4% 1,531 4.9% 10-14 1.367 55% 1,350 5.1% 1.482 4.7% 15-19 1,337 5.8% 3,2.54 4.7% 1,472 45% 20-24 1,127 4.9% 1,352 5.1% 1,468 4.6% 25-34 2,437 10.6% 2,710 1019. .3,121 9.9% 35-44 2,48] 1Q.29. 2,453 93% 2,904 8.8% 45-54 2,5.27 1 L0% 2,717 10.2% 3,005 9.4% 55-64 3,138 13.6% 3,297 14.7% 4,891 15.4% 65-74 3,613 15.7% 4,940 18.6% 6,512 33.5% 75-84 1,657 2.1% 2,345 9.9% 3,152 9.9% 85+ 435 19% 604 2.3% 800 25% Coma 2010 2011 2021 Rape and Ethnical. Number Percent Number Paten bomber Parma Pil6te Acne 17,375 75.3% 19,936 743% 23,374 73.4% Bleck Alure 2,677 12.5% 3,42£ 1.23% 4,154 13.1% Arne-teen ind2,Alone 113 0.5% 135 0.5% 167 0.5% Asian Alone 151 0.7% 219 0.9% 327 1.0% Pacific Wander Alone 5 0.0% 7 0.0% 20 0.0% Sane 0627+Rao Alone 2,077 9.0% 2,462 93% 3,054 9.6% Tv/0 Iv-Hort Rea 470 20% 575 2_2% 723 23% lClx 20Chat71n(646 RAM) 7,895 34.2% 9,277 35.0% 11.593 36.4% 04.4 11.442 testi a 4a0rei407 n oases,riam. Sexes c.5.04.-4.1%SISt OW.Colas:EC Swnw,use 1. E4,Alma=Mr 2170 and 11:1 Source:ESRI . 9 In order to determine commercial demand coming from the 10-minute drive time market area, it is important to determine the ratio between the overall County population and the population in the 10-minute drive time market area. In 2010, the population in the 10-minute drive time market area was 23,069, which was 7.15% of the County population. That percent increased to 7.64% of the County population in 2015. That half percent increase is an indication of the growth potential in the Southeast Naples area due to the large percentage of undeveloped land. The Consultant conservatively estimates that the Southeast Naples percentage of County population will continue to increase along with the northeast and east County regions due to developable land availability. Therefore, the Consultant used a 0.75% increased growth factor for the future 10-minute drive time area population percentage of the overall County population as shown in Table 2.4.2 below. Table 2.4.2 Year 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Collier County GMD Population Forecast 322,653 347,158 --- - --- --- --- 10-Minute Market Area Census Population 23,069 26,519 --- --- --- --- --- - Percentage Share 0.0715 0.0764 0.0839 0.0914 0.0989 0.1064 0.1139 0.1214 Collier County GMD Population Forecast 381,722 412,522 439,159 474,376 512,418 553,509 10-Minute Market Area Census Population 32,022 37,700 43,428 50,468 58,359 67,190 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section 3.0 MARKET ANALYSIS 3.1 Market Area Demand The most reliable indicator of commercial market demand in the County is to determine the amount of commercial square footage built in the County then divide that total amount by the County population to arrive at square feet per capita (person) in the existing market. Historical commercial development in relation to population growth encompasses all aspects of land development over time including geography, economic fluctuations and various commercial uses as they relate to market demographics. Collier County in particular has shown a propensity for commercial development to follow residential development as the primary economic drivers are tourism, agriculture and real estate construction. The limited economic diversification fuels residential development, which then supports commercial development as peoples moving into the County require goods and services. Therefore, the commercial square feet per capita measure takes into account all of the factors previously mentioned. 10 The Consultant utilized the 2014 commercial inventory spreadsheets by planning area as provided by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section ("CCCPS") to determine the total amount of commercial square footage built in the County as of 2015. Acreage not built upon was not used in this calculation. The Consultant then used the 2014 Collier County population from the CCCPS to calculate the commercial square footage per capita in the County. The Commercial square foot demand per capita in Collier County is 73.71 as shown in Table 3.1.1 on the next page. Table 3.1.1 Collier County 2014 Planning Area Square Feet Immokalee Area 2,355,554 Marco Island 158,081 Central Naples 2,732,949 Corkscrew 70,748 East Naples 4,244,976 Golden Gate 41,551 North Naples 9,726,289 Royal Fakapalm 522,764 Rural Estates 452,781 South Naples 2,277,828 Urban Estates 2,500,631 25,084,152 2014 Population 340,293 (October 1st Fiscal Year) Demand in Square Feet: 73.71 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section To further refine the demand numbers for the Subject Property's particular market area, the Consultant used the 2014 commercial inventory spreadsheet for South Naples where the Subject Property is located and divided that existing (built) square footage by the South Naples population, yielding a demand of 71.10 square feet of commercial space per capita as shown in Table 3.1.2 on the next page. 11 Table 3.1.2 Collier County 2014 Planning Area Square Feet South Naples 2,277,828 2,277,828 South Naples 2014 Population (October 1st Fiscal Year) 32,037 • Demand in Square Feet: 71.10 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section By comparison, Lee County had a 2015 Commercial Demand Forecast Report prepared by Metro Forecasting Models, the same company that is updating the Collier Interactive Growth Model ("CIGM") adopted in September, 2007. The Lee County county-wide commercial demand per capita was 109.00 sq. ft. It was forecasted to go up to 111.53 sq. ft. per capita in 2020. (See Appendix F) The CIGM Executive Summary prepared by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. (now Metro Forecasting Models) in September 2008 focused on the future development of the lands east of CR 951 in Collier County. The Subject Parcel falls within this future growth area. The CIGM summary pointed out that the build out population for this area would be 442,537 and the commercial square footage needed to support this population would be 45,498,963 square feet. The demand for commercial square feet in this area would be 102.81 sq.ft. per capita. With the 10-minute drive time market area estimated population and County- wide commercial demand in square feet per capita determined, the Consultant determined the estimated commercial square footage demand for the 10-minute drive time market area through the year 2045 as shown in table 3.1.3 below. Table 3.1.3 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 County Population 381,722 412,522 439,159 474,376 512,418 553,509 10-Minute Drive Time Population 32,022 37,700 43,428 50,468 58,359 67,190 Demand Square Feet Per Capita 73.71 73.71 73.71 73.71 73.71 73.71 Commercial Square Feet Demand 2,360,466 2,778,988 3,201,220 3,720,192 4,301,813 4,952,794 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section and the Consultant 12 The Consultant again further refined the demand using the 10-minute drive time market area estimated population and the South Naples commercial demand in square feet per capita, which determined the estimated commercial square footage demand for the 10-minute drive time market area through the year 2045 as shown in table 3.1.4 below. Table 3.1.4 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 County Population 381,722 412,522 439,159 474,376 512,418 553,509 10-Minute Drive Time Population 32,022 37,700 43,428 50,468 58,359 67,190 Demand Square Feet Per Capita 71.10 71.10 71.10 71.10 71.10 71.10 Commercial Square Feet Demand 2,276,777 2,680,461 3,087,722 3,588,295 4,149,295 4,777,195 The Lee and Collier County growth models mentioned above show that the 71.10 sq. ft. per capita used as the demand number is very conservative and appropriate for this analysis. 3.2 Market Area Supply The next step in the commercial needs analysis is to determine the amount of existing and potential competing commercial square footage in the 10-minumte drive time market area. The Consultant performed a three-part process in the ARCgis desktop program .to determine both the existing and potential competing commercial parcels that would be used in the analysis. The first step in the process is to join all of the Collier County Property Appraiser data with the ARCgis program. The second step is to join the 10-minute drive time market area overlay shape file with the Property Appraiser data. The final step is to join the Excel commercial inventory data obtained from Collier County Comprehensive Planning Staff with the 10- minute drive time market area. This last step required joining the East Naples Inventory, South Naples Inventory and Royal Fakapalm Inventory spreadsheets with the 10-minute drive time market area since the drive time area touched each of three planning areas. All of the parcels included or excluded within the 10-minute drive time market area are shown in Appendix Tables A through D at the end of this analysis. 13 Table 3.2.1 below indicates the total amount of existing and potential commercial square feet in the 10-minute drive time market area. The developed commercial square feet also provides data for determining the floor area ratio on existing commercial properties. There are 68 existing commercial parcels with 904,347 square feet on 162.41 acres. That equates to a floor area ratio of 5,568 square feet of commercial square footage per acre. Using the 5,568 square feet per acre figure, the potential competing square feet on undeveloped commercial parcels can be calculated. With 97 parcels encompassing 422.59 acres, there is a potential of 2,352,976 square feet commercial square footage in the 10-minute drive time market area. By combining the developed and undeveloped commercial parcels, the Consultant determined that there is 3,257,323 square feet of commercial square feet of supply in the 10-minute drive time market area. Table 3.2.1 Parcels Acres Square Feet FAR Developed Commercial 68 162.41 904,347 5,568 Undeveloped Commercial 97 422.59 2,352,976 5,568 Totals 165 585.00 3,257,323 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser and ESRI ARCgis mapping system • 3.3 Supply— Demand Analysis The final step in the Commercial Needs Analysis is to put the supply and demand calculations together in order to determine the oversupply or undersupply of commercial space in the 10-minute drive time area both with the current existing and potential commercial square footage and with the proposed project acreage being included in the supply totals. Table 3.3.1 on the next page shows that over the next five years there is a under supply of existing commercial square feet in the 10-minute drive time market area. However, economic history has proved that markets are efficient and with the vacant potential square footage in the market area, that demand will ultimately be filled through 2030. After 2030, there will be a significant need to develop more commercial space in the market area to accommodate the future demand. 14 • Table 3.3.1 Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory&Population 2,276,777 2,680,461 3,087,722 3,588,295 4,149,295 4,777,195 Retail Supply Developed 904,347 904,347 904,347 904,347 904,347 904,347 Vacant 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 --- --- --- --- --- === Total --- --- --- --- --- Total Supply 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 Allocation Ratio 1.43 1.22 1.05 0.91 0.79 0.68 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant By adding the proposed 60,000 square feet of commercial space proposed for the Subject Property as shown in Table 3.3.2 below, there is a minimal change in the supply-demand analysis. The basic allocation ratio moves about 2% so the Subject Property will not create an imbalance in the overall supply. Table 3.3.2 Retail Demand (sq.ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory& Population 2,276,777 2,680,461 3,087,722 3,588,295 4,149,295 4,777,195 Retail Supply Developed 964,347 964,347 964,347 964,347 964,347 964,347 Vacant 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 --- --- --- --- --- === Total --- --- --- --- --- Total Supply 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 Allocation Ratio 1.46 1.24 1.07 0.92 0.80 0.69 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section,Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant If the CIGM future commercial demand per capita is used, the results indicate even a more compelling reason for the addition of the Subject Property to the County's commercial supply. The allocation ratio falls to 0.84 in the 2025 Horizon Year and moves to 0.86 in the same year with the Subject Property added to the County's commercial inventory as shown in tables 3.3.3 and 3.3.4 on the next page. 15 Table 3.3.3 Retail Demand (sq. ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 Demand Per GMD Commercial Inventory&Population 3,292,204 3,875,928 4,464,825 5,188,650 5,999,852 6,907,791 Retail Supply Developed 904,347 904,347 904,347 904,347 904,347 904,347 Vacant 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 --- --- ------ --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- Total Supply 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 3,257,323 Allocation Ratio 0.99 0.84 0.73 0.63 0.54 0.47 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system,the Collier Interactive Growth Model and the Consultant Table 3.3.4 Retail Demand (sq.ft.) 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 )emand Per GMD Commercial Inventory& Population 3,292,204 3,875,928 4,464,825 5,188,650 5,999,852 6,907,791 Retail Supply Developed 964,347 964,347 964,347 964,347 964,347 964,347 Vacant 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 2,352,976 --- --- --- --- --- --- Total Supply 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 3,317,323 Allocation Ratio 1.01 0.86 0.74 0.64 0.55 0.48 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system,the Collier Interactive Growth Model and the Consultant The future demand generally looks out to the Comprehensive Plan's horizon year, which is currently either 2025 to 2035 depending on the jurisdiction's comprehensive plan and growth management plan horizon year requirements. In Collier County's case, the Comprehensive Plan's horizon year is 2025. 16 It is at this point of the analysis that has caused an anomaly in determining a true economic supply and demand result. On the supply side, it is relatively easy to determine the amount of existing and approved supply from the property appraiser data. The difficulty lies in the vacant non-approved potential lands. Collier County Staff requires the Applicant to take all of those lands that have a commercial overlay on them and include them as supply by putting a floor area ratio figure to the acreage. The issue becomes apparent when all of the lands that are not in the existing or approved category are included in the particular land use analysis. By putting all of the potential lands in the supply category, the assumption is that all of that land would be developed as that particular land use overlay and nothing else. The flaw in that representation is all of those vacant approved parcels and parcels designated by the FLUM as having the potential to be developed as one use, which could be a non-competing or some other commercial use. The same parcels are also counted as competing supply when a commercial needs analysis is performed for another commercial use. Essentially they are double counted in both analyses when they will actually be developed as the market demand dictates. A general economic principal states that all markets are efficient and that supply for the most part is generated as demand dictates. It is a rare situation where supply generates demand. The allocation ratio measures the amount of additional acreage required in relation to the directly utilized acreage to assure proper market functioning in the sale, usage and allocation of land. The additional acreage is required in order to maintain market level pricing and to account for the likelihood that certain lands will not be placed on the market for sale during the forecast horizon, or may be subject to future environmental or other constraints. Thus, the lands allocated in the FLUM should be considerably greater than those that will actually be used or developed. Basic economic principals have shown that markets are efficient in terms of supply and demand and the ultimate lack of available commercial choices creates an impediment to the market functioning properly. One must also consider that not all of the office/commercial designation in the future land use map will be developed as such since the owners of those properties will only develop the land with uses that respond to market demand. The increased acres will maintain flexibility within the comprehensive plan, keep prices reasonable by not constraining land supply, and compensate for lands which may be unavailable for sale or subject to environmental or other development constraints. 17 Growth management practices have suggested that the greater the time horizon of the comprehensive plan, the greater the allocation ratio needed to maintain flexibility of the comprehensive plan. Other factors that influence the residential acreage allocation ratio are the nature and speed of the developing area and the area's general exposure to growth trends in the market. The Consultant believes that to ensure proper flexibility in the comprehensive plan of a rapidly growing county like Collier, a commercial allocation ratio in the range of 1.5 is necessary to maintain planning flexibility and to account for the double counting of land uses. History has shown that the former Florida Department of Community Affairs ("DCA") (Currently the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity) ("DEO") recommended an allocation ratio of 1.25 in the horizon year of a comprehensive plan yet it had seen and approved allocation ratios in the 1.8 to 2.4 range and in some cases even larger allocation ratios for longer forecast horizons. Otherwise, if allocation ratios are not used in the analysis, then an appropriate breakdown of the potential lands between the various land use types needs to be undertaken in order to more accurately analyze the need for a comprehensive land use change. 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 The Consultant used all of the data and analysis in the previous sections to determine the total supply and demand for commercial space in the Subject Property's market area from 2020 through 2045. The results show compellingly that the addition of the Subject Property to the Collier County commercial inventory will not adversely affect the balance of commercial supply in the County. The Allocation Ratio is 1.24 in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan horizon year with the addition of the Subject Property and is below the recommended 1.25 allocation ratio as suggested by the former Florida DCA now Florida DEO. While the total existing and potential commercial supply exceeds the demand, the potential supply makes up almost 70% of the total future supply in the County. Markets are efficient and the future supply will be developed as the market grows and diversifies. However, the future supply will be exhausted as it related to future demand just after 2030 so it is imperative that the future of the commercial supply in this 10-minute drive time market area needs to be studied. 18 APPENDICIES Appendix Table A— 10-Minute Drive Time Developed Competing Commercial Parcels FID ACRES GIS O NAME1 LUSEDOR_D ZONING BLDG_SQFT 178933 2.50 DEWANE, BISHOP FRANK J Churches C4 11,788 178873 8.72 NAPLES SOUTH REALTY ASSN LLC Community Shopping Center C4 13,397 I 178924 2.93 REFERENCE ONLY Condominiums C4 41,184 241034 1.66 BANK OF AMERICA NA Financial Institution PUD 7,873 241024 1.45 HERITAGE NAPLES LLC Financial Institution PUD 5,750 239731 1.00 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK Financial Institution PUD 5,245 178870 1.00 REALTY TRUST GROUP INC Financial Institution C4 4,985 213971 0.49 PLATINUM COAST FINANCIAL CORP Mixed Use-Store/Office(with SFR) C4 5,745 214021 0.40 KANELOPOULOS JR,GEORGE J Mixed Use-Store/Office(with SFR) C4 3,138 214022 0.44 SHEILA RONALD DEC TRUST Mixed Use-Store/Office(with SFR) C4 3,136 178874 0.96 FIFTH THIRD BANK Multi-Story Office C4 7,245 241023 1.75 41 THOMASSON PROPERTY LLC Store(One Story) PUD 16,567 228627 1.11 BLUE MARLIN STATIONS LLC Store(One Story) C3 12,815 214023 0.82 SOUTHLAND CORPORATION,THE Store(One Story) C4 2,439 106133 22.338 NEW PLAN FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC Community Shopping Center PUD 95,111 30181 4.116 JCS REALTY GROUP LLC Community Shopping Center C3 60,175 178686 4.018 LELY SQUARE PARTNERSHIP Community Shopping Center PUD 13,911 --. 178508 1.832 KOOPS, EARL C=&CHARLOTTE J Community Shopping Center C4 3,343 208468 7.220 PRU NAPLES LLC Community Shopping Center PUD 2,808 30159 1.762 REFERENCE ONLY Condominiums C3 4,749 30175 2.623 REFERENCE ONLY Condominiums C3 4,423 209002 0.965 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY Cultural organizations,facilities C4 19,799 209003 0.482 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF Cultural organizations,facilities C4 11,275 37533 1.015 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP Drive Thru Restaurant PUD 4,228 106134 1.002 MCDONALDS CORPORATION Drive Thru Restaurant PUD 3,497 208474 1.070 FIFTH THIRD BANK Financial Institution PUD 8,056 244515 1.129 WACHOVIA BANK Financial Institution C4 7,060 105978 1.148 BARNETT BANK NA NAPLES Financial Institution PUD 6,571 97847 1.759 951 INVESTMENTS LLC Financial Institution PUD 5,877 37556 1.152 FIFTH THIRD BANK Financial Institution C4 5,807 180249 1.193 SUNTRUST BANK Financial Institution PUD 5,128 208470 0.732 SOUTHTRUST BANK Financial Institution PUD 4,967 29239 2.759 MCGUIRE FLORIDA HOLDINGS LLC Florist, Greenhouse PUD 2,451 209412 0.518 RANDALL, DAVID Mixed Use-Store/Office (with SFR) C4 6,733 106135 2.161 BAYROCK INVESTMENT CO Mixed Use-Store/Office (with SFR) PUD 5,983 208643 0.713 WEST STORES INC Mixed Use-Store/Office(with SFR) C4 2,580 209413 0.259 BOLAND FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC Mixed Use-Store/Office (with SFR) C4 2,071 209411 0.958 MAX CAP INC Mixed Use-Store/Office(with SFR) C4 1,543 38256 1.465 HAWK CAPITAL GROUP LLC Mixed Use-Store/Office (with SFR) C4 1,047 20 30178 3.699 SUNDERLAND ASSOCIATES LLC Multi-Story Office C3 18,503 97843 1.263 NAPLES INVESTMENT GROUP LLC Multi-Story Office PUD 10,822 97844 1.432 SPIRIT MASTER FUNDING VII LLC Multi-Story Office PUD 8,396 208469 1.069 HC 8625 COLLIER BLVD LLC One Story Office PUD 8,013 209410 0.599 MAX CAP INC Service Station C4 4,318 204365 1.290 U S A L INC Service Station C4 1,592 85519 13.434 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC Store(One Story) C4 152,760 29247 1.772 LENNY'S FURN WAREHOUSE INC Store(One Story) C4 29,463 85512 1.287 TJS NAPLES LLC Store(One Story) C4 18,860 209403 0.569 IACONELLI TR, MICHAEL G=&JOAN Store(One Story) C4 12,967 204269 0.690 RICK,THOMAS=&LINDA Store(One Story) C4 11,729 204295 0.690 11222 TAMIAMI LLC Store(One Story) C4 10,378 85514 1.086 TJS NAPLES LLC Store(One Story) C4 7,995 204290 1.394 FERGUS COMPANY LLC,THE Store(One Story) C4 7,743 204293 1.380 NAPLES, LODGE 2010 BENEVOLENT Store(One Story) C4 7,402 37536 0.885 KRG EAGLE CREEK III LLC Store(One Story) C4 4,448 209417 0.440 ANGELILLI, FRANK=&ANGELA Store(One Story) C4 4,335 204294 1.223 11226 TTE LLC Store(One Story) C4 4,247 209007 0.962 NWFP HOLDINGS CORP Store(One Story) C4 3,000 29783 0.924 GRIMES,JOE A=& MARJORIE E Store(One Story) C5 2,430 209598 1.048 DRUMMOND, MARVIN=& BARBARA Store(One Story) C4 1,215 37776 20.89 CORAL ISLE FACTORY SHOPS LTD Community Shopping Center C4 17,363 1757 0.46 WILSON,GEORGE F=& RENEE B One Story Office C4 1,463 40707 1.00 HAMMOCK REALTY CORP Restaurant C3 1,371 39673 4.44 HERITAGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC Store(One Story) C4 97,554 37541 2.07 RTG LLC Store(One Story) C3 16,448 38570 1.25 CIRCLE K STORES INC Store(One Story) C4 3,231 40527 0.79 MARMAX VENTURES CORP Store(One Story) C3 2,961 39220 4.76 LEFES,STEVE=&DOROTHY C Store (One Story) C2 2,846 162.41 904,347 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and ArcGIS 21 Appendix Table B- 10-Minute Drive Time Undeveloped Competing Parcels FID ACRES_GIS O_NAME1 LUSEDORD 178721 2.52 BROCK CENTER LLC Vacant Commercial 241021 1.89 FIFTH THIRD BANK Vacant Commercial 241020 1.77 CDC LAND INVESTMENTS INC Vacant Commercial 178934 0.89 FIFTH THIRD BANK Vacant Commercial 213980 0.67 FULLER TR, MICHAEL S Vacant Commercial 204238 3.610 KC NAPLES TAMIAMI LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural 37526 25.128 KRG 951&41 LLC Vacant Commercial 175097 14.892 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC Vacant Commercial 180247 9.187 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC Vacant Commercial 29231 8.965 SD TRACT 22 LLC Vacant Commercial 244775 7.404 DISCOVERY VILLAGE AT NAPLES LL Vacant Commercial 244773 6.914 DISCOVERY VILLAGE AT NAPLES Vacant Commercial 30168 4.620 MARTIN TR, LONNIE J Vacant Commercial 88199 4.560 ESPROP LLC Vacant Commercial 106136 4.541 ESPROP LLC Vacant Commercial 37579 4.293 PRICE AND 41 LLC Vacant Commercial 30165 3.725 STRATTON ASSOCIATES LLC Vacant Commercial 30179 3.699 GRAFTON ASSOCIATES LLC Vacant Commercial 204270 2.843 MD MARCO CAPITAL LLC Vacant Commercial 30163 2.773 UTOPIA EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial 265108 2.737 ROOK AT NAPLES I LLC Vacant Commercial 106131 2.562 COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SW INC Vacant Commercial 88200 2.377 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC Vacant Commercial 30162 2.309 GEHRING, CHRISTOPHER Vacant Commercial 204239 2.077 KN NAPLES TAMIAMI LLC Vacant Commercial 244756 2.031 RACETRAC PETROLEUM INC Vacant Commercial 244771 2.000 SIERRA MEADOWS LLC Vacant Commercial 244758 1.966 RACETRAC PETROLEUM INC Vacant Commercial 244765 1.950 DISCOVERY VILLAGE AT NAPLES LL Vacant Commercial 204266 1.918 KC NAPLES TAMIAMI LLC Vacant Commercial 30166 1.853 12840 EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial 29780 1.848 12000 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST LLC Vacant Commercial 30161 1.848 DEE TR, BRUCE D Vacant Commercial 1791 1.848 GEHRING, CHRISTOPHER Vacant Commercial 244751 1.736 SIERRA MEADOWS LLC Vacant Commercial 244753 1.637 SIERRA MEADOWS LLC Vacant Commercial 265109 1.525 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP Vacant Commercial 204288 1.525 THOMPSON, LAWRENCE N Vacant Commercial 251409 1.399 PROGENY II CORPORATION Vacant Commercial 22 244762 1.396 SWAN FM LLC Vacant Commercial 204240 1.382 KC NAPLES TAMIAMI LLC Vacant Commercial 204292 1.380 CAROLE CONST OF NAPLES INC Vacant Commercial 37539 1.299 BLACK RIVER ROCK LLC Vacant Commercial 29248 1.148 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO Vacant Commercial 30186 1.074 12840 EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial 265106 1.048 MURPHY OIL USA INC Vacant Commercial 208641 1.028 HUENEFELD III TR, LEROY H Vacant Commercial 208480 0.975 MUNZENRIEDER TR,JOHN Vacant Commercial 209407 0.854 ROGER J GEMMEN M D TRUST Vacant Commercial 251405 0.701 STARFISH INVESTMENT& Vacant Commercial 204268 0.691 0 BRIAN SR TR, DANIEL P Vacant Commercial 204296 0.690 11222 TAMIAMI LLC Vacant Commercial 208475 0.687 PRU NAPLES LLC Vacant Commercial 204291 0.650 CAROLE CONST OF NAPLES INC Vacant Commercial 209408 0.570 KENERSON JR, ORVILLE B Vacant Commercial 208342 0.502 MUNZENRIEDER TR,JOHN Vacant Commercial I 207025 0.495 MUNZENRIEDER TR,JOHN Vacant Commercial 206920 0.495 MUNZENRIEDER TR,JOHN Vacant Commercial 209008 0.483 INTERAMERICAN BANK FSV Vacant Commercial 209009 0.483 INTERAMERICAN BAK FSB Vacant Commercial 178683 0.393 LELY SQUARE PARTNERSHIP Vacant Commercial 30185 0.331 LLERENA, RAMIRO=&MARTHA Vacant Commercial 29240 0.299 RAVEN SECURITIES INC Vacant Commercial 209414 0.259 BOLAND FAMILY PROPERTIES LLC Vacant Commercial 205561 0.204 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO Vacant Commercial 206658 0.186 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO Vacant Commercial 206579 0.186 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO Vacant Commercial 205581 0.183 N FLA LIMITED LIABILITY CO Vacant Commercial 244776 0.031 SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY Vacant Commercial 388 0.031 SIERRA MEADOWS LLC Vacant Commercial 244767 0.031 SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY Vacant Commercial 96045 0.008 KITE EAGLE CREEK LLC Vacant Commercial 207710 2.960 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB Vacant Residential 208639 2.443 1080 CENTRAL LLC Vacant Residential 97117 0.588 EAGLE CREEK PROPERTIES INC Vacant Residential 208483 0.261 NORTH FLORIDA LLC Vacant Residential 244748 0.135 SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY INC Vacant Residential 27603 19.34 WILTON LAND COMPANY LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural 40229 14.24 . FC COMMERCIAL LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural 39706 13.60 FC COMMERCIAL LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural 23 .0,--. 40425 10.01 FC COMMERCIAL LLC Acreage not zoned agricultural 37774 40.23 ROOKERY BAY BUSINESS PARK LLC Vacant Commercial 27590 19.19 WILTON LAND COMPANY LLC Vacant Commercial 27605 9.50 AMERISITE LLC Vacant Commercial 27599 9.28 COLLIER RATTLESNAKE LLC Vacant Commercial 39558 7.32 14601 EAST TRAIL LLC Vacant Commercial 27597 4.75 AMERISITE LLC Vacant Commercial 37529 4.06 ROOK AT NAPLES II LLC Vacant Commercial 37547 2.21 ROOK AT NAPLES II LLC Vacant Commercial 37527 2.00 ROOK AT NAPLES II LLC Vacant Commercial 37480 1.69 ABC LIQUORS INC Vacant Commercial 38759 0.90 CLAUSEN, ROBERT IAN Vacant Commercial 38236 9.49 KITE EAGLE CREEK LLC Community Shopping Center 265105 28.367 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP Store (One Story) 30180 4.603 BAREFOOT 11700 LLC Vacant Commercial 251946 9.047 LENNAR HOMES LLC Vacant Commercial 160016 34.15 HACIENDA LAKES OF NAPLES LLC Vacant Commercial 422.59 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and ArcGIS 24 r Appendix Table C— 10-Minute Drive Time Non-Competing Developed Commercial Eliminated Developed Non-Competitive Uses BLDG FID ACRES_GIS O_NAME1 LUSEDOR_D ZONING SQFT 209405 1.424 ROGER J GEMMEN M.D.TRUST Auto Sales/Service C4 8,892 178694 3.832 PEDDE LLC Auto Sales/Service C4 4,132 251408 1.096 PROGENY II CORPORATION Auto Sales/Service C5 110 37544 2.95 CPI NAPLES LLC Auto Sales/Service C5 488 207699 6.051 NAPLES LKS COUNTRY CLUB Golf courses, driving ranges PUD 29 208466 0.530 RJJ LLP Hotel or Motel C4 5,924 208644 0.322 HOLISTIC HEALTH HEALING INC Hotel or Motel C4 5,150 29241 1.002 HOLISTIC HEALTH HEALING INC Hotel or Motel C4 4,101 209006 0.962 BOWEIN, LLOYD L Hotel or Motel C4 3,783 209416 0.596 ETM TAMIAMI LLC Hotel or Motel C4 2,503 29243 0.378 HOLISTIC HEALTH HEALING INC Hotel or Motel C4 2,377 251407 0.813 ERIK H PAPENFUSS IRREV TRUST Light Manufacturing C5 206 37528 3.02 SOUTH NAPLES CENTER LLC Lumber Yard C5 28,279 37532 2.04 SOUTH NAPLES CENTER LLC Lumber Yard C4 15,387 213981 1.06 FULLER TR, MICHAEL S Mortuaries, cemeteries, crematoriums C4 10,167 40704 1.03 HAMMOCK REALTY CORP Open storage, building supplies,junk ya C3 4,7:'''.--' 207853 5.222 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB Outdoor recreational or parkland,or hig PUD 67— 38285 0.390 RIVERWOOD ESTATES HOMEOWNERS Outdoor recreational or parkland, or hig -C4 446 29226 1.212 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC Outdoor recreational or parkland,or hig PUD 403 29429 1.387 VK TRAIL LLC Race Track: Horse,Auto, Dog PUD 2,602 259020 3.068 LENNAR HOMES LLC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, PUD 354 259253 8.91 VERONAWALK HOMEOWNERS ASSO INC Right-of-way,street, road,or ditches, PUD 133 178511 4.888 SNH/LTA PROPERTIES TRUST Sanitariums,convalescent, and rest home C4 38,316 178509 8.841 WILLOUGH HEALTHCARE INC Sanitariums, convalescent,and rest home C4 153 101542 2.75 FCC MARSH LLC Tourist Attraction PUD 11,007 204267 0.691 SMITH CARTER LLC Vacant Commercial C4 3,530 37531 0.546 KRG EAGLE CREEK IV LLC Vacant Commercial C4 2,290 204241 0.691 CUBESMART L P Vacant Commercial PUD 1,477 38276 1.547 RACETRAC PETROLEUM INC Vacant Commercial C4 857 1792 0.229 HITCHING POST CO-OP Vacant Commercial C3 55 27591 4.75 AMERISITE LLC Vacant Commercial C5 1,375 208642 1.035 LLERENA, RAMIRO E=&MARTHA R Warehousing,distribution terminals,tru C4 13,014 251406 2.439 CUBESMART L P Warehousing, distribution terminals,tru C5 6,027 204243 1.813 CUBESMART L P Warehousing, distribution terminals,tru PUD 3,047 37478 3.61 STORAGE PARTNERS NAPLES FL LLC Warehousing,distribution terminals,tru PUD 1,599 25 I Eliminated Buildings Less than 1,000 square feet. FID ACRES_GIS O_NAME1 LUSEDOR_D ZONING BLDG_SQFT 241026 11.73 PRU HAMMOCK COVE LLC Community Shopping Center PUD 122 180187 0.902 JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NATL ASSN Financial Institution PUD 698 30183 1.385 ALPERT, NORMAN R Mixed Use-Store/Office(with SFR) C3 304 29427 4.195 SSP ASSOCIATES INC Mixed Use-Store/Office(with SFR) C3 86 209415 0.518 LLERENA, RAMIRO=& MARTHA R Restaurant C4 450 40708 1.08 HAMMOCK REALTY CORP Service Station C3 392 209409 1.133 L&R RAM LLC Store(One Story) C4 571 37484 0.953 LA MONTE&CYNTHIA ISOM TRUST Store (One Story) C4 106 208640 0.837 L& R RAM LLC Store(One Story) C4 90 208472 0.516 13406 CORTEZ BLVD PRTNRSHP Store(One Story) C4 27 Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and ArcGIS • 26 Appendix Table D—10-Minute Drive Time Non-Competing Undeveloped Commercial Parcels Eliminated Vacant Non-Competitive Uses FID ACRES_GIS O_NAME1 LUSEDOR_D 209004 0.482 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY OF Cultural organizations,facilities 258883 2.514 LENNAR HOMES LLC Outdoor recreational or parkland,or hig 241018 1.41 HAMMOCK COVE LLC Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park 179068 0.49 REALTY TRUST GROUP INC Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park 248254 0.902 SUNCOAST SCHOOLS FED CR UNION Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park 209404 0.569 IACONELLI TR, MICHAEL G=&JOAN Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park 40474 3.91 HERITAGE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC Parking Lots, Mobile Home Park 244853 3.964 SIERRA MEADOWS PROPERTY INC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 207702 1.538 NAPLES LAKES COUNTRY CLUB INC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 178512 1.383 LAP, PETRUS P Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 208477 1.089 PRU NAPLES LLC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 208481 0.734 PRU NAPLES LLC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 208479 0.160 PRU NAPLES LLC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 256 0.116 HAMMOCK WOODS LLC Right-of-way,street, road,or ditches, 244749 0.079 HAMMOCK WOODS LLC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 101537 1.32 FC COMMERCIAL LLC Right-of-way,street, road, or ditches, 208476 1.680 PRU NAPLES LLC River, Lake,or Submerged Land 175111 0.671 STOCK DEVELOPMENT LLC River, Lake,or Submerged Land 85516 0.952 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC Sewage,Solid Waste, or Borrow Pit 265104 0.730 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP Sewage,Solid Waste,or Borrow Pit 85517 0.283 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC Sewage, Solid Waste, or Borrow Pit 85518 0.220 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC Sewage,Solid Waste,or Borrow Pit Source:Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section Commercial Inventory, Collier County Property Appraiser and ArcGIS 27 Appendix E — Excerpts from the Collier Interactive Growth Model Executive Summary September 29, 2008 28 ,...--..., • THE COLLIER INTERACTIVE GROWTH MODEL . (CIGM) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Prepared for: The Collier County Board of County Commissioners And The Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department It' C "s's'-' • County ,---\ _..... By: Van Buskirk,Ryffel and Associates,Inc. 100 Estero Boulevard, Suite 434 Fort Myers Beach,Florida 33931 Phone: (239)463-3929 Fax: (239)463-5050 Webpage and Email:www,interactivegrowthmodel.com September 29,2008 rc© Copyright 2008 by Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc., all rights reserved. Reprint permission must be, requested in writing from Van Buskirk, Ryffel and Associates, Inc. Interactive Growth Modelill is a registered trademark. /•••••• Section 5 Population Distribution to Build-out Table 4 Study Area Population Forecast 2007-Build-out* 2007 79568 2010 89910 2015 117916 2020 153631 2025 191329 2030 230283 2035 269814 2040 308560 2045 343071 2050 371180 2055* 392562* 2060 407970 2070 418623 2075 430524 2080 433628 Build-out 442537 Source Van Buskirk.Ryffel.and associates.Inc. *90%of Build-out In the interest of a clearer understanding,the population forecast output data shown above,was converted to visual representations that are more easily interpreted.By way of example, Maps 3 to 12 shows the population distribution and intensity in the years 2007, 2010,2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, 2060, 2070, 2080, and Build-out, respectively for the entire study area. Likewise,Maps 13 to 22 show the RFMUD and GGE areas and Maps 23 to 32 show the RLSA and Immokalee areas during those same time intervals. The various degrees of green shadings on these maps represent the percentage of build-out population of each TAZ at the particular 10 year interval.This was done in 10 percent increments with greater populations shown in darker shading. 21 Map 19 Map 20 Population Distribution,Year 2060 Population Distribution,Year 2070 1 , , cemer htletallve Growth Model , COIN!InleraellreGrOWth Modell Rt111,0 owl GGEi tLID arid GGE Year 2060 Jellretil-' Year 2870 Populstiort 10-2791 Popublion:T0.11,111 t ' '—''' III . 41 1 . _ ---:1 1 ..1 .... -k. F --_, 4 .t .._• . .,• . , -••••.. i 1 ' I -...... .... • ret......• I .-‘,.........• I O. Map 2.1 Map 22 Population Distribution,Year 2080 Population Distribution,Year Build-Out Collier line/active Growth Model i Coleer Interactive Growth Med 7 MUM and GGE —ea:Ce.n. Will/G.1ml GGE Year 2080 , Year Build-Out PoPetiodon.101.554 PoptAztlarg 114.4.51 7—• • ' ...... r r ji ,,t, ___ ) t- :I k. '''. - S t .. -. .. _ l'ad 111111 I \ .._ num. I L'72: li; 4 ... t .. 1 •...,..e........ I . . . ...*.t......:--,.--..-....,=----.4....--. - . •.. . 26 ....... Figure 7 Commercial/Office Floor Area Supply And Demand-2007 3500000 0 3,158,076 3000000 0I 2500000 0II 2,026,687 2,035,526 20000000 1,722,197 . 1 1500000I' ■ • 1,131,389 U , 1000000 I 11 MEI ■ I I 500000 I ■ III ■ , Retail Supply Retail Office Supply Office Total Supply Total Demand Demand Retail/Office Demand Retail/Office Source:Van Buskirk,Ryffel and Associates,Inc. Figure 8 Commercial/Office Floor Area Supply And Demand-Build-Out 50000000 45,498,983 45000000 40000000 35000000 30000000 29,324,204 25000000 20000000 16,174,779 17,227,980 15000000 11,198,187 10000000111 6,029,793 5000000 • -0 Mil Retail Supply Retail Office Supply Office Total Supply Total Demand Demand Retail/Office Demand Retail/Office Source:Van Buskirk,Ryffel and Associates,Inc. Note:45,498,983 sf/442,537 pop. = 102.81 sf per capita 46 Appendix F — Excerpts from the 2015 Lee County Commercial Demand Forecast prepared by Metro Forecasting Models 29 METRO FORECASTING MFM MODELS Lee County, Florida @- 2015 Forecast Report Population, Housing and Commercial Demand Thank you for purchasing this report, which contains forecasts of population growth, housing demand and demand for commercial space for goods and services for Lee County, Florida(the Cape Coral—Fort Myers Metropolitan Statistical Area or MSA). The analytical methods used to prepare these forecasts have proven to be more accurate than the industry standard of straight-line (linear) forecasts. Our goal is to maintain the most accurate forecasting models, which are based on our history of forecasting: • In 1982 the City of North Port,Florida, asked Dr.Paul Van Buskirk(author of the Metro Forecasting Model)to forecast the population of their city in 2007, then 25 years into the future.In 1980 North Port had a permanent population of 6,350 people.Dr.Van Buskirk forecasted that in 2007 there would be a permanent population of 57,452 in 2010,the Census counted 57,350 people in North Port.The forecast was 99.7%accurate 25 years into the future. • In 2002 the City of Cape Coral,Florida, engaged Dr.Van Buskirk to prepare a population forecast for their city to use in planning for future commercial sites, fire stations and schools.His 2010 forecast was 155,179 permanent residents;in 2010, the Census counted 154,305 permanent residents. The information in this report can be used by businesses,property owners,developers, lenders and planners to help understand the past and future of the Lee County metro area and then use accurate forecasts in decision-making: ✓ Businesses: Metro's growth .1 Developers: Current and forecasted forecasts help make marketing demand versus supply are used in due- decisions because growth diligence reviews and pro forma forecasts can be compared to preparation, as well helping to broadly forecasts in other metropolitan gauge absorption. areas' ✓ Lenders: Loan requests for new f Property Owners: Housing and construction can be compared to the commercial demand forecasts help forecasted demand for commercial or property owners understand how residential projects. their land may increase or ,� planners: poprdstion,housing and decrease in value based on the commercial forecasts are used to evaluate current and future supply versus the need for zoning changes desired by demand for their respective land their clients. uses, For more detailed forecasts of population, housing and commercial demand, see our we bsite. 9001 Highland Woods Boulevard,Suite 2,Bonita Springs,FL 34135 239-913.6949 www.MetroForecasting.core Copyright 20155 Metro Forecasting Models,AU Right..Reserved Reprint permission must be requested in writing from Metro Forecasting Models,LLC. Lee County, Florida — Cape Coral—Fort Myers MSA Population, Housing and Commercial Demand Forecast The Lee County metro area is located in After the MFM Composite Forecast Curve is southwest Florida. In 2014 the permanent established (the blue line), similar curves are population was 679,513 according to the US generated for both an expanding and Census, up from 1,414 in 1890. contracting economy for the entire MSA. In statistical jargon, these similar curves are Metro Forecasting Models (MFM) uses each two standard deviations from the mean proprietary modeling software to forecast the (composite) curve. future population of this MSA in 5-year increments. Whereas forecasters often apply We find that MSA growth falls within these linear extrapolation of past census data, a boundaries 95% of the time, barring technique which becomes inaccurate over catastrophic events (war, natural disaster, longer periods, MFM forecasting methodology etc.) that permanently alter development has been documented to be far more accurate potential_ over time. Figure 1 presents a summary of our Figure 1 below is a population graph of the population forecasts for 2020 and beyond for Lee County metro area showing actual change the Lee County metro area (Cape Coral Fort in population from 1950 to 2010. Myers MSA). ."1 Figure 1. MFM Population Forecast in 2015 Lee County, Florida 1,600.000 1,403,000 1.7,00.000 1,000.000 8 3.000 r .:' MFM 2020Pop- `- 752,585 600,000 =:00.000 203,000 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090 2110 Population —e—Census/Actual - -Expanding Economy - Contracting Economy Source:US Census&Metro Forecasting Models,i:UC Page 2 Published July-2015 Population Forecast Table 1 presents our specific analysis and population growth forecast for the Lee County metro area in 5-year increments for three different economies. The blue column, labeled "Composite," shows how the population will grow over time in a balanced economy. The orange column, labeled "Expanding," presents a higher forecast for the population Table 1:Lee Metro Area Population Forecast growth curve in a "Bull Market" economy. The Year Composite Expanding Contracting data presented in this column provides a reliable guide for our clients who need to 1970 114,069 119,s11 108,502 understand how this MSA will grow under 1975 155,643 162,536 148,919 favorable economic conditions. 1980 204,751 212,733 196,926 1985 260,810 269,762 251,994 The green column, labeled "Contracting," 1990 322,901 332,663 313,250 presents a lower forecast for the population 1995 389,866 400,248 379,564 growth curve in a "Bear Market" economy. The 2000 460,405 471,208 449,653 data presented in this column provides a guide for our clients who need to understand how 2005 533,183 544,208 522,179 economic trends, business decisions and 2010 606,905 617,966 595,839 government policy(national or local)could affect 2015 680,385 691,316 669,425 this MSA's growth under less favorable 2020 752,585 763,244 741,876 economic conditions. 2025 822,636 832,910 812,297 As the economy cycles from bull to bear 2030 889,850 899,6 879,974 markets, the day-to-day or year-to-year 2035 953,711 962,974 944,364 population growth will revert to the Composite 2040 1,013,862 1,022,547 1,005,089 forecast. Depending upon the significance of 2045 1,070,088 1,078,172 1,061,912 economic trends and government and business 2050 1,122,288 1,129,768 1,114,718 policy, the change in growth can appear to be a 2055 1,170,465 1,177,346 1,163,495 never-ending boom-bust cycle. 2060 1,214,694 1,220,993 1,208,309 The general population tends to mentally 2065 1,255,111 1,260,853 1,249,287 forecast growth by what has happened over the 2070 1,291,892 1,297,107 1,286,601 last year of their lives_ If last year showed low 2075 1,375,245 1,329,965 1,320,454 or no growth, then next year would be the same 2080 1,355,393 1,359,651 1,351,067 or worse under that scenario. If last year was a " 2085 1,382,565 1,386,398 1,378,671 good year, then next year will be just as good or 2090 1,406,997 1,410,438 1,403,499 better. The Composite forecast provides a balanced view of what the future holds for this 2095 1,428,915 1,431,999_ 1,425,780 MSA. 2100 1,448,540 1,451,299 1,445,735 The population forecasted in Table 1 provides a Source:Metro Forecasting Models,LLC reliable guide for wise industry leaders who understand the pace of the last few years' growth does not mean that growth will continue in the same pattern. The expanding and contracting economy forecasts provide ranges for strategic planning by governments and the private sector. icy Published Juin.7.20 7.1 Commercial Demand Forecast Table 3 presents the Lee County metro area commercial retail trade and services demand forecast in 5-year increments. The demand for retail Table 3:Lee Metro and office space increases as the population grows. Area Commercial Demand Forecast- When the increased population meets certain thresholds, the market Sq,Ft.Bldg. can support new or expanded stores and services. For example a small population may want a big-box retail store but not have enough people Year 1,000's SF to support the economic investment by the retailer. In those cases, the 1970 9,460 demand for the big box store is met by neighboring communities that 1975 13,358 are large enough to meet the minimum investment expectation by the 1980 18,235 retailer. Lee County has two super-regional shopping centers that are 1985 24,124 supplemented in part by demand from Collier, Hendry and Charlotte ' 1990 30,992 Counties. 1995 38,735 The demand forecast shown in Table 3 is the to Owner 2000 47,188 commercial and office space in the MSA.A community c 2005 55,146 of commercial development allowed through local zoni Sticky Note 2010 65,391 demand for commercial space exists but supply is n, 11 1 demand is met outside that community. For examp. .00 sf= 2015 74,717 shopping centers may require a population of only 8,( 111.53 sf= 2020 83,939 self-sustaining, while community and regional shopp �_._ _. 2025 92,911 �.� need a threshold population of 30,000 and 150,000 respectively_ 2030 101,519 2035 109,683 An MSA may also have more commercial space than the MSA's 2040 117,352 population could naturally support. In these cases, demand for certain 2045 124497 services from the population of neighboring communities may be met by the local MSA's supply. 2050 131,110 2055 137,193 The forecasted commercial demand in Table 3, combined with the 2060 142,760 knowledge of the existing commercial supply and vacancy rates, is 2065 147,833 useful in determining how much new space will be needed in 5-year 2070 152,439 steps. Note the demand is not linear; one 5-year step may forecast a demand rate that is greater or less than the previous 5-year period. 2075 156,606 Figure 2 helps illustrate the changing demand for commercial space 2080 160,365 over time. 2085 163,747 2090 166,783 Figure 2. Lee Metro Area Commercial Demand Forecast 1,000's SF 2095 169,503 180,00 2100 171,935 leo.OW Source:Metro Forecasting Models,LLC I-aoCO 120.00. s. SO:M^ .39?83,939 v0,0?;i K 65 X 47.188 4O,CCC 20.000 1940 1560 1980 2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100 Source:Metro Forecasting Models,LLC MFM Forecast —A-2000 -2010 x-2020 ah--= Publ..Wieri-h,h-20T.7 EXHIBIT E-1 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT Collier County Public Utilities will provide water service for potable and fire protection needs as well as wastewater service. The subject property is within the South Service Area. The County has sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer service. The estimated potable water and wastewater average daily and peak requirements for the subject property are as follows: Potable Water 7,500 GPD • (Peak 10,125 GPD) Wastewater 7,500 GPD (Peak 10,125 GPD) According to the Collier County 2015 AUIR, currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 17,256,000 tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2,389,183 tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 54 years. This is adequate to accommodate additional tons per capita disposal generated by the proposed project. Stormwater retention and detention will comply with SFWMD requirements, and State and County standards for off-site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management(drainage) level of service. The construction of 60,000 SF of commercial and office uses will not affect school or park capacity, as no population increase results from this amendment. The proposed commercial subdistrict will not increase population or demand for emergency medical services. An EMS/fire station is located at 6055 Collier Blvd., approximately three miles from the property. The subject site is within the Greater Naples Fire District. H:\2016\2016009\WP\SSGMPA\Resubmittal\Exhibit E-1-Public Facilities Report(3-1-2017).docx S 1 • Trehilcodk planninu•ennineerinu Traffic Impact Analysis 14050 Tamiami Trail - Rezone ,m-1, Collier County,FL 5/09/2016 Prepared for: Prepared by: Hole Montes,Inc. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 950 Encore Way 1205 Piper Boulevard,Suite 202 Naples,FL 34110 Naples, FL 34110 - Phone: 239.254.2000 Phone: 239.566.9551 Email: ntrebitcockeptrebiloodcbiz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee—$500.00 Collier County Transportation Review Fee—Major Study—$1,500.00 EXHIBIT"E-3" 1 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. tow'mil,. ,ss . . T . Z3/�i�'i .�,pQ� ��cENSF�O0C No 47116 '.1 Digttallysigned byNorman).TrebikockP.E Norman J. 47116 *• * * Trebilcock P.E. DNo ebi Norman Trebilcock ockPE47176, • o=Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA, a-0ou-Norman J.trebikock, 9 ' STATE OF :• i 47116 email=ntrebilcocketrebilcockbiz,c=US Date:2016.05.20 0917:28 1.;�5' .. ...'`• , C1 Norman J.Trebilcock,AICP,P.E. nno'`� FL Registration No.47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard,Suite 202 Naples,FL 34110 • Company Cert.of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 12 6 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Table of Contents Project Description 4 Trip Generation 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment 6 Background Traffic 8 Existing and Future Roadway Network 9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis 10 Site Access Analysis 11 Improvement Analysis 12 Mitigation of Impact - 12 APPENDICES Appendix A: Initial Meeting Checklist(Methodology Meeting) 13 Appendix B: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition 19 "*"'ts Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 13 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Project Description The 14050 Tamiami Trail Rezone project is a proposed development that is located in the southeast corner of the Tamiami Trail (US-41)and Creative Lane intersection,approximately 2.2 miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), within Section 12,Township 51 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. For details refer to Fig.1—Project Location Map,which follows. Fig.1—Project Location Map i s. T and Imam _ ile Iffn2hanroV Shorsrst�- .. Co Op Park n Al nattc R� �'I� �"— .r Marto Shales plates ( se p R I '� ,.rh ''Z t _ Pott u laic a I : 7 ilk 1„.., iP ' 1 SMa lakes RV r F A 4 11 Pelt "i4 PROJECT s Mo o condi Resat" k (ra Partite Aa Rietae R�J. IJ Marco 1 1 '''' t The project site is currently vacant and has a total area of approximately 5.76 acres. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on May 3, 2016, refer to Appendix A: Initial Meeting Checklist. For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2021 planning horizon. This project requests a change in zoning for this parcel from its currently zoned A(Agriculture) to C3 (Commercial Intermediate). The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. As no individual land use has been specified, conservatively, LUC 820 — Shopping Center is used for trip generation. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 14 I 14050 Tamfaml Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Table 1 Development Program ITE Land Build-out ITE Land Use Use Code Total Size Planning Horizon Year Proposed Conditions Shopping Center 820. 60,000sf 2021 Trip Generation The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software,Version 4.0.4)was used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE equations are used for the trip generation calculations. The ITE—OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix B: ITE Trip Generation Calculations. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. No internal capture is considered for this site. The pass-by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational turn lane analysis(all external traffic is accounted for). Consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, shopping centers (LUC 820) are allowed maximum pass-by traffic of 25% of the project's external trip generation potential. In addition,TIS Guidelines recommends that the daily capture rates are assumed to be 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. The new proposed project trip generation is illustrated in Table 2. 4 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page IS I i 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Table 2 Trip Generation (Proposed Conditions)—Average Weekday 24 Hour Two- Way AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Volume Land Use Size Enter. Exit Total Enter Exit Total Shopping Center—Total 60,000sf 4,872 71 43 114 204 221 425 External Traffic Total pass by 731 18 11 29 51 55 106 Traffic Total non-pass- 4,141 53 32 85 153 166 319 by Traffic Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by proposed project was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning Staff. The assignment of the net new proposed site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour and is graphically depicted on Fig. 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hr. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour CCAUIR RoadwayLink Distribution PM Peak Hr Project Roadway Link of Project Traffic Vol. Link ID# Location Traffic Enter Exit Tamiami Trail EastCreative Ln to Collier 95.1 70% EB—107 WB—116 (US 41) Blvd Tamiami Trail East • Collier Blvd to 0 '. : (US 41) 94 Triangle Blvd: 30% EB—46 WB-50 Tamiami Trail to Collier Blvd 35.0 Rattlesnake 20% SB—31 NB--33 Hammock Tamiami Trail to Wal. Collier Blvd 36.1 "20% NB 30 SB 33 Mart Driveway Tamiami Trail East95 1 Creative Ln to Joseph 30% WB-46 EB—50 (US 41) Ln Note(s): *Peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway link Level of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 16 j8 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Fig.2—Project Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak Hour 30% ,,,,,r� � su<e4 1 CN.i i l 20°x6 6/`' -3.V-f- 70% rower Rd Ray µer"""- .. 7 NNraui Research (.Enchanting Shags`'• f r0 Porkn si Manatee Rd t To i# m i. eo Shales estates it c f t a $ 1.1 t a wags `kes e 2 - a 4 1 Irest R 30% ci * : r yy Sam Lakes BY r p gam„ • sal S Ceti thb x I_ , ' a�.�. Pelleak 8' PROJECT _ f sal :m-" 'c ' aka acoxh Resat.r ...� r 1 i * ' �, •. 44- d PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION MAP BY PERCENTAGE - Pataa t3nre Ra Id Alarco e r ok°n ENTER-31; EXIT-331 ct 4. ,1 ENTER-46; EXIT-50I q N irA . , � ti i % I® n Ip ,alk i - f ENTER-107; EXIT-116 ENTER-30 EXIT-33 ,,.,. I Manatee M CD ) i M ; Marco Shales estates st * a� g i „ N ENTER=46;EXIT-501 Cla '' fie n Veer Lakes Rv'r pp aF s"+ ResatlC Galt Club.„ f g �+ * � Pekcjirna - tell =ou� PRO.IECT A .�y = li .r�r�. ke enotorcoxh Resent** � IA. 4$'''' � r PROJECT TRAFFIC i DISTRIBUTION MAP a BY PM PEAK HOUR kiek Pon Au ranee PJ s OId tiara 1 I kQ C Rook HI.r, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 17 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Background Traffic Future projected background traffic volumes are calculated based on approved growth rates and trip bank volumes for the segments of the roadway network in the study area, as shown in Collier County 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The higher of the two determinations, is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Based on Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance, a minimum of 2%growth rate is considered. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the projected background peak hour peak direction traffic volume(without project)for the future build-out year 2021. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project(2015-2021) 2021 Projected Projected Pk 2021 Projected 2015 AUIR Pk Hr,Peak Dir Pk Hr,Peak Dir CC Trc Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Hr,Pk Dir Annual Growth Background Trip Background Background Traffic Volume Traffic Volume Link Link ID Location Growth Factor Bank Traffic Volume w/out Project w/out Project (trips/hr) Rate (trips/hr) (trips/hr)Trip (%/Yr)* Growth Bank*** Factor** Tamiami Creative Ln to Trail East 954.,: 670 4 0% 1.2653 848 363 1033 Collier Blvd Tamiami Collier Blvd to Trail East 94.0 Triangle Blvd 1,490 4.0% 1.2653 1,885 211 1,701 (US 41) Tamiami Trail Collier.Blvd, '35.0 to Rattlesnake 1,620 2.0% 1.1262 . 1,824 306 1,926 • Hammock.. Tamiami Trail Collier Blvd 36.1 to Wal-Mart 1,550 4.0% 1.2653 1,961 187 1,737 Driveway Tamiami Creative Ln to Trail East 95.1 670 4.0% 1.2653 848 363 1033 Joseph Ln Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate—estimated for 2009-2014 peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes,or 2%minimum. **Growth Factor= (1+Annual Growth Rate)^6.2021 Projected Volume=2015 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2021 Projected Volume=2015 AUIR Volume+Trip Bank.The projected 2021 Peak Hour—Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation,which is underlined and bold as applicable. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 18 6 • 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2015 Annual Update and Inventory Report(AUIR). Future projected roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5- Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program(CIP)are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2015 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5,Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Min. Exist Peak Dir, Future Roadway Link CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist Standard Peak Hr Project Link ID# Location RoadwayLOS Capacity Build out Volume Roadway Tauri ami Trail ' ... ........ ...: . 'Creative.Ln.to.. :. :::. .. . ..: 95 1 :::fiD.. D.::. . ,: 3,100.(E) r60 CoOier:Bivd: - ,""*", Tamiami Trail Collier Blvd to East 94.0 Triangle Blvd 6D E 3,000(E) 6D (US 41) Tamiami,Trail to: Collier..Bivd, :35.0.::': lRattlesnake:. ::6D E 3,200,(N) . .......:.:..... Tamiami Trail to Collier Blvd 36.1 Wal-Mart 6D E 2,500(N) 6D Driveway Tamiami Trail :...... ::..:::. :Crea ive I:n to. ;:_:East.:'::°:::: ;:.:.95.1;,:: .....:;,: ::,:::::::•...:;..:....:: `6D.:�'.''.` .p� ,3;7.00..(E) 6D Note(s): 2L1=2-lane undivided roadway;4D,6D,8D=4-lane,6-lane,8-lane divided roadway,respectively;LOS=Level of Service. fl Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 19 14050 Tamlami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future (2021). The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria,this project's traffic impacts are significant on Tamiami Trail west of the project to Collier Boulevard (3.5%) of volume capacity. The project's impacts on other segments of the study network are not significant. This project does not create an adverse impact to the area roadway network as none of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at year 2021 future conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 110 1 14050 Tamiaml Trail—VA—Rezone—May 2016 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service(LOS)—With Project in the Year 2021 Roadway 2021 Min LOS Min LOS CC 2015 Peak Peak Dir, Volume Link,Peak exceeded exceeded Roadway Link, Dir,Peak Hr AUIR Roadway Link Dir,Peak Peak Hr Capacity without with Link Location Hr Capacity Volume Impact Project? (Project Vol jProject? ID# Volume Added)* w/Project By Yes/No Yes/No ** Project Tamiami Trail • Creative Ln • East ? 95.1 •to Collier 3,100(E) EB 107 . 1,140 3.5.% No No (U5 41) Blvd Tamiami Trail Collier Blvd East 94.0 to Triangle 3,000(E) EB-46 1,931 1.5% No No (US 41) Blvd Tamlami.Trail. Collier Blvd 5-13 Raitisnake to '3,200(N) •NB 33 1,959 10% No No • Hammock Tamiami Trail Collier Blvd 36.1 to Wal-Mart 2,500(N) NB-30 1,991 1.2% No No Driveway Tamiami Trait Creative Ln East 95,1. 3,100(E) EB 50 1,083 16% No No.: to Joseph Ln (US 41) Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. "*2021 Projected Volume=2021 background(refer to Table 4)+Project Volume Added. Site Access Analysis The 14050 Tamiami Trail project has frontage along Tamiami Trail (US-41) and Creative Lane. Collier County resolution 13-257, 3.09.2.1 states that there shall be no more than one connection per road frontage. Tamiami Trail is a rural, six-lane, divided major arterial roadway under FDOT jurisdiction. According to Collier County resolution 13-257,Tamiami Trail is considered a Ciass 3 facility. The roadway has a posted speed of 55 mph in the vicinity of the project. As such, the minimum connection spacing is 660 feet. The minimum median opening for a directional turn lane is 660 feet and 1,320 feet for a full opening. The minimum signal spacing for a Class 3 roadway is one half of a mile. The intersection of Tamiami Trail and Creative Lane has a full access opening with an eastbound right turn lane and a westbound left turn lane. Collier County resolution 13-257,Table 2 states that for a project driveway opening along Tamiami Trail, the corner clearance from Creative ( Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 111 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Lane must be a minimum of 230 feet for a right in/right out access. Therefore,a right-in/right- out access onto Tamiami Trail at this location may be allowed. Creative Lane is a rural, two-lane, undivided local roadway. The roadway has an assumed speed of 30 mph in the vicinity of the project. As illustrated in Collier County Access Management Policy,a full access driveway is allowed on this road provided there is a minimum corner clearance of 125 feet from the Creative Lane with Tamiami Trail intersection. Site access analysis will be performed during future development order application. Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, the proposed project is a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development generated trips without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. Site access analysis will be performed during future development order application. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. � E Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 112 14050 Tamiaml Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 • Appendix A: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) (5 Sheets) • Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 113 14050 Tamiami Trail—17A—Rezone—May 2016 I X 3 • INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply,or N/A(not applicable). Date: May 3,2016 Time: N/A Location:N/A—Via Email People Attending: 3 Name,Organization,and Telephone Numbers �' i 1) Michael Sawyer,Collier County Growth Management Division 2) Norman Trebilcock,TCS 3) Ciprian Malaescu,TCS Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title:Norman Trebilcock,AICP,PE Organization:Trebilcock Consulting Solutions.PA Address&Telephone Number:1205 Piper Boulevard,Suite 202,Naples,Fl.34110; 1 239-566-9551 Reviewer(s): Reviewer's Name&Title:Michael Sawyer.Project Manager Organization&Telephone Number:Collier County Transportation Planning Department; 3 s 239-252-2926 i y 1 w Applicant: Applicant's Name:Hole Montes,Inc. Address:950 Encore Way,Naples,FL 34110 1 Telephone Number:239-254-2000 9 Proposed Development: Name:14050 Tamiami Trail Project—C3(Commercial Intermediate)Rezone • Location: on the south side of US-41(Tamiami Trail)approximately 2.2 miles east of Collier Boulevard(SR 951)(Refer to Fis.l) Land Use Type:Retail—shopping center ITE Code#: LUC 820 t Description: Proposed up to 60,000sf of retail shopping center. The project site is currently vacant. L.VIullg Existing:current zoning A(Agriculture) Comprehensive plan recommendation:No change _ Page 1 of 5 s s 3 3 `_.. --r ._ C i1 i Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page j 14 d r 14050 Tamiami Trail—VA—Rezone—May 2016 • Requested:to allow for a rezone approval Fig.1—Project Location Map ILY J <` t .-u-Rf a .r t PROJECT t ` Ili Qt Findings of the Preliminary Study: Study type: Since estimated project new traffic volume is above 100 AM or PM peak hour trips,this study qualifies for a Major TIS—significant roadway and/or operational impacts and work within the county right-of-way. The TIS will include AM-PM peak hour trip generation,traffic distribution and assignments,significance test,roadway link analysis and site access points turn lane analysis. Roadway concurrency analysis—PM Pk Hr weekday traffic Site Access Analysis—To be determined at time of future development order application. The TIS shall be consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures. Proposed pass-by rates are as follows: Daily— 15% (10% lower than the peak hour capture rate),AM—25%:PM—25%. Internal capture is not considered for this study. Study Type: (if not net increase,operational study) Small Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Major TIS Study Area: Boundaries:north—US-41(Tamiami Trail).west—Creative Lane Additional intersections to be analyzed:N/A Page 2 of 5 s Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 15 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Build Out Year:To be determined Planning Horizon Year:2021 Analysis Time Period(s):Concurrency—Weekday PM Pk Hr;Operational—Weekday AM-PM Pk Hr. Future Off-Site Developments:Nom/ Source of Trip Generation Rates:ITE 9'h Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None:N/A Pass-by trips:consistent with CC TIS Guidelines and Procedures Internal trips:N/A Transit use: Other:N/A Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements:2021 Methodology&Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates:Collier County traffic counts and 2015 AUIR Site-trip generation: OTISS—TIE 9'h Edition Trip distribution method:Engineer's Estimate—refer to Fig.2 below Traffic assignment method:project trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate:historical growth rate or 2%minimum Fig.2—Project TripDisfribution by Percentage K 30°G " 20% _. N P 8 S tH . \ 20% nU Fruc[l [aQ Pad ►�,'�I t` c a f 30% �_ PROJEC t * PROJECTTRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION MAP BY PERCENTAGE =am Page 3 of 5 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 16 14050 Tomiami Trail–TIA–Rezone–May 2016 Special Features:(from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations:N/A Sight distance:N/A Queuing:N/A • Access location&configuration:N/A Traffic control:MUTCD Signal system location&progression needs:N/A On-site parking needs:N/A Data Sources:CC 2015 AMR CC Traffic Counts Base maps:N/A Prior study reports:N/A Access policy and jurisdiction:N/A Review process:NIA Requirements:N/A Miscellaneous: N/A Small Scale Study–No Fee Minor Study-$750.00 Major Study-$1500.00 X +Methodology-$500.00=$2,000 Includes 2 intersections Additional Intersections-$500.00 each All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign-off an the application. SIGNATURES Normaw Trebil.cocle Study Preparer—Nonnan Trebilcock Reviewer(s) Applicant • • Page 4 of 5 1 a Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 117 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 I. _ Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule r Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review,Analysis Review,and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. i s Methodology Review-$500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement,including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s),distribution, assignment, and review of a "Small Scale Study"determination,written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement,and written confirmation of a re-submitted,amended methodology statement,and one meeting in Collier County,if needed. "Small Scale Study"Review-No Additional Fee(Includes one sufficiency review) Upon approval of the methodology review,the applicant may submit the study.The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confnmation of the study compliance with trip generation,distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review"-$750 Fee(Includes one sufficiency review) - Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes:optional field visit to site,confirmation of trip generation,distribution,and assignment,concurrency determination,confirmation of committed 1 improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled, review of off-site improvements within the right-of-way,review of site access and circulation,and preparation and review of"sufficiency"comments/questions. I. "Major Study Review"-$1,500 Fee(Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site, confirmation of trip a m generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignent, concurrency determination,confirmation of committed improvements,review of traffic volume data collected/assembled,review of traffic growth analysis,review of off-site roadway operations and capacity analysis,review of site access and circulation,neighborhood traffic intrusion issues, ii any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates,and preparation and review a of up to two rounds of"sufficiency"comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of 5 approval. "Additional intersection Review"-$500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the`Ivfsjor 3 Study Review"and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in i 3 the"Major Study Review" E t 1 "Additional Sufficiency Reviews"-$500 Fee) Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall irequire the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. , 1 a i Page 5 of 5 f F i t Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 118 • C 1 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Appendix B: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition (1 Sheet) 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 119 14050 Tamiami Trail—TIA—Rezone—May 2016 Prof eel Name: 14050 Temiaml Trat E No: '= Date: 3012016 City: ' StateIProliince: Zip/Potted Code: Country: alert Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: nE-TOM ltlh Ecaion WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR P1.4 PEAK HOUR LEWD USE SIZE Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 820•Shopping Ceder 60'.'1 2436 2436 71 43 204 221 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pass-by 0 0 0 0 a 0 Non-pass-by 2436 2436 71 43 _ 201 221 Total 2436 2436 71 43 204 221 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Internal 0 0 a 0 0 0 Total Pass-by 0 0 0 o o 0 Total Nen-pass-by __ 2436 2436 71 43 204 221 �_ (I) IR004 Feel Gross Leasab0500 PROJECT NAME: 14050 TAMIAMI TRAIL E i ANALYSIS NAME: (Weekday LAND USE INDEPENDENT SIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE (k 820-Shopping Center 1000 Sq.Feet arcs 60 Weekday �y i Best Fn(LOG) 2 2436 2436 4672 3 Ln(T)=0.65Ln(X)+5.83 1. PROJECT NAME: 14050 TAMIAMI TRAIL E ANALYSIS NAME[pm peak Hour INDEPENDENT - LAND USE SIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE Ct.820-Shopping Center t 1000 Sq.Feet Gros 60 Weekday,Peak Hoo v❑ Best Flt(LOG) 0 0 71 43 114 Ln(T)=0.61 Ln(X)+2.24 PROJECT NAME: 14050 TAMIAMI TRAIL E ANALYSIS NAME: PM Peak Hour INDEPENDENT LAND USE SIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE -:( 0,820-Shopping Center 1000 Sq.Feet Gros: 60 Weekday,Peek Hot❑v Best Fk(LOG) 204 221 425 ff Pf Ln(T)=0.67Ln(X)+3.31 1 1 t, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 120 fl I A 1 1 I It Tiff llm I I I I 1 r 0 OM 00 00 00p ❑O ❑❑ ❑❑ g❑ ❑❑ _ _ 0 00 0 00❑ 00 00 - - U ,– r u 11 i 40 0 00 00 00 00 00 =– = >, w • 7' BBzBR nn oa —t H <I cn a] 11_, o rah '�� H O ,•—////1/// , � � o 0 00 0000 00 BB HOB 0 . 0ri JR /❑o 0 ❑o 00 00=o N I��Ij• W0l a ❑000BB 000BE 000 Q . • P-iW� T.11 Sv 8i� E� �I, xas /W� T�_�11111111111D�1__ -'_ �rI►IOi, 4 41 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUw �;i �/ o a. \ O 21 VW x\111111 �� Qt 41,11/1, Y �� ` I— I 8 �i� w �i: �r,,t11ja :;'4 `� Q 1j X11 E-1\ 1►Ott 0= �ffe �� U ift -%4'.ill11111111111111ni" vI-' 'iaA e „�m r p a eminw As *Ar Ek N L■ 1111 ."s Q iieCL ,ii `' _■.,1 / ■11 11► f�i �� w W • un ���i=s+ �i,�� " �y A ,..,,>•,,,/ et o TE. opZ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII \E 5 ~ 3 " CCW CA1s 3na3S • �. umuu11101=J inmum n■►' _Q W J c• ��'s Q U r0O ON ., i --N\ U '~ W W CliNC W m O 1,.................n-.- bk ]f.►pd ,, 0 O m MVO�9 , U Z V]l / 0dN O N _J _.—Q � XY °' o"° I 1.1J U Waz .. 0L 04 ¢ t ,/"."'NQo a. Q 0_ ►r11111�� w0 if I— 1110141, r ¢ a �y W i v w 11 ,11 n. ) Z T, 0 wu � I , w� am g! i + om w 140116.- 49��ryt1C��J Q U H- z CC (-) ' W Q Z 0CIL CO t._ O J ,Ir \_.., UI- O Z wr- _I ,,,I-- c�� « WQ ' � a C U f.T H ^W CO n 0. 0. w U 0 + N N N i Z �` ,�S6. -,�,� u '� O LLI _- N NHy v� m °u C N o f o o a D LAL ' m V I' W L 5 pONm� Wd ZZ�y�j 6Z O C A < U L,_ M p g 0 1 — .._ ;-,,,-;;i1,1,1:1-. sS,y ` ��` 4 L Xk .g a^.I r �-4-0±..,-$4$'6-- : r, • i. 3 . ..c t �} t i ires a r 'Z S t ! " mssfi-; TT2y fir +E 'g 1� 1 ' ;t:i. Y ;.i. f,, -s 2 J € • J� A.. - } . >r 2 + z, , x *I --- -- " p fx. -,..i-'--,,...;--4,.� i ' �Tk,, 2 r'1L�`s-5'.L a F 1) ,, 4 } `. `t • t A b..,,�l7J s�Y 1.;;;;.. tom+'. 1S' 1 ;,, Y 111" i ,sl+ Y,'� .� — ,' " 2 s ,r�. y.. t.--,• ,,,,, a'_' * .....s. • .J r �.. t• t'. z ' ?, < y y 1 qq jj 2 i }'�. .! z �` ,..7'-'4"715C1sAfilhl:414:11'7:-,,,i'inarni ti fiY s .�. jA�irL '� 1 2 1.��., �# it iRI R1 y, as \ . t' �i N c :.,.1 _l ,-* , �: • f .. ,..'II it 1[ 17� !y Y 7 ,lt y 3 r ? I b : )F t "7,,1. ' C** 4` K t`$` a ` 1 .{ t • `^ .1 f_�.LLIDYt�9I iTC R �� �r� _ ..-;,-„v?...:, - r x :. ,` t•:+ ,,, ' , ,�„ ."k7n •z `t ` "r .. ;,fi• .. hiw. S 2 �}��i ry i"' - t j?{f,� ',r:a t` a+F� '+111�1.. ! '' , Q -01.,. 91sT. _ 'r J '. — Sy ' ,. ::',-,_*:170,e ;';',:17 � Rti SIGN 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 Beard 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. Tile sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not more than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s)must be securely affixed by nails, staples,or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post,or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s)in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. If the sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING*DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY,PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPERNOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN .PETITION NUMBER, PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2 AND PL20160000226. 950 ENCORE WAY SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O.BOX ' ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP - NAPLES, FL 34110 NAME(TYPED OR PRIN FED) • CITY,STATE GIP HOLE MONTES, INC.. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER . The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 4th day of Ap r i 1 , 20 18 by ROBERT J. MULHERE zersonally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. ,{Vq/UvV4, (}•�y�=_�EPHANIE KAROL ` da °`-QAfro `% Notary Public-State of Florida 0 Signof Notary Public �.•• Commission M FF 939980 i. s,;? a;•` My Comm.Expfris Marg,2020 4 ''''' Is Bonded through National Notar"Assn.* STEPHANIE KAROL • . — _ — — 41—NI. — — — — 41 Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev.314/2015 r ' 2 acp.^ cp W es �tOty LL 0) 0 ei " N h 0. Q .t ' mom 4,4 ail .Me ii GC Q -, � crot, > CC 01Z eh Ztovt buuo ".. .al 0 N p O 4 � c`� 'C441 2C s !ct ," = ”4"' '. LC W °C �" �/ al.cin 6? "u CP Xi 45 45 sJ Z c 44 Q GI ae vs ►- ® aEE u .=. ...•a deo ..., vtQ � 4 -,.OD ~ _ Tt ....Hca 1 D i ='CIL k AA t s 40 ma lece 16w .... � `c �++r.2, tai . _ Yir �"'� to wtr Kt 'Ic 40 c CC .? „1 . 4UI" 0 ►- ... 032.9 = 0. � © .c +•,,iz2 AIME till — �. " _ x ". i >- :3tzii232 .. ¢ am 1.. Or r� s:c ca ® }, et,0. xh ,�* to 2E 1 Irc cow trot Rr� `"' s :47: w a" ..rt }. W co w amp sail fi rT,a• : c' 5 sm ' Za g t � � vsdocc .�.r = '"' � ice] F /� W 1 0ttWcci sx a O' " x LI 1— L C' _ d am im p Lh in F-- u' �/" y� O $' d C) t d a: =J �/ ... L.a d O W 02 .4 APC M _ !pmii. N Z 2 = F- N 6 `4y 1 r . .fa; !S c, 4 4 = S A Lai d 0. •� - . '' O a Z cry C?`H,H = Q. ' Hwy a s- X 2T '' F- W r .<g gL Ca O C - atria +&. W= u.0 . i" 4 +� Wx,�,El c N.i Qf ' µxi �2 Q � Q05 ' =tea 2,a w 7- C7 , 40 61 = U = F 3 :NI 20 Ed ?ixw e ..er p NapiesNew .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 forYthe purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/ZONING DEPARTMENT 1963870 GMPA-PL20160002771 4500176563 Pub Dates March 30,2018 cs O = r^nrrl. c) Oc, w • =c r*t. :<rn . r- .1 W a . .an) nA 06efiaZI (Sig ture of affiant) KAROLEKANGAS Sworn to and subscribed before me (4.1. ca 4Gcialov This March 30,2018 �i AyCmekboteMn.7W1 (Signature of affiant) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE(S) Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on April 19,2018 commencing at 9:00 A.M in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN— COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND CHANGING THE DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY FROM URBAN COASTAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT TO EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE (C-3) USES AND AN AIR- CONDITIONED AND ENCLOSED SELF-STORAGE FACILITY;AND FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTING,OF±5.8 ACRES IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41, APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE SOUTHEAST OF MANATEE ROAD AND, OPPOSITE AND SOUTHEAST FROM NAPLES RESERVE BOULEVARD,IN SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. IPL20160002771( AND AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.2004.41,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS TORRES FAMILY TRUST CPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDING AIR CONDITIONED MINI SELF- STORAGE WAREHOUSING,AND ALLOWING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AT A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF.60 AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF±5.8 ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41,APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE SOUTHEAST OF MANATEE ROAD AND, OPPOSITE AND SOUTHEAST FROM NAPLES RESERVE BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA.IPL20160000226) o0 � z PNOJ ECI NNN LOCATION U� O All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S)will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401 Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to April 19,2018,will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier'County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission March 30,2018 ND-1963870 AGENDA ITEM 9-D Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 200441, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A RURAL AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS TORRES FAMILY TRUST CPUD TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 609000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF COMMERCIAL USES INCLUDING AIR- CONDITIONED MINI SELF -STORAGE WAREHOUSING, AND ALLOWING ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AT A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .60 AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF f5.8 ACRES AND IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 419 APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE SOUTHEAST OF MANATEE ROAD AND, OPPOSITE AND SOUTHEAST FROM NAPLES RESERVE BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL201600002261 WHEREAS, Robert Mulhere, FAICP of Hole Montes, Inc. and Rich Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A representing Torres Family Holdings, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described property. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a 5.76+/- acre project to be known as the Torres Family Trust CPUD to allow commercial uses in accordance with the CPUD Documents, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and [16 -CPS -01604/1399427/11155 Torres Family Trust PUDz-PL20160000226 3/8/18 1 oft incorporated herein by reference. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 18- becomes effective. 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 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Plan Exhibit C-1 —Perimeter Berm Zoning Exhibit Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Deviations Exhibit F — Developer Commitments [16 -CPS -01604/1399427/11155 Tortes Family Trust PUDZ-PL20160000226 3/8/18 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A TORRES FAMILY TRUST CPUD LIST OF PERMITTED USES PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land used, in whole or in part, within the Tones Family Trust CPUD, for other than the following: TRACT C — COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT I. Principal Uses A. Up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of the following commercial uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), subject to the restrictions in 1.13 and III. No single use may exceed 45,000 square feet of gross leasable area. 1. Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping (8721). 2. Advertising agencies (7311). 3. Animal specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding animal shelters: artificial insemination services: animal specialties; breeding of animals; dog pounds; honey straining on the farm; training horses, except racing; outside kenneling and horse boarding). 4. Apparel and accessory stores (5611-5699). 5. Architectural services (8712). 6. Auto and home supply stores (5531). 7. Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011-6099). 8. Barber shops (7241, except for barber schools). 9. Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools). 10. Business associations (8611). 11. Business consulting services (8748). 12. Business credit institutions (6153-6159). 13. Business services—miscellaneous (7389, excluding auctioneering service; automobile recovery; automobile repossession; bartering services for businesses; batik work; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; bronzing; cloth cutting; contractors' disbursement; convention decorators; cosmetic kits; cotton inspection; cotton sampler; directories, telephone; drawback service, customs; drive -a -way automobile; exhibits, building; filling pressure containers; field warehousing; fire extinguishers; firefighting service; floats, decoration; folding and refolding; gas systems; inspection of commodities; labeling bottles; liquidation services; metal slitting and shearing; mounting merchandise on cars; music distribution systems; packaging and labeling; patrol of electric transmission or gas lines; pipeline or powerline inspection; pre-sorting mail service; press clipping service; produce weighing service; product sterilization service; racetrack cleaning; radio Page I of 14 H:12016\2016009\WPIPUDZU-15-2018\Tortes Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx broadcasting music checkers; recording studios; repossession service; rug binding; salvaging of damaged merchandise; sampling of commodities; scrap steel cutting and slitting; shrinking textiles; solvent recovery; sponging textiles; styling of fashions, apparel, furniture, and textiles; swimming pool cleaning; tape slitting; textile designers; textile folding; tobacco sheeting; weighing foods and other commodities; window trimming; and yacht brokers). 14. Child day care services (8351). 15. Churches. 16. Civic, social, and fraternal associations (8641). 17. Commercial art and graphic design (7336). 18. Commercial photography (7335). 19. Computer and computer software stores (5734). 20. Credit reporting services (7323). 21. Direct mail advertising services (7331). 22. Drug stores (5912). 23. Eating and drinking places (5812 restaurants only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premise consumption are subject to the locational requirements of section 5.05.01 of the LDC. 24. Educational plants and services (8211, 8221-8222). 25. Engineering services (8711). 26. Essential services, subject to section 2.01.03 of the LDC. 27. Federal and federally -sponsored credit agencies (6111). 28. Food stores (groups 5411-5499). 29. Garment pressing and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212, excluding truck route laundry and drycleaning, not operated by laundries). 30. General merchandise stores (5331-5399). 31. Glass, Paint, and Wallpaper stores (5231). 32. Group care facilities limited to persons 55 and over (category I and 11, except for homeless shelters); care units, except for homeless shelters; nursing homes; independent or assisted living facilities pursuant to F.S. § 429 and ch. 58A-5 F.A.C.; and continuing care retirement communities pursuant to F.S. § 651 and ch. 4-193 F.A.C.; all subject to section 5.05.04. of the LDC (hereinafter collectively or singularly referred to as "Assisted Living Facility"). Assisted Living Facilities are not subject to the limitation on square footage. 33. Hardware stores (5251). 34. Health services, offices and clinics (8011-8049, 8092, and 8099). 35. Home furniture and furnishings stores (5712-5719). 36. Home health care services (8082). 37. Household appliance stores (5722). 38. Insurance carriers, agents and brokers (6311-6399, 6411). 39. Labor unions (8631). 40. Landscape architects, consulting and planning (0781). 41. Legal services (8111). 42. Libraries (8231). 43. Loan brokers (6163). 44. Management services (8741, 8742). Page 2 of 14 H \2016\2016009\WP\PUDZ\2-15.2018\Torres Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docz 45. Membership organizations, miscellaneous (8699). 46. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, air conditioned and mini -and self -storage warehousing only). 47. Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 48. Museums and art galleries (8412). 49. Musical instrument stores (5736). 50. Personal credit institutions (6141). 51. Personnel supply services (7361 & 7363). 52. Personal services, miscellaneous (7299 - babysitting bureaus, clothing rental, costume rental, dating service, debt counseling, depilatory salons, diet workshops, dress suit rental, electrolysis, genealogical investigation service, and hair removal only) with 5,000 square feet or less of gross floor area in the principal structure. 53. Photographic studios, portrait (7221). 54. Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7997). 55. Professional membership organizations (8621). 56. Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411, 9451, 9511-9532, 9611-9661). 57. Public relations services (8743). 58. Radio, television and consumer electronics stores (5731). 59. Radio, television and publishers advertising representatives (7313). 60. Real Estate (6531-6552). 61. Religious organizations (8661). 62. Repair services - miscellaneous (7629, excluding appliance repair; business machine repair; office machine repair - except typewriters, computers; and washing machine repair; 7631, 7699 - limited to bicycle repair, binocular repair, camera repair, key duplicating, lawnmower repair, leather goods repair, locksmith shop, picture framing, and pocketbook repair only). 63. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261). 64. Retail services - miscellaneous (5921-5963 except pawnshops and building materials; 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). 65. Security and commodity brokers, dealer, exchanges and services (6211-6289). 66. Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors (7251). 67. Surveying services (8713). 68. Tax return preparation services (7291). 69. Travel agencies (4724, no other transportation services). 70. United States Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 71. Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). 72. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals or Hearing Examiner pursuant to the process outlined in the LDC. B. The following commercial uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual (1987), are prohibited within 60 feet of the southern or eastern property line: Page 3 of 14 H:\2016\2016009\WP\PUDZ\2.15-201 Mores Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx I . Animal specialty services, except veterinary (0752, excluding animal shelters; artificial insemination services: animal specialties; breeding of animals; dog pounds; honey straining on the farm; training horses, except racing; outside kenneling and horse boarding). 2. Apparel and accessory stores (5611-5699). 3. Auto and home supply stores (5531). 4. Banks, credit unions and trusts (6011-6099). 5. Barber shops (7241, except for barber schools). 6. Beauty shops (7231, except for beauty schools). 7. Business credit institutions (6153-6159). 8. Business services -miscellaneous (7389, excluding auctioneering service; automobile recovery; automobile repossession; bartering services for businesses; batik work; bondspersons; bottle exchanges; bronzing; cloth cutting; contractors' disbursement; convention decorators; cosmetic kits; cotton inspection; cotton sampler; directories, telephone; drawback service, customs; drive -a -way automobile; exhibits, building; filling pressure containers; field warehousing; fire extinguishers; firefighting service; floats, decoration; folding and refolding; gas systems; inspection of commodities; labeling bottles; liquidation services; metal slitting and shearing; mounting merchandise on cars; music distribution systems; packaging and labeling; patrol of electric transmission or gas lines; pipeline or powerline inspection; pre-sorting mail service; press clipping service; produce weighing service; product sterilization service; racetrack cleaning; radio broadcasting music checkers; recording studios; repossession service; rug binding; salvaging of damaged merchandise; sampling of commodities; scrap steel cutting and slitting; shrinking textiles; solvent recovery; sponging textiles; styling of fashions, apparel, furniture, and textiles; swimming pool cleaning; tape slitting; textile designers; textile folding; tobacco sheeting; weighing foods and other commodities; window trimming; and yacht brokers). 9. Child day care services (8351). 10. Churches. 1 l . Computer and computer software stores (5734). 12. Drug stores (5912). 13. Eating and drinking places (5812 restaurants only). All establishments engaged in the retail sale of alcoholic beverages for on -premise consumption are subject to the locational requirements of section 5.05.01 of the LDC. 14. Educational plants and services (8211, 8221-8222). 15. Federal and federally -sponsored credit agencies (6111). 16. Food stores (groups 5411-5499). 17. Garment pressing and agents for laundries and drycleaners (7212, excluding truck route laundry and drycleaning, not operated by laundries). 18. General merchandise stores (5331-5399). 19. Glass, Paint, and Wallpaper stores (5231). 20. Hardware stores (5251). 21. Home furniture and furnishings stores (5712-5719). 22. Household appliance stores (5722). 23. Libraries (8231). Page 4 of 14 H*\2016\2016009\WP\PUDZ\2-15-2018\Tortes Family Tntst CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx 24. Loan brokers (6163). 25. Motor freight transportation and warehousing (4225, air conditioned and mini -and self -storage warehousing only). 26. Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents (6162). 27. Museums and art galleries (8412). 28. Musical instrument stores (5736). 29. Personal credit institutions (6141). 30. Photographic studios, portrait (7221). 31. Physical fitness facilities (7991; 7997). 32. Radio, television and consumer electronics stores (5731). 33. Religious organizations (8661). 34. Repair services - miscellaneous (7629, excluding appliance repair; business machine repair; office machine repair - except typewriters, computers; and washing machine repair; 7631, 7699 - limited to bicycle repair, binocular repair, camera repair, key duplicating, lawnmower repair, leather goods repair, locksmith shop, picture framing, and pocketbook repair only). 35. Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores (5261). 36. Retail services - miscellaneous (5921-5963 except pawnshops and building materials; 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). 37. Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors (7251). 38. United States Postal Service (4311, except major distribution center). 39. Veterinary services (0742, excluding outdoor kenneling). H. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures permitted by right in this CPUD, including, but not limited to: 1. Outside storage or display of merchandise when specifically permitted by the LDC for a use, subject to LDC Section 4.02.12. 2. One caretakers residence, subject to LDC Section 5.03.05. 3. Temporary display of merchandise during business hours provided it does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health or safety as determined by the County. Merchandise storage and display is prohibited within any front yard but allowed within the side and rear yards of lots. 4. Signage in accordance with LDC Section 5.06.00 et seq. III. Restrictions on Certain Uses: Within 60 feet of the eastern and southern perimeter boundaries of the PUD, and subject to the square footage limitations in I.A., only the following uses and/or improvements shall be permitted: 1. Conservation/Preserve areas; 2. Landscape buffers; Page 5 of 14 H:\2016\2016009\WP\PUDZU-15-2018\Torres Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx I Stormwater management areas (dry or wet detention); 4. Essential services; 5. Professional office or other professional service uses not otherwise prohibited in Section I.B., above; and 6. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with any of the permitted principal uses, including parking, except outdoor storage and display. TRACT P — PRESERVE: PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered, or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Preservation of native habitat. B. Accessory Uses, allowed only if additional acreage above the required minimum is provided in Tract P: 1. Storm water management structures. 2. Pervious and impervious pathways and boardwalks, consistent with LDC Section 3.05.07 H.l.h.i. 3. Shelters without walls. 4. Educational signage and bulletin boards located on or immediately adjacent to the pathway. 5. Benches for seating. 6. Viewing platforms. 7. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted accessory uses, as determined by the Hearing Examiner by the process outlined in the LDC. Page 6 of 14 HA2016\2016009\WP\PUDZU-15-2018\Tortes Family Tnut CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2.15-2018).docx EXHIBIT B TORRES FAMILY TRUST CPUD DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS The table below sets forth the development standards for commercial land uses (including Assisted Living Facilities) within Tract C of the Torres Family Trust CPDD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. I. COMMERCIAI, nF.VFI.OPMRNT CTANI1ADTe . rcr pnnctpat structure, on the nmsned first floor. 2. Landscape buffers shall be separately platted or separate tracts on the SDP. 3. As measured from the Control Elevation. Page 7 of 14 H:\2016\2016009\WP\PUD2\2.15-2018\Tortes Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx viv STRIJG`T�RE� S`I'AbL�">;J(�FS MIN. LOT AREA 10,000 S.F. N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH 100 FEET N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 1,000 S.F. N/A MINIMUM YARDS From Tamiami Trail 35 FEET SPS From adjacent TTRVC zoned property 25 FEET if no preserve or 25 FEET from reserve bound 10 FEET if no preserve or 10 FEET from preserve boundary From adjacent PUD zoned property 25 FEET 10 FEET Min. Front Yard 10 FEET SPS Min. Side Yard 10 FEET 5 FEET Min. Rear Yard 10 FEET S FEET Min. Preserve Setback 25 FEET 10 FEET Min. Lake Setback 20 FEET 10 FEET MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 20 FT or 'f, sum of BH, whichever is greater 10 FEET MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED ZONED 45 FEET SPS MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED ACTUAL 52 FEET SPS . rcr pnnctpat structure, on the nmsned first floor. 2. Landscape buffers shall be separately platted or separate tracts on the SDP. 3. As measured from the Control Elevation. Page 7 of 14 H:\2016\2016009\WP\PUD2\2.15-2018\Tortes Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx I IMPERIAL WILDERNESS SECTION 1' �4 AD R� TTRVC ' w (CONDOMINIUM BOOK 25, PAGES 109-115) �_ l .y f� f w L'OLLIER COUNTY WAlt SEWER PARCEL, }� AS RECOR O.R. IL 1 PG. 1885 6 1890 Q' c lot>� 10' TYPE "A" 25' TYPE "B" LS BUFFER z c� �P LS BUFFER WALL & BERM PRESERVE 0 u J �( TRACT P w Qa Q 0 0.80 ACRES II N m TRACT C - COMMERCIAL 1' Z V /JJJ 15' TYPE "D.. 5.06 ACRES w m LS BUFFER P 3 \ J o 0 _10_' _TY_P_E "D_"_LS_ BUFFER -- - --_----- _ 1 I' 30' ROADWAY ESMT U ".r.0 .E.r----- EXISTING ASPHAL f— — �y'L O R BOOK 183. PAGE 138 60' ROADWAY EASEMENT - 0 RR BBjOOK 185. PAGES 466 467 . jr~FIDDLERST'� p� PUD O.R. BOOK 1911, PAGE 144 LAND USE SUMMARY LAND USE AREA % TRACT "C 506 86.35% TRACT"P" 0.80 ]3.65% TOTAL S86 100.00% MASTER SITE PLAN SCALE I' = 40' 11 v I r o. 1 'PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. OPENSPACE A MIN. REQUIRED/PROVIDED: 1.69 AC (30%) M E. sew w. a." kyr »w NlW ,FL 011100us�""s p zw.m v"aw w TORRES FAMILY "me. .. P.. (330)2S 000 EXHIBIT C °a �*• 101 MONTES u.a w. Mie w "'ter '••• Bo�6NYB66R.BaR AYINw"Ipp" N. 1nz BVDryPE BUFFER; EYJsnNG PRDPERTY —IIC BIHL DINT PERIME rER BERM T i BIXINDARY MIN BERM NEIDNT = BoulwRr ]II O CREATIVE LMIE 3 YE STORM SVbNE 1 ELEV Rp1pM\Y EASEMENT IAREA MT INCLUDED IN PRESERVE ACREAOEI -I I]\SMA1 fJ q4� PROPOSED EYJBTNO -i\ E)ISnNO BERM ROPDWAv 1 �' ELEV SECTION A -A EXPANSION NTS 1\ Rs'NtDE TYLANDSCAPE BUFFERI PERIMRIM ETER BEAM PROPOSED SNW1L WU Na MIN BERM NEIW ]SVEW STORM A1— lT1MAY.1 VOAKrfJt_ SECTION C -C' NTS i EIB5nNG PROPERtt ' BDUi1ARv EYJsnNG PRDPERTY IMPERVIL VMLDERNESS EMSnN PRO ERn MISTAKE VMES i BIXINDARY PROPOSED� �� BoulwRr ]II O CREATIVE LMIE JO.O CREAnVE IAfE PIIEBERVE + PERIMETER BERM IMPERIKWLDERNE« RDA lEASEMENT Rp1pM\Y EASEMENT IAREA MT INCLUDED IN PRESERVE ACREAOEI MN BERM IEIfRR MIAMR OW W -MNBERMHER T. PROPOSED EYJBTNO nYEARSTORM E)ISnNO BERM ROPDWAv gOADWAr �' ELEV \ EXPANSION AtMT• 1 T SECTION D -D EMSTINO SWAlEJ SECTION B -B SONE. t•. ux NTS i EIB5nNG PROPERtt ' BDUi1ARv - IMPERVIL VMLDERNESS MISTAKE VMES -- PROPOSED� �� - I� MIN PRINT STRUCTURE SETIMC ) EMsnw PROPERTY BOUJDMv PF3BMETER BERM MN BERM IEIfRR MIAMR OW W ELEVATON EMSnNGSERM- __�_ \ AtMT• 1 SECTION D -D IN T.3 SONE. t•. ux D �Z IMPERIAL WILDERNESS PROPERTY BOUNDARY C B (TYP:) C B TORRES FAMILY PROPERTY A a - ----- - - - - - - - - - - r�------= CREATIVE DRIVE ------------------1R------ PRESERVE B B D D IMPERIAL WILDERNESS •CONOEPTI SECnONS SUB,,,.i ID<n4h.- AT n E THE DF DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 11A I ENGINEERING IUMlnn4 � I.W N\IIMW YI IYMI I I Vll.♦ uwlnAw rrrtnwt ..un la IrNlll�,aM rtr n usTm n twwtrF Irr. rwrBr�n{� TORRES FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY EXHIBIT C-1-CONCEPTI:AI. PERIMETER BERM CROSS-SECTIONS IQ� PR! NAME r�3JolEDbb LPDAT R1ILR2N5 EXHIBIT D TORRES FAMILY TRUST CPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION Starting at the Northwest Corner of the property at the intersection of the South Right-of-way of U.S. 41 and the West line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida, and proceeding Southerly along the Section Line for approximately 870 feet, thence Easterly for 330 feet, thence Northerly for 660 feet, thence Westerly along U.S. 41 Southerly Right-of-way for approximately 390 feet to the point of beginning, less and except the following described parcel: Commencing at the intersection of the west line of Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida, and the Southeasterly Right-of-way of U.S. 41; run South 54°24'20" East 377.86 feet along said Right-of-way line to the point of beginning; Continue along said Right-of-way Line 12.14 feet; thence South 1°01'20" West 100.00 feet, thence North 88°58'40" West 10.00 feet; thence North 1°01'20" East 106.89 feet to the point of beginning. Page 10 of 14 H:\2016\2016009\WP\PUDZ\2.15-2018\Torres Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx EXHIBIT E TORRES FAMILY TRUST CPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC Deviation 1: From LDC Section 5.05.04.D.1 Group Housing, which establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45 for care units, assisted living units, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes, and dwelling units that are part of an aging -in-place living environment, to allow a maximum floor area ratio of 0.60 for an Assisted Living Facility, consistent with the East Tamiami Trail Infill Subdistrict. Page 1 I of 14 H:\2016\2DI6009\WP\PUDZ\2-15-2018\Torres Family Treat CPUD (PL20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx EXHIBIT F TORRES FAMILY TRUST CPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS I. PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the MPUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Torres Family Holdings, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. H. ENVIRONMENTAL The site contains approximately 5.33 acres of native vegetation. For a commercial or industrial project within the Coastal High Hazard Area, 15 percent of existing native vegetation must be retained (15% of 5.33 acres = 0.80 acres). The preserve as depicted on the Master Plan contains a minimum of 0.80 acres. III. TRANSPORTATION A. Intensity of uses under any development scenario for the PUD is limited to the two-way, unadjusted, average weekday, pm peak hour trip entering/exiting generation of 425 total trips utilized in the TIS dated May 2016 (gross trips). B. Vehicular connection and shared Tamiami Trail access with the adjacent Fiddler's Creek Business Tract is encouraged, as practicable, utilizing a portion of the existing roadway easement to the west of the project site. IV. PLANNING A. The developer of any group housing or retirement community, its successors or assigns, shall provide the following services and be subject to the following operational standards for the units in the retirement community, including, but not limited to, independent living units, assisted living units, or skilled nursing units: Page 12 of 14 HA2016t2016009MR]RUDZU-15-201Morres Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15.2018).docx Operational Characteristics for Senior Housing Senior housing may be composed of one or more types of care/housing facilities. These care/housing types are limited to independent living, assisted living, and skilled nursing units, each of which can have varying operational characteristics. The following characteristics of senior housing care units distinguish them from residential land uses, and all of the characteristics must be provided for and maintained to be considered a senior housing care unit: • The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older; • There shall be on-site dining facilities to the residents, with food service being on-site, or catered; • Group transportation services shall be provided for the residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services shall be coordinated for the residents needs, including but not limited to medical office visits; • There shall be an onsite manager/activities coordinator to assist residents who shall be responsible for planning and coordinating stimulating activities for the residents; • An on-site wellness facility shall provide exercise and general fitness opportunities for the residents; • Each unit shall be equipped with devices provided to notify emergency service providers in the event of a medical or other emergency; • Independent living units shall be designed so that a resident is able to age in place. For example, kitchens may be easily retrofitted by lowering the sink to accommodate a wheelchair bound resident or bathrooms may be retrofitted by adding grab bars. • Nursing homes or assisted living facilities shall be constructed to have a core area to shelter residents and staff on site in the event of a hurricane. 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") and shall be capable of ventilation or air conditioning provided by back-up generator for a period of no less than 96 hours. B. Tract P, Preserve, where it is dense enough to provide equivalent buffering per the LDC, may count towards minimum Type B buffering requirements. Preserves may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements after exotic vegetation removal in accordance with LDC sections 4.06.02 and 4.06.05.E.1. Supplemental plantings with native plant materials shall be in accordance with LDC section 3.05.07. C. The Master Plan is conceptual in nature and is subject to modifications at time of Plans and Plat (PPL) or Site Development Plan (SDP) approval due to agency permitting requirements. Page 13 of 14 HA2016\2016009\WP\PUDZ\2-15-20l8\Tortes Family Trust CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-201 B).docx D. Lighting shall be fully shielded and directed so as to prevent glare on adjacent residential or TTRVC zoned properties. E. Outdoor amplified sound is prohibited, except in conjunction with an approved temporary use permit and in such limited cases shall be restricted to the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. F. 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. G. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. Page 14 of 14 H:\2016\20160091WP\PUDZ\2-15.2018\Torres Family Tn+st CPUD (PL -20160000226) (2-15-2018).docx Anacnment 8 �Ut C�eY GOTi17�lt� GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION CONSISTENCY REVIEW MEMORANDUM To: Timothy Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: February 13, 2018 Subject: future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Commercial Planned Unit Development Petition PETITION NUMBER: PL20160000226 [REV: 41 PETITION NAME: Torres Family Trust Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPDD) REQUEST: This petition requests a rezone of the approximately 5.8 -acre property from the A, Rural Agricultural District, to the CPUD, Commercial Planned Unit Development District, in accordance with provisions of a new (proposed) East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict. The Subdistrict accommodates up to 60,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for a variety of commercial uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3 zoning district, along with one use permitted in the C-4 zoning district by conditional use. LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), approximately 1.75 miles east of Collier Blvd. (SR 951), in Section 12, Township 51 South, Range 26 East (14050 Tamiami Trail East). COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map within the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The purpose of the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict is to provide transitional [residential] densities between the Conservation designated area (primarily located to the south) and the remainder of the Urban designated area (primarily located to the north). The Coastal Fringe designation facilitates hurricane evacuation and protects the adjacent environmentally sensitive Conservation designated area. This site is also located in the County's Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The CHHA has provisions in the GMP implemented primarily through the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME). Goal 12 of the CCME seeks to ensure the public safety, health and welfare of people and property from the effects of hurricane storm damage, and relevant supporting Policies apply to this request. The PUD document addresses these CCME Policies, and staff reports on these separately under the Review of Developer Commitments subsection below. This petition is not consistent with any of the Urban Mixed Use District's Subdistricts that allow commercial zoning; it relies, in part, on a companion small-scale GMP amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) provisions toward achieving consistency. That amendment [ref. PL20160002771/CPSS-2016-2] establishes the East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict. - 1 - Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, 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 leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensities on the subject site, consider the PUD proposes commercial uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate, zoning district. Conditional Uses in the C-3 district may take on the characteristics of C-4 uses, and it is these "crossover" uses that present the most potential for compatibility and complementary issues - for both use intensities and densities. [David: It's my personal practice not to begin sentences with acronyms - even if introduced earlier in a document. Here though, I removed the unneeded "(FLUE)" parenthetical.] The compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. To promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold italicized text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. (This site fronts US 41(Tamiami Trail East), classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element. No direct connection(s) to US 41 is made. Connections to US 41 are indirect, and utilize a (to be improved) local roadway located along the westerly boundary of the property (Creative Lane).] 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 site is proposed as a single development project. Given the small size of the property and scale of the proposed development, a loop road or drive is not feasible.] 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. (No interconnection points are proposed with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments, which lie to the east and south, and are fully developed. Connections to the (to -be -improved) local roadway located along the westerly -2- boundary of the property (Creative Lane) provides opportunities for future street connections.] 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. [This Policy addresses development characteristics mostly not germane to the small commercial project. A sidewalk is currently found on the south side of US 41, along the frontage of the site. No deviation is requested pertaining to sidewalks, therefore, the project is subject to LDC requirements for provision of sidewalks.] REVIEW OF PUD DOCUMENT: Exhibit "A", the List of Permitted Uses, and Exhibit "B", Development Standards, [revisions, dated 1-26-2018], identify a select number of uses permitted by right and by conditional use in the C-3 zoning district, along with one use permitted in the C-4 zoning district by conditional use. Review of Developer Commitments Developer Commitments provided in the PUD document address the land uses proposed. Goal 12 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) seeks to ensure the public safety, health and welfare of people and property from the effects of hurricane storm damage. CCME Policy 12.1.2 reads, Land use plan amendments in the Category 1 hurricane vulnerability zone shall only be considered if such increases in densities provide appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts of hurricane evacuation times. This Plan amendment proposes primarily commercial land uses and one quasi -industrial land use, and does not affect residential density, except for development of senior housing. CCME Policy 12.1.14 reads, All new nursing homes and assisted livingfacilities 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. Following Hurricane Irma, Florida's Governor set new emergency requirements mandating that this capability be extended to ninety- six (96) hours, including an appropriate amount of fuel. This core area is encouraged to be constructed with emergency electrical power and potable water supplies; provide glass protection by shutters or other approved material/device (when open to outer halls or corridors); and provide for sanitary facilities and first aid equipment, telephone, automatic external defibrillator (AED) and battery-operated radio with NOAA weather Specific Area Message Encoded capability, if not already required by the "State Requirements for Educational Facilities" identified above. A developer commitment regarding sheltering residents and staff on site in nursing homes, assisted living facilities and other such licensed facilities, is found in EXHIBIT 7", LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS, SECTION IV, PLANNING, where other senior housing commitments are already listed. =0 Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP amendment being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to an effective date of the companion GMP amendment. cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bost, AICP, Director, Zoning Division G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2018 GACDES Planning ServiceslConsistency Reviews120181PUDZ\PUDZ-PL2016-226 Torres Family R4 —4— Attachment C JohnsonEric From: Joe LaRose <joelarose@aol.com> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 9:19 PM To: BrownAraqueSummer Cc: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Hi Summer: Thanks for this quick response to my voicemail. Sorry I again missed you on my return call. As I indicated in my email to Eric Johnson attached below, I want to request the `Preserve Tract' be reconfigured to add a buffer against the Imperial Wilderness property boundary where the existing condos are now located. Hopefully we can discuss this on the phone Monday or Tuesday next week. Please advise of a good time for me to reach you. Regarding your question on the clearings. The larger one is more of a "T" shape on the top (North) and it's width is somewhat wider than the yellow shaded North - South width. Thanks again and best regards, JOE L4ROSE 508.432-8649 / Harwich 239.234-6542 / Naples joelarose@aol.com From: Brow nAraq ueSum mer [ ma ilto: SummerBrownAraque@colliergov. net] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2017 2:52 PM To: Joe LaRose Cc: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Hi Mr. LaRose, I received your voicemail. The Preserve selection and shape is based on the Land Development code. The code discourages picture -framed shape preserves. In addition, it is based on habitat quality. Please call me to discuss at 239-252-6290. Has more than the attached yellow area been cleared? Summer B. Araque Principal Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Supervisor Development Review Division Phone: 239-252-6290 How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! From: JohnsonEric Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:58 PM To: Joe La Rose <ioelarose@aol.com> Cc: BrownAraqueSummer<SummerBrownArague@coIIiergov.net> Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests l oc 2 `1p.1 PMwW Please see my responses below (in blue). Thanks! Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: Joe La Rose [mailto:ioelarose aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:21 PM To: JohnsonEric <EriclohnsonCeDcollier¢ov.net> Subject: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Hi Eric I received and left you a follow-up voice mail earlier today, but then found the above email address for you and decided it would be easier if I sent you my questions here by email. Firstly, as a property abutter, I did receive the letter you referenced on your voice mail from Robert J. Mulhere, VP at Hole Montes, Inc. I'm not able to attend the 'Neighborhood Information Meeting' on June 29`h. I've also received a copy of an email Mark Strain ( markstrain(ccolliereov.net ) dated April 17`h which he sent to a representative at the 'Imperial Wilderness Condo Association' (IWCA), within which my property is located. The following are my questions in reference to the info in Mr. Mulhere's letter: • What commercial activities are included in a "C-3 Zoning District"? Please review the attached PUD Document. You will find all their proposed uses in Exhibit A of the attached. • What is the one use also being requested in the "C-4 Zoning District"? Please review the attached PUD Document. You will find all their proposed uses in Exhibit A of the attached. • What's now allowed under the current zoning, "A Rural Agricultural District"? Please click here to view Section 2.03.01 of the Land Development Code. In addition, the following questions are in reference to Mr. Strain's email: • Will access to the proposed development (whatever it is?), be from the current (unnamed?) existing asphalt road on the west border of the property, or from Route 41? Please see the Master Plan on page 8 of 13 of the attached. The points of access are depicted with two- way arrow symbology. • What, specifically, is a 15' Type "D" LS Buffer? A 10' Type "A" LS Buffer? A25' Type "D" LS Buffer Wall & Berm? Please click here to review Section 4.06.02 of the Land Development Code. 3 • Assuming access will be from the above described west border road, will the existing 24' concrete wall erected along Route 41 fronting the IWCA property be extended fronting the 'Torres Family Holdings LLC' property? The Master Plan neither proposes a wall along US 41 nor is a wall indicated in the Developer Commitments (Exhibit F) of the attached. • Why is the 'Preserve Tract P 0.80 Acres' all concentrated on the southern portion of the tract? Could this preserve tract be reconfigured such that it borders both the eastern facing border (where my abutting property is located, as well as the southern facing border, e. g., the two borders abutting the IWCA? I defer all questions related to the preserves to Ms. Summer Araque. I copied this email to her and her direct phone line is 239-252-6290. Finally, should the abutters as a group oppose this zoning change proposal, what is the specific action legally required by Collier County statute to challenge it? You may voice your concerns at the public hearings. You may also contact any Collier County Planning Commissioner (CCPC) and any Board of County Commissioner (Board) directly. Lastly, any opposition letter or email you provide to me. I will include in the packets that will be reviewed by the decision makers. Thank you for your help. My pleasure. Best regards, !OE LAROSE 508-432.8649 / Harwich 239-234.6542 / Naples joelarosefdaol.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. 4 JohnsonEric From: ReischlFred Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 12:22 PM To: BellowsRay; JohnsonEric; GundlachNancy, BeasleyRachel; SmithCamden Subject: 14100 Tamiami Trail East I received a voice mail from Lynn Hunt (no return number given). She owns property at 14100 Tamiami Trail # 156 and she strongly objects to property in her neighborhood being rezoned to Commercial. She said the hearing is Thursday, but there is no hearing scheduled. Maybe she meant Tuesday (tomorrow)? There is a CU for O'Reilly Auto Parts on tomorrow's agenda. Thx- Fred A,ed AICP Principal Planner 239-252-4211 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 www.colliergov.net co��Y CvHncy 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. Barbara Lynn Hunt 243 North Maple St. Ridgeland, Ms. 39157 239-269-6620 chlyhunt@aol.com June 26, 2017 Mr. Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Hole Montes 950 Encoure Way Naples, FI. 34110 Re: Torres Family Trust CPUD (PUDZ-PL20160000226) East Tamiami Trail Infill Commercial Subdistrict (SSGMPA-PL201600027714/CPSS-2016-2 HM File No.: 2016.009 Dear Mr. Mulhere: I just received your letter concerning the above property and I am very much opposed to any commercial property on this site. It backs up against my property in Imperial Wilderness and would adversely affect my property values. If there is commercial property put on this land, my property values would go to zero. I would never be able to sell my property and I believe it will adversly affect all the property values in Imperial Wilderness. You have scheduled this meeting when almost everyone whose property would be directly affected are out of town, as I am now. Personally, I do not know how anyone in good conscience could put commercial buildings abutting this residential property. Please accept this letter as my notice of opposition to the building of any commercial property on this site. Very sincerely, Lynn Hunt JohnsonEric From: Joe La Rose <joelarose@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2017 9:16 PM To: JohnsonEric Cc: BrownAraqueSummer Subject: RE: IWCA NEWS NAPLES FL IWCA RESIDENTS MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT BILL HUGHES - Thanks Eric. Appreciate your follow up on the Zoning Manager's determination regarding the gas station. Thanks again and best regards, JOE LAROSE 508.432-8649 / Harwich 239-234-6542 / Naples ioelarosePaol.com From: JohnsonEric[ma iIto: Ericlohnson@coiliergov.net] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 4:38 PM To: Joe La Rose Cc: BrownAraqueSummer Subject: RE: IWCA NEWS NAPLES FL IWCA RESIDENTS MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT BILL HUGHES - Joe. My thought is that the gas station is not listed as a permitted use in the PUD Document and if the petition is approved, then no gas station would be allowed. I reached out to the Zoning Manager and still awaiting his determination. I wanted to reach out to you now because I don't anticipate being in the office much tomorrow (Board of County Commissioners meeting). I will respond to your questions sooner rather than later. Thank you for your patience. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: Joe La Rose [mailto:ioelarose@aol.coml Sent: Sunday, June 25, 2017 3:11 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@collierr:ov.net> Cc: BrownAraqueSummer<SummerBrownArague@colliergov.net> Subject: FW: IWCA NEWS NAPLES FL IWCA RESIDENTS MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT BILL HUGHES - Hi Eric Please review the email below which I received today from the 'Imperial Wilderness Condo Association'. Please help me. I don't see any wording in the attached 'Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests' document which mentions approval for a "gas Station". Nor do I see any such approval indicated in the document referenced below - "a letter dated June 14, 2017 from Hole Montes, Inc. addressed to property owners." - which I also received from 'Hole Montes' directly by snail mail. Am I missing something? I'd appreciate a simple answer: YES or NO— is a gas station one of the permitted uses if the 'Torres Family Trust' zoning changes are approved? Thank you. Best regards, JOE LAROSE 508-432-8649 / Harwich 239-234-6542 / Naples loelarosefDaol.com From: IMPERIALWILDERNESSCONDOAC)a vahooeroups com[mailto:IMPERIALWILDERNESSCONDOAPyahoogroups coml On Behalf Of drizzol2005@gmail.com [IMPERIALWILDERNESSCONDOA] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 1:31 PM To: IMPERIALWILDERNESSCONDOACo)vahoo¢roups com Subject: IWCA NEWS NAPLES FL IWCA RESIDENTS MESSAGE FROM PRESIDENT BILL HUGHES - Yesterday I received a message from IWCA President Bill Hughes regarding the information that was sent regarding the proposed land development adjacent to IWCA. President Hughes states the more IWCA residents attending the scheduled meeting will be a great benefit to our park and the proposed surrounding development. Note that Tim Johns and Carol Gilfedder plan on attending but all voices need to be heard. Option 1 on the developers application would allow a gas station or other commercial property. WE DO NOT WANT OPTION 1 TO PASS! Option 2 is a best choice for IWCA residents with a proposed retirement facility. So if you can attend the scheduled meeting please do so.. Thank you! ............................................................................................................................................................................. The following information has been extracted from a letter dated June 14, 2017 from Hole Montes, Inc. addressed to property owners. Holes Montes, Inc. has been retained by Torres Family Holdings LLC for two formal applications to Collier County to amend the designation of zoning C-3 and one C4 use and a PUDZ from Rural Agricultural zoning to Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD. The property is 5.8 acres adjacent to IWCA to allow development of up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses and assisted living facilities or other senior housing facilities at a floor area ratio of 0.60 on property. The property is located on the south side of Tamiami Trail East approximately 2.2 miles east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Tamiami Trail East. The property contains 5.8 acres and is within the Urban Mixed Use District and Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. 2 In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this amendment and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information meeting will be held on Thursday June 29, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. at the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve, The Auditorium, 300 Tower Road, Naples, FL. 34113. The letter was signed b Robert Mulhere VP Planning Services and Business Development 239-254-2000. [Non -text portions of this message have been removed] Posted by: drizzo12005@gmaii.com Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. VISIT YOUR GROUP Y)M 100! GROUPS Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. JohnsonEric From: Joe La Rose <joelarose@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 4:19 PM To: JohnsonEric Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Hi again Eric: Actually, I apologize. I didn't notice the first email you sent me today until just now. So, bottom line, there's only one list of uses and "gas stations" ( SIC 5541) is not on it. Thanks much and best regards, JOE LAROSE 508-432-8649 / Harwich 239-234-6542 / Naples joelarose@aol.com From: JohnsonEric[mailto:Ericlohnson@colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 2:21 PM To: Joe La Rose Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests I'm sorry, Joe. I don't see more than one list of uses, and gas stations weren't on that list. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: Joe La Rose [mailto:ioelarose@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 1:54 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson(a colliereov.net> Subject: Re: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Hi Eric Is a gas station possible with either option? Thanks, Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2017, at 12:23 PM, JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colIiergov.net> wrote: Joe. The PUD Document identifies Tract C as the area where commercial development is intended. If approved, Tract C may be developed with a number of different uses. So, that sense, there are many options, not just option I or 2. Does this make sense? Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner From: Joe La Rose [ma iIto: ioelarose Oaol.com] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 11:03 AM To: JohnsonEric <Ericlohnson@colliereov.net> Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Thanks Eric. I also sent you a second email yesterday— copy attached, and left you a voice mail this morning. I think the snail mail letter we all received from 'Hole Montes' has perhaps confused the Imperial Wilderness Condo folks. So, in addition to my question on the inclusion of the gas station in Exhibit A, I have a follow-on question: Are there actually two separate zoning change requests; 'Option 1' and 'Option 2' as described by the 'IW Condo Board President', Bill Hughes? Thanks again and best regards, JOE LAROSE 508-432-8649 / Harwich 239-234-6542 / Naples ioelarose@aol.com From: JohnsonEric[mailto:Ericlohnson0collieraov.net] Sent: Monday, June 26, 2017 9:53 AM To: Joe La Rose Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests J oe. I would not assume anything. The deviation requested in Exhibit E pertains only related to care units, assisted living units, continuing care retirement communities, nursing homes and dwelling units (associated with aging -in-place living environment). Approval of this deviation would not prevent the petitioner from choosing to develop the site with any of the other uses listed in Exhibit A. Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner PA From: Joe LaRose [mailto:ioelarose(@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, June 24, 2017 3:33 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson@colliereov.net> Cc: BrownAraqueSummer <SummerBrownAraoue colliereov.net>; iwcacondoPaol.com,- whughes524@Rmail.com Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Hi Eric: Thank you for your email in response to my questions. Am I safe in assuming per the 'Torres Family Trust CPUD' — Exhibit E, which you attached to your email, that the 'Trust' plans to build some type of assisted care, nursing home facility if the zoning change is approved, and not one of the numerous other possible alternative 'Principal Uses' listed in Exhibit A, Tract C? Regarding the noise barrier wall fronting the 'Imperial Wilderness Condo Association' along Route 41, 1 think that if my above assumption is correct along with your indication the proposed entrance and exit to the property will be from the "unnamed" access road as depicted in the page 8 diagram with the two- way arrow symbols; the Trust representatives would be interested in requesting the State study the feasibility of extending the noise barrier wall partially of fully fronting this adjacent property. I've begun corresponding with Summer Araque and plan to follow up with her on Tuesday regarding the possibility of reconfiguring the 'Preserve Tract' to buffer the 'Imperial Wilderness' property boundary where their existing condos are now located. Thank you again and best regards, JOE LAROSE 508-432-8649 / Harwich 239-234-6542 / Naples 4oelarosedDaol.com From: JohnsonEric[ma ilto:Ericlohnson(a)collieraov.net] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:58 PM To: Joe LaRose Cc: BrownAraqueSummer Subject: RE: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Joe. Please see my responses below (in blue). Thanks! Respectfully, Eric L. Johnson, AICP, CFM, LEED Green Associate Principal Planner 3 From: Joe LaRose [mailto:ioelarose@aol com] Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2017 4:21 PM To: JohnsonEric <EricJohnson ancolliergov.net> Subject: Torres Family Holdings LLC Zoning Change Requests Hi Eric: I received and left you a follow-up voice mail earlier today, but then found the above email address for you and decided it would be easier if I sent you my questions here by email. Firstly, as a property abutter, I did receive the letter you referenced on your voice mail from Robert J. Mulhere, VP at Hole Montes, Inc. I'm not able to attend the 'Neighborhood Information Meeting' on June 29`h. I've also received a copy of an email Mark Strain ( markstrain(cDcolliereov.net ) dated April 17' which he sent to a representative at the 'Imperial Wilderness Condo Association' (IWCA), within which my property is located. The following are my questions in reference to the info in Mr. Mulhere's letter: • What commercial activities are included in a "C-3 Zoning District"? Please review the attached PUD Document. You will find all their proposed uses in Exhibit A of the attached. • What is the one use also being requested in the "C-4 Zoning District"? Please review the attached PUD Document. You will find all their proposed uses in Exhibit A of the attached. • What's now allowed under the current zoning, "A Rural Agricultural District"? Please click here to view Section 2.03.01 of the Land Development Code. In addition, the following questions are in reference to Mr. Strain's email: • Will access to the proposed development (whatever it is?), be from the current (unnamed?) existing asphalt road on the west border of the property, or from Route 41? Please see the Master Plan on page 8 of 13 of the attached. The points of access are depicted with two-way arrow symbology. • What, specifically, is a 15' Type "D" LS Buffer? A 10' Type "A" LS Buffer? A25' Type "D" LS Buffer Wall & Berm? Please click here to review Section 4.06.02 of the Land Development Code. • Assuming access will be from the above described west border road, will the existing 24' concrete wall erected along Route 41 fronting the IWCA property be extended fronting the 'Torres Family Holdings LLC' property? The Master Plan neither proposes a wall along US 41 nor is a wall indicated in the Developer Commitments (Exhibit F) of the attached. 4 • Why is the 'Preserve Tract P 0.80 Acres' all concentrated on the southern portion of the tract? Could this preserve tract be reconfigured such that it borders both the eastern facing border (where my abutting property is located, as well as the southern facing border, e. g., the two borders abutting the IWCA? I defer all questions related to the preserves to Ms. Summer Araque. I copied this email to her and her direct phone line is 239-252-6290. Finally, should the abutters as a group oppose this zoning change proposal, what is the specific action legally required by Collier County statute to challenge it? You may voice your concerns at the public hearings. You may also contact any Collier County Planning Commissioner (CCPC) and any Board of County Commissioner (Board) directly. Lastly, any opposition letter or email you provide to me, I will include in the packets that will be reviewed by the decision makers. Thank you for your help. My pleasure. Best regards, F1814 LAROSE 508-432-8649 / Harwich 239-234-6542 / Naples ioelarosedDaol.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. FinnTimothy From: Paula McMichael <PaulaMcMichael@hmeng.com> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2018 9:34 AM To: Joe LaRose Cc: FinnTimothy; Bob Mulhere; cgilfedder@gmail.com;joalever@aol.com; rkuII195@comcast.net; whughes524@gmail.com; iwcacondo@aol.com Subject: RE: Torres Family Trust Hi Mr. LaRose, Thank you for your email. Please see my responses, below, and if you need additional information or would like to speak regarding these questions, please feel free to give me a call. Paula N. C. McMichael, AICP Hole Montes, Inc. (239) 254-2000 From: Joe LaRose [mailto:ioelaroseCa)aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 5:22 PM To: Paula McMichael Cc: FinnTimothy; Bob Mulhere; cailfedder@ gmail.com; Joalever@aol.com; rkull195C1a comcast.net, whughes524(bamail.com; iwcacondo@)aol.com Subject: FW: Torres Family Trust TO: Paula McMichael Hole Montes, Inc. CC: Timothy Finn Principal Planner Collier County, Growth Management Dept. CC: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Hole Montes, Inc. CC: Bill Hughes President, IWCA CC: Carol Gilfedder Treasurer, IWCA CC: Tim Johns Condominium Manager, IWCA CC: Allen & JoAnn Everman Panther Pass Cir. # 175, IWCA CC: Ralph Kull Cattleya Refuge # 552, IWCA Hi Paula I received the email below including the two attachments from Timothy Finn after a conversation I had with him this past Friday. I own # 173 on Panther Pass Cir., at the Imperial Wilderness RV Park, and had received a letter from him regarding the Collier County Commission meeting on April 19`n referencing a requested zoning change for the property abutting my unit. I had planned to attend it but Timothy informed me it's been rescheduled for May 3`d, when I'll no longer be in Florida. Tim answered a couple of the questions I had and, in addition, suggested I contact Bob Mulhere to get some additional information. I called his office yesterday and spoke to Stephanie who informed me he'd be on vacation this week and next and suggested I email you. I'd much appreciate it if you could help me with the following questions I have: • Specifically what, if anything, has transpired / been approved with regards to this proposed zoning change request since the 'Neighborhood Information Meeting' on June 29, 2017? Nothing has been approved. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation at the May 3`d hearing, and then the petition will go before the Board of County Commissioners for a final decision on June 12tH • At the above referenced meeting Bob Mulhere indicated if the zoning change was approved "there would be multiple proposed uses including restaurants and adult living facilities", but he affirmed "there will be no gas stations and that the gas station use is not included within the proposed uses". Has anything on the 'proposed uses list' changed since then? We took out one use, "laundries, family and commercial." The other uses are all as presented at the NIM. • The description of the proposed action to be discussed at the April 19, 2018 public hearing in the letter Timothy Finn sent me (now rescheduled to May 3`d), states that if approved, the "Torres Family Trust CPUD is allowed development of up to 60,000 square feet of gross floor area of commercial uses including air conditioned mini self -storage warehousing, and allowing assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of .60 by providing an effective date." Does this mean the requested CPUD restricts the proposed development to some combination of the above two uses — the mini self -storage warehousing and / or assisted living facilities — or, would approval still include any of the numerous other commercial uses listed in 'Exhibit A' on pages 1 through 5 of the 'Torres Family Trust Ordinance' attachment? Further, if approval does still include any of these numerous other commercial uses listed in 'Exhibit A', why even bother to enumerate on all the in-depth details on the above specific uses, e. g., the air conditioned mini self -storage warehousing and the assisted living facilities? The rezoning would allow any of the uses listed in Exhibit A. The letter calls out self -storage specifically because it is a "C-4" (general commercial) use, while all the other uses listed are "C-3" (commercial intermediate) uses. It also calls out assisted living facilities specifically because we have asked for a floor area ratio of 0.6, rather than 0.45 (the typical ratio). • Nothing I've seen in the two attachments shows a "curb -cut" / entrance to the property from US Route 41. If the current 'Torres Family Trust' zoning change request is approved, would they subsequently have to come back to some county or state agency for approval to add a US Route 41 "curb -cut" / entrance to the property and would the abutters be duly notified? Access to the site will be from Creative Drive on the west side of the property. If the owner wanted to change the access into the site to be directly from Tamiami Trail, he would have to amend the Master Plan (Exhibit C of the ordinance) to show the access from Tamiami Trail. That would require a PUD amendment, which is approved the same way as this rezoning, and would include a neighborhood information meeting, a hearing before the CCPC, and final approval by the Board of County Commissioners. • We here at Imperial Wilderness received a communication from Collier County in December, 2017, informing us that due to a rise in the Federal 'flood plain' calculations, all new park model trailers installed after January 1, 2018 would have to be raised an additional foot so the first floor level was 5' above the current ground level. So I'm assuming this same elevation requirement would apply to the adjacent 'Torres Family Trust' property. Is this correct? And, assuming it is correct, can you confirm the elevation diagram on page 9 of the attached 'Torres Family Trust Ordinance' document reflect the revised 2018 Federal 'flood plain' calculation? There are different 2 required floodplain elevations for residential and commercial development, but, yes, the site will meet the required elevations and the perimeter berm exhibit is correct. Please let me know if you need any clarification or additional direction on these questions. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, JOE LAROSE 508-432-8649 / Harwich 239-234-6542 / Naples joelarose(Maol.com From: FinnTimothy [maiIto: Timothy. Finn col I iercountvfl. Qov1 Sent: Friday, April 13, 2018 4:20 PM To: ioelaroseCaiaol.com Subject: Torres Family Trust Hi Joe, Please see attached Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner cOft7 county Zoning Division NOTE: New Email Address as of 12109/2017: Timothy. Finn @colliercountvfLaov 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.4312 Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/COIIIerZonlnQ. 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. AGENDA ITEM 9-G TO: STAFF REPORT COLLIER COLTNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION.ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARINGDATE: MAY3,2018 SUBJECT: PETITIONCU-PL20160002577,3899lstAVESw COMPANION ITEM: PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-l PROPERTY OWNER/ AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Agent: Grace Romanian Baptist Church ofNaples Inc. Frederick E Hood, AICP 6017 Pine Ridge Road #84 Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples, FL 34119 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 REOUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Conditional Use to permit construction of a new church for the subject parcel, which is zoned E, Estates. A church is listed as an allowable conditional use in the Estates zoning district. There is a companion small scale Growth Management Plan (GMp) Amendment with the petition. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consisting of +6.25 acres of land is located at the southeast comer of Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) and Golden Gate Boulevard, Section I 1, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, of Collier County, Florida (See location map on page 2). CU P12010002577-5/3/1 I CCPC Page 1 ofg ver 4.16.18 _-l ia T_-olll- IEEr-laaJ i I6it-I J i a Ia6r = LOCATION MAP t-t-tr)Nooo@ oNJ o_ U o)-o Efz Eo .F o(L iolog o s o,A'l€ r.q.,$ oA'tg rarl|oS c d o-o .o (!oo -J CU PL20160002577-CCPC 5/3/18 Page 2 of I ver.4.16.18 s ot a, o =o ttc PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The existing parcels are vacant. The applicant proposes to clear the northern parcel, which is closest to Golden Gate Boulevard for a proposed multi-purpose church building and sanctuary. There is a proposed recreation area to the south ofthe proposed church building as well. No specific detail has been provided for the recreation area, which will serve the church. The applicant has committed to a maximum number of 300 seats for the church building. Access to the site is proposed along Golden Gate Boulevard and Weber Boulevard South at existing access aprons on both roadways. At this time, the applicant is not requesting child care facilities as part of their request. However, during the NIM they indicated that child care facilities may be requested at a later date. The applicant has stated that the proposed church use will have minimal effect on neighboring properties. The majority of traffic and trips generated will be during proposed worship services on Sunday at 10:00AM and again at 6:00PM. Landscape buffers required by the LDC and water management areas, along with retained vegetation will reduce potential noise and glare at the proposed church site. The applicant indicates that the subject site is bordered on all sides by residential land use and zoning districts. They further claim that while the property could be developed with single-family homes, the site is located at a busy arterial intersection and they believe that the property is better suited for nonresidential land uses that are compatible with the existing neighborhood. The ingress/egress is fiom Golden Gate Boulevard and Weber Boulevard S. with parking areas proposed around the perimeter ofthe church building and accessory recreation area. There is a larger parking area on the eastem portion ofthe site as well. The applicant has indicated preserve areas and u/ater management areas on the concept master plan. The proposed concept plan drawing has been included as (Attachment A , Conceptual Site Plan). A companion amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) is required since the subject site does not comply with the specific locational criteria in the GMP for conditional uses for churches. SURROUNDING LAND USE & ZONING: North: East: South: West: E, Estates District, residential E, Estates District, residential E, Estates District, residential E, Estates District, residential cu PL20160002577-CCPC 5/3/1 I Page 3 of 9 ver.4.16 18 AERIAL PHOTO Area to be developed GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA EXHIBIT E, AERIAL EXHIBIT NC, ttc. IIE 20' cu P1201 60002577-CCPC 5/3/1 I Page 4 of I ver.4.16.18 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: comprehensive Planning Staffhas reviewed this request and offered the following comments: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Estates, Mixed-Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict, as depicted on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP) and in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning Staff has concluded that the Grace Romanian Church CU petition may not be deemed consistent with the GGAMP. However, it may be found consistent IF the companion GMP amendment petition PL-20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 is approved (adopted) and becomes in effect. The CU Resolution needs to provide for the effective date to be tinked to the effective date of the companion GMP Amendment. (see Attachm entB - GGAMP-FLUE Consistency Review) ZONING DIVISION ANALYSIS: Prior to forwarding a Conditional Use recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) must find that: l) approval of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and will not adversely affect other property owners in the same district or neighborhood; and 2) all specific requirements for the Conditional Use will be met; and 3) satisfactory provisions have been made conceming the following matters: 1. Section 2.03.01 B.c.l, of the LDC allows conditional uses in the E, Estates District zoning district. The requested conditional use for a new church facility is an allowable conditional use in the Estates zoning district, subject to the standards established in section 10.08.00, ofthe LDC. Consistency with the Land Development Code (LDC) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The requested conditional use for a church was determined to be not consistent with Golden Gate Area Master Plan. However, there is a companion GMP Amendment petition related to this request, PL-20160002584/CPSS-2017- 1, and ifapproved, would become consisrent (adopted) and becomes in effect. 3. Ingress and egress to the property and proposed structures thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire or catastrophe. Ingress and egress to the subject property would be limited to Golden Gate Boulevard and Weber Avenue. The Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) submitted by the applicant indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level ofservice. Transportation Planning Staffrecommends: Condition of approval: 1. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, cu P1201 60002577-CCPC 5/3/1 I Page 5 of I ver 4 16.18 with staffing and at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Adminishator or his designee. The TIS has been included in the back-up packet from the agent. 4. The affect the Conditional Use would have on neighboring properties in relation to noise, glare, economic or odor effects. The subject site is currently zoned Estates District. It is surrounded on all sides by residential uses. Ifthe proposed use is approved, it would likely have a substantial impact on neighboring properties because the land use changes fiom a vacant residential lot to church use. Traffic in the area would likely increase on scheduled church service days. Additionally, there would probably be an increase in noise levels on church service days. The petitioner will be required to meet the standards of Article IV Noise in the Code ofordinances, as well as, the code standards for lighting. 5. Compatibility with adjacent properties and other properfy in the district. Under the current Golden Gate Area Master Plan provisions, the proposed conditional use is not consistent with the GGAMP. However, the use would be deemed compatible if the amendment petition PL-20160002584/CPSS-2017- I is approved. While the majority of the surrounding properties are residential, the site's location at the corner of a six-lane and fourJane road intersection suggests the location could be deemed appropriate for nonresidential use. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAO RECOMMENDATION: The EAC did not review this petition because the site is under the size threshold (10 acres) to require an Environmental Impact Statement. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NIM): Frederick Hood, AICP on behalf of Grace Romanian Baptist Church, conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Wednesday, October 11,2017. The meeting was held at the Collier County Estates Branch Library at 1266 Golden Gate Boulevard W. at 5:30 pm. In the back-up documentation, the attached sign-in sheet shows nine attendees other than the owner, consultant, and staff. Consultant Fred Hood conducted the meeting starting with introductions and an overview ofthe Conditional Use request to allow the church use within the estates district on a vacant parcel. He explained the GGAMP companion amendment request as well. Following the presentation, the meeting was opened to attendees for questions. The following is a synopsis of questions and responses: The following concetns wete stated and queslions were asked: 1. Concerns with the additional traffic along Weber Blvd, with also making the point that there is a nearby park, two existing churches and elementary school in the area. -No response provided. cu P120160002577-CCPC 5/3/1 8 Page 6 of I ver.41618 2. County not willing to install traflic calming devices along Weber Blvd. -No response provided. 3. Why can't a bridge be constructed off CR 951 (Collier Blvd) to the site, instead of accessing the property off the residential streets? - Fred Hood replied that lhis was something that could be considered, but the direction of Counly Transportation, regarding access poinls to lhe site, was followed. 4. What are the trip counts, hours of operation? How many accessory uses/buildings? - Fred Hood replied the design of the site is for a maximum 300-seat sanctuary to house the applicant's congregation only, with no plans for addilional semices or to leose out the church to other congregations. Fred noted that the recreational lield could be open for lhe enjoyment of the public's use and was something lhst the church was considering offering lhe communifit. He also slaled lhat lhere were no addilional accessory uses being considered and the Conditional Use applicalion was lo allowfor the church-use only, 5. Concerns of outside services, such as child care and alcoholic counseling services, - Fred staled the outside services brought up hrere not being considered, and would require a separate application lo be Jiled- 6. The applicant then spoke about the congregation, and why they chose the Estates location. 7. An attendee then spoke in support of the church. 8. Is a PUD being sought? - Fred replied thal no, a PUD was not being considered and explained the Conditionol Use. 9. When are the services? - Fred and the applicanl replied with the services days/times. 10. What is the traflic count? - Fred replied that the Sunday peak-hour was IE3 trips. 11. Discussions of traffic, ingress & egress are held. CU P120160002577--CCPC 5/3/18 Page 7 of9 ver.4.16.18 12. Building heights? - Fred slated the site would conform ro the current development stundards & went over height and sethacks. 13. Are dark skies proposed? - Fred replied that was somelhing lhe church would look inlo and take into consideration- 14. Is there the possibility for the church to expand on this parcel? - Fred wenl over the required open space, storm b,ate?, parking areas, ac. for the sile. 15. More discussions regarding traflic, ingress & egress continued. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:13p.m. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attomey Office reviewed the staff report on 4116118. RECOMMENDATION: The Zoning Division Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition CU-PL20160002577 to the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) with a recommendation of approval for the proposed Conditional Use for a church !f the companion GMP Amendment petition PL20160002584/CPSS-2017- 1 is approved and becomes effective. The Conditional Use Resolution effective date and the GMP Amendment effective date should be linked and subject to: Condition ofapproval: 1. For services and other periods and events ofsignificant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with stafling and at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Conceptual Site Plan, Grace Romanian Church Attachment B: GGAMP-FLUE Consistency Review cu P1201 60002577-CCPC 5/3/18 Page I or g ver 4 16 18 AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER ION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION 4. lo /8 DATE REVIEWED BY: *f,uf,a DATE (('la-rd MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: DATE RAYMO V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION S FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT Condilional Use. CU P120160002577 Page I of 9 ver 4 10 18 ESTATES ESTATESESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (DEVELOPED SMILE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (MWU'BE,'IN BILL EMILY RESIDENTIAL) 0 WACRE SEPTIC GOLDEN GATE BLVD. W Ni�MMxaN RIGHT-OF-WAY 4•TYPE D - BUFFER- w T$FRONT _ YARD SEIOACN KKi P RESER .' PRESERVE AREA.'.1 (p 77 ACRE) a c�� N� WATER d MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT C $ >S FRONT AREA OMMED YARD&ETBACK FOR SANCTUARYI i 4 MULTFPURPOSE BUILDING TJ SEATS Mm y � Is.oTrvEo 2 BUFFER ACCESSORY yl RECREATION AREA 0 WACRE SEPTIC GOLDEN GATE BLVD. W RIGHT-OF-WAY 4•TYPE D - BUFFER- T$FRONT YARD SEIOACN KKi P RESER .' PRESERVE AREA.'.1 (p 77 ACRE) a c�� WATER d MANAGEMENT ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE EMILY RESIDENTIAL) REQUIRED PRESERVE NOTES F NATIVE I.ISACRE6 ATIVE YEOEfnIION ONIDTEI %1616 ES EVBTINGIWVE SON R NTIMN IEPRE PRESERVE VNp 8 YVILBE - RAYEGENEOF T LLILBEC. ENT vi iNE iME K NR [EV EIDPYEM W1.IFPROVFL. 1 }, PREBERVEe MPYBEVBEDTO F .TISFY THE VNDKAPF PLFFER REQUIREMENTS LATER E%OTp YEOETABIREIMVKN G� A.NL.ANYG NRHILC BECTI[MS j AMoz Ara AMmE.1�IG.�- ENT6 SLWIFMEMK PVNTIH38 N11N MK NA TNEPUMWTEA6LLSBNLL SE t ON.PP INALDg6DANDENR111DDEEDTDN e; >MN,. g`g fFE DM1� FFER ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE EMILY RESIDENTIAL) � WWW ESTATES U (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN-BA) (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)PRE41NARV- NOT FOR CONSTRUMON Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT B Growth Management Department Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Memorandum To: Fred Reischl, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: February 23, 2018 Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PL20160002577 PETITION NAME: Grace Romanian Church – CU – Review 2 REQUEST: To obtain a Conditional Use (CU) for a ±6.25-acre site in Golden Gate Estates, to allow for a church, religious facility, or place of worship with a maximum of 300 seats in the Estates Zoning District. Submittal 2 included a revised Conceptual Site Plan, Location Map, ROW easement document, and aerial. LOCATION: The subject site is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Golden Gate and Collier Boulevards, in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Estates, Mixed-Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict, as depicted on the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) states, “Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses, including: Conditional uses and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code… Also, refer to the Conditional Uses Subdistrict.” The “Conditional Uses Subdistrict” in the Estates – Mixed Use District within the GGAMP contains specific provisions for Essential Services CUs, CUs on Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard, Transitional CUs adjacent to Neighborhood Cent ers, Transitional CUs [as buffers between residential and certain non-residential uses], and, Special Exceptions to CU Locational Criteria [for certain excavation activities, temporary model homes, and specific sites for churches]. The subject site does not comply with any of these provisions. The applicant has submitted a companion Growth Management Plan amendment petition, PL-20160002584/CPSS-2017-1, that proposes to amend the text of the GGAMP Conditional Uses Subdistrict, (e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria, by adding the location for the Grace Romanian Church (Tract 16 and the west half of Tract 15, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 4). This proposed GMP amendment must be approved first in order for the CU petition to be consistent with the GMP. In the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 2.03.01 Agricultural Districts, B. Estates, 1 (c) Conditional uses, Churches are listed as the #1 conditional use. Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 Certain applicable Future Land Use Element (FLUE) policies are shown below in italics followed by staff analysis in bold text. FLUE Policy 5.6 (shown below in italics) followed by staff analysis in [bracketed 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.] 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. [The subject property fronts on Golden Gate Boulevard West, an Urban major collector road, as classified in the Transportation Element of the GMP. A water management/canal separates the subject property from fronting on Collier Blvd. (CR 951). There is one ingress and one egress on Golden Gate Boulevard shown on the submitted ‘Grace Romanian Baptist Church Conceptual Site Plan.’ There is also an additional access shown on Weber Blvd., a local north- south road that abuts the eastern boundary of the subject property.] 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 site is proposed as a single development project. A loop road (drive) is shown on the Conceptual Site Plan that circulates around the entire site.] 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 Conceptual Site Plan shows the subject site has little opportunity for interconnections. The site is bordered on the north by Golden Gate Boulevard, on the east by Weber Blvd., on the south by 1st Avenue SW and one existing single-family residence (which staff acknowledges would provide little meaningful benefit to connect with), and on the west by the water management area/canal.] 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. [Mostly not applicable, given that this is a religious facility development – not a residential development. There is sidewalk shown on the Conceptual Site Plan that partially circulates around the site and extends out from the subject site to Golden Gate Blvd. Since no sidewalk deviation was requested for this project, the project will need to comply with the LDC.] CONCLUSION: The Grace Romanian Church CU petition may not be deemed consistent with the GGAMP. However, it may be found consistent IF the companion GMP amendment petition PL-20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 is approved (adopted) and becomes in effect. The CU Resolution needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment. 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 CU-PL2016-2577 Grace Romanian Church R2.docx CU-PL2016-2577 Grace Romanian Church R2a G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2018\CU sf-dw/2-23-18 RESOLUTION NO. 18- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A CHURCH WITHIN AN ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.01.B.I.c.1 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20160002577] WHEREAS, in Chapter 67-1246, Laws of Florida, and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, the Florida Legislature has conferred on Collier County 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. 2004-41, as amended) which includes a Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance establishing regulations for the zoning of particular geographic divisions of the County, among which is the granting of Conditional Uses; and WHEREAS, the Board of Zoning Appeals (Board), being the duly appointed and constituted planning board for the area hereby affected, has held a public hearing after notice as in said regulations made and provided, and has considered the advisability of a Conditional Use for a church within the Estates Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.0l.B.l.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code on the property hereinafter described, and the Collier County Planning Commission has made findings that the granting of the Conditional Use will not adversely affect the public interest and the specific requirements governing the Conditional Use have been met and that satisfactory provision and arrangement have been made concerning all applicable matters required by said regulations and in accordance with Subsection 10.08.00.D. of the Land Development Code; and WHEREAS, all interested parties have been given opportunity to be heard by this Board in a public meeting assembled and the Board having considered all matters presented. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Petition Number PL20160002577, filed by Frederick Hood of Davidson Engineering, Inc. representing Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., with respect to the property [17 -CPS -01698/1407170/1]89 1 oft Grace Romanian Church /PL20160002577 4/16/18 hereinafter described in Exhibit "A", be and the same is hereby approved for a Conditional Use for a Church within an Estates Zoning District pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.B.l.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code, in accordance with the Conceptual Site Plan described in Exhibit `B" and subject to the Conditions of Approval found in Exhibit "C". Exhibits "A", "B" and "C" are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall be effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 18- becomes effective. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution be recorded in the minutes of this This Resolution adopted after motion, second, and super -majority vote, this day of 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko -All� Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A - Legal Description Exhibit B - Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit C -Conditions of Approval [17 -CPS -01698/1407170/1] 89 2 of Grace Romanian Church /PL20160002577 4/16/18 ANDY SOLIS, Chairman ! AVIDSON Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT "B" ALL OF TRACT 16, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 79, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND THE WEST HALF OF TRACT 15, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO. 4, ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 79, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. t railer Rornan€an Baptist Church of Naples CU Aattachrnont "T" - Legal Description !t. k 201.;' www,davidsonengineering.com ESTATES ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (DEVELOPED WATER MANAGEMENT) COLLIER BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY K x oz �N D Wp (nm D> P COUNTY CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY T -1 O N i n y (PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 79) m Am n 9 I pz� m m -- ;$. - - - yM� 3m r rm--- N O - o y m m m x '>o o y _ Ipp Wo m �D w 3 0 D p o ��mm z �> �m> to z mIDO Dn C�DDm ��� _sm �N 0m � cn�'-� v' AiTm ter^ m y PvzO - �cC>C� p z m-( m� m O� zi°1 ,-,ayr G m �i ". z N Dm F mlr < n �I D m�O� A ;o mcn n m m m o s u� RJ'$` m ' 3. D ,.� � �.,k a . r 1,'�i g v nuc- . a --- --- _ — – - - -- --- _-m m - ;gym v D D >z bm - W zLi DI ,��' i. T� m� i��i�l e B mm o m �m Wm D W t� T �m �.: ,.... v o m < < 0� m im < v T m O �_, m T4 m v N z z'cn - - -- ----- 25' PRESER�/E ----- - r z m 0� �N m rt mm mrni 'm *1> - m� pad•, y-Di 3 m 3 w---.•. 3 N {v { m�m• { cn m mm cn o C) -- Nom. e; D cyi m cn O i z mol • �'� z �r ��• Z: 75'FRONT YARD SETBACK •` w j t tim D F, WEBER BLVD. S. C a , RIGHT-OF-WAY -n 'U o -.,.. o M .. _ o Z7 0 m m ,C m � m � O m z m o O v m 0 cn z y ti cn z z z6" mW ''. m� m� m m DD n ai y m < 0 < < x A p m 5"-2 aR n (mn cn o : m m m m v (n --1 m S ti� m y f. 2 z m � — CG�CEROMANIAN - BAPTIST CHURCH — E ROMANIAN - -- _;- ° �AVIDSON — SITE PLAN-- H"CN E PoDGE„LES, FL]4118CONCEPTUAL FG MT m l--_.. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Transportation Administrator or his designee. Exhibit C [ 17 -CPS -01698/1397475/1] 61 AGENDA ITEM 9-E CCPC RESOLUTION NO. 18 — A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE NO. 2008-06, AS AMENDED, THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD, TO ADD TWO DEVIATIONS RELATING TO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND FENCE/WALL HEIGHT, TO DELETE ONE DEVIATION RELATING TO CUL DE SAC LENGTH, TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO MINIMUM PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS, TO ADD A NEW CROSS SECTION EXHIBIT, AND TO REVISE THE MASTER PLAN TO RECONFIGURE THE SITE LAYOUT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF ±17.52 ACRES. [PL20160003482] 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 changes 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: [17 -CPS -01638/1403345/1]128 rev. 4/20/18 Pezzettino Di Cielo PDI - PL20160003482 Petition No. PDI-PL20160003482 filed by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., representing Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC, with respect to the property as described in the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD, Ordinance No. 08-06, as amended, be and the same is hereby approved to add two deviations relating to landscape buffers and fence/wall height, to delete one deviation relating to cul de sac length, to modify development standards relating to minimum principal and accessory structure setbacks, to add a new cross- section exhibit, and to revise the Master Plan to reconfigure the site layout, as shown in the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD amendment and Master Plan attached 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: Thaddeus Cohen, Department Head Growth Management Department Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Karen Homiak, Vice - Chairman IkA yla.�o,I Attachments: Exhibit A — RPUD Amendment [17 -CPS -01638/1403345/1]128 rev. 4/20/18 Pezzettino Di Cielo PDI - PL20160003482 2 a 0 PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD, A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC Mr. Steve Fiterman 1845 Trade Center Way Naples, FL 34109 Richard VD. Yovanovich, Esq. fie; Coleman, Yovanovich and jehnsenKoester, P.A. 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239-947-1144 Exhibit A DATE REVIEWD BY CCPC December 6, 2007 DATE APPROVED BY BCC JanuaEy 29 2008 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2oo8-o6 AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 2004-41 Words underlined are additions; words struek threugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Last Revised 01/1612 018 ocko TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN SECTION III CONSERVATION / PRESERVE AREA SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC LIST OF TABLES AND EXHIBITS TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXHIBIT A RPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT B TYPICAL SECTION (4o' RIGHT-OF-WAY) PAGE 3 5 7 8 -110 0 Words underlined are additions; words struek through are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 2 Last Revised 0 111 612 01 8 Cq �; SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being +/-17.52 acres is described as: Tax Parcel 22 located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, described as: The West 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, LESS AND EXCEPT: A perpetual easement to Collier County, Florida for roads, utilities and drainage easement over and across the West 50 feet thereof. AND Tax Parcel 9.1 more particularly described as: Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12 Township, 48 South, Range 25 East, thence North 66o feet to a point; thence East 162 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continue East 132 feet to a point; thence South 330 feet; thence West 132 feet; thence North 330 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Subject to a road Right -of -Way over and across the North 30 feet thereof. FQW1 The East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, less and except the North 30 feet thereof, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4, and The West 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4. AND PARCEL ONE as described in O.R. Book 3103, Pg 2950 Words underlined are additions; words struek tkr-eugh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 3 Last Revised 01/16/2018 C;q C The South thirty feet of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 S, Range 25 E, Collier County, Florida, LESS AND EXCEPT the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of the North 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. All Located in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is under the ownership of: Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston, LLC Parcel Numbers 00147240oo8 and oo147840000) and Long Bay Partners, LLC (Parcel Number oo14668000g). Disfinefiv Residential -Bevelepme3ii-ut bMngst 1-1—C. h ,..tfae+ to piar-ehase the baa ee e f +l,„ p eft , ..et ,.,def their . r -ship T g Bay Paft. a fs t t G The lands together make up the t 17.52 acres covered by this RPUD 1.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. The project Master Plan, including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts, is illustrated graphically by Exhibit "A", RPUD Master Plan. LAND USE TYPE Single-family, zero lot line 43 Dwelling Units WATER MANAGEMENT +/- 2.4987 acres PRESERVE AREA +/- o.82 acres ROADS/ROW +/-1.9966 acres DEVELOPMENT TRACTS +/- 51g acres BUFFERS / OPEN SPACE +J -.,i.17 acres TOTAL: +/-17.52 acres Words underlined are additions; words s-fruek through are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 4 Last Revised 01/16/2018 SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN 2.1 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS The maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall be 43• 2.2 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: (1) Single family detached dwellings. (2) Zero lot line detached dwellings. B. Accessory Uses: (1) Customary accessory uses and structures, including private garages, outdoor kitchen facilities, privacy walls (6' height) pavilions, fountains, trellises, and other landscape features. (2) Common recreation amenities. Such uses shall be visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent residences which have the use of such facilities. (3) Essential services, water management facilities and other similar facilities designed to serve the infrastructure needs of the RPUD. 2.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table I sets forth the development standards for land uses within the "R" Residential District. General: (1) All yards and setbacks shall be in relation to the individual parcel boundaries, except as otherwise provided. (2) In no case shall the minimum setback be less than the required landscape buffer width. Words underlined are additions; words m9,uek threug# are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 5 Last Revised 01/16/2018 L', TABLE I — DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS "R" Residential Areas Requirements Single Family Minimum lot area 5,000 square feet Minimum lot width 50 feet, Minimum floor area Minimum principal structure setbacks • Front yard$ • Front yard for side entry garage$ • Side yard • Rear yard • Waterfront • Preserve boundary Minimum accessory structure setbacks • Frontyard8 • Side yard • Rear yard • Waterfront • Preserve boundary Minimum distance between principal structures Maximum height (zoned) 1,600 square feet 20 feet2 io feet 6 feet io feet 20LO feet5 25 feet SPS6 SPS6, s 5i o feet 2010 feet5 io feet 12 feet 35 feet Zero Lot Line 5,000 square feet 50 feet' 1,600 square feet 20 feet2 io feet o and io, or 5 feet3 io feet 20 feet5 25 feet SPS6 o feet SPS4' 6 e fi feet7 20 feet5 io feet io feet 35 feet , Minimum lot width for cul-de-sac lots may be reduced by 20% provided the minimum lot area is maintained. 2 The distance from the back of the sidewalk to the face of the garage door must be at least 23 feet to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without encroaching into the sidewalk. Should the garage be side -loaded, plans must ensure that parked vehicles will not interfere with pedestrian traffic. 3 Where a zero foot yard option is utilized, the opposite side of the structure shall have a io foot yard. Otherwise, a minimum 5 foot side yard shall be provided on each side. 4 Patios, pools, 6 foot privacy walls, fountains, trellises, landscape features, screen enclosures and the like may encroach into the io foot yard and may attach to the adjoining dwelling provided an easement is granted from the adjoining dwelling unit owner. In no case shall these elements encroach into the lake maintenance easement. 5 Measured from control elevation. No setback shall be required from a Lake Maintenance Tract. 6 SPS = Same as Principal Structure. 7 Accessory structures shall not be placed within lake maintenance easements or required landscape buffers. 8 For any lot abutting Hardesty Road or Enclave Circle, a 7.55 -foot setback shall be permitted for one front yard on Hardesty Road or Enclave Circle. Words underlined are additions; words s9wek-through are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 6 Last Revised 01/16/2018 ,17 SECTION III PRESERVE AREA 3.1 PERMITTED USES The RPUD Master Plan provides for .82 acres of preserve area which meets the 15% native vegetation preservation requirement. Minor adjustments may be made to the boundaries of preserve areas based on permitting considerations in accordance with the Land Development Code (LDC) and Growth Management Plan (GMP). No building, structure or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following and subject to permitting: A. Principal Uses and Structures i. Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks within the preserve areas, subject to LDC requirements. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection to the preserves in accordance with the LDC. 2. Water management detention and structures, excluding a perimeter berm. a. Native vegetation retention area(s) used for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: (1) There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro -period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. (2) If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter or other document, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management purposes. 3. Native preserves. 4. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through the process outlined in the LDC. Words underlined are additions; words struel threugh are deletions — Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 7 Last Revised 01 /16/2018 (CA0 SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 4.2 TRANSPORTATION A. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress or a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. B. The developer shall provide payment in lieu of the installation of sidewalks on one side of the road per the requested deviation in Section 5.1 of this RPUD in accordance with Section 6.o6.02 of the LDC. The amount shall be determined by utilizing FDOT's 2004 Transportation Costs as amended. Payment in lieu of providing the sidewalk shall be required prior to approval of plats and plans for the first phase of the project. C. A temporary turn lane shall be provided for the project prior to commencement of on-site construction, and the permanent turn lane improvements must be complete prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (CO). D. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement marking, and design criteria shall be in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with, and as required by the Collier County's LDC, as amended. E. Arterial -level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO. F. Access points shown on the RPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plans, final plat submissions, or by an approved Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA). All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved. Words underlined are additions; words struek-through are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 8 Last Revised 01/16/2018 _1" G. Site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the public prior to commencement of on-site construction. H. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. No. 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to close any median opening existing at any time which is found to be adverse to the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. I. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks, interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer in accordance with the applicable regulations of the State of Florida. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. J. If any required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights-of-way or easement(s), then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement(s). K. If, in the sole opinion of Collier County, a traffic signal, or other traffic control device, sign, or pavement marking improvement within a public right-of-way or easement is determined to be necessary, the cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. The improvements shall be paid for or installed, at the County's discretion, prior to the issuance of appropriate corresponding CO. 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL A. Soil testing for contaminants including chlorinated hydrocarbons, organophosphates and total petroleum hydrocarbons must be performed prior to final residential development order approval. 4.4 WATER MANAGEMENT A. The storm water shall not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated in accordance with Collier County and Water Management District standards. Words underlined are additions; words struek through are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 9 Last Revised 01/16/2018 Words underlined are additions; words struck thratigh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 49 Last Revised 01/16/2018 i • ...........-P MMINN, i i i i Words underlined are additions; words struck thratigh are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 49 Last Revised 01/16/2018 SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC 5.1 DEVIATIONS FROM LDC A. Right -of -Way Width: The developer requests a reduction in the width of a local roadway right-of- way from sixty feet (6o') as shown in Appendix B of the LDC to forty feet (40') as shown in attached Exhibit AB. B. The developer requests a deviation from Appendix B of the LDC, which requires a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be located on both sides of a local street to permit a 5 foot wide sidewalk to be located on one side of the local street. C. The developer requests a deviation from Section 22-112 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances to permit development excavations to be a minimum of 20 feet from a property line with protective barriers. the 1 ,7 sae t ' emee a cZr ,00e feet in lengg h ass ewn oft the Master- Plan. Az D The developer requests a deviation from LDC Section 4.o6.02 Table 2.4, Table of Buffer Requirements by Land Use Classifications, which requires a Type `A' located off-site along the north, east and south PUD boundaries. E. The developer reauests a deviation from LDC Section rj.0�.02.C.1.a and 5 03 02 F Fences and Walls which permits residential fences/walls to be a maximum of 6' in height from existing ground levels, to permit the perimeter combination berm/wall to be a maximum height of 8' above the Livingston Road average back of sidewalk elevation. Maximum 8 -ft wall and berm combination (6 ft wall on approximate 2 ft berm) shall be measured from the edge of pavement of the existing travel lane at the approximate mid -point of he parcel frontage on Livingston Rd. This pavement elevation is approximately 15,o NAVD. Words underlined are additions; words smwuek thpough are deletions Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD 4410 Last Revised 01/16/2018 tC:' A, r t aTga�r.par aa.,e1la RCAAhfrTaW� wnr:a. rod.Aam n.a..w �m Asaro.arrMrA. wa.vr.s.r «ar.wsror..a i �Raf�rd•AlromR,eM eeaeuweMrr ma•Auu�wMarm W.u,AMNaYYMaAAKa�6 � s�.ae..�iurw..ww�mrenuesmrwrenad:ort,.amro.rrra uta nrearay.uy«wTUA[«OaaaaRm a:am .RPCYAMfY ARa.OeMH. 1 Wtle.W«e./,.M«1C..eaaaerm Ylynaa•a. RA/LLT AeIYI► 1W TRA*E smvDj M4TM WT NAui. A Spas ® DEVIATION COWER COUNT/ 11L1TY EASEMENT ROP05ED -_---------- L J I (- 'PRESERVE _ . . o -0.82f ACRES- • - - I � I 2oNNG:►uD-mxonI PA N WS476' E 1109.44 I i I LAKE 1.22# ACRES � R i --—— •— —- — —.- I i I I I I I I R is I i h u I W � � S ' N i----------- ----------------- ------ - �; C«O Cr. t� m ® R r ! DI!,! .I�� ct LAKE R / 0.98t ACRES � Aro.r'Ornn l sT.�o: \ I S W-31-44- W 1105L91 (P) MW.70' (N =- wG:.w -.Gor aRA O Cab®R Oal - 4:Q!tDY. MINOR OR8ceY4 IORr,! taMs� me c seRow PEZZETWO DI CIELO RPUD SVEXHIBIT A ASTER CONCEPT PLAN LM fReT .:.''.b DX&M-. „wase 2 a WATER MANAGEMENT 2.871 ACRES PRESERVE 0.82± ACRES ROADS / ROW 1.66± ACRES DEVELOPMENT TRACTS 9± ACRES BUFFERS / OPEN SPACE 3.17± ACRES TOTAL ACREAGE 17.52± ACRES OPEN SPACE: REQUIRED: 60% PROJECT PROVIDED: 60% ENTRANCE FEATURE AND I SIGN DEVIATIONS: Q 2� RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH BI, SIDEWALKS C LAKESETBACK ® LANDSCAPE BUFFERS 12' PROP. R.O.W. Z DEDICATION TO 3 COLLIER COUNTY WALL HEIGHT (SECTION 4.2.J J OF THE PUD ORDINANCE) I BERM AND WALL I I I NOTES: 1. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR MODIFICATION DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. 2. ALL ACREAGES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AT THE TIME OF SDP OR PLAT APPROVAL. T 10' WIDE TYPE'A'N N ZONING: PUD - MEDITERRA LANDSCAPE BUFFER I PUD BOUNDARY EX. 10' LBE 30' INGRESS/EGRESS ESMT. (OR 4160, PG 1841) (OR 3103, PG 2950) scuF„i soy -- -- - — A=B -- -- -- -- �.. —� � --0 \-. - - ------------- r--------- L—� - Q - --,\ BERM ; ; 20' LB R I EX. 10LBE D184 4 160, PG -'PRESERVE'.'--.`' II I� Iv A ylz zla I M,_ z LAKE R y IQ o Iii I,' p iw N i I LAKE a ;A I I� w° I � w' . M i ❑� I BERM I IIII I �� di i ' d BERM �I (I I BERM ” I -_ _- 1-=___=_-- __--_- ---------------_ ------------ _�PUDBOUNDARY-- ---------- -------- IO'WIDETYPE'A'9 20' WIDE TYPED' LANDSCAPE BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER (BERM AND WALL) ZONING: PUD - MEDITERRA LEGEND ""`° �` PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD 0. 4taCr PIWuc Joa pee,rlaMs. P.A w. ® GradyMinor R.., ® = DEVIATION °° "''° `` '"" EXHIBIT A R = RESIDENTIAL IMI Engineer Land Sume>"s Planners Land cape Arehitras MASTER CONCEPT PLAN Re ragn pole Descrglion d�� & wspriu�: 239! 7.I 144 w. Gra JrNixai. Pow Frc �Nren'. 2n06911.4lRO SNECr 1 Oi 1 I C 40' RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) i i 10' 8' 2' TRAVEL i 5' 4' i I 2% I 4" CONC. SIDEWALK) I VALLEY GUTTER (TYP.) 2% (MIN.) � I 10' TRAVEL LANE 2' 8' 1' I I 2% (MIN.) 10' P.U.E. (WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS) 5' C.U.E. & S.W.E. (WHERE SHOWN ON PLANS) CD 7.5' I \-WATIER MAIN (MIN) LEGEND !) Q. Grady Minor ananeeo ialea,Fn © GradyMinor 3800 Yla Del Rey aoolte SpMage, Florida 34134 Civil Engineers . Land Surveyors Planners . Landscape Architectsn� Irn of il,nn. R8o 151 na.e„n W"3131 wrmr.. u; 260W12” 8onila Spriaps, 230.947.1144 www. GrodyM/oor. cow Fort My— 239.690.4380 PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD s - EXHIBIT B TYPICAL SECTION (4t)' RIGHT—OF—WAY) weacwe pE1pp DASD OEC Xnb nu.c (—XI SHEET 1 OF 1 il lIorJ i t lsUn GVcJ IC Ot ZSz lv ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 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 DESCRffiED REAL PROPERTY FROM AN AGRICULTURAL A ZONING DISTRICT TO A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RPUD ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AMAXIMUM OF RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS ON PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY MILES NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD C RIN SECTION TOWNSHIP SOUTH RANGE EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA CONSISTING OF ACRES AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE q rx rrl f J IrVIMrn M J x n c om r WHEREAS D WayneArnoldAICP of QGradyMinor and AssociatesP A and Richard YovanovichEsq of Goodlette Coleman and Johnson P A representing Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA that SECTION ONE The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section Township South Range East Collier County Florida ischanged from an Agricultural A Zoning District to a Residential Planned Unit Development RPUD for a project to be known as the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD to allow construction ofamaximum of residential dwelling units in accordance with the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps as described in Ordinance Number as amended the Collier County Land Development Code is are hereby amended accordingly SECTION TWO This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State Page I of PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida this aCfi dayofOflu It j A TTES Yr l DWIGHT E BROGK CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER CO NTY ORIDA By r Attest a tit Cba sl t fcf f W Deputy Clerk By TOM Approved as to form and legal sufficiency Marjo M Student Stirling Assistant County Attorney Page of d th This ordinance file WI Secretary of Offi day of Id athotandacknowe geme JVdfilijVdayofRcLZOeput Clerk PEZZETIINO DI CIELO RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REGUlATIONS AND SUPPORTING MASTER PLAN GOVERNING THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PREPARED FOR Distinctive Residential Development at Livingston LLC Mr Steve Fiterman Trade Center Way Naples FL PREPARED BY Richard V Yovanovich Esq Goodlette ColemanandJohnsonPANorth Tamiami Trail Suite Naples FL Q Grady Minor and Associates PA Via Del Rey Bonita Springs FL Exhibit A DATE REVIEWD BY CCPC December DATEAPPROVEDBYBCC b ORDINANCE NUMBER AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL lDC TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DESCRIPTION SECTION IIRESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN SECTION III CONSERVATION PRESERVE AREA SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS SECTION VDEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC LISTOF TABLES AND EXHIBITS TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS EXHIBIT A RPUD MASTER PLAN SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of thePezzeUino Di Cielo RPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property being acres is described as Tax Parcel located in Section Township South Range East Collier County Florida described as The West of the SW ofthe SW of the NE of Section Township South Range East LESS AND EXCEPT A perpetual easement to Collier County Florida for roads utilities and drainage easement over and across the West feet thereof AND Tax Parcel more particularly described as Beginning at the Southwest corner of the SW fof the SW lf of the NE f of Section Township South Range East thence North feet to apoint thence East feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING thence continue East feet to apoint thence South feet thence West feet thence North feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING Subject to a road Right of Way over and across the North feet thereof AND The East of the East f of the SW of the SW of the NE less and except the North feet thereof and The West ofthe East ofthe SE ofthe SW of the NE and The Westfof the East f of the SW f of the SW ofthe NE and The West f ofthe SE f of the SW fof the NE AND PARCEL ONE asdescribed in O RBook Pg The South thirty feet of the North V of the SW f of the NE V of Section Township SRange E Collier County Florida LESS AND EXCEPT the East V ofthe East of the East of the North V of the SW V of the NE V of Section Township South Range East AllLocated inSection Township South Range East Collier County Florida PROPERlY OWNERSHIP The subject property is under the ownership of Distinctive Residential Development atLivingston LLC and Long Bay Partners LLC Distinctive Residential Development atLivingston LLC has a contract to purchase the balance of the property not under their ownership from Long Bay Partners LLC The lands together make up the acres covered by this RPUD DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PlAN AND PROPOSED lAND A The project Master Plan including layout of streets and use of land for the various tracts is illustrated graphically by Exhibit ARPUD Master Plan LAND USE TYPE Single family zero lot line Dwelling Units WATER MANAGEMENT PRESERVE AREA ROADS ROW DEVELOPMENT TRACTS TOTAL acres acres acres acres acres SECTION II RESIDENTIAL AREAS PLAN MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS Themaximum number ofdwelling units allowed within the RPUD shall beUSES PERMI TED No building or structure or part thereof shall be erected altered or used or land used in whole or part for other than the following A Principal Uses Single family detached dwellings Zero lot line detached dwellings B Accessory Uses Customary accessory uses and structures including private garages outdoor kitchen facilities privacy walls height pavilions fountains trellises and other landscape features Common recreation amenities Such uses shall be visually and functionally compatible with the adjacent residences which have the use of such facilities Essential services water management facilities and other similar facilities designed toserve the infrastructure needs of the RPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table Isets forth the development standards for land uses withinthe R Residential District General All yards and setbacks shall be in relation to the individual parcel boundaries except as otherwise provided In no case shall the minimum setback be less than the required landscape buffer width TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R Residential Areas Requirements Single Family Zero Lot Line Minimum lot area square feet square feet Minimum lot width feet feet Minimum floor area square feet square feet Minimum principal structure setbacks Front yard feet feet Front yard for side entry garage feet feet Side yard feet o and or feet Rear yard feet feet Waterfront feets feet Preserve boundary feet feet Minimum accessory structure setbacks Front yard SPS SPS Side yard SPS o feet Rear yard feet o feet Preserve boundary feet feet Minimum distance between principal structures feet feet Maximum height zoned feet feet Minimum lot width for cul de sac lots may be reduced by provided the minimum lot area ismaintained The distance from the back ofthe sidewalk to the face of the garage door must be at least feet to allow room topark a vehicle on the driveway withant encroaching into the sidewalk Should the garage heside loaded plans must ensure that parked vehicles will not intelfere with pedestrian traffic Where azero foot yard option is utilized the opposite side ofthe structure shall have a foot yard Otherwise a minimum foot side yard shall he provided on each side Patios pools footPlivacy walls fountains trellises lanclscape features screen enclosnres and the like may encroach into the foot yard and may attach to the adjoining dwelling provided an easement is granted from the adjoining dwelling unit owner In no case shall these elements encroach into the lake maintenance easement S Measured from control elevation SPS Same as Principal Structure Accessory structures shall not be placed within lake maintenance easements or required landscape buffers SECTION III PRESERVE AREA PERMITIED USES The RPUD Master Plan provides for acres of preserve area which meets thenative vegetation preservation requirement Minor adjustments may be made to the boundaries of preserve areas based on permitting considerations in accordance with the Land Development Code LDC and Growth Management Plan GMP No building structure or part thereof shall be erected altered or used or land used in whole or part for other than the following and subject to permitting A Principal Uses and Structures Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks within the preserve areas subject to LDC requirements Fences may be utilized outside ofthe preserves to provide protection to the preserves in accordance with the LDC Water management detention and structures excluding aperimeter berm a Native vegetation retention area s used for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained The additional water directed to tillS area shall not increase the annual hydro period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation Ifthe project requires permitting by tile South Florida Water Management District the project shall provide a letter orofficial document from the District indicating that the native vegetation witIlin the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter or other document then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management purposes Native preserves Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses as determined by tile Board of Zoning Appeals BZA through the process outlined in the LDC SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments forthe development of theproject TRANSPORTATION A Nothing in any development order shall vest aright of access in excess of aright inright out condition at any access point Neither shall theexistence ofa point ofingress a point of egress or a median opening nor the lack thereof be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer its successor in title or assignee B The developer shall provide payment inlieu of the installation of sidewalks on one side of the road per the requested deviation in Section of this RPUD in accordance with Section of the LDC The amount shall be determined by utilizing FDOT s Transportation Costs as amended Payment in lieu ofproviding the sidewalk shall be required prior to approval of plats and plans for the first phase of the project C A temporary turn lane shall be provided for the project prior to commencement of on site construction and the permanent turn lane improvements must be complete prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy CO D All traffic control devices signs pavement marking and design criteria shall be in accordance with the Florida Department of Transportation FDOT Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards MUMS current edition FDOT Design Standards current edition and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices MUTCD current edition All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County s LDC as amended E Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO F Access points shown on the RPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent site plans final plat submissions or by an approved Developer Contribution Agreement DCA All such access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy Res No as it may be amended from time to time and with the Collier County Long Range Transportation Plan The number of access points constructed may be less tllan the number depicted onthe Master Plan however no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is approved G Site related improvements as opposed to system related improvements necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project as determined by CollierCountyshallnotbeeligibleforimpactfeecreditsAllrequiredimprovementsshallbeinplaceandavailabletothepublicpriorto commencement of on site construction H All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with theCollierCountyAccessManagementPolicyResNoasitmaybeamendedandtheLDCasitmaybeamendedCollierCountyreservestherighttocloseanymedianopeningexistingatanytimewhichisfoundtobeadversetothehealthsafetyandwelfareofthepublicAnysuchmodificationsshallbebasedonbutnotlimitedtosafetyoperationalcirculationandroadwaycapacityAllinternal roads driveways alleys pathways sidewalks interconnections to adjacent developments shallbeoperatedandmaintainedbyanentitycreatedbythedeveloperinaccordancewiththeapplicableregulationsoftheStateofFioridaCollierCountyshallhavenoresponsibilityformaintenanceofanysuchfacilitiesJIfany required turn lane improvement requires the use of any existing County rights ofwayoreasementsthencompensatingrightofwayshallbeprovidedatnocosttoCollierCountyasaconsequenceofsuchimprovementsKIfin the sole opinion of Collier County a traffic signal or other traffic control device signorpavementmarkingimprovementwithinapublicrightofwayoreasementisdeterminedtobenecessarythecostofsuchimprovementshallbetheresponsibilityofthedeveloperhissuccessorsorassignsTheimprovementsshallbepaidfororinstalledattheCountysdiscretionpriortotheissuanceofappropriatecorrespondingCOENVIRONMENTALASoil testing for contaminants including chlorinated hydrocarbons organophosphates and total petroleum hydrocarbonsmustbeperformedpriortofinalresidentialdevelopmentorderapprovalWATERMANAGEMENTAThestormwater shall not be discharged into the preserve area until it has been fully treated in accordance with CollierCountyandWaterManagementDistrictstandards AFFORDABLE HOUSING AThe developer shall contribute to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund for each residential dwelling unit constructed within theproject This sum shall be paid prior to the issuance of the CO for the residential unit The contribution for each residential unit shall bea credit against any affordable housing fees that may be adopted bythe County which may be applicable to this project SECTION V DEVIATIONS FROM THE LDC DEVIATIONS FROM LDC A Right of Way Width The developer requests areduction in the width of a local roadway right of way from sixty feet as shown in Appendix B of the LDC to forty feet as shown in attached Exhibit A B The developer requests a deviation from Appendix B of the LDC which requires a foot wide sidewalk to be located on both sides of alocal street to permit a foot wide sidewalk to be located on one side of the local street CThe developer requests a deviation from Section ofthe Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances to permit development excavations to be a minimum of feet from aproperty line with protective barriers D The developer requests a deviation from Section of the LDC to permit the cul de sac to exceed feet in length as shown on the Master Plan A vehicle turnaround meeting local fire district standards shall be provided Elozlbliti i I I J@ nl l i I p I Iilli I ItljiIII I ililitI i ill lc m b giS r B igI ij i II dill I IlIIIIiIIIiIIIIIIIiIImIIIIIIIIIII I IIfiIiIIIIIIi l I Iii IIl m m J ill N f Miff W O w on d N n w IfllO u I j nt I dJ OZ TIi II I II I I I I I I I no l dAt DZw P c r rr r J O tJ Li U I JrIft sa ii Q MI f f fI JI L d g j I I I II I I I S I r I ii m II III t N It m l l I S OOJlW C S J ZOMNO PUOMOITI FlAA f I l I STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER I DWIGHT E BROCK Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Collier County Florida do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of ORDINANCE NO Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the th day of January during Regular Session WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County Florida this st day of January DWIGHT E BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex officio to Board of County COinm ilB i rierl By Martha Vergara Deputy CJ erk Al" ASOW jr 4w p :j : [011 to ttti'.r :P �.. - � �.' ter.♦ �.0 - .--.�'i Y ♦. �i'', 'moi+{ ,'� <.�'7.. � , `.f:'� .�., fiv J .yw Rei w. "• YKy ' :,fes .r,T ��r•.':y'�t. .��_�� yet. �4 � i.".. .. f __ _ ... _ .. .�� i � •�'� .ter .. li n + s� < ,i f 3.`h , I r P.- r✓�u'_�% ..g����AZ 3�riM1Yt f � r J4 1 1 ti iFn . x v y s� - - p -- — — ——— — — — — — — a — --_ 5-2 I� I 6 PHOTO "8" r PHOTO "1" \ PHOTO "2" PHOTO "Y' PHOTO "4" PHOTO "5" I PHOTO "6" PHOTO "T' \ 0 GradyMinor CINI Englueem ,d—Pa ArOMW. L.a surverore ylanRens swmo z= 7m RRV,BION9 SHEET 1 OF 1 FEBRU.IRT 2011 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA # 1244, Principal Planner, Zoning Services From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Date: December 12, 2017 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PDI-PL20160003482 PETITION NAME: Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development) Rev.5 REQUEST: To amend the Conceptual RPUD Master Plan and the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD document, approved via Ordinance #08-06, to request a deviation for a joint buffer easement; to remove a deviation for cul-de-sac lengths and fire vehicle turnaround; to add a deviation for an increase to the height of perimeter fences and walls from 6 feet to 8 feet; to depict a 30 foot roadway easement and make the Master Plan more legible; and to correct a scriveners error on the Master Plan identifying a 20 feet wide landscape buffer along the eastern property line although original submittal documents depicted the correct 10 feet wide buffer. The 3rd submission of this petition provided letters of support, revisions to clarify property ownership, and Right of Way cross section revisions to indicate the width and location of the water main. The 4th submission of this petition provided evidence that the grantors of the landscape buffer easement agree to the proposed enhancement as a joint shared buffer. The 4th submission also added buffers/open space to the PUD section 1.4 Description of Project Plan and Proposed Land Uses. The 5th submission responded to Collier County Attorney’s Office comments concerning the buffer easement owned by Long Bay Partners. LOCATION: The ±17.52-acre subject site is located on the south side of Hardesty Road, the east side of Livingston Road, and approximately ½ mile north of Veterans Memorial Blvd., in Section 12, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. This District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including Planned Unit Developments. According to the FLUE, the purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide for higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), a base density of four (4) units per acre is allowed. The Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD was approved for a maximum of 43 dwelling units which is a density of 2.45 DU/A (43 DUs / 17.52 acres = 2.45 DU/A). This petition is for Insubstantial changes to the Planned Unit Development (PDI) to modify the Conceptual Master Plan and the PUD text to reflect changes to the deviations from the LDC, modify joint buffer easement, a 30-foot 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2 roadway easement, and the landscape buffer. No changes to the PUD boundary, or in permitted uses, densities, or intensities are being requested. 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.] 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. [Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD Master Concept Plan Exhibit ‘A’ depicts the subject site fronting on Hardesty Road, a local roadway, and Livingston Road, a principal arterial road shown on “Collier 2025 Functional Classification Map” in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD will provide an ingress/egress onto Hardesty Road that will connect with Livingston Road to the west.] 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 Master Conceptual Plan Exhibit ‘A’ shows a looping road for circulation throughout the site.] 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. [No interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments are shown on Exhibit ‘A’ connecting the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD to Mediterra PUD, which surrounds the eastern and southern boundaries of the Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD. Mediterra PUD also lies to the north of Hardesty Road, which does not connect to Mediterra PUD. Based upon the subject site’s PUD Master Plan and the existing development and infrastructure in Mediterra PUD, a vehicular interconnection does not appear to be feasible. However, staff encourages a bike/pedestrian interconnection.] 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 Pezzettino Di Cielo RPUD has been previously approved for sidewalk deviations for just one side of the road (Section V, Deviations from LDC, B). No new housing is being proposed with this petition. Open spaces, civic facilities, and housing were approved with the previous Ordinance #08-06. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PDI 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 PDI-PL2016-3482 Pezzettino Di Cielo R5.docx REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDZ-2005-AR-8416 Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD Chapter 10.03.05.G of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following, where applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Pro: The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) land use designation of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Con: None. Findings: The proposed change is consistent with the designated Urban -Mixed Use, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUE. In addition, the proposed density of 2.5 dwelling units per gross acre does not exceed the maximum 4 dwelling units per gross acre allowed by the Urban Residential Subdistrict; therefore, the project is consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Pro: The existing pattern of development is single-family residential. The project is consistent with the existing residential land use patterns as explained in the staff report. Con: None. Findings: The residential units are deemed acceptable for this site because the rezone complies with the GMP and LDC requirements. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Pro: An isolated district from the neighborhood is determined by topography and inadequate public facilities. Since the proposed RPUD rezone is consistent with the GMP with regards to adequate public facilities the change will not create an isolated district. Con: None. Findings: The proposed RPUD rezone will not result in an isolated district since the proposed residential uses and density complies with the FLUE. There are several other PUD developments in the area with similar land uses and development standards. Therefore, the rezone request will not create an isolated district to the adjacent districts. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Page 1 of 5 Attachment E Pro: The boundaries are logically drawn and provide a complimentary development to the Mediterra PUD. Con: None. Findings: The district boundaries are logically drawn and follow the existing property boundaries. Therefore, the project is compatible with existing conditions as well they are consistent with the Urban Residential Subdistrict, as identified on the FLUM of the GMP. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Pro: The request is reasonable because the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designates this area as the Urban Residential Subdistrict. Con: The proposed RPUD rezone is not obligatory at this location. Findings: The proposed RPUD rezone is appropriate based on the existing conditions of the property and because it adhere to the FLUE. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Pro: The proposed dwelling unit types are similar to the currently approved Mediterra PUD residential development in the area. Con: None. Findings: The development will not adversely affect the living conditions in the neighborhood because the recommended development standards and other conditions for approval have been designed to ensure the least amount of adverse impact on the adjacent and nearby developments. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Pro: The site generated trips will not lower the Level of Service (LOS) below the adopted LOS standard for Livingston Road (CR -881). Therefore, the project is consistent with policy 5.1 and 5.2 of the GMP. Con: Since the site is currently vacant and if this petition request is approved, there will be more site generated trips on Livingston Road (CR -881). Findings: The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the proposed PUD and has recommended approval of the petition based upon the project will not lower the LOS below the adopted LOS for the area. Page 2 of 5 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Pro: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the proposed water management and drainage is designed to prevent drainage problems on site and is compatible with the adjacent water management systems. Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place that will ensure review for drainage on new developments. Con: Staff will not determine if the new development will have drainage problems until the review of the development order. Findings: Every project approved in Collier County involving the utilization of land is scrutinized and required to mitigate all sub -surface drainage generated by development activities as a condition of approval. The drainage plan has been approved for all existing land uses and future development will be reviewed at the time of the first development order. This ensures that the drainage meets County standards. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Pro: The proposed development requires the site to conform to the development standards which are based on the LDC. These standards provide for open space, corridor management, and building height restrictions, etc. to protect the adjacent areas. Con: None. Findings: The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties. Furthermore, the final site design and the effect of light and air on adjacent properties will be finalized at the time of first development order. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Pro: Urban intensification typically increases the value of adjacent land. Additionally, the development standards are similar to those approved for the Mediterra PUD. Con: There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. Findings: Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a residential zoning designation should not affect value because the surrounding area is also residential zoning. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Pro: The adjacent properties are also designated Urban Residential on the FLUE and they allow for similar dwelling types. Therefore, the proposed development will not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. Page 3 of 5 Con: None. Findings: The LDC's criteria for review of each land use application to allow Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners to follow standardized review process which requires consistency of the GMP. The development of adjacent properties, in accordance with existing regulations, will not be affected if this rezone amendment is approved. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; Pro: Land Use application are subject to the public hearing process to assure that the rezone thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity in which the property is situated. Con: None. Findings: The proposed rezone complies with the land use designation of the Urban (Urban Residential Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the entire GMP. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Pro: The proposed RPUD rezone conforms to the future land use element of the GMP because it will be used in accordance with the existing residential zoning within the area. Con: None. Findings: The subject property could not develop residential dwelling units in accordance with the existing zoning because the current zoning is Agriculture (A) and that zoning does not allow this type of residential development. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Pro: The proposed rezone meets all objective criteria set forth for residential zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent of the GMP and all its elements. Con: None. Findings: The proposed RPUD will not generate vehicular trips that will lower the LOS below adopted standards the project will not adversely impact the neighborhood. The proposed RPUD is compatible with surrounding property in scale. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Pro: There are many sites which are zoned to accommodate the proposed development but this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning Page 4 of 5 decision. The determinants of the zoning are with consistency with all the elements of the GMP. Con: None. Findings: Each zoning petition is reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed RPUD is consistent with the FLUM because it is in the Urban Residential Subdistrict. 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. Pro: The land use pattern should accommodate carefully planned levels of development, safeguard the environment, reduce sprawl, promote efficient use of land, and help to maintain a sense of community. Con: None. Findings: The site will not require extensive alteration to make it usable for residential development. 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. Pro: The proposed RPUD rezone meets all objective criteria set forth for residential zoning and conforms to the purpose and intent of the GMP and all its elements. Con: The GMP encourages but does not require the synchronizing of development with the availability of public facilities needed to support that development. Findings: This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP and they have concluded that no LOS will be adversely impacted because the proposed development is consistent with all Elements of the GMP. Page 5 of 5 FINDINGS FOR PUD PUDZ-2005-AR- 8416 Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Pro: The project is located within the Urban Residential Subdistrict of the GMP and this district permits residential uses with a variety of dwelling types. The RPUD rezone will intensify the land but relative to public facilities this project will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. Con: The existing residents in the area may perceive the residential intensification in the area as contributing factors to traffic congestion. Findings: The proposed level of development of 2.5 units per gross acre is below the 4 units per gross acre which is permitted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The level of service for all utilities is at an acceptable level and the proposed project will not reduce or adversely affect the Level of Service for adjacent roadways or for any utility providers. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Pro: The application has indicated that the project has evidence of unified control and a homeowners association will maintain common areas. Con: None. Findings: Documents submitted with Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD application provide evidence of unified control. The RPUD document makes appropriate provisions for continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Pro: The proposed development is compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding land uses. The development standards contained with in this RPUD are nearly identical to permitted development standards in the Mediterra PUD which bounds this project on all sides. Furthermore, due to the smaller size of this parcel, on-site amenities such as golf courses and expansive amenities are not possible. Absent that Page 1 of 3 particular element which serves to greatly reduce the gross density of Mediterra, the development pattern is this PUD closely mirrors the development tracts contained within the Mediterra PUD. Con: None. Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which designated the subject property as Urban Residential. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. The staff report expounds in detail of how the project is deemed consistent with the GMP. 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. Pro: The RPUD Master Plan has been designed to optimize internal land use relationships through the use of various forms of open space separation. External relationships are regulated by the Land Development Code (LDC) to assure harmonious relationships between projects. Con: The development standards in the RPUD document allow for zero lot lines and together with the requested deviations for a reduction in the width of the local roadway from sixty (60') feet to forty feet (40') and, to only construct a five (5') foot wide sidewalk to be located on one side of the roadway will give the appearance of an overcrowded neighborhood. Findings: Staff analysis indicated that the petition is compatible, both internally and externally with the proposed uses and with the surrounding uses but is not compatible with the deviation request. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Pro: The amount of open space set aside is the minimum requirement of the LDC provisions. Con: The lot size with side yard setback of zero and the deviations requested to limit the roadway to forty feet wide and sidewalks on one side of the roadway will limit the open space for the residents. Right -of -Way is not Findings: While the proposed single-family development would be appropriate for the site, careful consideration must be given to the protection of new residential uses from potential impacts resulting from over crowded development and limited internal roadways. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Page 2 of 3 Pro: No capacity issues are known at this time and the petition has been reviewed by all the required county staff and they have determined that no Level of Service (LOS) standards will be adversely affected. Con: None. Findings: The timing or sequence of the development for the proposed RPUD in light of concurrency requirements automatically triggers review by County staff to assure the project will not adversely impact the timing or sequence of development that is currently allowed in the area. Furthermore, the adopted concurrency requirements ensure that further Level of Service (LOS) degradation is not allowed or the LOS deficiency is corrected. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Pro: Currently, the utility and roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed RPUD as well as the surrounding development at the time of build -out of this project. Con: None. Findings: Supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal systems, potable water supplies and capacity of roads is at a level supportive of expansion. 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. Pro: Staff has reviewed this petition for adequate public services and levels of service and found it is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) land use designation and meets the regulations of the GMP. Con: None. Findings: The Pezzetino di Cielo RPUD contains development standards that are either consistent with the LDC and/or comparable to the development standards contained in the Mediterra PUD. The proposed building heights, setbacks and development commitments ensure a similar product to that of the adjacent property. Page 3 of 3 TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING FOR PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD Appearances: WAYNE ARNOLD STEVE FITERMAN MICHAEL DELATE NANCY GUNDLACH JAMES SABO SHARON UMPENHOUR OCTOBER 26, 2017 Attachment F MR. ARNOLD: My name is Wayne Arnold, and I'm here representing the developer of this project. It was originally approved as Pezzettino Di Cielo PUD. We're probably changing the name on the plat that will come forward to the Enclave of Distinction, but the PUD will remain known as Pezzettino Di Cielo. And tonight Sharon Umpenhour, from my office, is recording the meeting. We're required to create an audiotape of the meeting. We have owner representatives in the room, Steve Fiterman and (indiscernible) and Mike Delate from my office is the project engineer who's been working on this. So we can hopefully answer any questions that you have. And then I'll introduce Nancy Gundlach. She's with Collier County government. She's one of the principal planners. And we have James Sabo, who is also with Collier County. He's a newbie and sitting in to learn how this occurs. So this is our neighborhood information meeting. And we're required to hold an informational meeting whenever we make changes to a planned development. So we are proposing a handful of changes to this PUD that was approved back in 2008. And Steve and his group have -- you know, are moving ahead. And the current direction seems to be larger lot single family. The project was approved originally for single family and zero lot line. Looks like -- and if development occurs soon, it's probably headed more towards the single family, but our PUD will continue to allow both uses. And it was originally approved for a maximum of 43 houses. And that's remaining the same. So nothing will change for that. Most of you probably know where the property is. It's surrounded by Mediterra on three sides, and it's on the east side of Livingston Road. So most of you all are neighbors. So this is the original master plan that we prepared for the project. And a couple of changes that we're proposing. I've got the other plan. I don't have them side by side, unfortunately, but it was approved. All residential. One large cul-de-sac envisioned to service the project. We show landscape buffers along our perimeter. And there's one access point on Livingston Road. And then the plan that we've submitted to the county keeps generally the same access location, but we're going to use what's known as Hardesty Road, and I'm sure many of you have seen the little strip of land that's between Mediterra and this project. But there's already a wall and landscaping around the entire project. And we're proposing to invoke and utilize a landscape buffer easement that was approved back, I don't know, Steve, what year it was approved, but many years ago. So we're going to go ahead and utilize that, and supplement the required landscaping that we would have had to put on our property back in that buffer that's already there. So that's one of the key changes that we're proposing, is to displace our landscape buffers to the area that's technically just off of our property. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So is it the buffer or is it the landscaping itself? Will there be less landscaping? MR. ARNOLD: No. It will result in the same amount of landscaping for the project. It will just -- the landscaping that we would have normally planted on our side, we're going to plant it right in the buffer easement that exists today. So it will supplement and beef up what's there. It just seems like, you know, it's already a mature buffer with a wall. It doesn't really seem to make sense for us to put another strip of trees, you know, just behind our houses. It would be better to just supplement the buffer that's there. So that's what we're intending to do. And then we've asked for a new deviation to deal with the wall that would go along Livingston Road. We want to place it now on a berm. So the County technically allows us only a six-foot high wall and they measured it from, you know, the ground elevation, not the top of the berm. So we're proposing to put the wall on top of the berm, which makes it a total of eight feet high as they measure it. So we've asked for a deviation for the wall height and the landscape buffer. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And how would that compare with the wall that's there (indiscernible) Mediterra? MR. ARNOLD: Mike, do you know? I mean, I think it's probably a little shorter than what you have, yeah. That was -- yeah. I don't know exactly, but I think it is. So this results in a new master plan configuration that shows not just along the cul-de-sac, but utilizing Hardesty Road and then having a loop system inside our project. So, you know, it's still residential tracts remain on the perimeter. We have modified some of our internal setbacks, front rear and waterfront, because the county now requires us to plat our landscape buffer tracts and our lake tracts as separate tracts of land. We used to be able to incorporate a landscape buffer, for instance, as part of your rear yard. The county is making us create those as a separate tract, but they're allowing us to reduce our setback commensurate with it because now the property line measurement is from a different location than it would have been if it were an easement. So we're making adjustments in that regard. And anybody who would like a copy of what we have submitted to the county, we're happy to provide it. If you'll give Sharon an e-mail address or the best way to get information to you, if you want it. We'll be happy to provide you a copy of this plan and the document. It's not a very lengthy document that's been changed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, what is the setback requirement? MR. ARNOLD: Well, every PUD establishes their own. For instance, in ours, we have a front yard setback of 20 feet is the minimum front yard setback. And then we've allowed for rear -- let me put my glasses on so I don't misread it. MS. UMPENHOUR: Can I just -- can I just ask everybody to speak up just a little bit -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Sure. MS. UMPENHOUR: -- so we can get this? Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: So we have a 20 -foot front yard, for instance, and then with the side entry garage, it's allowed to go down to 10 feet. But if we have a sidewalk, which, Mike, I think we do have a sidewalk, we'll have to have a 23 -foot setback from the sidewalk so cars don't overhang. If you all live in Mediterra, it's probably very comparable development standards. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And the rear setback? MR. ARNOLD: The rear setback varies, but we have 10 feet for the principal structure, and then a rear yard of five and zero proposed for the accessory structures. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Will you have a seawall or will it be a berm to the lake? MR. ARNOLD: It's probably just going to be returned to grade at the lake. There's no bulkheading proposed for our primary lakes. Now, keep in mind, too, I want to caution. I know that this process is still ongoing, so some of this is subject to modification. That's why I like to tell people to stay tuned if you're here and want to follow it, because as we get into the further reviews by the county, things can change or, you know, Planning Commission member before -- or our hearing examiner, of which this is proposed to go to, could ask a simple question and say, can you please clarify one of the setbacks or can you change the way that you've expressed it. So there could be modifications right up until the day that the hearing occurs. So if there's something in here you want to continue to follow, let us know. We have a link on our website to the county's website. So you can review any outstanding comments and documents that are there. And then for this property, we'll have to put -- for the hearing examiner, we still have to put up signage, correct? MS. UMPENHOUR: Yes. MR. ARNOLD: You've probably seen those on your own community, four -by -eight, you know, signs will go up on the frontage. Probably just one, I'm guessing, for this frontage. But then that will be posted and noticed for the hearing examiner or the -- could be Planning Commission. I mean, unless there's a, you know, super outcry of opposition, typically, it would stay with the planning commissioner, and he would have a public hearing, hear testimony and public input as well, if that -- you know, if somebody wants to appear and express a question or comment, concern, whatever they might have to say. So that's really, in a nutshell, what we're trying to do. And I'm happy to -- I know we talked a little before the meeting officially started, but if somebody would like to ask some questions. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Can you put that other picture up that showed the -- you said you've reduced it down to 27 houses. MR. ARNOLD: We have -- we are in for review with Collier County for a plat for the property, which is the way -- you record a plat before you can actually sell the lots. And that's what I said when I started the meeting. The direction that Steve is headed with the project at the moment would replat this or plat the property for -- it's 27, right, Mike? Yeah, 27 lots. We're approved for a maximum of 43. That's why I say if things change, the economy changes, you know, so we may -- we could revise this to ratchet that to a different number, but the orientation for the project would remain as shown on the overall master plan. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, would you -- so the lot sizes, then, are about a half acre to -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, the minimum -- the county requires minimums. And, today, this project is approved for a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. ARNOLD: And it contemplated that we could have 50 -foot wide lots by -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm sorry? MR. ARNOLD: The existing PUD, as it's approved today, would allow us to have a 50 -foot wide lot, so -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. But what you're proposing -- MR. ARNOLD: What's in for review with the county for the plat is larger than a 50 -foot lot, but what I'm saying is that could change. I mean, Steve could go back and decide that, you know what, the market has moved away from having these larger lots, I want to go back and build some smaller lots. And he could do that. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So -- thank you. Because that means up until you break ground, you -- I mean, and even after you break ground, you could have some at zero lot, like one part of the street could be zero lot, and the others could be larger? MR. ARNOLD: Technically, yes, you could. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: I don't know that I envision it actually developing that way, but, I mean, it could. You're right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The site really isn't large enough to do two different types of uses. I mean, they're going to have to be one use, whether it's a 50 -foot wide lots or 65 -foot wide lots. MR. ARNOLD: But there could be a blend. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: I mean, all of these aren't exactly the same lot size. You'll continue to have them, but I think the distinction is between single family attached versus a zero lot line product. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. MR. ARNOLD: Probably meaning you could do one or the other of those. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And what price points are you planning? (Indiscernible). MR. ARNOLD: I don't know. I think it really depends on the market when Steve and his group decide to break ground. I don't know. Are you -- one of the questions that they ask, Steve, just in fairness, because you're probably going to get it from them, they asked if you are going to be the master builder and developer, or are you going to sell lots and then individual homeowners can hire their own builder. MR. FITERMAN: Wayne's making it so that you can see all the flexibility, but you can't go into business with just flexibility. You've got to make some decisions. And, of course, this plat that Wayne is showing is our intention today. And we'd like to get started as soon as we get our approval, which hopefully will be either by the end of this year or very early in '18. So what you're seeing is pretty much what we are intending to do. We would have to take and basically scrub everything we've been working toward as a plan, you know, a business plan, and it would probably cost us a couple of years if we were going to go back and do something different. The point of the matter is a PUD, as I understand it, that PUD is there, in fact. We're not asking to change it from the standpoint of starting with something totally different, instead of residential, you know, eldercare or whatever the case may be. We're trying to work within that PUD. This is considered an inconsequential amendment to the PUD, because we're not doing anything that would take -- throw it out of whack other than the fact that we're going from 43 down to 27 units. And, yes, we believe that's where the market is today, and that's our business plan, our intended business plan. MR. ARNOLD: But like I said, for the purposes of the PUD, I mean, should Steve decide that, you know, he's platted this, he's trying to sell these lots and he can't, the PUD will retain the flexibility to change that product type or change lot sizes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I think that's more of a curiosity question, what do you see the trends being? MR. FITERMAN: Well, we've put a lot of time and investment into this business plan, into single family. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: But that's, I think, why we asked price point, is -- MR. FITERMAN: Well, the homes that we're envisioning -- the size of the homes are going to be between 3,000 and 4,000 square feet. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So under today's sort of, well, guidelines, that basically comes down to about a million two or a million three range. MR. FITERMAN: We're -- we (indiscernible) custom builders. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So it's more than that. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That means (indiscernible) that means 1.9. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Not to be inflammatory, but we're all London Bay (indiscernible) so we come from worst case scenario (indiscernible). I'm sorry to say (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Really? You should like buy lots. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. ARNOLD: Folks, one at a time, so we can pick it up on the recorder. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Hopefully, they will be even higher (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: That's exciting. Do you have a style in mind? MR. FITERMAN: The current -- the current contemporary look. It's not going to be the Italian -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: More of a transitional -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Transitional contemporary. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. That's exciting. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So is that, Mike, the new homes that I'm seeing being built in sort of downtown Naples? It's kind of contemporary, but has a little old Florida to it? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes, Barry, exactly. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. MR. ARNOLD: You had a question, sir? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: So as a neighbor, one of our worst fears was, you know, something with height. So single family is a good thing. The buffer -- the next thing, right, for us, since most of us live in Lacarno (phonetic) and, you know, next door that way, the buffer to us in terms of just screening. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I assume, in order to have your lots attractive, you're going to want, you know, screening in the rear of the lots coming back toward our way. MR. ARNOLD: In this area? road. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. And the MR. ARNOLD: Well, this is all common element of your community -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. berm. MR. ARNOLD: -- with a landscape buffer and UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm very familiar with our side of the -- our side of the wall. MR. ARNOLD: Right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I'm wondering what kind of visual you would expect for that on the other side. MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're going to be -- the deviation we're requesting would allow us to put our required landscaping within the existing common easement that exists for landscaping. So we would be landscaping our inside portion of that landscape buffer. So if you walk back in here, for instance, you'll see what the buffer looks like from the other side. So we would be supplementing buffering on these three sides. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. I'm just still not quite sure. Just help us understand what your plan is. Is it 5 feet, 10 feet? I think I heard you say 5 feet based on the lots, but I'm sure that -- MR. ARNOLD: Well, the buffer easement exists, and it's a recorded buffer easement that we're putting in. So that is our deviation to allow us to do the buffer on our property, but to supplement the buffer that's there. I'm just looking to see what the -- do you know the width of it offhand? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's a 10 foot. MR. ARNOLD: It's a 10 foot? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: 10 foot, yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Yes, supplemental buffer easement, which is the buffer easement that's minimally required from a single family to single family anyway. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And correct me if I'm wrong, but this is the pump house, right, that we're pumping out. So -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right, right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: No, no. MR. ARNOLD: This is the pump house. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So what is that? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's a shed that's got to go. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Cool. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: All right. But so the buffer is going to come how far? Are we talking like -- how much of that -- MR. ARNOLD: It's going to be planted -- if you went behind your wall, there's a return to grade with a berm and landscaping already on it. We're talking about putting our landscaping and supplementing those buffers that are already in place. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because the tallest trees that are on your property are here. I mean, what we see, those big tall trees that when we look out, that's -- they're going to go. MR. ARNOLD: Oh, yeah. We have a preserve area on the plan that's -- UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: So what are we (indiscernible) be looking (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It will be trees. Just short. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I mean, south of Hardesty Road would be, you know, our development tracts, and then we have a small preserve here in the entrance. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I wouldn't think you'd want to be keeping those tall, spindly pine trees. MR. ARNOLD: Well, most of -- Mike, you can speak to it, I guess, if need be. MR. DELATE: Yes. It's actually a protected wetland. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Oh. MR. ARNOLD: All this would be protected. So we'll have to remove exotics from that area, and then possibly do supplemental plantings, but the trees that would get replanted are going to be, what, Mike, canopy trees of some sort meeting the code? MR. DELATE: Supplemental, yeah. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Now, you had supplied us with a landscape plan or somebody did, the buffer plan earlier this year. Is that still -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We worked very, very diligently with the Mediterra communities. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's -- this is (indiscernible) replacement. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Oh, okay. (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: He said you were going to be a really -- an improvement. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I don't believe it. Are we talking about Terry or Greg? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Greg. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: He was very, very UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: But, no, we worked with your board. We worked with Greg. And we satisfied -- we satisfied the concerns -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Because the plan looked pretty substantial, what I saw. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And nothing has changed. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Okay. Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We needed to go through this with you all. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I know. I know. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Even though the whole idea was not to have this meeting, but by going -- by working directly with your board, we thought that it would -- it would accelerate time -wise. And the County said, no, we've got to have the meeting. So that's fine. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: I think I might also add, you know, your concerns on that east side, I mean, those are the rears of all those houses. As much as you don't want to look at them, they don't want to look at you either, because that's their pools. So, I mean, it's going to be buffered, because they're going to be sitting out there in the pool. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Well, that's my next question. Thank you for that lovely segue. Now we're talking about noise from -- because our front yards are going to be looking and joining with their backyards. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: You'll have no front yards. MR. ARNOLD: These are their front yards. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. MR. ARNOLD: I think you're talking about (indiscernible). (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Those are all (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's a long ways away. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: First -- and there's a huge berm between. You know the berm. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's a huge berm. So between the berm and all the foliage and the distance, you're not -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: There's an elevation of like 3 or 4 feet. There's close to 5 feet difference between our property and theirs. And you're not going to fill that up. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Well, we have to fill some of it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Some, but not 5 feet. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The backs of the houses on the east side face east. They're not facing -- none of them are facing south towards your homes. So -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Even the corner one down at the bottom? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Right. That corner lot still -- that house still faces east. And it's going to be behind the buffer. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Faces east or west? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: East. The front house -- (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: The rear of the house faces east. So none of the -- none of the homes are going to face the rear facing south. So none of that is going to impact you in that way. And the berm there is substantial at that -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And look at the foliage. I mean, we're not going to take out that foliage that's on that line. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're just going to enhance that and add to it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Now, that larger building, is that the one that's coming down? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: That's an old barn. It's an old pole barn. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: It's from the prior owner, previous owner. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I asked this question before the meeting got started, but do you foresee a long-term difficulty with left turns? Because everyone there is going to have to U-turn at the sign to go back. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: We're concerned about it as well. We want to talk with the Mediterra Association. We want to talk with the Talis Park Association. We'd love to -- you're going to have to make a right turn. Like what we would like to try to do on Livingston is put a left turn lane at where Talis Park's entrance is so you have a nice controlled U-turn. So that's what we're working on. MR. ARNOLD: But that's really subject to the county. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Correct. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: And there's a lot of approvals for that. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yeah. So the question is -- yeah, we have the same concern. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Because we have -- as we were discussing here, is the two lane headed south, that right where we can turn left, it becomes three. And it's kind of like you hope that people don't swerve into that (indiscernible). UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: (Indiscernible) try to cross to go from one side of Mediterra to the other, he'd take a right turn and head south to go to one of those (indiscernible) and turn back. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. And so for us -- UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: In his Corvette. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Yes. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It is during season just -- and so I wondered about that, because it is real difficult just for us getting across the street. We're making a left-hand turn because people just do this as opposed to waiting like you're supposed to until it's clear and then everyone making their turns. So I am concerned with the increased traffic. I really am. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Our people -- there's no way, where our entrance is, that it's anywhere near the Mediterra east entrance. We're all concerned about Livingston and (indiscernible) and everything else, you know. We want to make it as easy as we can for everybody. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: I guess long-term county -wise, is there any way, because it just continues to get more and more dangerous, and it becomes -- it's a 65 -mile -an -hour average that they UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Posted 45. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: And it's a 45 -mile -an -hour zone (indiscernible). MR. ARNOLD: Well, the county guarantees every property to at least get a right in, right out access point. And then they control access pretty thoroughly on Livingston Road. It was considered to be a controlled access road. So they want it to be a higher volume movement, which is why you have the special access control ordinance that affects the property -- or not the property, but all of that road. So that's just a challenge working with the county, because they're trying to maintain capacity, and we would all like to, you know, have easier turns, but every time somebody has to slow down to get into a turn lane, it reduces the capacity on the road. Anything else? I think I caught -- please let Sharon know if you'd like a copy of everything we have, and we'll e-mail it to you. It's not a large document. And you can read all of it and ask any other questions you may have. Anything else, anybody? Adjourn? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Going once. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: It's exciting. UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Thank you. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Twice. Thank you. MR. ARNOLD: Thanks. Nancy, I'm sorry. Did you want to say anything? UNIDENTIFIED MALE VOICE: Good luck. MR. ARNOLD: Can we go back on the record? Can we go back on? There's -- (Multiple simultaneous speakers.) MR. ARNOLD: Let me just say one thing. Before we all break up, let me say that we don't have hearing dates scheduled yet with a hearing examiner or the Planning Commission, whichever it's going to be, but if you're within 500 feet, you're going to get a mail notice of that, correct, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: And then the signage will go up in advance of the hearing, or call Sharon or me anytime and we'll keep you posted. All right. Thank you all. Good night. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Thank you. (Recording concluded.) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 1. The foregoing contains a full, true and correct transcript of proceedings in the above -entitled matter, transcribed by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from the digital 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. SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: Date: November 6, 2017 Joyce B. Howell LETTER OF OBJECTION TO: Collier County hearing Examiner The Pezzitino Di Cielo Development PL20160003482 (Distinctive Homes Development) Collier County Commissioners FROM: Nita Farmer and Ken Stowe 16843 Cabreo Drive, Naples, FL 34110 DATE: APRIL 2ND, 2018 SUBJECT: Letter of Objection to the Distinctive Homes Development We would like to submit an official “Letter of Objection” to the Collier County Growth Management Department and the Collier County Commissioners. Our objection concerns the development of the Distinctive Homes Development at Livingston Road, petition No: PDI-PL20160003482. We plan to attend the hearing on April 12th at 9:00AM and would like to speak to this objection. We are homeowners in Mediterra East, a established community off of Livingston Road.We live within 500 ft of the intended area that is to be the construction site of the Distinctive Homes Development (DH). A lake is projected to be on the West side border, 3 homes are to be built on the North-shared border and no homes along the South shared-border. However, there are plans to build the greatest number of homes along the East- border of Messina Lane, eight to be precise, across the street from our house. Messina Lane is one of the most treasured and beautiful treed boulevards in Mediterra East. It will radically be changed after this construction . You will now see a subdivision of cages, negative sight lines and noises from the backyards and activities of this new development on the border of Messina Lane. This will forever negatively effect our environment and quality of life. Why are we and most of the East side residents upset about this? 1) Because of the sensitive location of the Distinctive Homes Development: The piece of land owned by Distinctive Homes Development is located right in the MIDDLE of Mediterra East. It will affect our views, sights, sounds , lighting and lifestyle ! If the construction does not respect the present norms of our community , it will negatively impact our community and our real estate values. LETTER OF OBJECTION 2) Their architectural plans do not honor the present norms of our community: Our community is a 5-Star community and 10th best in the world. The orientation of all of it’s homes is such that the front of the homes face the street and the backyards face the ponds. Developers respect these norms in order to allow for the consistent street appeal of their communities . This puts the noisy activity areas of the backyards away from the streets. If these construction plans proceed as is, it will be a serious mistake as NOWHERE ELSE IN ALL OF MEDITERRA WILL YOU SEE EIGHT CAGES, 8 BACKYARDS FACING OUR STREETS. Because it will be so outside our norm, a number of real estate agents, and developers that we consulted believe that this has the potential to negatively affect the property values and salability of our homes . 3) Distinctive Homes project is not in keeping with the “ intent and spirit” of the Collier County regulations for buffers and screening:The Distinctive Homes Developer has NO plans to build a berm and a wall around the perimeter of his property to protect its residential neighborhood and ours. We have only to look at how a top developer, London Bay, has chosen to deal with this situation. They are presently developing a new Mediterra East neighborhood called Camietto, along the North-shared border of Distinctive Homes. They began by first constructing a wall/berm so as to maximize the value and the salability of their homes. The "intent and spirit" of the regulations for Collier County “buffering and screening “ are clear: a) Protect established residential neighborhoods and enhance community identity. b) Minimize negative effects between adjacent land uses by landscape buffers and screens to eliminate or minimize the potential adverse impacts of noise, lighting, visuals, incompatible buildings and structures. c) Improve environmental quality and psychological benefits . 4) The proposed “enhanced landscaping buffer” by Distinctive Homes Development is woefully lacking. Considering that the Distinctive Homes Development is right “in the middle" of our development, considering the high density of the projected homes on Messina Lane, considering that the residents views will now be a “ subdivision of cages” and backyards ,thereby breaking all the norms of the Mediterra community and considering the “ intent and spirit” of the Collier County Regulations—-some more extensive measures should be taken in order to protect the previously established community of Mediterra East. It is a well known fact that trees and plantings are rated in the “very poor” category for blocking sound, ie. only at 3bBA/100ft (and that is only if the plantings are LETTER OF OBJECTION jammed pack with no visibility at all along with thick ground cover and shrubs. The principle effect of plantings is psychological. (Refer to the Florida Manual for Highway Noise and Development Land Use.) In contrast, a wall can reduce noise as much as 15dBA; a berm can reduce noise by the same 15 dBA. Considering the great number of concessions that Mediterra has given to the Distinctive Homes development , it would be a mutually beneficial gesture for them to build a wall/berm with landscaping on the East-shared border, that of Messina Lane, because of its future-planned high density of homes.This will provide both communities with a secure environment, respect the architectural norms of both communites, be a viable long-term solution, address the adverse effects of noise, sights and lighting, not get destroyed by severe storms and hurricanes as plantings will , and lastly, help maintain our real estate values and the salability of our homes. We feel that our letter of objection is a reasonable request in keeping with the “spirit and intent” of the Collier County regulations.We ask that the Collier County planner and Commissioners seriously consider the points we have made and mandate Distinctive Homes to build at the very least, a wall/berm along Messina Lane border. In the long run it will be a win-win for both communities and will garner and preserve higher sales prices in both communities. Respectfully Nita Farmer and Ken Stowe LETTER OF OBJECTION TO:Collier County Hearing Examiner-The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development Collier County Commissioners FROM: Michael and Kathy Potts – 16505 Buonasera Ct., Naples, FL 34110 DATE: February 26, 2018 SUBJECT: Letter of Objection to The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development We would like to submit an official “Letter of Objection” to the Collier County Growth Management Department and the Collier County Commissioners. This objection surrounds the development of The Pezzettino Di Cielos off of Livingston Road in Collier County. We are residents and homeowners in the Mediterra Community on the eastern side of Livingston Road. The Mediterra Community surrounds the proposed Pezzettino Di Cielo development tract on three sides. Our Mediterra Community has built a berm, wall and landscape buffer on one side of the proposed Distinctive Homes development and our berm and wall encloses the rest of our perimeter. We have provided a substantial no cost easement to Distinctive Homes and water/sewer access from within the Mediterra Community to Distinctive Homes at no charge. In return, we would like Distinctive Homes to build-out the remaining two sides of the wall, berm and landscape surrounding their development. We believe the build-out of the wall will provide Distinctive Homes and Mediterra a good sound barrier between the two neighborhoods. We believe the wall and landscape will provide both communities with a more secure environment. We also believe that the berm, wall and landscape will shield Mediterra residents from a direct view into the backyards, windows and pool cages of the proposed Distinctive Homes Development. We believe that our “Letter of Objection” represents a very reasonable request, and we hope our Collier County planners and commissioners will seriously consider our request to mandate that the Distinctive Homes Company build the remaining perimeter berm, wall and landscape. We believe that with the wall our property values will hold strong and that Distinctive Homes will garner a higher sale price on their proposed properties! Sincerely, Michael and Kathy Potts (404) 247-6083 LETTER OF OBJECTION TO:Collier County Hearing Examiner-The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development Collier County Commissioners FROM: Christine Cole – 16724 Stella Court, Naples, FL 34110 DATE: February 27, 2018 SUBJECT: Letter of Objection to The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development I am submitting a “Letter of Objection” to the Collier County Growth Management Department and the Collier County Commissioners. This objection surrounds the development of The Pezzettino Di Cielos off of Livingston Road in Collier County. I am a homeowner in the Mediterra Community on the eastern side of Livingston Road. The Mediterra Community surrounds the proposed Pezzettino Di Cielo development tract on three sides. The Mediterra Community has built a berm, wall and landscape buffer on one side of the proposed Distinctive Homes development and our berm and wall encloses the rest of our perimeter. Mediterra has provided a substantial no cost easement to Distinctive Homes and water/sewer access from within the Mediterra Community to Distinctive Homes at no charge. In return, we would like Distinctive Homes to build-out the remaining two sides of the wall, berm and landscape surrounding their development. I believe the build-out of the wall will provide Distinctive Homes and Mediterra a good sound barrier between the two neighborhoods. Importantly, the wall and landscape will provide both communities with a more secure environment. Furthermore, the berm, wall and landscape will shield Mediterra residents from a direct view into the backyards, windows and pool cages of the proposed Distinctive Homes Development. This “Letter of Objection” represents a very reasonable request, and I hope Collier County planners and commissioners will seriously consider this request and require that the Distinctive Homes Company build the remaining perimeter berm, wall and landscape. With this wall, our property values will hold strong and that Distinctive Homes will garner a higher sale price on their proposed properties! Sincerely, Christine Cole 847-400-7213 LETTER OF OBJECTION TO:Collier County Hearing Examiner-The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development Collier County Commissioners FROM: James and Kathy Pautsch -16509 Cellini Lane , Naples FL 34110 DATE: February 28, 2018 SUBJECT: Letter of Objection to The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development We would like to submit an official “Letter of Objection” to the Collier County Growth Management Department and the Collier County Commissioners. This objection surrounds the development of The Pezzettino Di Cielos off of Livingston Road in Collier County. We are residents and homeowners in the Mediterra Community on the eastern side of Livingston Road. I am also the street representative for residents living on Cellini Lane. The Mediterra Community surrounds the proposed Pezzettino Di Cielo development tract on three sides. Our Mediterra Community has built a berm, wall and landscape buffer on one side of the proposed Distinctive Homes development and our berm and wall encloses the rest of our perimeter. We have provided a substantial no cost easement to Distinctive Homes and water/sewer access from within the Mediterra Community to Distinctive Homes at no charge. In return, we would like Distinctive Homes to build-out the remaining two sides of the wall, berm and landscape surrounding their development. We believe the build-out of the wall will provide Distinctive Homes and Mediterra a good sound barrier between the two neighborhoods. We believe the wall and landscape will provide both communities with a more secure environment. We also believe that the berm, wall and landscape will shield Mediterra residents from a direct view into the backyards, windows and pool cages of the proposed Distinctive Homes Development. We believe that our “Letter of Objection” represents a very reasonable request, and we hope our Collier County planners and commissioners will seriously consider our request to mandate that the Distinctive Homes Company build the remaining perimeter berm, wall and landscape. We believe that with the wall our property values will hold strong and that Distinctive Homes will garner a higher sale price on their proposed properties! Sincerely, James and Kathy Pautsch 239 431 5385 LETTER OF OBJECTION TO:Collier County Hearing Examiner-The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development Collier County Commissioners FROM: Blaine Maciborsky and Lucy Miller – 16684 Lucarno Way, Naples, FL 34110 DATE: March 1st, 2018 SUBJECT: Letter of Objection to The Pezzettino Di Cielo Development We would like to submit an official “Letter of Objection” to the Collier County Growth Management Department and the Collier County Commissioners. This objection surrounds the development of The Pezzettino Di Cielos off of Livingston Road in Collier County. We are residents and homeowners in the Mediterra Community on the eastern side of Livingston Road. The Mediterra Community surrounds the proposed Pezzettino Di Cielo development tract on three sides. Our Mediterra Community has already built a berm, wall and landscape buffer on one side of the proposed Distinctive Homes development and our berm and wall also encloses the rest of our perimeter. We have provided a substantial no cost easement to Distinctive Homes and water/sewer access from within the Mediterra Community to Distinctive Homes at no charge. In return, we would like Distinctive Homes to build-out the remaining two sides of the wall, berm and landscape surrounding their development. The build-out of the wall will provide Distinctive Homes and Mediterra a good sound barrier between the two neighborhoods and will further provide both communities with a more secure environment. The berm, wall and landscape will also shield Mediterra residents from a direct view into the backyards, windows and pool cages of the proposed Distinctive Homes Development. We feel that our “Letter of Objection” represents a very reasonable request, and creates a solution that makes both Mediterra and the Distinctive Homes Development better communities to live in. And, we hope our Collier County planners and commissioners will seriously consider our request to mandate that the Distinctive Homes Company build the remaining perimeter berm, wall and landscape. Sincerely, Blaine Maciborsky and Lucy Miller (404) 247-6083 c o t ber County Growth Management Department — Planning & Regulation Zoning Services Division July 14, 2015 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associate 3800 Via Del Rey Naples, FL 34134 Re: Minor Change to PUD Master Plan or Minor Text Changes PMC-PL20150001293, regarding the Pezzetino Di Cielo Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) 1�7fTi�Ti�_TMOO Ctl This letter is in response to your application of June 3, 2015 requesting an administrative approval to make minor text changes to remove affordable housing commitments to pay an affordable housing contribution in PUDs, Development Agreements, and Settlement Agreements. Pursuant to Section 10.02.13, Planned Unit Development Procedures, E Changes and amendments, 3 Minor changes, c Affordable housing commitments, if the applicant notices property owners in writing and no objection is received within 30 days of mailing a notice, the request to remove commitments is deemed approved. Thus from the completed applicant application and the no -objection of property owners within 30 days of the property owner letter mailing, it is deemed by staff that the affordable housing contribution commitment wording within the Pezzetino Di Cielo RPUD under Section IV, 4-5 Affordable Housing, A, is deemed approved for removal by staff. You may wish to have this letter recorded in the official records of Collier County as a permanent record of the variance approval. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mike Bosi, AICP Director, Zoning Division cc: Raymond Bellows, Zoning Manager 1z Lori Beard, Correspondence File AGENDA#9F COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS SMALL SCALE (ADOPTION HEARINGS) PROJECT/PETITION: PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 [COMPANION ITEM PL20150002577] PROJECT LOCATION Golden Gate BLVD W a J IS vs IitAVESW V CD CCPC: MAY 03, 2018 BCC: JUNE 12, 2018 Clerks Office TABLE OF CONTENTS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN - SMALL SCALE GMP AMENDMENT PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 [ADOPTION HEARING] CCPC MAY 03, 2017 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENT: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit "A"text(and/or maps): PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 3) TAB: Project PL20160002584/ DOCUMENT: Petition Application Petition CPSS-2017-1 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 5) TAB: Correspondence DOCUMENT: Letter from the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: May 3, 2018 RE: PETITION CPSS-2017-01/PL20160002584, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to CU- PL20160002577) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Fred Hood, AICP Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Applicant: "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. 6017 Pine Ridge Road, #84 Naples, FL 34104 Owner: "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. 6017 Pine Ridge Road, #84 Naples, FL 34104 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises ±6.25-acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. (CR876) and Collier Blvd. (CR951), in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East (Urban Estates Planning Community). Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 1 of 11 1 f a j ]3 6 a- X ]mo — . Y w CI s6 g e $ e. .:116 ` F _ yyy P e `1 4 y ]1 F 1 I., -t-` roposed yA ,, `("-" "-` `€gym` s --,,..---7,--,--1--, fes" a.-— 3-. i + 4 i yE]5 ,•—, L dG" a 7a'S • ,, yp� rJ6i.1 a gg` Yrt i f kt “ +a € �g ,-3E'G ay ii ,iop S j- 6r v ;_ 4.• tom 1 - REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Golden Gate Area , Master Plan (GGAMP), specifically to amend the text of the Estates Mixed Use District - Conditional Use Subdistrict, Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria, to add the subject site as an exception for a church or place of worship. The applicant also proposes to create a new map ("Conditional Use Subdistrict: Golden Gate Boulevard & Collier Boulevard Special Provisions") in the Future Land Use Map series of the GGAMP, which will identify the newly created area in the revised Subdistrict. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added, single strike-through text is deleted, and is also reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A). 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Estates-Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning district within the Golden Gate Estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional uses, one of --- the following four sets of criteria shall be met: a) Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 2 of 11 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** c) Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** d) Transitional Conditional Uses: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. Conditional use permits for the purpose of extending the time period for use of the structure as a model home shall be required, and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.04.04B. and C. of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. Such conditional uses shall not be subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 3. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97. 4. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates Zoning District is allowed on the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area. 5. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates Zoning District, is allowed on Tract 16 and the west half of Tract 15, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 4 (see map titled Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Collier Boulevard Special Provisions). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this Growth Management Plan Amendment is to create text and a map for an additional location under the Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Estates designation in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP). The Conditional Uses Subdistrict is scattered about different locations throughout the Estates Mixed Use District. The acreage for the Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria Subdistrict will increase by the amount (±6.25-acres) of this additional location. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 3 of 11 The GGAMP amendment is necessary in order to allow a church/place of worship use at this location in the Estates designation. A new map will be created of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria and included in the Future Land Use Map Series of the GGAMP. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The ±6.25-acre subject site is zoned Estates Zoning District allowing uses of low density residential development (1 DU per 2.25 acres or per legal non-conforming lot) with limited agricultural activities; the Estates district is also designed to accommodate conditional uses, development that provides services for and is compatible with the low density residential, subject to locational criteria in the GGAMP. The Land Development Code lists churches as permissible as a Conditional Use for the Estates Zoning District. The Future Land Use designation of Estates is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited opportunities for other land uses. Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses including conditional uses and essential services, (except as prohibited in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict). Parks, group housing, schools, family care facilities, care units, and nursing homes are permitted uses. Estates zoning district conditional uses are subject to locational criteria as contained in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately adjacent to the north (across Golden Gate Blvd) are a mix of residential single-family units and a couple of undeveloped lots; this area is zoned Estates and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. There is also a utility property fronting on the east side of Collier Blvd. owned by FPL approximately 1,000 feet north of the subject property. Further to the north, up to Vanderbilt Beach Road, are more residential single-family units and a few undeveloped lots, which are zoned Estates and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. South: Immediately adjacent to the south lies 1St Ave. SW and beyond are residential single- family units and a few undeveloped lots; this area is zoned Estates and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. Across Collier Blvd. (CR951) on the west side of the road, and approximately % mile south of the subject site there are two places of worship: Iglesia Cristiana La Roca(Rock Christian Church) and the Haitian Bethesda Baptist Church. Further south on the east side of Collier Blvd. at 15th Ave. SW, there are two other places of worship: Bethel Christian Church and Unity Faith Missionary Baptist. There is a commercial planned unit development (Brooks Village) approximately 1 mile south of the subject site on the west side of Collier Blvd. and on the south side of Pine Ridge Road; this area is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. There are also 2 parcels zoned C-3 Zoning District and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict on the west side of Collier Blvd. on the north side of Pine Ridge Road. West: Immediately adjacent to the west (across Collier Blvd.) are residential single-family units and undeveloped lots, zoned Estates and designated Estates, Mixed Use Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 4 of 11 District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. Directly across from the northern parcel of the subject site on the west side of Collier Blvd. (CR951) are two County owned parcels with a water retention pond. These two parcels make up the northwest and southwest quadrants of the intersection of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Blvd. Further to the west are additional residential single-family units and a few zoned Estates, and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. There is also a property with agricultural uses on Mahogany Ridge Road approximately 1 mile to the west of the subject site. East: Immediately adjacent to the east lies one single family residence abutting the subject site (in the NW corner of Weber Blvd. and 1St Ave. SW), and Weber Blvd., a local road that runs north/south (parallel with Collier Blvd.); Weber Blvd. serves as a collector for four local streets north of Golden Gate Blvd. and four local streets south of Golden Gate Blvd. To the east of Weber Blvd. are residential single-family units and a couple of undeveloped lots; this area is zoned Estates and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. Approximately 1/2 mile to 3/4 mile east from the subject site and fronting on Golden Gate Blvd., there are two places of worship: Estates Naples Kingdom Hall and Cypress Wood Presbyterian Church; a county park (Max A Hasse Jr. Community Park); and Big Cypress Elementary School. This area is zoned Estates and designated Estates, Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The applicant is proposing a Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment to allow a conditional use for a church/place of worship to be located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of Collier Blvd. (CR951) and Golden Gate Blvd. (CR876). The site consists of ±6.25-acres and is comprised of two tax parcels. The northern parcel is wooded and undeveloped and the southern parcel contains a single-family home and is heavily wooded. Although the northern parcel is located at the intersection of an arterial roadway (Collier Blvd.) and a collector road (Golden Gate Blvd.), as identified in the Transportation Element of the GMP, no development has been previously approved and constructed. The applicant, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, purchased this property in November 2016 and is the owner of this site. The congregation has been holding services (sharing with another congregation) at the First Baptist Church of Naples on Orange Blossom Drive. Although the project is to be for a congregation of less than 300 people (seats), they want to worship in their own church. Their services will be conducted in Romanian. This petition and the companion Conditional Use application are for church-use only—not to accommodate a day care or any other community functions such as Boy/Girl Scouts or Alcohol Anonymous meetings, etc. The GGAMP provides that various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning district within the Golden Gate Estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional uses, one of the following sets of criteria must be met: Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions, Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions, Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions, and Transitional Conditional Uses, and Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria. The applicant has requested a conditional use under the last criteria, Special Exceptions. In reviewing the surrounding area, 6 churches are located within a one mile radius of the subject site. Previously, in 2007 and 2008, the two existing Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 5 of 11 churches near Max Hasse Park were approved via the Transitional CU provision. Other churches in the surrounding area were granted provisional uses in the 1980's, prior to adoption of the GGAMP. Previously, only two churches were approved under Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: a church on Immokalee Road and a church on Santa Barbara Blvd. Compatibility (including appropriateness of the location)for this project is identified by staff as the potential main area of concern to address. Compatibility: The surrounding area (at least 1 mile in any direction from the subject site) is entirely designated as Estates. This designation is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited opportunities for other land uses. Typical lots are 2.25 acres in size. Residential density is limited to a maximum of one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of guesthouses. The range of uses in the area surrounding the subject site include mostly residential single-family units, with a small mix of churches scattered throughout the area, as well as a park, a school, two commercial sites, and a couple of utility sites. Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses, including: conditional uses, subject to locational criteria, and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code. This amendment is proposing a land use that is in keeping with the surrounding area and the companion conditional use is an appropriate vehicle for obtaining permission for this use (the other means is through a rezoning). Historically, churches have been located within residential neighborhoods. Generally, these churches were not megachurches with significant activity on site every day of the week, rather -- were small with primary activity on Sunday. Neither this petition nor the companion CU petition indicate a seating capacity of more than 300 seats. In staff's view, the impacts from this church appear to be similar to that of the characteristics of churches historically located in neighborhoods. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed at time of zoning, and may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc. In staff's opinion, if this petition is approved it will increase the likelihood of a similar petition (to allow an Estates zoning district CU) being submitted for the property across Golden Gate Blvd. at the northeast corner of Golden Gate Blvd. and Collier Blvd. Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The agent for the applicant conducted and submitted a data and analysis review as part of the application packet for the GGAMP amendment. The analysis examined the following: • Vicinity to existing local parishioners • Location of alternative facilities offering similar denominational opportunities • Property availability • Alternative site analysis • Ongoing update/re-study of Golden Gate Area Master Plan Vicinity to existing local parishioners: Currently the congregation consists of local residents, with no seasonal impacts to the church population. The applicant provided a map with the locations of the parishioners showing that there are two clusters of existing members in Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates. The proposed church location would lie between these clusters. There Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 6 of 11 is another cluster of members that live between Vanderbilt Beach Road and Immokalee Road close to 1-75. Only a couple of members live outside of these areas. Location of alternative facilities offering similar denominational opportunities: The proposed church is unique in that it provides services conducted in Romanian. The applicant provided a map indicating where other churches in the state of Florida provided similar denominational opportunities. The closest churches to Naples were located in Hollywood (122 miles) and Lake Worth (132 miles). The only other churches in Florida were located in Seffner (160 miles) and Jacksonville (379 miles). Property availability: The applicant and agent reviewed other properties in the same vicinity that might meet the needs of the church with these key criteria: minimum of 5 acres, maximum of 10 acres, minimum lot width of 330 linear feet, located with frontage on arterial or collector roadway, a maximum of 5 miles east of 1-75 and north of Golden Gate Parkway, sale price less than or equal to $135,000. Two properties were identified: (1) Sungate CPUD Tract B (northwest corner of Green Blvd. and Collier Blvd.) and (2) a property on the west side of Collier Blvd. approximately 0.13 miles north of Pine Ridge Road. Alternative site analysis: The application included a description, map of two alternative sites, plus the proposed location, that were analyzed: (1)The Sungate CPUD- Limits the actual total square feet to 63,000 square feet for Tracts B, C, and D, so another development could cause restraints in the ability for the church to develop and water management facilities for the 1.02 County owned right-of-way might further limit the church's developable area in Tract B. Also, this site is not currently on the market. (2) Property on the west side of Collier Blvd. north of Pine Ridge Road - Access to Collier Blvd. might also be limited to parishioners during peak transportation hours for the church. Cost of constructing this site might be higher than proposed site due to an 8 foot deep storm water detention pond utilized for the roadway storm water attenuation. This site was also the highest cost per acre. The proposed site -3899 1st Ave. SW would need a Conditional Use and a GGAMP amendment. This property is owned by the applicant. Ongoing update/re-study of Golden Gate Area Master Plan: Collier County Comprehensive Planning is currently conducting a restudy of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. A number of public meetings were held with citizens and developers in Golden Gate Estates in order to have an understanding of what changes in the Comprehensive Plan they would like to see. Surveys were used to help indicate what land uses participants would prefer. The surveys indicated that the participants might be agreeable to some additional potential Conditional Use (CU) locations, if limited as to location and type. Between 45% and 50% of participants stated that additional CU's should be allowed at arterial intersections (described as 4 or more lane roads intersected by 4 or more lane roads). There were 5 rural locations and 3 urban locations that were identified as potential sites for CUs under this description, including Golden Gate Blvd. and Collier Blvd. (east quadrants). Church uses evoked a variety of opinions (both favorable and unfavorable) among the participants. Although this restudy work is nearing completion (GMP amendments based on the re-study are in draft form), it is currently not approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (BCC)and therefore is not in effect. If those GMP amendments should be approved by the BCC as presently drafted, it would eliminate the need to amend the Comprehensive Plan in order to obtain a CU at this location. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, Fl 34104•239-252-2400 Page 7 of 11 Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: ,rte Process for adoption of small scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1)A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a)The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The subject site comprises ±6.25 acres.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [No small scale GMP amendments have been approved in calendar year 2018;a ±5.35- acre small scale petition is scheduled to be considered for adoption by the BCC in May 2018.] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. /This amendment does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located --� within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (2) Small scale development amendments adopted pursuant to this section require only one public hearing before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.3184(11). [This project will be heard with only one public adoption hearing.] (3) If the small scale development amendment involves a site within a rural area of opportunity as defined under s. 288.0656(2)(d)for the duration of such designation, the 10-acre limit listed in subsection (1) shall be increased by 100 percent to 20 acres. The local government approving the small scale plan amendment shall certify to the state land planning agency that the plan amendment furthers the economic objectives set forth in the executive order issued under s. 288.0656(7), and the property subject to the plan amendment shall undergo public review to ensure that all concurrency requirements and federal, state, and local environmental permit requirements are met. [This amendment does not involve a site within a rural area of opportunity.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 8 of 11 Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Summer Araque, Principal Environmental Specialist with Collier County Environmental Planning Section has reviewed this petition. The subject property is 6.25 acres. Vegetation in the canopy consists of a mix of slash pine, cypress, and cabbage palm. The acreage of native vegetation on site will be field verified by staff during review of the Conditional Use (CU) for the project. The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, completed his review and approved this petition in August 2017. Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition, without any conditions, in August 2017. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on October 11, 2017, 5:30 p.m. at the Collier County — Estates Branch Library, 1266 Golden Gate Blvd. W, Naples, FL 34120. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Conditional Use petition. The applicant's team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. A total of approximately 9 members of the public along with approximately 4 members of the applicant's team and County staff signed in at the NIM. The public asked questions about the project details. The consultant explained that there were two separate applications: a small-scale amendment for the Growth Management Plan and a zoning action for a conditional use. One citizen spoke in favor of having this church as a neighbor. Several of the citizens who attended the Neighborhood Information Meeting, voiced concerns over the following transportation issues: additional traffic along Weber Blvd., location of ingress and egress points, County is unwilling to install traffic calming devices along Weber Blvd., and the trip count was calculated as 183 Sunday peak hour trips. The meeting ended at approximately 6:15 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no transportation or utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 9 of 11 • The use is generally compatible with surrounding development. • The Re-study for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan identifies the eastern quadrants of Collier Blvd. and Golden Gate Blvd. as appropriate for Estates Zoning District CUs. • In staffs opinion, if this petition is approved it will increase the likelihood of a similar petition (to allow an Estates zoning district CU) being submitted for the property across Golden Gate Blvd. at the northeast corner of Golden Gate Blvd. and Collier Blvd. • Staff finds that the data and analysis submitted by the petitioner demonstrates a need for the proposed amendment and that this is an appropriate location to fulfill that need. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on April 19, 2018. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(A)8, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve (adopt) and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to including in this amendment the addition of the Subdistrict name in the list of maps under the heading "Future Land Use Map Series" at the end the GGAMP. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 10 of 11 PREPARED BY: 1DATE: I ! SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: \:) DATE: DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION DATE: H 11- l iS MICHAEL BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: DATE: Ig"- Pg AMES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Petition Number: PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 Staff Report for May 3, 2018 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 12, 2018 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive• Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 11 of 11 ORDINANCE NO. 2018- _ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY REVISING THE CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 6.25 ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160002584J WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. requested an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map to allow for the continued operation and expansion of the Naples Bridge Center; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and r►. [17-CMP-00982/1404466/1]22 Words underlined are added,words strut eugh have been deleted. Grace Romanian Church GMPA PL201600025284 4/4/18 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. [17-CMP-00982/1404466/1]22 Words underlined are added,words stmeli-thfough have been deleted. Grace Romanian Church GMPA P1.201600025284 4/4/18 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. [17-CMP-00982/1404466/1]22 Words underlined are added,words stfuek-thr-ough have been deleted. Grace Romanian Church GMPA PL201600025284 4/4/18 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legality: (N - 4- Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text and Map Amendment [17-CMP-00982/1404466/1]22 Words underlined are added,words ctruJ ough have been deleted. --� Grace Romanian Church GMPA PL20I600025284 4/4/18 EXHIBIT A GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Estates-Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning district within the Golden Gate Estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional uses, one of the following four sets of criteria shall be met: a) Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** c) Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** d) Transitional Conditional Uses: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. Conditional use permits for the purpose of extending the time period for use of the structure as a model home shall be required, and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.04.04B. and C. of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. Such conditional uses shall not be subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. Page 1 Row of asterisks(*** *** ***)denotes break in text. 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 3. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship,as provided for in the Estates zoning district, is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97. 4. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates Zoning District is allowed on the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area. 5. Conditional Use for a church,or place of worship,as provided for in the Estates Zoning District, is allowed on Tract 16 and the west half of Tract 15, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 4 (see map titled Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Collier Boulevard Special Provisions). EL A_P120I6.2584 GraceRomCSurch G:\ODES Planning Servicespmprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendmemsk2017 Cycles&Small Scale Petitions\2017 Small Scale petitions\CPSS.l7-1 Grace Romanian Church PL2016-2584\Exhibit A text&maps dw/3.27-I8 Page 2 Words underlined are added;words str-usk-through are deleted. L., EXHIBIT"A" PETITION PL20160002584 I CPSS-2017-1 IN MA DESIGNATION ESTATES DESIGNATION EQRICULTURAI/RURAL DESIGNATION *X110 USE 0110107 MAW USE DISTRICT ®B�'S,Mn1mn,0*0 09re.. rt n., o R ":0*..,*�n M.0.anRawe�,a s.mw�n 0_0n.uses s.m... GVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES J ,-.4w,�m.�,�m,- D-.----- - GOLDEN GATE AREA CD.=,,,L,.....T .., "1�.° R",�' .m ��R p� FUTURE LAND USE MAP CD v ®a`mN.comm„.,:s,eo.x1 mre,:.�9c..� ...m IMMOKALEE RD /, r -. .....m C,mme1[,:Sulp�:a C0IMERCML 0/170/57 �- \ owns.Ow SRO iii Commits!Nirt.EN,.i0m,m. ! m . ay WU MTM„PMRRA D19MPa,r.004 a . oU=U S. .,d.....1,w,EM.Or,«E60.,E. \ E 1. 5 _____! D OIL WELL RD U3 O co m , 7 F_ OM RANDALL BLVD s IMMOKALEE RD j r R I z _ z 0) O m VANDERBILT ) o __J BEACH RD L t: . J m!re GOLDEN GATE BLVD r GOLDEN GATE BLVD T U PINE RAGE RD I m 9D Z / GREEN BLVD - j m o a Nr e I/'''---- N1 I— —1 m g �j —8 . o SUBJECT SITE I �G.PKWY =21 , CPSS-2017-1 ,1 — — \ RADIO RD INTERSTATE 75 INTERSTATE 75 zbig / / f /" , DAVIS BLVD J ,.,,,;:,=',;W#(//.7;SRasa J 11' 4//,,,„14) ,./://" . , ° /i-y,W1,,%/�," 1 //4.fes RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD J/f / '1/.''.-4.'' // / / ;.//j /� ..,,,,,,,?,;(4,,,,/,,,,,,'/ /F //ITi 44, ib %J�/ //Ji /" GOLDEN GATE ,!J.407A°.,ff/ �r /�. FUTURE LAND USE MAP "r'S' J J ADOPTED-FEBRARY,1991 '"ENDED-DECEMBER1.2002 �l)/ +'r f '/� 'ORD.NO.2007 T]I /°/ / AMENDED-MAY 19.1992 'AMENDED OCTOBER 11 2001 �l /� t ///`� J/ ORO N,,,,,,. /!- '''4/:.5'; /- 4MENDEOr MAY 25 199] // � f AMENDED-JULY 8.1010 f� If f/ ,'. Y// !?/: / / AMENDED-JULY 27 1990 (ORD NO.2010.311 2 // /% f/ / % f AME DED JULY 0 2010 -/'r- / J.f/ %///{/ / gMENDED-APR L 1 9p D NO.201 32 / /��/y'!�1��j�,/ /i f AMENDED MARCH d 1995 MENDED-SEPTEMBER14,2011 / i/,/ 1,uf�/f ' f 111 'ORD NO.201118) �`/r� / //' _j //'� a, AMENDED OCTOBER 27 1097'AMENDED NOVEMBER 19.201, ///f J/ J////"f - W AMENDED-APRIL 11,1999 ORO NO 2011111 � .///f� // /// 1 f / '' AMENDED NOVEMBER 10.272W ',/;: ,.':00,7„4/9:f//;//12' /r/ % / � /////2','>. CO p AMENDED-SEPTEMBER 9.1909 (ORD.N.2015.921 f// 10 V AMENDED-FEBRUARY 20,1999. (FORD NONDED• 2016-121AY 10. 019 / %f/ f .g/!/ f / �� H AMENDED-MAY 9,2000 AMENOED-JUNE12201T / M''',;,g,,,,•>,. .41.*" / �N41. { %.7//e74.-/// (ono.No.20n4m fj // � //r AMENDED-MARCH 12 2001 AMENDED-XXXXX .e.;-,/. d.//-/ /t f/`i 1 f . ''' ,/- /. f U AMENDED-MAY 2002 1 (ORD NO %X%XI f/�/ j / 5 AMENDED-SEPTE BER 0 2003 / I / / / // /f �,„ /BBQ !ORD NO OBE ) 00a �1/�'f,,,01,,..,.„:„,...;,,,:,./„..,,„..„,,,-,,,,„;"<•,';0E///7-,j /"' ' ` AMENDED OCTOBER 2 I 7,-,. .-Q0--/:./,Il 0 0.5 1 2 3 (ORD NO 2005-71) - i�' / 4f> �i Miles AMENDED-JANUARY 25 2005IORD NO 2005.31 _ J/ � // J / // //j//_) m rt r.' AMENDED JANUARY 25.2007 / /,/,//,'„'4/ 7/,/,';' ,:///i.' / + M[MnE99+.aKvnrrxissn vaFe :new M rlU o.a wase.w•>m.l.urw wn,.m (ORD NO.2007-191 -- .* J!//,i/e/ - ice: /e 3 ! R26E I J�//� R27E R28E R29E EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 ��w�� CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT:COLLIER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA ISLANDWALK CIR AMBROSIA LN VANDERBILT BEACH RDS 7TH AVE NW 7TH AVE NW 5TH AVE NW z 5TH AVE NW 0 J co N SUBJECT SITE co 3RD AVE NW CPSS-2017-1 1ST AVE NW 1ST AVE NW GOLDEN GATE BLVD W in Z 1ST AVE SW 1ST AVE SW m co 0 nii z Y —ce w 3RD AVE SW 3RD AVE SW 0_ 0 00 w 0 J:_l > m aii 5TH AVE SW c —m 5TH AVE SW 0 0 W W J J 0 0 7TH AVE SW 7TH AVE SW 3 PINE RIDGE RD WHITE BLVD Lu z ADOPTED-XXX om.NG.XXX LEGEND PREPARED BY.BETH YANG,AICP y �} CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 0 /50 1,500 �7�000 Feet %i/ COLLIER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS FILE CPSS-2017-1 SITE LOCATION MAP.m%E DATE 3/2&2018 1 F I I I I I I I DE . DAn9P �-` ENGINE R NNG GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH SMALL-SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT Prepared For: "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. 6017 Pine Ridge Road,#84 Naples, FL 34119 and Prepared By: Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 www.davidsonengineering.com DC DAVIDSON LIST OF EXHIBITS Application to Amend the Growth Management Plan Exhibit A Professional Qualifications Sheet Exhibit B Proposed SSGMPA Text Amendment Language Exhibit C Location Map Exhibit D USGS Quad Map Exhibit E Aerial with Florida Land Cover Classification System Overlay&Soil Mapping Exhibit F Environmental Data Exhibit G Surrounding Zoning Exhibit Exhibit H Surrounding Future Land Use Map Exhibit I Historical/Archaeological Probability Exhibit J Proximity to Public Services Map Exhibit K Recorded Warranty Deed Exhibit L Letter of Authorization Exhibit M Alternative Site Data &Analysis Exhibit N Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit 0 Boundary Survey/Legal Description Exhibit P Traffic Impact Statement Exhibit Q Level of Service Comparative Analysis Exhibit R Utility Availability Statement Exhibit S Justification of the Proposed SSGMPA Amendment Exhibit T Planning Communities Map Exhibit U Future Land Use Map Exhibit V Existing Zoning Maps Exhibit W Disclosure of Interest Exhibit X Golden Gate Area Master Plan Inset Map Exhibit Y www.davidsonengineering.com $&9nty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: Rezone (RZ) Date and Time: 10/5/2016 Assigned Planner: Daniel James Smith Engineering Manager(for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Rezone/GMPA for a church PL#: PL20160002577 Property ID#: 36760800006;36760720005 Current Zoning: Estates Project Address: 3899 1st Ave SW, Naples, FL City: State: Zip: Applicant: Waste Management Inc. of Florida Agent Name: Tocia Hamlin - Davidson Engineering Phone: 239-434-6060 Agent/Firm Address: City: State: Zip: Property Owner: Please provide the following,if applicable: i. Total Acreage: ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: • County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 IMeeting Notes (7-111R C fi .........7".-- _0 0,..p. _ . ityx (-, p ilki.,,;„..4.137fe-ci eb:,...gt_____ 4, 914)6 6 i e_o \-1 _AH—......0-4-,..,0 ,A.,,t.,-2-.P c a 07 Pi) .3,-).„) A.-ii.." - I 0 - i — ..,..„ - ,_ . ..., . Aadiamiot. .. 7 f v4..X.46,-1 , r 11°-5:64-4::1.,‘ -- PO t Jo 4-- L. _ ,/4',.3/7 I (4) '70 60 2. - ' q iii& of ._-,14C0t--.4.--- ---/ , E_I 4---k g_.. 44-1 ”Cteigire- _, tit dr ei „ -f -1 .. - - , -�-- C , , i _ l.rv--1 'cl!"1-- the __ 4. Ey , OP to 14 _ +vt P ro cam. ,1 - l'c{-i't-5 . RZ etxy, be p,-tcc554 Cohan-04 ;£,41'tor,, /V/M , 71,.6/�G Ae4444 .. RAFftbr yr hP.W *4(lfra t, G✓ H 4 sj C -v .. 1/'St f, uS 'f.7 G � lf„,, v ✓e.:-31Lr. .ti1c .....•".... - 5 Ar Ne.tif,i 1_ "i Mee ! /t -f/r1,4 r 40.;1I. Y-144. fUi C11bC '1/Si. 1 r-C1r1.5 ,P4/1-.5ele /-6 7e yiLi rPri nn a V,i7 L/ ..5/C(:E',' rr7 ..P - O. .6.2. LDC. - Al iso 4,2)/1-4- (lons -j,'hr.,, n_r�,ri afp tni.-) eoi/ic /C1 //6/Jel — ‘1J�6�/ �l- 6%n, 64.4 // kie ' - -c'�,vi E'.. C0 i ri I J I n/ r'!r h1- ,-)1, 4 eS ri !tom > (174/14il/116/ 744 ii/ . — 601I11 5' 4 ii A- ,e0,45-4- , /ail 0.4 '41 . ,-, zii2d._,6,4/. ?R,o// 1:--9 I ii A-.5 il 49?.5 adec.e....a.y. )11 all 1 1(6i 1L)0 / I/1m4 / )6/- 75n //fn- /' —G A-5 01 / k,,,, 1Llci atim,..-a) titikr kui6-- i rens' ":1-ure Gt �� �� `"lam,i 1'L q eon i�,p �U;�ia.:' .,. P �,-cy5'+c-- LL \_____) 41. pow,/ 7. 1 - `7.. yr 'Ul.�t-- '���-m� �' � s”- `� �.►ted Co County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Meeting Notes • *tt,, (����� +�Vir� "' +ter... ai, m .'jar - 1•i�: •� .r. r'.. / 3*. -i,�. 4 '99 use �• ,-it.l 54-ocrylLoc4er — r `' c..4 r wo..4C.' :3u+fCxl/S ; 2DA) 1 r t1 -- H � Lpv,\N o Fo M �?. - ' r PUO t-t c Cf - e +d1 rt UrA1--Q Et? ` or Zl 'Sri 1 u�/ 614 f") t•ii- P-r. rj -Ftse-4-*JT af- ter (,‘i 0--.,(7 ISS. �uu4 _7 In cst ko P fri---.-t. -tc" ° = - Co Y Cdounty -- COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collierxov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: f l PUD Rezone-Ch.3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code C Amendment to PUD-Ch.3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code fl PUD to PUD Rezone-Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED • Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of C why amendment is necessary Completed Application with required attachments ❑ 0 Pre-application meeting notes In Affidavit of Authorization,signed and notarized 2 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 2 ❑ Completed Addressing Checklist 2 Warranty Deed(s) 3 ❑ List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 2 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 4 ❑ Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 4 1— Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser)with project boundary and,if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included 5 V I I on aerial. Statement of Utility Provisions 4 Of/ ❑ Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 4 C Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) packet at time of public hearings.Coordinate with ❑3 U project planner at time of public hearings. / Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include 4 (// ❑ copies of previous surveys. (,-/''/_= ,6,40/44'.40141( m-f/9 Traffic Impact Study 7 .. C Historical Survey 4 P1 C School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 2 ". tt��--tt Electronic copy of all required documents 2 +i u Completed Exhibits A-F(see below for additional information)+ ❑ t/ ❑ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each(this n ri! (— document is separate from Exhibit E) Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24"x 36"and One 8'A" x 11"copy ❑ ❑ Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24"x 36"–Only if ❑ ❑ Amending the PUD Checklist continued onto next page... 4/15/2015 Page 11 of 16 -- 9&9ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.collierRov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru&underlined ❑ ❑ ❑ Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ ❑ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing,include an additional set of each submittal requirement 1'`The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: ❑ Exhibit C:Master Plan-See Chapter 3 E. 1.of the Administrative Code ❑ Exhibit D:Legal Description ❑ Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each ❑ Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use)Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-690-3500 for information regarding"Wildfire Mitigation&Prevention Plan." PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ School District(Residential Components):Amy El Conservancy of SWFL:Nichole Ryan Lockheart ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen ❑ Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad ❑ Emergency Management:Dan Summers ❑ Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre ❑ P D Amendment:$6,000.00* plus$25.00 an a -• C i i n of an acre comprehensive Planning ... • 14t+��• - ( � A17,,_``.-_ :•• "- ' Environmental Data Requ re `r,'.. - `acke s • al determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 H Listed or Protected Species Review(when an EIS is not required):$1,000.00 g Transportation Review Fees: X Methodology Review: $500.00,to be paid directly to s Tra po-rt`at'on at the Methodology Meeting* SIS MFMc# '1 Rob *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 a Major Study Review$1,500.00 Legal Advertising Fees: 1,,.2,2A. o CCP C: $412,5430- o BCC: $500.00 C School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: 4/15/2015 Page 12 of 16 Co( County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.coillergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 o Mitigation Fees, if application,to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20%of the original fee. All checks may be made payable to:Board of County Commissioners 4/15/2015 Page 13 of 16 Co er County COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)2524358 EXHIBIT A (To be completed in a separate document and attached to the application packet.) PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: CONDITIONAL USESlOational) 1. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the (type of PUD) PUD Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. 4/15/2015 Page 14 of 16 EXHIBIT B (To be completed in a separate document and attached to the application packet.) TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE TWO-FAMILY, CLUBHOUSE/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY PATIO& MULTI- RECREATION FAMILY ATTACHED& ZERO LOT LINE FAMILY BUILDINGS TOWNHOUSE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA S.F.PER S.F. PER UNIT S.F.PER UNIT S.F. PER UNIT S.F.PER UNIT UNIT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA S.F S.F S.F S.F./D.U. N/A MIN FRONT YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A MIN SIDE YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A MIN REAR YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A MIN PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET MIN.DISTANCE BETWEENFEET or BH, N/A FEET FEET FEET STRUCTURES whichever is greater MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET EXCEED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FRONT FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET SIDE FEET FEET FEET FEET BH REAR FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO SPS SPS SPS or FEET FEET EXCEED S.P.S.=Same as Principal Structures BH=Building Height Footnotes as needed ,^ 4/15/2015 GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Setback may be either feet ( ) on one side or feet ( ) on the other side in order to provide a minimum separation between principal structures of feet ( ). Alternatively, if the foot ( ) setback option is not utilized, then the minimum setback shall not be less than feet ( ) and the combined setback between principal structures shall be at least feet ( At the time of the application for subdivision plat approval for each tract, a lot layout depicting minimum yard setbacks and the building footprint shall be submitted. TABLE II DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MINIMUM LOT AREA Sq.Ft. N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS(External) From Immokalee Road Canal ROW Ft. SPS From Future Extension of Collier Blvd. Ft. SPS From Western Project Boundary Ft. Ft. Internal Drives/ROW Ft. Ft. Rear Ft. Ft. Side Ft. Ft. MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN Ft.or sum of Ft. STRUCTURES Building heights* MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings Ft. Ft. Office Buildings Ft. Ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA Sq. Ft.** N/A MAX.GROSS LEASABLE AREA Sq.Ft. N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure,on the finished first floor. 4/15/2015 `RDD-1--) Q Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE(Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL(Blasting Permit) 0 SDP(Site Development Plan) LI BD(Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit 0 SDPI(Insubstantial Change to SDP) 0 CU(Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site Improvement Plan) ❑ EXP(Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI(Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP(Final Plat 0 SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) ❑ SNC(Street Name Change—Unplatted) ❑ PNC(Project Name Change) ❑ TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) ❑ PPL(Plans&Plat Review) ❑ VA(Variance) ❑ PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) ❑ VRP(Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone 0 VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) Q OTHER GMPA t REZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description maybe attached) Wen 1/2 SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 26- SEE ATTACHED aandGoldenn Gate EofaTrsunit 4 Tr 16 of Tr 15 FOLIO(Property ID)NUMBER(s)of above(attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 36760720005 & 36760800006 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES(as applicable, if already assigned) 38991ST AVE SW LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY(copy -needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME(if applicable) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME(if applicable) GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH PROPOSED STREET NAMES(if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER(for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL# CO CI T County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE www.colliergov.net NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in,condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: TOCIA HAMLIN - DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. Phone: 434-6060 EXT 2985 Email/Fax: TOCIA tx DAVIDSONENGINEERING.COM Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 36760800006 Folio Number 36760720005 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: , , //Taxa .. Date: 9/28/16 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED SmithDaniel From: FeyEric Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 2:40 PM To: Tocia Hamlin Cc: SmithDaniei; LibbyPamela Subject: RE: PL20160002577(REZONE) Tocia, I will not be attending the pre-application meeting on Wednesday and just wanted to let you know about utility service availability for this project. Below is a GIS screen shot: 1 ; • , . . ..,. . , ,, ('' Al11;-1,-.- tte• " t ... J - . . I 11 r1PM. 11111111M1r Tlr- ' 4 ' . -t" •' , :,. t ---- , , ..' • : *M. -. ' 0 t > - ...11 .., 03 L. * 1 1 f 1 It 1 i i 1 •, 't , , t 4.": ie , stAVE SW ,,.... 1 i 2 , I ` `A "h - < I4'{+ xy - -. .3'101.-...,+s� 7,54 r, -.- 'cam - w'+4F .,rte te y .% , pi„,i } '` -;-1. T -w "-,4114„,:; yy r."` L-*... _y'"*s ;IA.'. 'Q4 4,-, -t ,-, GL.pv- _ NS :1,i vAle ,:togailA lila at -Am • S OA-1e Aocionot 41041 ...OE 11111.111111M1 .,_ . .. s. -:„. 'x+1,- i} '„.;.;...- --......,-,-:.-::-.-...?1,....•-:tyYh.. . F-. 4.--•---::•--."---:- •-•-----' • .: - •••:- -:.-44......,- -•:. .1....,' .-... .7,-,,,,,,c .. •..,4.*, ... .., .. ..,....._ r -Aj .. _ • ah. i'. • .,>yqtr!• ::.,. l•*A> ,,, >' -- „ i g-` • _ +••••, ,yA-i.. "S,y:• - * C, � ' • 7Vis^ •' •` , # � • atj �w • . 4 �ig. - t' Y � •i ./ -�3� fie.. � y -;._-,...-.;4, � , , � .ait - .. } th . ' 4• : • � -' ' 1 k• ,. • -.,Y i t_ Axe x .tT'' y 4 , -:,.....41 r_ 1�f S' -)” .'^iii - a + . .4, t ti• +a _ "• a yy - n .....-,46.4-. ,•t. '� .i4 fi 1�,• xJ .t�' • • yr>lir Elf • iM. s s r • UA7>3 Ja[I103 __.. 1. The purple shading signifies geographic areas excluded from the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance (2001-13). Per that ordinance,this project is not required to connect to the Regional Water System but would be subject to the imposition of impact fees if connection is requested. Water service may be extended from the existing County 10" HDPE water main on the north side and within the median of Golden Gate Blvd,east of Weber Blvd but wastewater service is not available. I am copying Pam Libby for confirmation that we would not allow a new connection to our existinig 36" RCP water main along the east side of Weber Blvd. Thank you, - County Eric Fey, P.E. Senior Project Manager Collier County Public Utilities Department Planning and Project Management Division Direct: (239)252-1037 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. Original Appointment From: PaulRenald On Behalf Of CDS-C Sent:Tuesday,September 27, 2016 2:05 PM To:AhmadVicky;AlcornChris;Amy Lockhart-Taylor(lockha@colllerschools.comj;AndersonRichard;AnthonyDavid; ArnoldMichelle;AshtonHeidi;AuclairClaudine; BaluchStephen; BeardLaurie; BeasleyRachel; BrethauerPaula; BrownAraquesummer; BrownCraig; BurtchinMark; CascioGeorge; CondominaDanny; CrowleyMichaelle; David Ogilvie; dfey@northcollierfire.com; DumaisMike; FaulknerSue; FeyEric; FleishmanPaula;GewirtzStorm; GosselinLiz; GundlachNancy; HouldsworthJohn; HughesJodi; HumphriesAlicia;JacobLisa;jnageond@sfwmd.eov;JohnsonEric; KendallMarcia; KurtzGerald; LenbergerSteve; LevyMichael; (martin@sfwmd.gov; LouviereGarrett; MartinezOscar; MastrobertoThomas; McCaughtryMary; McKennaJack; McKuenElly; McLeanMatthew; MoscaMichele; MoxamAnnis; NawrockiStefanie;OrthRichard; PajerCraig; PancakeBill; PattersonAmy; PepinEmily; piimenez@sfwmd gov; PochmaraNatalie; ReischlFred; RosenblumBrett;SantabarbaraGino; SawyerMichael;ScottChris;Sher Hingson; ShawinskyPeter;Shawn Hanson;SheaBarbara;SmithDaniel;StoneScott;StrainMark;SuleckiAlexandra;SummersEllen; SweetChad;TempletonMark;VanlengenKris;WalshJonathan; WeeksDavid;WickhamFlannery;WilloughbyChristine; tocia@davidsonengineering.com Subject: PL20160002577(REZONE) When:Wednesday,October 05, 2016 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time(US&Canada). Where:CONF ROOM "C" Planner-Dan Smith Fire District-Golden Gate Fire *********************************************************** «OLE Object: Picture (Device Independent Bitmap)» «OLE Object: Picture(Device Independent Bitmap) » Project Type: Pre-Application Meeting 3 Project Description: Rezone/GMPA for a church Existing Application Name: Meeting Type: Pre-Application Meeting Preferred Date:next available Unavailable Dates: Location:3899 1st Ave SW, Naples, FL, Parcel Number:36760800006; 36760720005 Full Name:Tocia Hamlin Email:tocia@davidsonengineerine.com Company Name:4365 RADIO RD STE 201 Naples, FL 34104 Representing: Davidson Engineering Contact Number:Work:239-434-6060 Thanks 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. 4 Environmental Data ,ec * t Project Name C f% /fie e xei ie The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 6") Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. 0I.. L WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT?�/ f Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements shall be prepared by an individual with of academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 1 s according to the 3 Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information rmat onn on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district,provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff,consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five(5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) ---. compared with water quality'loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies,and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients(nitrogen and phosphorous)loadings in the post development scenario. 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. i 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site,provide a topographic map to a half foot and,where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site.For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. '• biological Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biolo 'cal communities similar to those existing on site.The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FFWCC)and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low,as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low,the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered (8JProvide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans.Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. ^ 10. For sites or portions of sites,cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation,provide documentation that the parcel(s)were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06. For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003,provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality, process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05, 3.05.07 and 10.02.06. r)11. dentify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System(FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified.Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 1 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off-site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on-site, demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans, a location map(s)and property identification number(s)of the off-site parcel(s) if off-site donation of land is to occur. n 014. rovide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property,along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. /,r ,4,44 (.(//'/i'l: j2.'4'/.. /I- ,-/'4,r P12QI°1�fY 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields(crop fields, cattle dipping ponds,chemical mixing areas),golf courses,landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored.The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) 8081)and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure(SOP)FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious.Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment,when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted.The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. ......N 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable,provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C., as those rules existed on January 13,2005. 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones(WRM-ST)within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00.Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans.For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs,provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 7 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district(ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 22. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more,and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. 24. he County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements. (LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be: rmined at preapplic'• a on;meeting (Choose those that apply) 8EProvide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. xplain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the 0GMF. (CAI:. 0446 .y DI- 7. ....--.- Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. "r e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation far impacts to listed species. PUD zoning and CU petitions.For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package dif applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) document,prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review(by CCPC)required? pp 4/fl 9 l y a 4-. 27. Additional Comments 28. Stipulations for approval(Conditions) Environmental PUDZ-PUD Checklist non- Project Name CIY(/7 i{ , 7. 6.6% �/' 1r4 ! Ca€Clld I?,4 1. Is the project is in compliance with the overlays,districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding /' properties?(CON, ST,PUD,RLSA,RFMU,etc.)(LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08; 4.08.00)Not in CV Library 2. ubmit a current aerial photograph(available from the Property Appraiser's office)and clearly delineate the \\\ ////subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated,provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland,wetland and exotic vegetation(Admin.Code Ch.3 G.1.Application Contents 424). OC FLUCFCS Overlay-P627 learly identify the location of all preserves and label each as"Preserve"on all plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2 . Preserve Label-P546 ) 4. 'rovide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained,the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site.Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations(LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F;3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve Calculation-P547 reated and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.111.b. Preserve Width-P603 6.Jthetained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3,include all 3 strata, be in e largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected withtui n the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors.(LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection-P550 . Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory ( structures and other site alterations,fill placement,grading,plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be �''N permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve(i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve).Provide cross-sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.H.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback—New 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required,when so warranted.(LDC 10.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species-P522 9. vide Environmental Data identifying author credentials,consistency determination with the GMPs,off-site preserves,seasonal and historic high water levels,and analysis of water quality.For land previously used for farm fields or golf course,provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required—P 522 (0. UD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to bepreserved.(LDC Master Plan Contents-P626 10.02.13.A.2) 11. UD shall include Preserve Tract section. When listing preserve uses,the following is suggested: A.Principal Use:Preserve;B.Accessory Uses:All other uses(list as applicable or refer to the LDC) 0 UD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site.(LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features-P628 Example:A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not limited to Black Bear,Gopher Tortoise and listed birds. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. 13. Provide information for GIS? ^ Additional Comments: 1 COUnty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE www,c_.,._. ov net NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet PL#•PL20160002577 Collier County Contact Information: ■ - ■1111 Review Discipline Phone El Richard Anderson Email Environmental Specialist MEM richardanderson@colliergov.net Li David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 davidanthony@colliergov.net ❑ Summer Araque Environments!Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque@colliergov.net ❑ Steve Baluch,P.E. Transportation Planning MN StephenBaluch@coliiergov.net t rrLaurie Beard Transportation Pathways leatinal .� Rachel Beasle Lauriebeard@callier:ov.net Planner 252-8202 rachelbeasle y@coiliergov.net INIE • County Surveyor 252-6885 MarcusBerman@colliergov.net ❑ Madelin Bunster MIEIIOZSMIMI 'EM madelinbunster@collierov.net ROW Permitting 252-5165 markburtchin@colliergov.net ❑ Geor:e Cascio UtilityBilling 8 252-5543 :eorgecascio@collier:ov.net ❑ Heidi Ashton Cicko Mana:ing Asst.County Attorney 252-8773 heidiashton@colliergay.net Comprehensive Planning PM suefaulkner@colliergov.net Site Plans Reviewer 252-2434 ericfey@colliergov.net Impact Fee Administration 252-2924 paulafleishman@colliergov.net ri Nancy Gundiach,AICP,PLA Zoning Services 252-2484 nancygundlach@colliergov.net CI Shar Hingson East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson@ccfco.org ❑ John Houldsworth •• = ® johnhouldsworth@colliergov.net CI Jodi Hu:hes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jod ihughes@collier:ov,net ❑ Alicia Humphries Site Plans Reviewer/ROW 252-2326 aliciahumphries@colliergov.net Ill❑ Eric Johnson,AICP,CFM Zoning Services 252-2931 ericjohnson@colliergov.net irarcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning MEM marciakendall@colliergov.net C Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review �'' stevelenberger@colliergov.net C Paulo Martins 252-4285 paulomartins@colliergov.net ❑ Thomas Mastroberto 11111111M11111111 252-7348 Thomasmastroberto@colliergov.net ❑ Jack McKenna, P.E. 252-2911 jackmckenna@colliergov.net ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Principal Project Manager MEll matthewmclean@colliergov.net ❑ Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 252-4215 gilbertmoncivaiz@colliergov.net ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annismoxam@colliergov.net CJ Stefanie Nawrocki Planning and Zoning ® StefanieNawrocki@colliergov.net ❑ Mariam Ocheltree Graphics _ 252x2315 mariamocheltree@colliergov.net P"'"\ ❑ Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandyotero@colliergov.net Co l County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE www.collierRov.net NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 ❑ Brandi Pollard Utility Impact fees 252-6237 brandipollard@colliergov.net Sr Fred Reischl,AICP Zoning Services 252-4211 fredreischl@colliergov.net ❑ Stacy Revay Transportation Pathways 252-5677 stacyrevay@colliergov.net LiBrett Rosenblum,P.E. Y y@colliergov.net Utility Plan Review 252-2905 brettrosenblum@colliergov.net ❑ Michael Sawyer Zoning Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer@coliiergov.net ❑ Corby Schmidt,AICP Comprehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@colliergov.net ❑ Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscott@colliergov.net Ki Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review 252-4312 danielsmith@colliergov.net _❑ Ellen Summers Planning and Zoning 252-1032 EllenSummers@colliergov.net ,....,7=41 Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone@colliergov.net ❑ Mark Strain Hearing Examiner/CCPC 252-4446 markstrain@colliergov.net Kris VanLengen Utility Planning 252-5366 krisvanlengen@colliergov.net ❑ Jon Walsh Building Review 252-2962 jonathanwalsh@colliergov.net i5 David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks@colliergov.net ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkie@colliergov.net ❑ Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning 252-5748 ChristineWilloughby@colliergov.net g y@colliergou.net Additional Attendee Contact Information: 4rled6dAv!'dSonerrl c - Name Representing J Phone Email �1 �frt Cu .-. DA t1:.„.44I� Li?,t-(-t.os,a C,c.942 cQC J AA-d"4.*Wrtt.w8 it / SO A�`1Sa„ -4k.<1�t c,�ni I t f 4-1 Ga /010)0410d/4 ,e i li t'P^- "); ,�c,,� , I I (01-Ed6o 4 d S' ct..44p4e i' Y �i IL�iti4 "cat, r-Ji j1Yµt 0-4-4.- K{gar ,r za �``� ToM� � '^ � `+�U�! 4 SL tUnor. wticvocc c.Kw .�a ,•r u MS-2M Aw Xom4vR (44 stil /f Goativ amiLettv aikede 2s3 au1eag �� kin CL , �r . ' EXHIBIT A APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER DATE RECEIVED PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE October 5, 2016 DATE SUFFICIENT This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252- 2400. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application,see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. Company "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. Address 6017 Pine Ridge Road, #84 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34119 Phone Number 239.398.2527 Fax Number N/A B. Name of Agent * Frederick E. Hood, AICP • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Davidson Engineering, Inc. Address 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34104 Phone Number 239.434.6060 Fax Number 239.434.6084 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. Address 6017 Pine Ridge Road, #84 City Naples State FL Zip Code 34119 Phone Number 239.398.2527 Fax Number N/A D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners,architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. II. Disclosure of Interest Information: .-� A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL,Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). 1 Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock "Grace"Romanian Baptist Church of Naples,Inc. 100% 6017 Pine Ridge Road,#84 Naples,FL 34119 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals, a Corporation,Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership 2 Date of Contract: F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired Subject property was purchased November 28,2016. See Exhibit"L"for the warranty deed. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. M. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See attached Boundary Survey and Legal Description, as Exhibit"P" B. GENERAL LOCATION Southeast corner of Golden Gate and Collier Boulevards,within Collier County, Naples, Florida C. PLANNING COMMUNITY D. TAZ 241 E. SIZE IN ACRES ±6.25 acres F. ZONING ESTATES G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Please see Exhibit"I"for the surrounding land use patterns. H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Estates Mixed Use District-Residential Estates Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element 3 Capital Improvement Element CCME Element Future Land Use Element Exhibits"C"and"Y" Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) 28 OF THE Golden Gate Master Plan AS FOLLOWS: (Use Stfike-throughto identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: This amendment will affect Policy 1.1.2.A.3 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan by allowing a Conditional Use for a church,religious facility,or place of worship,as provided for in the Estates Zoning District, on Tract 16 and the west half of Tract 15,Golden Gate Estates,Unit 4. Please see Exhibit"C"and Exhibit"Y". C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Estates Mixed Use District Residential Estates Subdistrict TO Estates Mixed Use District-Conditional Uses Subdistrict. (See Exhibit"C"and Exhibit"Y") D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) An Golden Gate Area Master Plan Inset Map, including the subject parcels, has been created and included as Exhibit"Y". E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: N/A V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 1"=400'. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE Exhibit H&D Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exhibit F Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exhibit H&I Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exhibit I&v Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands,with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Exhibits F&G Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE:THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. Exhibit G Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish &Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.),Identify historic and/or 4 archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C.and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT"Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: NO Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5%of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. YES Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity SEE EXHIBIT"N° to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-1 1.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: EXHIBIT R&S Potable Water EXHIBIT R&S Sanitary Sewer EXHIBIT Q Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS X Drainage The proposed project will provide water management design consistent with SFWMD criteria. X Solid Waste The subject property shall be served by the existing solid waste provider serving the area(Waste Management). N/A Parks:Community and Regional If thero osed amendment involves an increase in residential density,p p or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2.Exhibit K Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e.water, sewer,fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3 Exhibit R Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire 5 protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: ZONE AH&X500 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of welifields and cones of influence,if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable N/A Coastal Management Boundary,if applicable N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N/A $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) INCLUDED $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) EXHIBIT L Proof of ownership (copy of deed) EXHIBIT M Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) INCLUDED 1 Original and 5 complete,signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * If you have held a pre-application meeting and paid the pre-application fee of$250.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application.All pre-application fees are included in the total application submittal fee. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 6 DE EXHIBIT "B" PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS SHEET Davidson Engineering,Inc. Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner Mr. Hood has a Bachelor's of Urban Planning from the University of Cincinnati's College of Design Architecture Art and Planning. He has been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) and has practiced land planning in Southwest Florida since 2006. During his career in urban planning, for over twelve years, Mr. Hood has managed large and small development projects while working closely with a myriad of land development professionals in the physical development and policy adoption of residential, commercial, mixed-use, institutional and industrial projects. Mr. Hood has been tendered and accepted as an expert in land planning in cities and counties throughout Florida as well as being tendered as an expert witness in the area of Urban and Land Use Planning. Mr. Hood continues to attend continuing education seminars to remain current on planning theory and methodologies in an ever-changing regulatory environment. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC Jeremy Sterk Ecologist\Partner Jeremy has been an environmental consultant in Southwest Florida since 1994 and has worked on projects throughout Collier, Lee, Hendry, DeSoto, Glades, and Charlotte counties. Jeremy holds an active real estate license and his experience in the early stages of property due diligence studies greatly assists clients in making informed decisions. His extensive and varied experience allows him to successfully guide clients through the local, state, and federal permitting maze. This experience includes environmental land use planning, environmental resource permitting, vegetation and habitat mapping, protected species surveys, protected species management plans, environmental impact statements, property use studies, post permit compliance, and GIS\GPS mapping. In 1998, he wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water Management District as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. Jeremy is certified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as a Gopher Tortoise Agent. In addition to authoring dozens of habitat and species management plans, in 2007, Jeremy co-authored the first habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the nation to address incidental take issues for both red cockaded woodpeckers (RCW) and Florida panther on the same property. Jeremy was a member of the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee from 2009 to 2014 and is currently a member of the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC). Grace Romanian Church-SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict May,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DE pAnqp.s.,11 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Norman J.Trebilcock,AICP, P.E. President Mr. Trebilcock has a Bachelor's Degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Miami and a Master's Degree in Engineering, with an emphasis in Public Works from the University of Florida. He is also a graduate of the US Army Engineer Officer Basic Course. Mr. Trebilcock has practiced transportation planning and engineering in Southwest Florida since 1990. Mr. Trebilcock produces plans, designs, and permitting efforts on public works and private sector projects. His primary area of expertise is in transportation engineering, including highway design, utility relocation, drainage design, street lighting, signalization, access management and permitting. He prepares and reviews traffic impact statements and related reports. In addition to being a registered Professional Engineer and holding a certification from the American Institute of Certified Planners, Mr. Trebilcock holds an FDOT Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control Certification. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA is classified as a Small Business Enterprise with the South Florida Management District and the FDOT. Grace Romanian Church-SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict May,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com EXHIBIT C Golden Gate Area Master Plan as of Ordinance No.2016-12 adopted May 10,2016 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION ***TEXT BREAK*** A. Estates— Mixed Use Distirct ***TEXT BREAK*** (VI)(X) 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict ***TEXT BREAK*** (VI)(VIII) e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: (XIII)(XVI) 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. Conditional use permits for the purpose of extending the time period for use of the structure as a model home shall be required, and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.04.04B. and C. of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. Such conditional uses shall not be subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. (XIII) 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. (XIII) 3. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97. (XV) 4. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates Zoning District is allowed on the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area. 5. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates Zoning District, is allowed on Tract 16 and the west half of Tract 15, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 4 (See map titled ). ***TEXT BREAK*** Grace Romanian Church—SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict March 2018 28 Words added are underlined and words struck t h have been deleted Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG\Planning\GIS\2017-04-24 GR SSGMPA-EXHIBIT D(LOCATION MAP).mxd N I ----) W-.050.- E I R S VANDERBILT BEACH I 1 I — 1 ( I Ln GOLDEN GATE(BLVD ) 1) 1 X11 ) , co PINE RIDGE RD CC 1 ... V l 1 I 1 5 LEGEND r j I I -SUBJECT PROPERTY:6.25 ACRES —MAJOR ROADWAYS I 0 0.5 1 --- i( SOURCES:'CO��'BOUNTY.GEOGRAPH(ICINFORMATION'St STTEMS'(2017) ' _ 711M1111111111— MILES_ HENDRY PAL =EACH + V --41.11. *lin l\kt4 w e, COLLIER a p 111 1 M���A DADE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH DE 4365 RADIO ROAD, SUITE 201 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA NAPLES, 39 434-6 EXHIBIT D: LOCATION MAP DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 ENGINEERING N. uatlll,et. YFI+ IaITiTfeTT w • a 3 T 0 r ■ • o >? X iI • . ...0 ac - ' i 7 . < ■ k I a $ ' • I ■ V^ • 0 (.. Con = z L.■ 3 •s� W ,3 • �� i W . X Q ' • • W M • v • • ■ M 7 z " 04 ' O ,1 " '' j. ij • a 'I • ! . <1'1'1%j! iTt • a • f I. I • tr 1 5 I I,r • M a W • M a • T • M U _ _ L ..._ 1t �-S _ 7• L � F M- z_ < • Z p -O • D O i' li ; I PY J ch O M; �.._.�_..—_-__ _— —.. .. . _ GA18 i83111O3 — Z CO 0 0 W Q N i .' Ili O 0 2 J'o> M ''l w J I.L.N v 2 CC w w H J Z I f N a_0 • Q d' s w.-Z Z a s ■ a ul 1 • y EI • SI • 1 o f A• c M ts • • !� !. � I i, • • • l a • o ■ i • , ----' ...a I -a f ewi ,� 'o • '1 r } U • • ,'I a a if • • �oo " I LL •c� oUL ce s f's 1 a CJ o al ++ 4t - INd 10 44 1 /pxw deal pent)SJSfl\SIO\leafed 1,96 2i0 P"19 00\0010143 ueiuewob aoe)0\21311100\S103102Jd\s7uawn0o0 Au313\0 Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG\Planning\GIS\2017-04-24 GR SSGM PA-EXHIBIT E(AERIAL EXHIBIT).mxd w— 10'n- E v° S F - a111.41, w xsA F .„ - + � ' ' ='a_, — GOLDEN Q,,�.fl ,BLVD , ter t * W : cc 4E .h.t, tLl i.j D$ P fig # a4* Y' J's s 4 s +�ri 4 i .JR r ...was � .' ..+ri} ,. x -0 �; ..,.. -.-.. U i 1 c '.,� ,� ,. i —.-' ..- ' - -'.„4'.....,,,,,t....."--:;f--;,46,',.= --'' .7*. * 't 4-1,75,;-.,..t,..;`4".',1,,' v tt LillLEGEND ''"-"-40-'' min GRACE ROMANIAN SSGMPA SUBJECT * f•„; rte. Mina PROPERTY:6.25 ACRES • r 04 lili 600 i SOURCES: o t GEOGRAPHIC o o SYSTEMS(2017).' - .�. y i . 4141:a4i. ' .' DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH D E SUITE 201 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA NA , DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT F.1: AERIAL EXHIBIT ENGINEERING Note: 2017 Aerial obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser. 4 ii . ,.: ,0,-, 1 I . g iri_ ,,, . > . 0 t! 4 .. „, x • W ' '''' ', ) i , ,-,i;-•'1::M.r ,. 0 4, 1.<*,, 1 -" ''' D ., c u d d st �m 1 ,c z < — 16 c m - a :w r • r, in o CA 00f ii, ' �' :a '� iCI x _ U w' N Wv t yIL t • ,. ff N v co .i,. >,, cQ ;r Y , ys Z a a , . 4 >�� � o IiiWQzMgin ^ J WNc. € ZQ,c. n t F tet , av' Q a S Sf$ . i 41 I Fro 14q s 4g ° iF +c `' ,.0 t: -x` ,0 0 '4\ ' • 4. - y4474, :ft ' y -) LL • .., .•a: ' p' tis , E" t y . i! -' 4+ " aux ` � ` . . * a O . ,.., .414 ......1P4?-;#..'4,1 ';''''' ' ": s:4 'kV* <ya: ''..: o- ily WV OZ 01.6/Pxw.ew SOOflld\SIOUewed 1.96 210 PNM 00\11021y0 ueluew0a 93e10\8311100\S103102rld\s1uawrc000 au313\:0 to 3 i 441,5,1 V) cn to ii,.n ,ia _ i Y}i ±. D qq ce 11. e Y YSg J�..r ` get zci ,,'',...1":3 .h'S:..r7: } '` f. E`K?n '.J, ,i ). ca w ' fi,k 5$ i r az C Co. Z + bk � ., {' t a 2 a W r'.. ' ' ', I* 0 ° ititak'; "4,4� �' .,,,e'. ,e�. 1k' - '+fit .Q� H a ..e. .... 7,.....p,,..--,:,--lot. air` � --' ' 3 i" � titer J u'1 cv tr ,-,3-4, m, eri s ° y p ypt, :A 9 _ w 1 AF, y , z.s , , , ' J3 Via» S � #.yg, � ��p *" .� ,,le., m+ �.�` 0 b�O L x k U¢ 4 ,I r e ° .„,„t, „ e0 -tom' Yo-m O J tl M iJ N t [p] =zww ~ J Z • 0 fix. :. , ' :..�... .s.._n 1 QA18 xa1�1o3 � ,,,�* V ,,� •_4 '1.. - t i' C at If -4.01 It ., ,k s vu.+r”3't' N`...u`',.' �,. Y J Vtt ' L 'O r a.F3( ; 3 o-,. .� 4 xvF: Y _ O T. ' �y ."'t �g V f• 401 tX .0 :` t ,,,,,,,,....i-s4s``-#.As'"',�e,.,,y. 'F" tll;'*�'+ g N ' wq 4 U F>' ire �' �p KY��A`.. E o U K 7 v N tti T o \J aat .` � fir', ,.- m Q Wy 9E:gq:1.1 /pxw•ew slloS SOHN\SIOUawed 1.9 a0 P418 00\yoiny0 ueluewoa aoeJO\2131110 \S1o3f021d\s)uawnooa nu313\0 * ' EXHIBIT G GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH PARCEL *-s. : b� Environmental Data Report Section I I / Township 49 S / Range 26 E 1 Prepared For: 'tk, t1i yF .1 t 4 Collier County Growth Management Department Gwie Development Review Division 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 =a My�[ ��`%\ t - ' - Prepared By: * w 40 , �atth Te Earth Tech Environmental, LLC fr .'� 1455 Rail Head Boulevard,Suite 8 - Naples, FL 34110 239.304.0030 Environmental,LLC www.eteflonda.com it} � syr April 25, 2017 i ,, Updated: ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Rezone Pre-App Notes & Environmental Checklists APPENDIX B: Staff Qualifications APPENDIX C: Protected Species Survey APPENDIX D: Davidson Engineering Site Plan INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to satisfy the Environmental Data requirements (LDC Section 3.08.00) for rezone and GMPA of the Subject Property for development as a church campus. This information is in response to the circled items in the Rezone Pre-Application Notes as provided by Davidson Engineering. See Appendix A, Rezone Pre-App Notes& Environmental Checklists, pgs. 17-22. PROPERTY LOCATION The Grace Romanian Church property is located at the southeast corner of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard West, in Section I I, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The property is approximately 6.25 acres. See Figure I, Location Map. lqui rif - _ . _...... iI!. . _,. ,Au L .., ,,,,A. .0.4vm.„ _, , ,'''-. Jol-P1 76, 4140. \ V SITE LOCATION iikiL_II ." —. • ___- } ji .1.4.;:, 1R$ ` ' ' t WIDERSILT MACH 1.11fOEN1AT SUCH INDENT 5 .. 7 RHAYENW t TTHAYENW_._. . z Z t Ili _ETNAYENW of ..,......!_l I I 1 ism'IRON/NN Fi A G i i 1 /;DRAT WODDOR FDAYENW . iip ^ 'UK V)-9 IDR NTAYENW ," _ (1i:N$RTER W ,.,.,00,wwRIDOEDR . SW _ AYE EW` AVE ] .. - PHARE SHIM/SW �.�.� C AL SPRINGS 7(NAYE SW MIONEiW / I I1.tit•. • -- _ .•..J. OKE PINE oLLYwOOD "`�p�'pppEPO EXT I�•.j.�.�. LEAH c •6.� _..-. — 11TMAVE SW W ITHAYE$W t._ ' : t -A2_AYE RN_ /so,w.Wti1.\ AVE N y Gam wwION AYE SW I S/NAN1 SR $TR•••••• ITTNAYE SR f imp • w �� oTNAW 'p ♦ Figure I. Location Map „....t Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLIST `--.. (Numbers match PUD checklist) 2. Who and what company prepared the Environmental Data Report? This Environmental Data Report was prepared by Earth Tech Environmental, LLC. Ecologists Jeremy Sterk and Jennifer Bobka. See Appendix B, Staff Qualifications. 3. Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wetlands according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Based on the FLUCCS system,there are no jurisdictional wetlands present on the property: FLUCCS 624-D, Pine—Cypress—Cabbage palm (Drained), 3.88 Acres This is the largest vegetation community on the subject property. Canopy vegetation includes scattered bald cypress, slash pine and cabbage palm. Other vegetation observed includes grapevine, beauty berry, cocoplum, sword fern, myrsine, dahoon holly, strangler fig, and isolated patches of saw palmetto. Exotic plants were estimated at be <50% and included Brazilian pepper, ear-leaf acacia, old-world climbing fern, Java plum, and Caesar weed. The ground is covered in heavy mats of slash pine needles and other duff. The community was likely a historic wetland,but no longer meets wetland criteria due to lack of wetland hydrology. Adjacent roads and the CR 951 canal have likely had a significant impact on the hydrology. Based on these factors, this community was given a 'drained' designation. See Figure 2,Aerial with Wetlands Identified. lixtit -_ — ._...._....- - ._ GOLDEN GATE BLVD W } t /923 40 • 0A . Y � ' No SFWMD Jurisdictional Wetlands } E • GSA '...a., ' „ _, I Milir '•l'' ' _ . „.., , rt . e c_e Sulj.0 PropenY x. FLUCCS Mapping 110 Supe Sanely Roo4a bal e O ® 139 N. .IF621-0 PineCYOreaa•Cabbage PPM.(dremed) 20�terry WadCOM,ir0 NO,CoCeuay *,- yZ 740.Dlalur0ed Lend Figure 2. Aerial with Wetlands Identified (No jurisdictional wetlands present). Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflonda.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT 7. Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on site. See Appendix C, Protected Species Survey. 8. Provide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03. See Appendix C, Protected Species Survey. 1 (.Identify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site,according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCCS Codes identified. See Figure 3,Aerial with FLUCCS Overlay. Based on the FLUCCS system,the following communities are present on the property: FLUCCS 110, Residential, Low Density, 2.27 Acres This community consists of low-density rural areas characterized by a relatively small number of homes per acre. This type of land is almost entirely committed to residential use, even though it may include forest or range types. FLUCCS 624-D, Pine—Cypress—Cabbage palm (Drained), 3.88 Acres This is the largest vegetation community on the subject property. Canopy vegetation includes scattered bald cypress, slash pine and cabbage palm. Other vegetation observed includes grapevine, beauty berry, cocoplum, sword fern, myrsine, dahoon holly, strangler fig, and isolated patches of saw palmetto. Exotic plants were estimated at be <50% and included Brazilian pepper, ear-leaf acacia, old-world climbing fern,Java plum, and Caesar weed. The ground is covered in heavy mats of slash pine needles and other duff. The community was likely a historic wetland,but no longer meets wetland criteria due to lack of wetland hydrology. Adjacent roads and the CR 951 canal have likely had a significant impact on the hydrology. Based on these factors, this community was given a 'drained' designation. FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Land, 0.10 acres Disturbed Lands are areas which have been changed due primarily to human activities.On the subject property, this area consists of a small,unfinished turnoff/driveway in the north-central vicinity,as well as two smaller areas along the north-eastern property boundary. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT • GOLDEN GATE BLVD W a 1 OB Ac I w' 5 fte FLUCCB Mapping 0 C) C) 110,siroie Faaoy aew»mw ea... A W240,Pals-Cypress•Caaea,*Pam)*aired) 1017 Aworttargrowi .aaear,Imoc caul 740,Dlau=Md Land Pneen0Figure 3.Aerial with FLUCCS Overlay 14.Provide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property, along with a narrative of the measures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has not been conducted on the Subject Property. 24.The County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's compliance with LDC and GMP requirements (LDC I 0.02.A.3 f). a. Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. See companion GMPA application. The project proposes developing the parcel into a church with associated structures. A portion of the existing habitat will be preserved onsite (0.77 acres). There are no wetlands present on the property. Water management facilities will be designed according to SRA/MD and Collier County criteria. b. Explain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the GMP. See the information provided in this document. c. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and LDC. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan and FLUCCS map in Figure 3. The site totals 6.25 acres. Of that acreage, 6.15 is classified as native vegetation. There is an existing home site on the property that was allotted 1.0 acres of clearing as part of its building permit. 6.15 — 1.0 acres = 5.15 acres of native vegetation present on the property. 5.15 acres X I 5%= 0.77 acres of native vegetation required to be set aside as a preserve. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 4. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT d. Indicate wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. There are no wetlands on the Subject Property and there will be no wetland impacts. e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. See Appendix C, Protected Species Survey. No listed species were observed. 25.PUD zoning and CU petitions. For PUD rezones and CU petitions, applicants shall collate and package applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) document, prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete. Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. See this document. ENVIRONMENTAL PUDZ-PUDA CHECKLIST (non-RFMU) 2. Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCCS overlay and vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.I. Application Contents #24). FLUCFCS Overlay - P627. See Figure 3, Aerial with FLUCCS Overlay. Descriptions are found in #I I above. 3. Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as "Preserve" on all plans (LDC 3.05.07.A.2). Preserve Label- P546. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. 4. Provide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained, the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on- site or mitigated off-site. Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculation (LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F; 3.05.07.H.I.d- e). Preserve Calculation - P547. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. 5. Created and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.H.I.b. Preserve width - P603. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. 6. Retained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3, include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site preservation areas or wildlife corridors (LDC 3.05.07.A.I-4). Preserve Selection- P550. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. The preserve has been provided as a contiguous single area. There are no preserves to connect to offsite. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT 7. Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations,fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. 9. Provide Environmental Data identifying author credentials, consistency determination with the GMPs, off-site preserves, seasonal and historic high water levels, and analysis of water quality. For land previously used for farm fields or golf course, provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination (LDC 3.08.00). Environmental Data Required - P 522. See this document. The site has not previously contained a golf course or farm field. 10.PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved (LDC I0.02.13.A.2). Master Plan Contents-P626. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. I I.PUD shall include Preserve Tract section. When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested: A. Principal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC) not in CV Library. See Davidson Engineering conceptual site plan. 12.PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site (LDC I0.02.13.A.2). Unique Features- P628. No listed species were observed on the property. There are no unique vegetative features. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT , GOLDEN GATE ELVDJN WU.? 1111011,110/4, riii iiee 1. IIIr______..., 1 , ,, 1 at f IRsubject pepowy 0 100 Ms —.Pim tail Aitioalleie*eh two cart, Figure 4. Proposed Site Plan. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT APPENDIX A REZONE ENVIRONMENTAL DATA CHECKLISTS Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com Co ear County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Notes Petition Type: Rezone (RZ) Date and Time: 10/5/2016 Assigned Planner: Daniel James Smith Engineering Manager(for PPL's and FP's): Project Information Project Name: Rezone/GMPA for a church PL#: PL20160002577 Property ID#: 36760800006;36760720005 Current Zoning: Estates Project Address: 3899 1st Ave SW, Naples, FL City: State: Zip: Applicant: Waste Management Inc. of Florida Agent Name: Tocia Hamlin - Davidson Engineering Phone: 239-434-6060 Agent/Firm Address: City: State: Zip: Property Owner: Please provide the following, if applicable: i. Total Acreage: ii. Proposed#of Residential Units: iii. Proposed Commercial Square Footage: iv. For Amendments, indicate the original petition number: v. If there is an Ordinance or Resolution associated with this project, please indicate the type and number: vi. If the project is within a Plat, provide the name and AR#/PL#: . .. • ( . County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliereov.net (239)252-2400 I - Meeting Notes 54C it 14 if FA ,..(1,..._„.fic 0 445 •• . ' :, . -- .......• • If I J...Aliie . . .. 8 ,... .. # lAjt,.""Z ."'... Plai1 0 lia..-- 'I..k - './4:L., 4:31'7 t (f) irit) a 2 ; Le _tit-cede, ---4 : i .. a. -I ' .dav ...4._.1.'L — -' cp cl-k..._ 'I) - af-L-ik „..r.." -7-1.. ...___,.. „,r_te on-1-- it 01 lip-c_ , cfNal - tif-7 er „ , 43 p/ 4.7.... —, ty r ?ev v)14, frIa.4-Yfb tft P r-POt. 1 ci-11-i91.5 (51^41: - i( RZ. 441,*% be 201-1960541) C-4,16(47•4 ;"zh,24,1//J.4I It ? Wit. 1)4.rjk1s, ---.. - 144tAt4- 4-11.-.- h elv, 444'Orr',t 4-7 V tta 41.,,1 chtz.4 v *HI; I;17, .6-E oru,t, ,,...17, 4(., ,..„0„,„, 6 r;#4.,,f, — 5 c A44. Neeits•4;4_ 'i kleZ 77 i 0-4/A;(4+ S.,`Ait C-1? ' .' - -4 .. t, ''- 5r:7(Cex4/1koa-,frioe .0,4 /X 'AV tivv/kal",/,,e/Afe P Vol 7;: j Piai7--C.-eieze-434ii4 - 7, ;/Li r-i-cif /-10 a i21 LT/ 11C.Acci) - . 6')&•6,2 . .4- De. - 4 ISZ) Z4 w14- (13iij ^11 0,. :).11/1pIel6 /nil de../11 c."-/e;‘ 6 iiiri - z ,.)c4.6,-,e- ii)Aid (...c-,/ // ,c)iyi e. a E. .--/j ki- /1 0/ ,0-3,Ai- ./,,,„. 4 e I r i .1*. . L..1 r 01 ma itli-V. 1-7zi 1 t 4/pi - 60/,/{/7 6,1.? ..i, iii _ .0,57e:e-- ii" ./zi fa kiii ir '' ,. afig i A...6 / ?I-1h/,( ,.,,,r7A:* 5 /lei/DS adef-,va...y da pli Ili i //i)ote /13 "/ A t4,. 1 (1)611 x I -11- 4,-/ -/-z- 01 5 P,(1 ii 47/71,1 kill . eta4-17A-Tt) flea iltili C.41 ,10, P,j0Lrovity A 44,4;11_9, -ie&v;-v:-t.i.,' : Pie-et. 'r— (k.AA re c's r---'`1- r e' Lalyk'cl ---.... , \___) tkoJ eke-rriQ-fer erAel 5-• 'i 4k,k\ct 7. i - 7- 9, Clv County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.coiliergov.net (239)252-2400 Meeting Notes r e. iA�� « a r �� i�:'��ir+. �'�'�'i �:��� a.�n �,Lr.. r s./s�1�1°�� •�, vziAtin bi.09 m t-k e r - 6.' i k <- _ �+►a.a (P �t i. C? +LA)c,4 t r kn-o.t c l � r / v 11.,J ck1 s r*x4t.d r ed�.w1 1.1 -0-W nyYl c,I)-cyvLA5 :EExexs4,km I t-t- role yr -Q Ert' or rK-St n1C. UO t-VOPCa T � et-iil 44 ev(.7 tet.►� r�� G� --r o � _ Gam. e � - / t r✓c„..n c 12 ?4 C C �vim ► --- inca ti.) Pel t- Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: I ( PUD Rezone-Ch.3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code E Amendment to PUD-Ch.3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone-Ch.3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. REQUIREMENTS s COPIES REQUIRED REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of ❑ (— why amendment is necessary Completed Application with required attachments E Ii Pre-application meeting notes LJ Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 2 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 2 Completed Addressing Checklist 2 7 Warranty Deed(s) List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 2 I— Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 4 ❑ Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 4 C Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser)with project boundary and,if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included 5 V U on aerial. Statement of Utility Provisions 4 ❑f , CI Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 4 �' ❑ Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with ❑3 1 ❑ project planner at time of public hearings. / Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include 4 P/ n copies of previous surveys. ,6:ZPV294447:4-kftPO Traffic Impact Study 7 ►N ❑I Historical Survey 4 Ai E School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 2 Till Electronic copy of all required documents 2 -31. ❑ Completed Exhibits A-F(see below for additional information)+ ❑ :i C List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each(this n `i n document is separate from Exhibit E) Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24"x 36"and One 8%:' x 11"copy El a ❑ O ib--1 PUD document/ordinc^^n, and Master Plan 24"x 36"--Only if ❑ ❑ ❑ Amending the PUD I 1 Checklist continued onto next page... 4/15/2015 Page 11 of 16 S&9. ty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru&underlined ❑ ❑ 0 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 ❑ *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing,include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet: ❑ Exhibit C:Master Plan-See Chapter 3 E. 1.of the Administrative Code ❑ Exhibit D:Legal Description D Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each O Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use)Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239-690-3500 for information regarding"Wildfire Mitigation&Prevention Plan." PLANNERS—INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: ❑ School District(Residential Components):Amy ❑ Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Ryan Lockheart ❑ Utilities Engineering:Kris VanLengen E Parks and Recreation:Vicky Ahmad ❑ Emergency Management:Dan Summers E Immokalee Water/Sewer District: ❑ City of Naples:Robin Singer, Planning Director ❑ Other: FEE REQUIREMENTS Pre-Application Meeting:$500.00 PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre ❑ PUD to PUD Rezone:$8,000.00* plus$25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre 11 D Amendment: $6,000.00* plus$25.00 an a c ion of an acre tle mprehensive Planning • _ '_ r-- - -'• - vironmental Data Require, - 'ac e` sii; al determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00 1 Listed or Protected Species Review(when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00 Transportation Review Fees: X Methodology Review: $500.00,to be paid directly to Tra sportation at the Methodology Meeting* . tr,i+ .ly hi i 7 lutvgisattE *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review$1,500.00 \K Legal Advertising Fees: i 17,ZG. vV o CCPC: $9.2 eer o BCC: $500.00 Cl School Concurrency Fee, ii applicable: 4/15/2015 Page 12 of 16 • County COWER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colllergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 o Mitigation Fees, if application,to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20%of the original fee. All checks may be made payable to:Board of County Commissioners 4/15/2015 Page 13 of 16 $ 9tY COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX:(239)252-6358 EXHIBIT A (To be completed in a separate document and attached to the application packet.) PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: CONDITIONAL USES(Optional) 1. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the (type of PUD) PUD Residential Subdistrict. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. 4/15/2015 Page 14 of 16 EXHIBIT B (To be completed in a separate document and attached to the application packet.) TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE TWO-FAMILY, _ CLUBHOUSE/ DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY PATIO& MULTI RECREATION FAMILY ATTACHED& ZERO LOT LINE FAMILY BUILDINGS TOWNHOUSE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA S.F.PERS.F. PER UNIT S.F.PER UNIT S.F. PER UNIT S.F. PER UNIT UNIT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA S.F S.F S.F S.F./D.U. N/A MIN FRONT YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A MIN SIDE YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A MIN REAR YARD FEET FEET FEET FEET N/A MIN PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN FEET FEET FEET FEET or BH, N/A STRUCTURES whichever is greater MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET EXCEED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FRONT FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET SIDE FEET FEET FEET FEET BH REAR FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET PRESERVE SETBACK FEET FEET FEET FEET FEET DISTANCE BETWEEN PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO SPS SPS SPS or FEET FEET EXCEED S.P.S.=Same as Principal Structures BH=Building Height Footnotes as needed 4/15/2015 GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. Setback may be either feet ( ) on one side or feet ( ) on the other side in order to provide a minimum separation between principal structures of feet ( ). Alternatively, if the foot ( ) setback option is not utilized, then the minimum setback shall not be less than feet ( ) and the combined setback between principal structures shall be at least feet ( ). At the time of the application for subdivision plat approval for each tract, a lot layout depicting minimum yard setbacks and the building footprint shall be submitted. TABLE II DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT MINIMUM LOT AREA Sq.Ft. , MINIMUM LOT WIDTH Ft. N/A MINIMUM YARDS(External) ®■,■■ From Immokalee Road Canal ROW Ft. ®�■ From Future Extension of Collier Blvd. From Western Project Boundary Ft. Ft. Internal Dri• ves/ROW Rear Ft. - Side Ft. Ft. ,■. MIN.DISTANCE BETWEEN Ft.or sum of STRUCTURES Building heights* 111111111 Retail Buildings Ft. Office Buildings Ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA Sq.Ft.** N/A MAX.GROSS LEASABLE AREA Sq.Ft. N/A * Whichever is greater ** Per principal structure,on the finished first floor. 4/15/2015 Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE(Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) ❑ BL(Blasting Permit) ❑ SDP(Site Development Plan) ❑ BD(Boat Dock Extension) ❑ SDPA(SDP Amendment) ❑ Carnival/Circus Permit ❑ SDPI(Insubstantial Change to SDP) ❑ CU(Conditional Use) ❑ SIP(Site Improvement Plan) 0 EXP(Excavation Permit) ❑ SIPI(Insubstantial Change to SIP) ❑ FP(Final Plat 0 SNR(Street Name Change) ❑ LLA(Lot Line Adjustment) 0 SNC(Street Name Change—Unplatted) ❑ PNC(Project Name Change) 0 TDR(Transfer of Development Rights) 0 PPL(Plans& Plat Review) ❑ VA(Variance) ❑ PSP(Preliminary Subdivision Plat) 0 VRP(Vegetation Removal Permit) ❑ PUD Rezone 0 VRSFP(Vegetation Removal&Site Fill Permit) ❑ RZ(Standard Rezone) 0 OTHER GMPA/REZONE LEGAL DESCRIPTION of subject property or properties(copy of lengthy description maybe attached) SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49, RANGE 26- SEE ATTACHED and an Ween Gatest 1/2 of EofaTTr Unit 4 Tr 16 Tr 15 FOLIO(Property ID)NUMBER(s)of above(attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) 36760720005 & 36760800006 STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES(as applicable, if already assigned) 38991ST AVE SW • LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way • SURVEY(copy -needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME(if applicable) PROPOSED PROJECT NAME(if applicable) GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH PROPOSED STREET NAMES(if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER(for existing projects/sites only) SDP - or AR or PL# ipo Cor County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239)252-2400 FAX (239)252-5724 Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in,condominium documents(if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Please Return Approved Checklist By: 0 Email ❑ Fax ❑ Personally picked up Applicant Name: TOCIA HAMLIN - DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. Phone: 434-6060 EXT 2985 Email/Fax: TOCIA@DAVIDSONENGINEERING.COM Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number 36760800006 Folio Number 36760720005 Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: �., ,,ra /r/ _ Date: 9/28/16 Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED SmithDaniel From: FeyEric Sent: Monday, October 03,2016 2:40 PM To: Tocia Hamlin Cc: SmithDaniel; LibbyPameia Subject: RE: PL20160002577(REZONE) Tocia, I will not be attending the pre-application meeting on Wednesday and just wanted to let you know about utility service availability for this project. Below is a GIS screen shot: t 3 k.9 { #L r , « .r a fit "4 _ a. 4 .,;;;;;;,---,t-'-' x c .. I j �_ x . V SWtrai , 1sLA E • t :Y i@ irk s'ix k "L ,- �� 9 :'.� « 'Aat � "i` } 2 I , .. I .s, ' , "4 • ' '• ,.:-';,..'-'7'':';4 " .7: I = ...• ••• ' ' • i.7...;:.,^:*** .-•. , ' _..„0,..„••... ; , ;ir••....•,.7.. f., ...:••;,•.•,•• '••''',••*•4„rrZwAt•••••ni•-•••',•': :11: •'' • i - • .. I .. „. ,. . ......:, .:„. -- . ' ;',•-....*',. .-'..:111111k. • ..14---H' .4..., ,..:1.--..*:- ..,...- --.• , 4$**4• ., • • $....-- .4,... - - . ••:4 , 40-4* ,.4:- 411$4:4,. ,:::--' .-• -i..;--:::,-- ...-., . _ .... • „.,„ . .• ........ ...,.„ .,.1 II I ' --• - - ' - 91- 4 . ..4: • •••.,, ••. ,,,,- .,• _.-,.••.,-..;,:.-;:-•••• • !•:.• ...40u, . *•Ala ' :JosiiiiitA aia.lit.04t S 0A-18 Jecl*AA 40 kJ ..IM -7 :;t MA-111111 aillit---• ' • '- • .3,-, . - .--.... _.._._ Rip, ,,-,,,oxv- - -'..:::..",t, ..•- - -- -- ,:.-•:...;„„ .-„, . . . .... _ 4,41 wr:t•-•.Ohod ,.fie . ... : v. .1. -- AS . P.., •,--,-,• . . ,.•, . , „.....e...!*45, .4 . ,,,,r.n:"• -:-.• 5:',4-:- , . .14404410. ....-.-- . -,0, • : 1 . „ • :,,- ---4t - .: ..,004. . •„-.4.•*,ifillk•-•'•••r . .pt*::1;:•1'• -•••:'' • •'” • • "11111111fi' • • - 1. : , .::, 1:_•‘,•,:r.,-.:.:.:.,.:r.,,•*..•. „T-•..7 .'''-1 ::•-i.X.,"' ... 4104•1* *4•' ..„ • .. -,-•, • •'- 4„.er,"' - '--,-1-•• '''''- '''.7,.- * , W P,14 --'.' .-A."•••.. 4.q , ...I . 4 to 41 II . '' ;•44,;• -,7-, -.-:• ':•: •;7''''''-':- - -.. g _ . t. . .r. j•, 4±1 - ...-4 .,,,,,,,.. .-,.-..:,. ...„ -,;• 17. -',.. * -4 • : • .:-' - ''.';--",--,5' :'" 4..--•-• -. .. .. --.. -- • ',--410,--- - ,4-- .. ,,:.„....,-0,---, - ,.*.4•- gift- --.., - -_ •.,,, ,-",:- - -.-„4.,. . ,,,7•- •• V '74-,,,„ ..'1. ,• •-• --..,,. • - '?7,' - • ,,,,, • ' ' • ..- •iliV."' '''-1.' l',,•=.,vr. -' 4 ' i'-'•9 .1 .. .., . . '.• ' •. $r • . "4, . • .. • , • • • . ..,... ..:--#0.,i :4. .,,I.• . t. . I. '.,-,--- , , ;,-, '.. ,• ---,'" '7N-',‘ -,- . .. . .. , . .,L - -.*, f.: • -,„.,, et • . • _---; * • '''Vir',.: ' •-Ot . .. ..... , ...-...-.-4 . •.,_,.. •- ..• .. 4 „. . ... ... .., ir---. -...- ' ;74„:„.,...,%-.•. , ...,,,,:-. .-..-...,A„.„. . ..., . . . ..,.,_ .... .. ..,. . . ,..'" ''.'''` '' .*...,"F'-.''' ''4.,'';,''*.,...Ai. , .".* 4 .- ,. ,,,,__..... it ... ., , .....,. _ ....- s '''--.4% ? ii';t •• .::: '. . - ...' .. ''-'' '—''.•:• 1,i.. -..•.„. • --- :--• - •Aillk;_ ..--' , .. .• „ .---41..,---5-w- :::-#.4.. ,...,p• ,- — . - i f • 4.16 : , . , ' . '' 1 • .4.-- —4 -.- _•„.. ...6 . - . iii ••-t• .4.'--_,. , -. ,:--7-• :-- ,.... ..! E. '. 1...,...*:,:- .;(,... *:.,„...., ,,,,.,• ......, .:.1r,- : .. , ,',. _ ... k, ': - • 4i •.• 41'1Vflr-1,7.• •,-.4-,,,- 4: '11- T.: -i,..' -:.',.•...4- . --„,,,, . .,. , .....•• ,.... - 4•0044- .,„,, ,. 4oVtr.:. '..: ''.,,''' -' ..,..•.r•.::''.--_.... ,,,,,,0;• _ ,,,. ..,,,,,,....:. • :-,.,,.--,-,..: le- imr a •• . 101#514,1- :.,..... ._. ..,,,,, •,...."2:. . . , . •• - - , -__. •. -• ••-....,[04,;,. ',. N..,- .: • '- -, . . .. '1-7!"'• 40404r4100444,4u‘40 ,,..- le, 9 V 4'I • a Ala Je/1103 IMO — ....__ ---- _ • -- '- pit - . ._.. .. . . ,.. i -• - _.•:'-• •., Ni.wne: i I • 4 The purple shading signifies geographic areas excluded from the Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance (2001-13). Per that ordinance,this project is not required to connect to the Regional Water System but would be subject to the impositior^ of impact fees if connection is requested. Water service may be extended from the existing County 10" HOPE water main on the north side and within the median of Golden Gate Blvd,east of Weber Blvd but wastewater service is not available. I am copying Pam Libby for confirmation that we would not allow a new connection to our existinig 36"RCP water main along the east side of Weber Blvd. Thank you, C • �II`< ,r C�olste>fltttY Eric Fey, P.E. Senior Project Manager Collier County Public Utilities Department Planning and Project Management Division Direct: (239)252-1037 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. Original Appointment From: PaulRenald On Behalf Of CDS-C Sent:Tuesday,September 27, 2016 2:05 PM To:AhmadVicky;AlcornChris;Amy Lockhart-Taylor(lockha@collierschools.com);AndersonRichard;AnthonyDavid; ArnoldMichelle;AshtonHeidi;AuclairClaudine; BaluchStephen; BeardLaurie; BeasleyRachel; BrethauerPaula; BrownAraquesummer; BrownCraig; BurtchinMark; CascioGeorge;CondominaDanny; CrowleyMichaelle; David Ogilvie; dfey@northcollierfire.com; DumaisMike; FaulknerSue; FeyEric; FleishmanPaula; GewirtzStorm; GosselinLiz; GundlachNancy; HouldsworthJohn; HughesJodi; HumphriesAlicia;JacobLisa; inaueond@sfwmd.gov;JohnsonEric; KendallMarcia; KurtzGerald; LenbergerSteve; LevyMichael; (martin@sfwmd.gov; LouviereGarrett; MartinezOscar; MastrobertoThomas; McCaughtryMary; McKennaJack; McKuenElly; McLeanMatthew; MoscaMichele; MoxamAnnis; NawrockiStefanie; OrthRichard; PajerCraig; PancakeBill; PattersonAmy; PepinEmily; piimenez@sfwmd.gov; PochmaraNatalie; ReischlFred; RosenblumBrett;SantabarbaraGino; SawyerMichael; ScottChris;Shar Hingson; ShawinskyPeter;Shawn Hanson;SheaBarbara;SmithDaniel;StoneScott;StrainMark; SuleckiAlexandra;SummersEllen; SweetChad;TempletonMark; VanLengenKris;WalshJonathan;WeeksDavid;WickhamFlannery; WilloughbyChristine; tocia@davidsonengineering.com Subject: PL20160002577(REZONE) When:Wednesday,October 05, 2016 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time(US&Canada). Where:CONF ROOM "C" Planner-Dan Smith Fire District-Golden Gate Fire *********************************************************** «OLE Object: Picture(Device Independent Bitmap)» «OLF Object: Picture(Device Independent Bitmap) » Project Type: Pre-Application Meeting 3 Project Description: Rezone/GMPA for a church Existing Application Name: Meeting Type: Pre-Application Meeting Preferred Date: next available Unavailable Dates: Location:3899 1st Ave SW, Naples, FL, Parcel Number:36760800006; 36760720005 Full Name:Tocia Hamlin Email: tociac davidsonenRineerinR.com Company Name:4365 RADIO RD STE 201 Naples, FL 34104 Representing: Davidson Engineering Contact Number:Work:239-434-6060 Thanks 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. 4 Environmental Data , : t Project Name C LI f // / C� e't edre '! The Environmental Data requirements can be found in LDC Section 3.08.00 (1) Provide the EIS fee if PUD or CU. (,. z. J WHO AND WHAT COMPANY PREPARED THE ENVIRONMENTAL�,./ Environmental Data. Environmental Data Submittal Requirements be prepared by an REPORT? Preparation ll with of academic credentials and experience in the area of environmental sciences or natural resource management. Academic credentials and experience shall be a bachelor's or higher degree in one of the biological sciences with at least two years of ecological or biological professional experience in the State of Florida. Please include revision dates on resubmittals. 3.0 Identify on a current aerial, the location and acreage of all SFWMD jurisdictional wands Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) and include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Wetlands must be verified by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) or Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) prior to SDP or final plat construction plans approval. For sites in the RFMU district,provide an assessment in accordance with 3.05.07 F and identify on the FLUCFCS map the location of all high quality wetlands (wetlands having functionality scores of at least 0.65 WRAP or 0.7 UMAM) and their location within the proposed development plan. Sites with high quality wetlands must have their functionality scores verified by the SFWMD or DEP prior to first development order approval. Where functionality scores have not been verified by either the SFWMD or DEP, scores must be reviewed and accepted by County staff,consistent with State regulation. 4. SDP or final plat construction plans with impacts to five (5) or more acres of wetlands shall provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls)/ compared with water quality'loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre-development conditions. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies,and must demonstrate no increase in nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous)loadings in the post development scenario. 5. Where treated stormwater is allowed to be directed into preserves, show how the criteria in 3.05.07 H have been met. 6. Where native vegetation is retained on site,provide a topographic map to a half foot and,where possible, provide elevations within each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified on site.For SDP or final plat construction plans, include this information on the site plans. t l '• Provide a wildlife survey for the nests of bald eagle and for listed species known to inhabit biological j communities similar to those existing on site. The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the guidelines or recommendations of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission(FFWCC) and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS). Survey times may be reduced or waived where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the likelihood of listed species occurrence is low,as determined by the FFWCC and USFWS. Where an initial habitat assessment by the environmental consultant indicates that the 4 likelihood of listed species occurrence is low,the survey time may be reduced or waived by the County Manager or designee, when the project is not reviewed or technical assistance not provided by the FFWCC and USFWS. Additional survey time may be required if listed species are discovered ()rovide a survey for listed plants identified in 3.04.03 9. Wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans in accordance with 3.04.00 shall be required where listed species are utilizing the site or where wildlife habitat management and monitoring plans are required by the FFWCC or USFWS. These plans shall describe how the project directs incompatible land uses away from listed species and their habitats. Identify the location of listed species nests, burrows, dens, foraging areas, and the location of any bald eagle nests or nest protection zones on the native vegetation aerial with FLUCFCS overlay for the site. Wildlife habitat management plans shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. Bald eagle management plans are required for sites containing bald eagle nests or nest protection zones, copies of �, which shall be included on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 10. For sites or portions of sites cleared of native vegetation or in agricultural operation,provide documentation that the parcel(s)were issued a permit to be cleared and are in compliance with the 25 year rezone limitation pursuant to section 10.02.06.For sites permitted to be cleared prior to July 2003,provide documentation that the parcel(s) are in compliance with the 10 year rezone limitation previously identified in the GMP. Criteria defining native vegetation and determining the legality,process and criteria for clearing are found in 3.05.05,3.05.07 and 10.02.06.011. dentify on a current aerial the acreage, location and community types of all upland and wetland habitats on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System(FLUCFCS), and provide a legend for each of the FLUCFCS Codes identified. Aerials and overlay information must be legible at the scale provided. Provide calculations for the acreage of native vegetation required to be retained on-site. Include the above referenced calculations and aerials on the SDP or final plat construction plans. In a separate report, demonstrate how the preserve selection criteria pursuant to 3.05.07 have been met. Where applicable, include in this report an aerial showing the project boundaries along with any undeveloped land, preserves, natural flowways or other natural land features, located on abutting properties. 12. Include on a separate site plan, the project boundary and the land use designations and overlays for the RLSA, RFMU, ST and ACSC-ST districts. Include this information on the SDP or final plat construction plans. 13. Where off-site preservation of native vegetation is proposed in lieu of on-site,demonstrate that the criteria in section 3.05.07 have been met and provide a note on the SDP or final plat construction plans indicating the type of donation (monetary payment or land donation) identified to satisfy the requirement. Include on the SDP or final plat construction plans,a location map(s)and property identification number(s)of the off-site parcel(s) if .- , off-site donation of land is to occur. m014, rovide the results of any Environmental Assessments and/or Audits of the property,along with a narrative ofthe easures needed to remediate if required by FDEP. /,t' �' w,„r; j2 4/ /toe 1-#67 P ";/NI'. 15. Soil and/or ground water sampling shall be required at the time of first development order submittal for sites that occupy farm fields(crop fields, cattle dipping ponds, chemical mixing areas),golf courses,landfill or junkyards or for sites where hazardous products exceeding 250 gallons of liquid or 1,000 pounds of solids were stored or processed or where hazardous wastes in excess of 220 pounds per month or 110 gallons at any point in time were generated or stored.The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by a registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site Assessment and shall at a minimum test for organochlorine pesticides(U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)8081)and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 8 metals using Florida Department of Environmental Protection(FDEP)soil sampling Standard Operating Procedure(SOP)FS 3000, in areas suspected of being used for mixing and at discharge point of water management system. Sampling should occur randomly if no points of contamination are obvious. Include a background soil analysis from an undeveloped location hydraulically upgradient of the potentially contaminated site. Soil sampling should occur just below the root zone, about 6 to 12 inches below ground surface or as otherwise agreed upon with the registered professional with experience in the field of Environmental Site y Assessment. Include in or with the Environmental Site Assessment, the acceptable State and Federal pollutant € levels for the types of contamination found on site and indicate in the Assessment,when the contaminants are over these levels. If this analysis has been done as part of an Environmental Audit then the report shall be submitted.The County shall coordinate with the FDEP where contamination exceeding applicable FDEP standards is identified on site or where an Environmental Audit or Environmental Assessment has been submitted. .-� 16. Shoreline development must provide an analysis demonstrating that the project will remain fully functional for its intended use after a six-inch rise in sea level. I 17. Provide justification for deviations from environmental LDC provisions pursuant to GMP CCME Policy 6.1.1 (13), if requested. 18. Where applicable,provide evidence of the issuance of all applicable federal and/or state oil and gas permits for proposed oil and gas activities in Collier County. Include all state permits that comply with the requirements of Chapter 62C-25 through 62C-30, F.A.C.,as those rules existed on January 13, 2005. 19. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones(WRM-ST)within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM-STs and will comply with the WRM-ST pursuant to 3.06.00.Include the location of the Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones on the SDP or final plat construction plans.For land use applications such as standard and PUD rezones and CUs,provide a separate site plan or zoning map with the project boundary and Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones identified. 7 0 20. Demonstrate that the design of the proposed stormwater management system and analysis of water quality and quantity impacts fully incorporate the requirements of the Watershed Management regulations of 3.07.00. 21. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern-Special Treatment overlay district(ACSC- ST), show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations in 4.02.14. 22. For multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more,and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with 5.05.02. Refer to the Manatee Protection Plan for site specific requirements of the Manatee Protection Plan not included in 5.05.02. 23. For development orders within RFMU sending lands, show how the project is consistent with each of the applicable Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP. (she County Manager or designee may require additional data or information necessary to evaluate the project's — compliance with LDC and GMP requirements.q ents.{LDC 10.02.02.A.3 f) The following to be determined at preapplication meeting: (Choose those that apply) Provide overall description of project with respect to environmental and water management issues. up xplain how project is consistent with each of the applicable objectives and policies in the CCME of the c, (Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in the CCME and �✓ LDC. d. Indicate.wetlands to be impacted and the effects of the impact to their functions and how the project's design compensates for wetland impacts. ° e. Indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to listed species. Describe the measures that are proposed as mitigation for impacts to listed species. PUD zoning and CU petitions.For PUD rezones and CU petitions,applicants shall collate and package dil applicable Environmental Data Submittal Requirements into a single Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) document,prior to public hearings and after all applicable staff reviews are complete.Copies of the EIS shall be provided to the County Manager or designee prior to public hearings. 26. Is EAC Review(by CCPC)required? ppiiql0 //0 i-. 27. Additional Comments 28. Stipulations for approval(Conditions) Environmental PUD,Z-UDA C,ec non- Project Name CO3L t 1" 1 , ' •iCo (lid If) 1. Is the project is in compliance with the overlays,districts and/or zoning on the subject site and/or the surrounding properties?(CON, ST,PUD,RLSA,RFMU,etc.)(LDC 2.03.05-2.03.08;4.08.00)Not in CV Library ubmit a current aerial photograph(available from the Property Appraiser's office)and clearly delineate subject site boundary lines.If the site is vegetated,provide FLUCFCS overlay and vegetation inventory the O identifying upland,wetland and exotic vegetation(Admin.Code Ch. 3 G.1.Application Contents#24). OC FLUCFCS Overlay-P627 learly identify the location of all preserves and label each as"Preserve"on all LDPreserve Label-P546 plans. (LDC 3.05.07.A.2). 4. 'rovide calculations on site plan showing the appropriate acreage of native vegetation to be retained,the max. amount and ratios permitted to be created on-site or mitigated off-site.Exclude vegetation located within utility and drainage easements from the preserve calculations(LDC 3.05.07.B-D; 3.05.07.F;3.05.07.H.1.d-e). Preserve Calculation-P547 reated and retained preserve areas shall meet the minimum width requirements per LDC 3.05.07.11.1.b.Preserve Width-P603 96. etained preservation areas shall be selected based on the criteria defined in LDC 3.05.07.A.3,include all 3 strata, be in the largest contiguous area possible and shall be interconnected within the site and to adjoining off-site jpreservation areas or wildlife corridors.(LDC 3.05.07.A.1-4) Preserve Selection-P550 Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25' from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations,fill placement,grading,plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10' of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve(i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve).Provide cross-sections for each preserve boundary identifying all site alterations within 25'. (LDC 3.05.07.1-1.3; 6.01.02.C.) Preserve Setback—New 8. Wildlife survey required for sites where an EIS is not required,when so warranted.(LDC I0.02.02.A.2.f) Listed Species-P522 9. rovide Envimamentai Data identifying author credentials,consistency determination reserves with the GMPs,off-site preserves,seasonal and historic high water levels,and analysis of water quality.For land previously used for farm fields or golf course,provide soil sampling/groundwater monitoring reports identifying any site contamination. (LDC 3.08.00) Environmental Data Required—P 522 (0. UD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be re Master Plan Contents-P626 g q preserved.(LDC 10.02.13.A.2) 011. 3UD shall include Preserve Tract section. When listing preserve uses,the following is suggested: A.Principal Use:Preserve;B. Accessory Uses:All other uses(list as applicable or refer to the LDC) •UD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site.(LDC 10.02.13.A.2.) Unique Features-P628 Example:A management plan for the entire project shall be submitted in accordance with the requirements and procedures of the LDC for listed species including but not limited to Black Bear,Gopher Tortoise and listed birds. The management plan shall be submitted prior to development of the first phase of the project. 13. Provide information for GIS? Additional Comments: Cot County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH FLORIDAHORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colllerQov net NAPLES, FLO34104 (239)252-2400 Pre-Application Meeting Sign-In Sheet P1#•PL20160002577 Collier County Contact Information: 111111E1311111111 Review Discipline Phone Cl Richard Anderson EEmail Environmental Specialist richardanderson@colliergov.net David Anthony Environmental Review 252-2497 davidanthany@colliergov.net ❑ Summer Araque Environmental Review 252-6290 summerbrownaraque@colliergov.net ❑ Steve Baluch,P.E. Transportation Planning -� Laurie Beard � StephenBaluch@collier:ov.net Transportation Pathways111=1 i Lauriebeard@cofliergov.net . , Rachel Beasley Planner 252-8202 rachelbeasley@collier:ov.net i Marcus Berman County Surveyor 252-6885 MarcusBerman@colliergov.net H Madelin Bunster 252-8523 madeiinbunster@collier:ov.net ❑ Mark Burtchin ROW Permitting MEM markburtchin@colliergov.net H George Cascio Utility Bfllin: 252-5543 :eorgecascio@collierzov.net D Heidi Ashton Cicko Managing Asst.County Attorney FM heidiashton@colliergov.net Sue Faulkner Comprehensive Planning MU suefaulkner@collier•ov.net II Eric Fey,P.E. Site Plans Reviewer 252-2434 ericfey@colliergov.net ❑ Paula Fleishman Impact Fee Administration ri 252-2924 paulafleishman@colliergov.net Nancy Gundlach,AICP,PLA Zoning Services 252-2484 nancygundlach@colliergov.net rl Shar Hingson East Naples Fire District 687-5650 shingson@ccfco.org ❑l John Houldsworth Engineering Services 252-5757 'ohnhouldsworth@colliergov.net ❑ Jodi Hughes Transportation Pathways 252-5744 jodihughes@collier:ov.net ❑ Alicia Humphries Site Plans Reviewer/ROW 252-2326 aliciahumphries@colliergov.net ❑ Eri Johnson,AICP,CFM Zoning Services 252-2931 ericjohnson@colliergov.net ❑ arcia Kendall Comprehensive Planning KM marciakendall@coiliergov.net L Stephen Lenberger Environmental Review 252-2915 stevelenberger@coliiergov.net Paulo Martins Utilities 252-4285 paulomartins@colliergov.net ❑ Thomas Mastroberto Fire Safety 252-7348 Thomasmastroberto@coliiergov.net 11 Jack McKenna, P.E. Engineering Services 252-2911 jackmckenna@colliergov.net ❑ Matt McLean, P.E. Principal Project Manager MEI matthewmclean@colliergov.net ❑ Gilbert Moncivaiz Utility Impact Fees 252-4215 gilbertmoncivaiz@colliergov.net ❑ Annis Moxam Addressing 252-5519 annismoxam@coliiergov.net ❑ Stefanie Nawrocki Planning and Zoning 252-2313 StefanieNawrocki@colliergov.net E Mariam Ocheltree Graphics — 252-2315 I mariamocheltree@colliergov.net 1 Brandy Otero Transit 252-5859 brandyotero@cofliergov.net i County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE www•cal er$cm net NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239)252-2400 ❑ Brandi Pollard Utilit Impact fees NM�4 Fred Reischi,AICP brandipollard@colliergov.net Zoning Services M fredreischl@colliergov.net ❑ Stacy Revay Transportation Pathways ClBrett Rosenblum,P.E. IIIIIMMEEMMII stacyrevay@colliergov.net 252-2905 brettrosenblum@colliergov.net ❑ Michael Sawyer Zoning Services 252-2926 michaelsawyer@coiJiergov.net ❑ Corby Schmidt,AICP Corn•rehensive Planning 252-2944 corbyschmidt@colliergov.net ❑ Chris Scott,AICP Planning and Zoning 252-2460 chrisscatt@colliergov.net 7 Daniel Smith,AICP Landscape Review P 252-4312 danielsmith@colliergov.net ❑ Ellen Summers Planning and Zoning 252-1032 EUenSummers@calliergov.net ---11: Scott Stone Assistant County Attorney 252-8400 scottstone@colliergov.net ❑ Mark Strain Hearing 252-4446 markstrain@collier.ov.net ❑ Kris VanLengen111111111 . 252-5366 krisvanlengen@colliergov.net ❑ Jon Walsh Building Review Mg lonathanwalsh@colliergov.net 0 David Weeks,AICP Future Land Use Consistency 252-2306 davidweeks@colliergov.net ❑ Kirsten Wilkie Environmental Review 252-5518 kirstenwilkie@colliergov.net ❑ Christine Willoughby Planning and Zoning 252-5748 Chris#ineWilloughby@colliergov.net Additional Attendee Contact information: .fred 6 ClaViid Sonerirree Name Representing Phone Email . ... 1 r�ttW Jt - ,. _ f . C .". _ - 1�JutL Ahca Tl�'t 1I tfA' ' f i 5 - . �n,C�j� �� fre 4 r++ioU a uta EIS 2So MIKAN Rewliveoiezei/•p GAIttspotze icouto 2s3.62a-tale, R bi n. -90t j,Alolls . c(17 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT APPENDIX B STAFF QUALIFICATIONS Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com JEREMY STEM C.E.P. Relevant Experience Jeremy has been an environmental consultant in Southwest Florida since 1994 and has worked on Partner\Senior Ecologist projects throughout Collier, Lee, Hendry, DeSoto, Glades, and Charlotte counties. His varied experience spans marine, upland, and estuarine habitats and includes extensive work with a wide variety of listed species. j.sterk@eteflorida.com 239.595.4929 In addition to authoring dozens of habitat and species management plans, in 2007, Jeremy co- authored the first habitat conservation plan (HCP) in the nation to address incidental take issues for both red cockaded woodpeckers(RCW)and Florida panther on the same property. Years Experience In 1998, he wrote an ecological assessment computer model for the South Florida Water 22 years Management District as part of the South Lee County Watershed Study. Education/Training Early in his career,Jeremy was the principal investigator of a field research project in the Bahamas B.S.Aquatic Biology(1994), that utilized telemetry tracking to study the swimming speed of sub-adult lemon sharks. St.Cloud State University Jeremy's environmental consulting experience includes: Protected Species Surveys Environmental Resource Permitting(ERP) Professional Affiliations Listed Species Management Plans Turbidity Monitoring Academy of Board Certified Vegetation&Habitat Mapping Wetland&Water Level Monitoring Environmental Professionals USFWS Section 7 &Section 10 Permitting Environmental Impact Statements(EIS) #16992037 Water Use Monitoring&Compliance Project Management Preserve Management Plans GIS/GPS Mapping&Exhibits Florida Association of Post Permit Compliance Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessments Environmental Professionals Environmental Land Use Planning Phase II Environmental Site Assessments Native Vegetation Restoration Plans Lake Management Plans Incidental Take Permitting Due Diligence Reports Site and Aerial Photography Wetland Jurisdictional Determinations USFWS Bald Eagle Monitor Bonneted Bat Surveys /""' Gopher Tortoise Surveys,Permitting,& Mangrove Assessments&Restorations Relocations Scrub Jay Surveys Hard Bottom&Soft Bottom Benthic Surveys Burrowing Owl Surveys Artificial Reef Deployments Shorebird Surveys Seagrass Surveys Certifications/Credentials Certified Environmental Professional#1692037, Academy of Board Certified Environmental Professionals Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent — Permit No.GTA-09-00192 Florida Association of Environmental Professionals—member since January 1995;served on the Board of Directors for the Southwest Florida Chapter from(2008—2012). Past Secretary, Vice President,&President. State of Florida Real Estate License(2003 to Present) Appointed by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners to: • Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee,Chairman of the Lands Evaluation and Management Subcommittee.(2009 to 2014). • Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee(DSAC)(2015 to Present). • FWC Local Rule Review Committee(Manatee Protection Speed Zones)(2016 to Present). 4dzrth Tech publications Sundstrom, L.F.,J.Sterk,&S.H.Gruber.1998.Effects of a speed-sensing transmitter on the swimming speed of lemon sharks.Bahamas J.Sci.6(1):12-22. Envi ,' LC 239.304.0030 I www.eteflorida.com ,.ww...m,..s;. JENNIFER BOBKA Relevant Experience Ecologist Ms. Bobka joined Earth Tech Environmental LLC in 2016 as an Ecologist with more than 5 g years of private and public sector experience in the environmental field. Her experience includes projects throughout Collier,Lee and Gallatin counties.Her varied experience spans coastal marine,shoreline and estuarine habitats,to upland forests and alpine environments. She has worked with a wide variety of native and invasive plant and wildlife species. She is also an experienced Naturalist and Environmental Educator. As an Ecologist,Jennifer fulfills duties in environmental consulting, wetland & wildlife jenniferb@eteflorida.com monitoring,species surveys,invasive species removal,report writing,GIS mapping,and 239.304.0030 ERP permitting. Years' Experience Jennifer's work experience in many fields of ecology includes: 5 years Wetland Delineation Education/Training Protected Species Surveys Naturalist II & Environmental Listed Species Research &Monitoring Educator Turbidity Monitoring (2012-2016) Vegetation&Habitat Mapping Manatee Research Intern Bald Eagle Monitoring Florida Conservation Gopher Tortoise Surveys and Relocation Commission GIS Mapping (2013) Environmental Resource Permitting(ERP) AmeriCorps Field Crew Leader Invasive& Exotic Species Removal Montana Conservation Corps Natural Resource Management (2010) Trail Maintenance Mechanical& Manual Forest Fuel Reduction B.A. Environmental Studies Ecological Restoration Montana State University Environmental Education (2009) Marine Biology&Coastal Relevant Certifications/Credentials Ecology Study Abroad Costa Rica Certified Interpretive Guide (2007) Python Responder/Patrol Training Professional Affiliations USFS Sawyer Florida Association of Environmental Professionals League of Environmental Educators of Florida Florida Master Naturalist Program , a th Tech 239.304.0030 I www.eteflorida.com Enviro LLC www.etenviron.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT APPENDIX C PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflonda.com s PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY x GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH PARCEL .- w NAPLES, FLORIDA C ?t APPROXIMATELY 6.25 ACRES k . Prepared For. ' ', AI,, ,tet j ",,,,,,,ii.:ti ; Collier County Engineering& '4;, ''!i `,. Natural Resources Department •,., -'..:4420‘'.: "r, f r 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 z� South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) ',.. 1 '' Lower West Coast Service Center 2301 McGregor Boulevard ''.:`, 4iiikt.; Fort Myers, FL 33901 . 04,1/47" ..i....- . k§' Prepared By: 4acth Tec4 Earth Tech Environmental, LLC .1 htt,„ 1455 Rail Head Boulevard, Suite 8 , ,,., 411.. Naples, FL 34110 239.304.0030 s _' , t Environmental,LLC www•eteflorida.com k' r i April 12, 2017 Protected Species Survey INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a search for listed species on the Grace Romanian Church parcel prior to development of the property as a church campus. LOCATION The Grace Romanian Church property is located on the corner of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard West, in Section I 1, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The parcel is approximately 6.23 acres. See (Figure I) below for Location Map. *J- lam- T E illiiill 4.0‘, tilt • -• MLLE 1111 IIP illara SITE LOCATION ,i, , , i s, li.„, ii...14, :,.} ., .. _,. . : 7 .. s, ..mv ii,..,„,„ , . ..... ,,,,,,, , _ ss P/S E D'-E I WNDERBILT REACH RD WNDERBIT BEACH RD ENT ♦44,1711iik TTHAVE NW p 7THAVE NWZqSVE NW�1 6THAVE NW , tI t t .CDRA.--..R AVENW , 7RDAVENW i 1nI t A • v lot .`. • TEAR WT7DDOR ,STAVE NW _ill GOLDEN TE BLVD W IS IZ 4.1 •` V .' • .AVE SW�M, -DAVE SW yT� CAPE CORAL C* ^ ---_— STHAVE SW 6TH AVE SW \yN'i _____— •RAL SPRINGS —' 7TH AVE SW TT H AVE SW 1:4,4•:•••4,`7,. • - ..00:44;,;,,,I;,"OKE PINE, OLLYWOOD 9 'emir! Ai _.- .. —TOMOS RD CET - saON�f__.._ LEAH • --_—_ 11THAVESW yw I 11TH AVE SW 4 ' 2THAVESW 13TNAVE SW 18TNAVE SW iNAVE SW HAVE SW a t6THAVE SW - f f ..--1---T I . .QI ' 6Th S �r� mHAVESW _ 1. I�!.HGf SW • ,YTHAVE SW '�- all'BaAl+ : '''' Figure I.Site Location Map SPECIES SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS The species survey was conducted using a methodology similar to that discussed in the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) publication "Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Florida."This methodology is as follows: Existing vegetation communities or land-uses on the subject site are delineated on a recent aerial photograph (Collier County 2017) using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). FLUCCS mapping for this property is detailed below in (Figures 2 & 3). The resulting FLUCCS codes are cross-referenced with a list of protected plant and animal species.The lists were obtained from two agency publications: Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com Protected Species Survey ❖ A list of animals and birds was obtained from the FWC publication "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species & Species of Special Concern-Official Lists", Publication Date: October 2016. ❖ A list of protected plant species was obtained from the publication "Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants", Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology & Plant Pathology- Botany Section, Contribution 38, 5th Edition (2010). The result is a composite table that contains the names of the protected species which have the highest probability of occurring in each FLUCCS community.See (Table I)of this report for the species list that applies to this property. In the field, each FLUCCS community is searched for listed species or signs of listed species. This is accomplished using a series of transects throughout each vegetation community. If necessary,transect integrity is maintained using a handheld GPS in track mode. Signs or sightings of all listed and non-listed species are then recorded. Listed species locations are typically flagged and marked by GPS. Based on the habitat types found on this parcel of land, particular attention was paid to the presence or absence of fox squirrels and listed plants. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Temperatures during the fieldwork for this survey were in the mid 80's. Cloud cover was absent. Approximately four (4) man-hours were logged on the property during this species survey. (Table 3) details date and time spent in the field. The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: West Collier Blvd North Golden Gate Blvd. West/Residential South Residential East Residential Listed below are the FLUCCS communities identified on the site. The following community descriptions correspond to the mappings on the FLUCCS map below. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. FLUCCS 110, Residential, Low Density, 2.27 Acres This community consists of low-density rural areas characterized by a relatively small number of homes per acre.This type of land is almost entirely committed to residential use, even though it may include forest or range types. FLUCCS 624-D, Pine— Cypress—Cabbage palm (Drained), 3.88 Acres This is the largest vegetation community on the subject property. Canopy vegetation includes scattered bald cypress, slash pine and cabbage palm. Other vegetation observed includes grapevine, beauty berry, cocoplum, sword fern, myrsine, dahoon holly, strangler fig, and isolated patches of saw palmetto. Exotic plants were estimated at be <50%and included Brazilian pepper, ear-leaf acacia, old- world climbing fern,Java plum, and Caesar weed. The ground is covered in heavy mats of slash pine needles and other duff. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com Protected Species Survey FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Land, 0.10 acres Disturbed Lands are areas which have been changed due primarily to human activities.On the subject property,this area consists of a small, unfinished turnoff/driveway in the north-central vicinity. The following table is summary of FLUCCS communities and corresponding acreages: CODE E DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 110 . Residential,Low Density 2.27 624-D Pine Cypress-Cabbage Palm(drained) 3.88 740 Disturbed Land 0.10 Site Total: 6.25 MC w,4y..1w ,---- .. - .__._....... s..,,,.w, ..;� __�._..':, `GOLDEN GATE BLVD W ry yam, . r s.., = t 7::: VG { ' *'k, . . t a 4 r O s� ' -' ;k:41: ' ;' S;:.:.'""k.':.,.,r; -,,' ' . i. " '. ., 1:114_ ` =subject Property I r FLUCCS Mapping { € ED 110,SINN Fe,'Ru ldwroel 621-0,Roe-Cypress-Cabbage Palm(drained/Nala. r 710.DtsNrbed Land 2017 AaYa0tabd Ran Golfer ca,ay t. -, Prop.,Apawfr. Figure 2.Aerial with FLUCCS Mapping Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com Protected Species Survey GOLDEN GATE BLVD W <740a: 740 01 Ac 6240 3.88Ac .01 9110 2,27 Ac W_ 8 Subject Properly FLUCC6 Mapping 110,Single Fannlr RaeiOennin 824-0.Pine-CyVals-CaWrpa Palm(Manned) 0 100 300 a0 740.Doodad Land itto Figure 3. FLUCCS Mapping RESULTS/DISCUSSION The various protected species which may occur in the corresponding FLUCCS communities are shown in (Table I). All animal species observed on the subject parcel are detailed in (Table 2). Within (Table 2), any protected species observed are specifically noted. See (Figure 4) below for results and field observations. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflonda.com Protected Species Survey a" .:, . I f tis " el, .._ as � , - eta+. . :- ' - _ 740 - , ..v1; .08 Ac 55740 P"' DI'Ac z,� u ffi a i d 740 Ac :r a ++ :tiri...ii, ` 4 +. ti 1'o- rr y N. .;__ tail — ,, , It . ...: 44, i.>„ : kw_ 4, , .1. „0„F 170 227Ac'. 4 t _ ,1-84 I'i I foft ~ tit, K"^* r r , r"�'�'.4d P.1.01,. � 1_7µ bn pooatbdK� n SPOON&YvsY 1.44.4414 z, FLUCCS Mapping A •110,Single Family Residential it... � sa 824-0,Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm(drained) - e�.� ,i 740,Disturbed Land 0 CD On. 3 2017 Aortal°blamed from '' . . { ° 4 r ' Collor County Procell IOWA °h Figure 4. Protected Species Survey Transect Map& Field Results Below are discussions of each listed species observed on the property: Wild Pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) Several common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculate) were observed in trees within the parcel. No other listed species or signs of listed species were observed on the property. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com Protected Species Survey / 1 Table I. Protected Species List According to FLUCCS Category FLUCCS Potential Listed Species Scientific Name Designated Status FWC/FDA FWS 624 Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T 0 Florida Panther Fells concolor coryi E E Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea _ T 0 Snowy Egret Egretta thula - Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor T 0 Abbreviations: A_ en�cies FWC=Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA=Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS=United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E=Endangered T=Threatened T(S/A)=Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC=Species of Special Concem C=Commercially Exploited Table 2. Birds, Mammals,Amphibians, Reptiles,&Plants Observed on the Subject Property Birds Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) Pileated woodpecker ' Dryocopus pileatus DV N - Turkey vulture Cathartes aura DV N - Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus HV N - Mammals Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) Gray squirrel Sciurus nigeravicennia N,DV N - L Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus OH N Reptiles Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) None None NA NA - Amphibians Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) None 1 None NA NA - Plants Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? l Status (Y/N) Wild Pine* Tillandsia fasciulata DV N CE *=protected species Abbreviations: Agencies FWC=Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA=Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS=United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E=Endangered Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com Protected Species Survey T=Threatened T(S/A)=Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC=Species of Special Concern CE=Commercially Exploited Observations DV=Direct Visual HV=Heard Vocalization OT=Observed Tracks OH=Observed Hole\Burrow MT=Marked Tree C=Cavity DB=Day Bed N=Nest Table 3. Field Time Spent on the Subject Property Date Start Time End Time Man Hours Task March 23,2017 2:00 pm 4:00 pm 4.0(2 ET @ 2 hrs) Species Survey Total 4.0 Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT APPENDIX D DAVIDSON ENGINEERING SITE PLAN Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com GOLDEN GATE BLVD. .� 85 e \ I I\.. `moi _;\\ I .(J 1 1119 11`I I ;.1 '/ ' . r. 1 4 .,, 8s i `�` sa �, aeOji i \ DEVELOPMENT Intee : E% C!UAREAOUTLINEDI +D /isi 'S s -`�\� q4' FOR SANCTUARY/ ' ' g I \\ —' MULTI-PURPOSEy 1 —_ i 1""" 4 BUILDING q C\\`"t\ \\\ .^-_ of_ _ _ I 1� 732 PARKING -- �\ 1 _ m @e i F = SPACES PROVIDED Pw ',..AP n l� 300 SEATS MAX \\N (� ,a• r 5 gg B ���I "' 1i •\� o i Y i �t C \�`, M; .awwa, x \ \� H a \� — ACCESSORY \�\ r. L' p � \ _� ATHLETIC FIELD - \ 1 i •i : - E w E I \\ — \ \\° g z R i ,� —_ •.\\01,,,\t'i Ei fa 0 0.30 ACRE SEPTIC G 4 i \ DRAINFIELD \\N\ @: i i I (RESERVED) ,\\w \\ ±s1, \ \ Ztl� I 5 \\ I I, — .,.- , 1— i.7‘?",\\, Mille r __ 1- T �,>.a,. .,,,N, 1ST AVE SWC - m'";:'� __-__ - --- - - - - O - C5C5 e a SCALE M FEET I PRELIM NARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION i 1�OF 1 Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG\Planning\GIS\2017-06-20 GR SSGMPA-(ZONING).mxd _ _ t,. I LEGEND •-k. - '� `;DATA& ANALYSIS AREA ® GRACEPROPERTY:ROMANIAN625ACRES SSGMPA SUBJECT a ZONING DISTRICTS ,.,. *a �1 -A-MHO \\'‘NI\ ---, -A-PU-c/J 1 l' ‘‘ A-RFMUO 11111A-ST -C-1 I ;'" =C-2 a' -C_3 Q(tJ,T. 1 . -C-4 1 4�z C-5 8-1)1.i IMMOKALEE RD/CR 846 CF II` ^���1 -CF,PUD -(O CFPUD ' r -CPUD 0 l I.CPUD-SBCO m I 1E Y 1GC IPUD -MPUD MI P I ' wR 11 VANDERBILT BEACH( ® r=i PUD ' a. I ._ I ®RMF-12 I I ®RMF-12-GGDCCO I (V I RMF-I2-SBCO S= CO ® ' ®RMF-16 z _ GOLD ®RMF-6 0I EN RMF-6-GGDCCO • RMF-6-SBCO J IIIII RPUD '• I 1 RSF-2 4-11 10I IRSF3 �1��2 I �RSF-3-GGDCCO 1 -r�\1, "PINE'RIDGE'RD , WHITE BLVD IRSF-4 1111 Ir. ct�L���O 'N I RSF-4(3) �' ItL'A _> _-- 1=4 ® ■— rt ,moi G �N RSF-5 11h Q. _,. .�d' RSF-5(0.4) GREEN BLVD IWIN RT I J rig -. I 111 i 1— • =I It IIIP LII - hi((ft._°2 m ', .=.1 ,1111x.— —�=T� - m l CR 186/GOLDENGATE m 1 ,;f I� V1�`� ' Q 1111 W��'-E 41 111) fir' -- azrel. . .0 � to Q S W .*, 1111 1 '111111111111111111 > /.S linly4-M �P 1 2 SOURCES:COLLIER(COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION'SYSTEMS;(2015)4' I r 'Cr.. I I _. 't.mi,C%ADE NAPLES, ENGINEERING, INC.4365 RA GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH APLESDIFLO 3410D,SUITE 201 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT H: SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS Z:1Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG1PIanning\GIS12017-04-24 GR SSGM PA-EXHIBIT H(ZONING EXHIBIT). N W — D E ,t'•`� . a <� , } i k A + , J m , ; x i. $, 11GU[:.>;g GM GS", ,11.J1J\J ki. ":d - 300 FOOT RADIUS w I' GOLDEN BLVD Q .- ,,.." 1ST AVESW s I� I �,w` 1° -' 0 .., �.1 JP A ODC.0 3 7 EDL g27 LEGEND [ GRAOCE RTY:6.ROMAN25 N SRESSGMPASUBJECT PRPEIAAC y.3300 FOOT RADIUS ZONING DISTRICTS OE-ESTATES 0 600 1,200 FEET SOURCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2016) IMP 3 DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH E4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES, FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVDSRONN PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT H: SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG\Planning1GIS\2017-04-24 VC GMPA-EXHIBITI(FLUE EXHIBIT).mxd 11 N 1 W —.f\ — E I B 1 IX W CO W a I o of na.sl .ensww ...a: GOLDEN®12cffg BLVD G7 90'LS5II Q7 o p J 0 CO m ii: 0 -4 1 CJ niJ" r-..11L�CJ1A! ...[:,]:ILS MJ LEGEND GRACE ROMANIAN SSGMPA SUBJECT PROPERTY 6.25 ACRES y_`300 FOOT RADIUS ES-ESTATES-MIXED USE DISTRICT: I mill RESIDENTIAL ESTATES SUBDISTRICTI t 0 600 110K0 lJ.'.1IIIE1Jc(6.2.11,07131=119127:121001))CnJC�lx DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH DE4365 RADIO ROAD, SUITE 201 NAPLES, FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVDSRON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT I: SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS EXHIBIT J This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a Jproject review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. March 8, 2017 Florida Master Jessica Harrelson Site at Senior Project Coordinator File Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone (239)434-6060 Email:jessica@davidsonengineering.com In response to your inquiry of March 08, 2017 the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in the following parcel of Collier County: Parcel#36760720005 When interpreting the results of this search,please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal,state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws,you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Rachel -Thompson Archaeological Data Analyst Florida Master Site File Rachel.thompson@dos.myflorida.com 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee,FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph I 850.245.6439 fax I SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a STOP] project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master / Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. March 8, 2017 Florida ,77Master Jessica Harrelson _ Site Senior Project Coordinator File Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone (239)434-6060 Email:jessica@davidsonengineering.com In response to your inquiry of March 08, 2017 the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in the following parcel of Collier County: Parcel#36760800006 When interpreting the results of this search,please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal,state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws,you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Rachel -Thompson Archaeological Data Analyst Florida Master Site File Rachel.thompson@dos.myflorida.com 500 South Bronough Street• Tallahassee,FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph I 850.245.6439 fax I SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 9511DWG\Planning\GIS\2017-04-24 GR SSGMPA-EXHIBIT K(PUBLIC SERVICES MAP(.mxd L LEGEND ..--) Q SUBJECT PROPERTY:6.25 ACRES r RADIUS_RINGS ZSchools ' COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF FACILITY OHospital North Naples Fire and Rescue Station 42 7010 Immokalee Road IMMOKALEE RD/CR 846 3 MILES + Medical ----}.--�.��_ 0 COLLIER COUNTY FIRE STATION � :Gulf'Coast-High Schtool ��� FIRE DISTRICT I 7878 Shark Way ` II Big Corkscrew Fire Laurel Oak-Elementary 7800 Immokalee'Road I East Naples Fire ,.- Oak Ridge-Middle School a ! 14975 Collier Boulevard I I Golden Gate Fire J j►� 2 MILES 1 North Naples Fire Y L '-- 0 a / �4, 0 •• •• • • / Golden Gate Fire and Rescue Station 73 N • / /� 14575 Collier Boulevard ♦` • • / + VVNDERBILT BEACH RD. 1 MILE ♦♦ CD /6225 Vineyards-Elemeitr `; Arbor Boulevard 1 z �• `j 1 N D GOLDEN GATE BLVD m CL 1 78 1 Golden Gate'Fire and Rescue Station 42 m o co J Big Cypress Elementary School 95 13th Street SW e, ami < m 3520 Goklen Gate Boulevard W i a IL rn O Zi 2w 0‘ / ' w o m OJ / i uJ za ICe I / r ♦ PINE RIDGE RD WHITE BLVD L_ / I 4 :)-.-t:, `� Physicians Regional'Hospital �� � M t 6101 Pine Ridge Road `� II co j •• `��• ISI re ♦` GREEN BLVD,` w- VIII co ITH AVE.SW o 1 I- � 0 ` m ' 5 / J % W I Golden Gate-Elementary: I� 491120th Place SW 0 IIS ``�'OCn-SO G_olden_Gate SubstatioDist`2�' Golden.Gate Fire and.Iescue Station 70,1'707 Go den Gate'Parkway 4741 Golden Gate ParkwaGolden Terrace North-Elementary 0 x2711 44th Te!-race SW N CR 886/GOLDEN GATE Golden_G tl=Middle School Golden Terrace South-Elementary 270,1 148th Terrace SW 2965 44th Terrace SW �jI�E S o m Mike Davis-Elementary Golden.Gate-High School 3215 Magnolia Pond Drive W— <r---2-9-25Titan Way 5 0 1 2 O SMILES SOURCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2017) R 93/ith /-75 DEDAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES,FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE239434-6060 EXHIBIT K: PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC SERVICES INSTR 5339200 OR 5337 PG 3573 RECORDED 11/30/2016 9:06 AM PAGES 2 DWIGHT E. BROOK, CLERK $OF1 THE CIRCUIT COURT, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA EXHIBIT L DOC@.70 $4,725.00 REC $18.50 CONS $675,000.00 Prepared by: Bradley D.Bryant Bryant Law Office 4851 Tamiami Trail North Suite 300 Naples,FL 34103 239-566-1001 File Number Grace.MDLT.BB Consideration.:$675,000.00 Prepared without examination or opinion of title [Space Above This Line For Recording Data] Warranty„im,_Deed This Warranty Deed made this 28thday''''f�l �..ii-t►-,. MDLT Holdings, LLC, a Florida limited liability company whose post office address isGolden Gate ' , Suite 106,Naples, FL 34105,grantor, and • "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church or Nltpjet,Inc., a Florida not for • I fit rporation whose post office address is 6017 Pine Ridge Road,#84,Naples,111 3421$,grauteel, _ylr (Whenever used herein the terms"grantor"alid"gint " 'n ude • ...a .:.,'- , th• ',1. ,,-,. and e heirs, legal representatives,and assigns of :_ individuals,and the successors and assigns of oiport .«. r 1 11 Witnesseth,that said grantor, for ..;'.r •:ti•. o • -t... of N100 DOLLARS ($10.00)and other good and valuable considerations to :A:. or in ban. paid .y. '. gran, , 1ipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, has granted, bargained, and sold to tlie,4t4 grantee, and grantee's*Es a r. , forever, the following described land, situate,lying and being in Collier Count lurida to-wit: 7`j, , • L. The West half of Tract 15,Gel .Estates Unit No.4,- g to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4,Page 79, �c r1Co. sfy,Florida. AND All of Tract 16,Golden Gate Estates Unit No.4,according to the map or plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4,Page 79,Public records of Collier County,Florida. • Parcel Identification Number:36760720005/36760800006 Together with all the tenements,hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining. To Have and to Hold,the same in fee simple forever. And the grantor hereby covenants with said grantee that the grantor is lawfully seized of said land in fee simple; that the grantor has good right and lawful authority to sell and convey said land;that the grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever; and that said land is free of all encumbrances,except taxes accruing subsequent to December 31,2015. In Witness Whereof,grantor has hereunto set grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. DoubleTimee *** OR 5337 PG 3574 *** Signed,sealed and delivered in our presence: MDLT H. •ings,LLC,a lorida li i 'ted liability company By: r NALWitness Nam l: ,_04,1Mer. Erik E.Mogelv: ,M:.. ter (Corporate Seal) •••N V e: N lina (CorporatNicoutiA Pl1BUC t-sT ~ _4. Xsores 312018 State of Florida 1 County of Collier Q The foregoing instrument was acknow4dgett * •`metbisallh_d,ay.pf November,2016 by Erik E.Mogelvang,Manager of MDLT Holdings,LLC,a Florida 1' ted liabili < •.any_on behalf pf the corporation. He[...]is personally known to me or[X]has produced a driver's lic . • as i• oap. vAff [Notary Seal] ( h_ •1 I Pri •" e: Nikolina Dimitrova My Co sires: 3/23/2018 Warranty Deed-Page 2 DoubleTimee EXHIBIT M LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Davidson Engineering, Inc. (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property k entified in this Application, Signed: Adrian Ro an, President/Secretary, "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. Date: �t4 `0Qn I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the for-going application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge a Si• titure of Applicant {NiaC\Q \ (R \ \ces•�5&ck Name-Typed or Printed STATE OF (RV(jo, COUNTY OF ( cevig.l , Sworn to and subscribed before me this \ M`)�day of . " , 1'!LL_�1� b 13C}, MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: SINCJA\Ct1 oO Notary ublic CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: ywho is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and /` did take an Oath ""�►',,, JESSICA MARRELSON "* Notary Public-Slab of Florida did not take and Oath '• " Commission N FF 954332 4 of My Comm.ExpUas May 18,2020 NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: "'„a%0 Bonded through National Notary Assn Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 7 AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION I,Adrian Roman (print name), as President&Secretary, (title, if applicable)of"Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc., (company, if applicable), swear or affirm under oath,that I am the (choose one): The owner X applicant contract purchaserand that: 1. I have full authority to secure the approval(s) requested and to impose covenants and restrictions on the referenced property as a result of any action approved by the County in accordance with this application and the Land Development Code; 2. All answers to the questions in this application and any sketches,data or other supplementary matter attached hereto and made a part of this application are honest and true; 3. I have authorized the staff of Collier County to enter upon the property during normal working hours for the purpose of investigating and evaluating the request made through this application; and that 4. The property will be transferred, conveyed, sold or subdivided subject to the conditions and restrictions imposed by the approved action. 5. We/I authorize Davidson Engineering, Inc. to act as our/my representative in any matters regarding this petition including 1 through 2 above. 6. Applicant is the owner of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed submittal; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of Applicant's knowledge and belief; and that if Applicant is not providing an attorney's opinion of title,that the information Applicant provided to the surveyor is sufficient to prepare an accurate boundary survey for this application, and is honest and true to the best of Applicant's knowledge and belief. 7. Applicant understands that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed, shall not be altered. Applicant further understands that if Public Hearings are required,they will not be advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted. *Notes: • If the applicant is a corporation, then it is usually executed by the corp.pres.or v.pres. •If the applicant is a Limited Liability Company(L.L.C.)or Limited Company(L.C.),then the documents should typically be signed by the Company's"Managing Member." •If the applicant is a partnership, then typically a partner can sign on behalf of the partnership. •If the applicant is a limited partnership, then the general partner must sign and be identified as the "general partner"of the named partnership. • If the applicant is a trust, then they must include the trustee's name and the words"as trustee". • In each instance,first determine the applicant's status, e.g., individual, corporate, trust,partnership, and then use the appropriate format for that ownership. Under penalties of perjury,I declare that I have read the foregoing Affidavit of Authorization and that the facts stated in it are true. -1000 "X-XlAj4 7-4.14Mh4 5.4 i411Signature \� Printed Name -1(J STATE OF '\dQ COUNTY OF COUc The foregoing instrument was sworn to (or affirmed)and subscribed before me on \ k Qf (date) by ACC `ar t\ (name of person providing oath or affirmation), s `V(t5l k" who is personally known to me or who has produced (type of identification) as identification. L. STAMP/SEAL I ,�' % JjTtureoNoüiC e iftyl Notary Public-Sti a of Florida s,• f Commission#FF 954332 .,,�-.:-cep My Comm.Expires May 16,2020 '' Bonded through'National Notary Assn. EXHIBIT N DECivil Engineering • Planning • Permitting DAVIDSON ENGINEERING www.davidsonengineering.com ALTERNATIVE SITE DATA & ANALYSIS GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH SSGMPA CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT PREPARED FOR: "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. 6017 Pine Ridge Road,#84 Naples, FL 34109 and PREPARED BY: Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 Naples, Florida 34104 March 1, 2018 � I 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 •Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 • F:(239)434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 Sarasota,FL 34236 P:(941)309-5180 Contents Purpose: 2 Physical Description of Subject Property: 2 Data &Analysis: 3 Alternative Site Analysis: 5 Attachments: Attachment A—Location Map Attachment B—Aerial with Florida Land Cover Classification System Overlay Attachment C—Protected Listed Species Survey Attachment D—Vicinity Map to Existing Parishioners Attachment E—Location Map of Alternative Facilities Offering Similar Denominational Opportunities Attachment F—Alternate Property Map (within Market Study Area) Attachment G—Parcel 75180000120 Information Attachment H—Sungate CPUD-Ordinance 09-06 Attachment I—Parcel 36618000107 and 36618000000 Information Attachment.1—Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy—White Paper 2 Purpose: The purpose of this data & analysis report is to provide an evaluation for a modification to the existing Conditional Uses Subdistrict within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; demonstrating a change to the existing Growth Management Plan (GMP) as warranted. The proposed conditional use is located at the southeast corner of the signalized intersection of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard West(see Attachment A - Location Map) and consists of ±6.25 acres of land. The intent of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict is to provide specific areas and properties for approved conditional uses within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The Collier County GMP currently designates the aforementioned property (±6.25 acres) as part of the Residential Estates Sub-district within the Estates Mixed Use District of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. This designation allows the following uses: Group Housing, Parks, and Recreational Areas/Open Space, Single Family Residential (at a density of 1 unit per 2.25 acre), Essential Services,and Nursing Homes. The additional development of uses are available through a conditional use application. The proposal of this amendment application is to identify the location and allowable square footage/maximum number of seats within the Conditional Uses Subdistrict in order to construct a church at the proposed location. Upon final approval and adoption of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA), the property will move forward with its companion Conditional Use application for zoning and a Site Development Plan; meeting the intent of the Land Development Code by identifying a proposed church facility with allowable accessory uses within the±6.25-acre parcel. Physical Description of Subject Property: Recently, ecologist Jeremy Sterk of Earth Tech Environmental, LLC, prepared a Florida Land Use Cover Classifications System (FLUCCS) map and reviewed the potential protected species correlated with the FLUCCS map for the subject property. The FLUCCS shows ±6.25 acres as identified with a single-family house (2.27 acres), native vegetation (3.88 acres), and disturbed lands (0.08 acres); please refer to Attachment B. The potential protected species report advises that there are likely no protected species on-site; please refer to Attachment C. p 2 3 Data & Analysis: To justify the need for the Future Land Use designation modification, a data & analysis review has been performed. This report identifies justifications to demonstrate the requested amendment is warranted. Criteria for this analysis include proximity of the local church's parishioners, properties at the intersections or close to arterial and collector roadways, and existing availability of potential development sites between 5 and 10 acres from Interstate-75 (forming the western boundary) to five miles east (eastern boundary), the border of between Collier and Lee Counties (the northern boundary) and Golden Gate Parkway to the south (forming the final boundary of the data & analysis study area). The limiting criteria were selected based on vacancy,size, current market value of land, and accessibility to parishioners. The subject property,as well as any alternative sites, have been evaluated to ensure that the existing and future demographics will support the proposed land use based on the following: • Vicinity to Existing Local Parishioners • Location of Alternate Facilities Offering Similar Traditional Worship Opportunities • Property Availability and Compatibility with the proposed development Vicinity to Existing Local Parishioners Demographic information is an excellent indicator of demand for proposed services that currently do not exist. Population statistics for the data analysis were obtained from the Church/applicant; refer to Attachment D. In this case, the parishioners are local to the area and as such, there are no seasonal impacts to the population. Location of Alternative Facilities Offering Similar Denominational Opportunities In defining a warranted use for the requested service,locations of existing facilities with identical or similar services provided were also identified; refer to Attachment E. The results are listed below, along with the respective addresses and distance from the ±6.25-acre proposed location: 1. Grace Romanian Baptist Church 1542 Harrison St, Hollywood, FL 33020 (122.0 mi) 2. New Life Romanian Baptist Church 1950 Van Buren St, Hollywood, FL 33020 (123.0 mi) 3. Betania Romanian Baptist Church 4001 Hendricks Ave,Jacksonville, FL 32207 (379.0 mi) 4. First Romanian Baptist Church 6423 Marbletree Ln, Lake Worth, FL 33467 (132.0 mi) 5. Romanian Baptist Church 5416 County Rd 579,Seffner, FL 33584 (160.0 mi) 3 4 Property Availability Due to the specific nature of the land use proposed, minimum criteria and constraints have been established in defining potential available sites. The key criteria for site development are as follows: • Minimum 5 acres in size • Maximum 10 acres in size • Minimum Lot width of 330 Linear Feet • Located with frontage on an arterial or collector roadway • A maximum of 5 miles east of Interstate-/+75,north of Golden Gate Parkway within Collier County • Sale Price of Less than or equal to$135,000 per acre In making the decision to proceed with the subject site (±6.25-acre property), all viable sites that are available were reviewed and discussed. Due to the limited amount of undeveloped properties meeting the criteria (including PUD's with similar uses and intensities permitted), few options existed; refer to Attachment F. Available property includes the following: Option#1 Folio#'s: 75180000120 Address/Legal: 4087 GREEN BLVD, NAPLES FL 34116 OR 4468 PG 3302 Parcel Size: 5.17 Acres Zoning: Sungate CPUD (Ordinance No. 09-06; refer to Attachment H) The site is generally located on the corner of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard approximately 3.00 miles east of Interstate-75; refer to Attachment G. Option#2 Folio#'s: 36618000107, 36618000000 Address/Legal: GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 1 S1/2 OF TR 120, LESS E 35FT FOR R/W and GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 1 N1/2 OF TR 120, LESS E 35FT FOR R/W AS DESC IN ORDER TAKING OR 4613 PG 1761 Parcel Size: 5.00 Acres Zoning: Estates The site is generally located midblock on the western side Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951). Approximately 0.13 miles north of Pine Ridge Road. Limiting access points are located on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951). 4 5 Alternative Site Analysis: To further identify a need for the Future Land Use Element and Map designation amendment of the subject property, an alternative site analysis was completed based on the locational and dimensional features of the subject property; along with the required zoning designations required for future development of the proposed land use. The following criteria identify the unique features associated with the subject property to perform a data and analysis review required to support the Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA). Within the analysis,the subject property (±6.25 acres)and the alternative sites were evaluated by their consistency with the following: • Minimum 5 acres in size • Maximum 10 acres in size • Minimum Lot width of 330 Linear Feet • Located at a corner an arterial or collector roadway with frontage • A maximum of 5 miles east of Interstate 75, north of Golden Gate Parkway within Collier County • Sale Price of Less than or equal to$135,000 per acre These specific criteria were chosen to identify alternative sites that may be similar to the subject property to develop and operate the proposed land use. The property acreage and dimensional criteria have been chosen to ensure the proposed church will be afforded the same, or better, net developable area the master concept plan illustrates to develop the proposed mixture of principal and accessory land uses; i.e. a proposed sanctuary, multi-purpose fields and support structures as necessary. Per the current Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy-White Paper, a survey was conducted regarding the allowance of additional Conditional Uses in the Rural Estates. Most individuals polled that additional Conditional Uses should be allowed at more locations within the Rural Estates, and specifically at arterial intersections.Therefore,the locality of the site on an arterial or collector roadway specifically identifies a location that is compatible with the present Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy; refer to Attachment J. Additionally,the location on an arterial and/or collector road will not only provide better site visibility, it will provide the proposed development with available transportation conveniences in the forms of increased vehicular access by comparison to those sites without access to major thoroughfares. By defining the area of development east of Interstate 75,and north of Golden Gate Parkway within Collier County, a site can be identified that will benefit the existing parishioners commute to the proposed development and defines an area that meets the requests of the church. As a final criterion, cost per acre was evaluated. It was deemed a critical component to determining available property due to the non-profit business of the church facilities. Places of worship, specifically Grace Romanian Baptist Church,does not generate an income that provides the church a profit,therefore affordability of available property to the applicant is essential. 5 6 In making the decision to proceed with future development of the subject property, all viable sites that are available were reviewed. It is assumed that all vacant/undeveloped and/or cleared properties adhere to criteria of availability with the addition of a Multiple Listing Search (MLS) for properties meeting the identified criterion. Due to the limited amount of available properties (including PUD's with Church Facilities),few alternative option exists. Proposed Site Location Folio#'s: 36760720005, 36760800006 Address/Legal: 3899 1St Avenue SW/GOLDEN GTE EST UNT 4 W1/2 OF TR 15 OR 1494 PG 211 GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 4 TR 16 Parcel Size: 6.25 Acres Zoning: Estates The proposed site is owned by the applicant. It is currently zoned Estates. Currently,the site is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Upon the successful completion of this GMPA application,the proposed church and accessory land uses will be found consistent and permitted within the Subdistrict and subsequent zoning. As noted above, to develop the property for a church, the applicant is required to file a GMPA and a companion Conditional Use application for the property. The GMPA's intent is to justify and permit the proposed land use at this location based on a thorough data analysis. A Conditional Use application will be necessary to develop the site for the church facility. This site meets all of the stated criteria and is further justified by the data analysis. Alternate Site Locations: Alternate Site#1: Property located on the corner of Green Boulevard and Collier Boulevard approximately 3.00 miles east of 1-75 Zoning: Sungate CPUD;Attachment H Folio#'s: 75180000120;Attachment G Parcel Size: 5.17 Acres Ordinance 09-06 defines the zoning and development control of this property. These parcels are void of any development. The identified site is Tract B within the Sungate CPUD with commercial zoning and is set to accommodate a total of 63,000 square feet. Identified in the Future Land Use Map as the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict,the GMP does not limit intensity. It can be argued that this location has the potential of providing more visibility due to its location,although developable area and available square footage of development limit the site. Per the Planned Unit Development Tracts B, C,and D are limited to 63,000 square feet of commercial buildout. If the available commercial development is rationed according to site acreage—Tract B would be limited to approximately 50,000 sf of building. Additionally, per the PUD Ord. 09-06, Tracts B, C, and D would be responsible for 6 providing water management facilities for 1.02 acres of County owned right-of-way and Tract A (2.04 Acres)further limiting the available developable area within Tract B. Due to the Commercial Planned Unit Development zoning on the site,the intensity of the property is limited;thereby inhibiting space for the proposed use. When compared to the proposed site location for compatibility and consistency with the intensity of the site from a zoning standpoint,the proposed site location is more logical and better suited site than this parcel. Alternate Site#2: Located midblock on Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) approximately 0.13 miles north of Pine Ridge Road. Zoning: Estates;Attachment I Folio Ws: 36618000107, 36618000000 Parcel Size: 5.00 Acres The property is currently zoned Estates with a combined lot width of 330 linear feet and acreage of 5.00 available for development. These parcels are currently void of any development; and were identified through a MLS as available property. It can be argued that this location meets all the requested criterion, based on property acreage and dimensional criteria, location of the site on an arterial or collector roadway within the defined area of and study. However,to develop the site as proposed,the property would also require a GMPA and Conditional Use Rezone. Additionally, based on existing conditions of adjacent properties, access from Collier Boulevard will be granted to the site via a single egress/ingress point to the Boulevard; therefore, limiting access to the parishioners during peak transportation hours for the church. Additionally, the right-of-way directly adjacent to the property is designed as a±8-foot deep storm water management detention pond utilized for the roadway storm water attenuation; thus, increasing the cost of constructing the proposed access and increasing the permitting fees. Furthermore,of the properties analyzed this site demands the highest cost at$138,000.00 per acre. As a completely vegetated lot with a number of site improvements that will need to be addressed,to develop would be too costly for the church to absorb. When compared to the proposed site location for compatibility and consistency with the criterion previously identified,the subject property provides more site accessibility and cost-efficiency to develop per the wants and needs of the applicant. In addition,the proposed property better suits the integrity of the Estates Golden Gate Area Master Plan in reference to conditional use properties within the Golden Gate Area. 7 8 Alternative Site Analysis Table CRITERIA PROPOSED SITE LOCATION ALT.SITE#1 ALT. SITE#2 Folio#s 36760720005& (SUNGATE CPUD) Folio#s 36760800006 Folio#75180000120 36618000107& 36618000000 PROPERTY SIZE OF 5-10 ACRES ±6.25 acres ±5.17 acres ±5 acres SALE PRICE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO$135,000 $444,104.13/acre Sale Price- PER ACRE Sale Price-$135,000/acre (currently y not on $138,000/acre market) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 330 LINEAR FEET Yes Yes Yes LOCATED WITH FRONTAGE ON AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR Yes Yes Yes ROADWAY MAXIMUM OF 5 MILES EAST OF INTERSTATE-75, NORTH OF GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY&WITHIN Yes Yes Yes COLLIER COUNTY 9 ATTACHMENT "A" Location Map 10 Z:1Active Projects\GIGRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG\Planning\GIS\2017-04-24 GR SSGMPA-EXHIBITD(LOCATION MAP(.mxd _) N \ L / J W�,__ E I s VANDERBILT BEACH I n 1 1 I ( , I L - 11111 GOLDEN GATE BLVD 1I I l) l ll ) in i r cii PINE RIDGE RD V-- < < I 1 I 1 I 5 LEGEND f I I -SUBJECT PROPERTY:6.25 ACRES - ---- MAJOR ROADWAYS ( 0 0.5 1 SOURCESCO�'COUNTY GEOGRAP'IC'INFORMATION'Sr STEMS'(2017)T MILES_, 6 q' ‘,. '-+e� HEND' PAL :EACH l rit s A eR. �. �ni tli COLLIER - -p MO imp. 44 - v.1l Ott!" , DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH D ERADIO 4,SUITE 201 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAV ' 99! PHONE: 239-434-6060 LOCATION MAP ENGINEERING 11 ATTACHMENT "B" Aerial with Florida Land Cover Classification System Overlay 12 rv,,, xxw t ` yy Ti of A 4£^Y h ' ..... :.... :, - -4 ' ^ '' - - GOLDEN GATE BLVD W n VIRRIMPINIP 0.08 Ac WO WOOS — I40:2z9 77 4.;,i,r4illaiii CX1 . R r E f a) U J req 0 co w rc U m • F.9 -- 'a , 5~ I.- Q Subject Property *" -t FLUCCS Mapping ' 7vtiO CD Q t�!oo ? 110 Single Family Residential u Note; ', xx 4; 624-D,Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm(drained) 1D 2017Aenalobteined from Collier County 740,Disturbed Land ¢ Property Appraiser -* �, ET°c6 EARTH TECH ENVIRONMENTAL LLC A F,i,�JCCS Ma8 Grace Romanian Church 455 RAIL HEAD BLVDSUITE8 P NAPLES. FLORIDA 34110 L, Collier County,FloridalEmbeemese..1.LLC PHONE (239) 304-0030 FAX (239) 324-0054 sxee'o X DATE4/12/17 o,em N/A SCAMASSHOWN 13 ATTACHMENT "C" Protected Listed Species Survey 14 PROTECTED SPECIES SURVEY s ttl . ;; GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH PARCEL NAPLES, FLORIDA 11/4 30 Ak APPROXIMATELY 6.25 ACRES k3 Prepared For: gy r a . II� / Collier County Engineering& qtr Ccunty Natural Resources Department r r ,., C , ",`' j:, j .I 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 •i"iii South Florida Water Management District (SRA/MD)(SFMD) Q ; m Lower West Coast Service Center 2301 McGregor Boulevard Fort Myers, FL 33901 Prepared By: k' arth Tee Earth Tech Environmental, LLC "'" ` 6 1455 Rail Head Boulevard,Suite 8 Naples, FL 341 I 0 r'tii k -, IN 239.304.0030 Environmental,LLC www•eteflorida.com , : ct w #fits April 12, 2017 15 Protected Species Survey -- INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to provide a search for listed species on the Grace Romanian Church parcel prior to development of the property as a church campus. LOCATION The Grace Romanian Church property is located on the corner of Collier Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard West, in Section I I, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The parcel is approximately 6.23 acres. See (Figure I) below for Location Map. 1/111111140! . - 111141001110/11411.-• ILE Itillrb"" IPA ill It %ill iii ,.. SITE LOCATION TIii 141004,,,..:_•:• _ ' MI6' LIIII PME E r II: I 'y� HDERRiIT BEACH MD YANDERBET BEACH MEETMEET ,47P ERNIURG 1l1 ?NAVE NW ',THREE NW !`IPS # 6TH AVE NW,.i 5P4/:,.___ VE NW C 1111 ` i ODRALWDDD DR �AVENW1:7 3iDAVENW i i. E Y_ 1" 1.111111111 TEAR NCIDD DR DET AVE NW _ n. ri1": GATE BL W arlir $MA GANY ROGER IIll T8 I_ a1DAVE SW 'AYE SW rn '�CORAL �:. pg ."--'... '— STHAVE SW # RISME SW F3 (�is� F.�` �Ny small-•L SPRINGS J 7TH AVE SW TTN AVE SW / _ = A�•.'T ♦:♦ i. O i� PNE RIDGE RD EXT 9 WHITE am M 1 �����t� " '• PINE, OLLYLEAH 00 •::;:l ; - LEAH _ rc ♦ ��� is _.,11THAVE SW In" AVE" 13TH AVESW i4THAVE SW ._. 1 18TH AVE SW MN AVE SRI 1 1 r �/G ,yFtEEN am-- .-Ya .? Figure I.Site Location Map SPECIES SURVEY MATERIALS & METHODS The species survey was conducted using a methodology similar to that discussed in the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) publication "Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large-scale Development in Florida."This methodology is as follows: Existing vegetation communities or land-uses on the subject site are delineated on a recent aerial photograph (Collier County 2017) using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). FLUCCS mapping for this property is detailed below in (Figures 2 & 3). The resulting FLUCCS codes are cross-referenced with a list of protected plant and animal species.The lists were obtained from two agency publications: Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com 16 Protected Species Survey ❖ A list of animals and birds was obtained from the FWC publication "Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species & Species of Special Concern-Official Lists", Publication Date: October 2016. ❖ A list of protected plant species was obtained from the publication "Notes on Florida's Endangered and Threatened Plants", Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Plant Industry, Bureau of Entomology, Nematology & Plant Pathology- Botany Section, Contribution 38, 5th Edition (2010). The result is a composite table that contains the names of the protected species which have the highest probability of occurring in each FLUCCS community.See(Table I) of this report for the species list that applies to this property. In the field, each FLUCCS community is searched for listed species or signs of listed species. This is accomplished using a series of transects throughout each vegetation community. If necessary,transect integrity is maintained using a handheld GPS in track mode. Signs or sightings of all listed and non-listed species are then recorded. Listed species locations are typically flagged and marked by GPS. Based on the habitat types found on this parcel of land, particular attention was paid to the presence or absence of fox squirrels and listed plants. EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Temperatures during the fieldwork for this survey were in the mid 80's. Cloud cover was absent. Approximately four(4) man-hours were logged on the property during this species survey. (Table 3) details date and time spent in the field. The Subject Property has the following surrounding land uses: West Collier Blvd North Golden Gate Blvd.West/Residential South Residential East Residential Listed below are the FLUCCS communities identified on the site. The following community descriptions correspond to the mappings on the FLUCCS map below. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation, Surveying & Mapping Geographic Mapping Section, 1999) for definitions. FLUCCS 110, Residential, Low Density, 2.27 Acres This community consists of low-density rural areas characterized by a relatively small number of homes per acre.This type of land is almost entirely committed to residential use, even though it may include forest or range types. FLUCCS 624-D, Pine—Cypress—Cabbage palm (Drained), 3.88 Acres This is the largest vegetation community on the subject property. Canopy vegetation includes scattered bald cypress, slash pine and cabbage palm. Other vegetation observed includes grapevine, beauty berry, cocoplum, sword fern, myrsine, dahoon holly, strangler fig, and isolated patches of saw palmetto. Exotic plants were estimated at be <50%and included Brazilian pepper, ear-leaf acacia, old- world climbing fern,Java plum, and Caesar weed. The ground is covered in heavy mats of slash pine needles and other duff. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com 17 Protected Species Survey FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Land, 0.10 acres Disturbed Lands are areas which have been changed due primarily to human activities.On the subject property,this area consists of a small, unfinished turnoff/driveway in the north-central vicinity. The following table is summary of FLUCCS communities and corresponding acreages: I CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 110 Residential,Low Density 227 624-D i Pine—Cypress—Cabbage Palm(drained) 3.88 740 i Disturbed Land 0.10 Site Total: 6.25 ii. GOLDEN GATE BLVD W I S23 710 '¢ Ot Acs I 710 D1 Ac 'a.. 110 227Ac ; Ra z. I ,1 QSubjedt ProVenY I 4 '" FLUCCS Mapping 110,Single Forney Residential Has i ° 1. 624-D,Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm(drained) 2OP'l ry,aoba ae Iran Caner Court co Ez) 740,Disturbed Land Figure 2.Aerial with FLUCCS Mapping Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com 18 Protected Species Survey GOLDEN GATE BLVD W 740 1 08Ac 710 El Ac 620D 3.88 Ac 740 .01 Ac 110 2.27 Ac !j] O U Q Std Prope 1y FLUCCS Mapping 110.Single Family Reaidentiei 824-1.Pine•Cypress•Cebbege Peim(dreinedl o 000 204 41:0 ( 740.OWwbed Lend Figure 3. FLUCCS Mapping RESULTS/DISCUSSION The various protected species which may occur in the corresponding FLUCCS communities are shown in (Table I). All animal species observed on the subject parcel are detailed in (Table 2). Within (Table 2), any protected species observed are specifically noted. See (Figure 4) below for results and field observations. Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com 19 Protected Species Survey A ' ,y _�` - GOLDEN GATE BLVD W r � -..,,..k.—,.. 1P ' :8°,, ,40 .: 4 y.k- .p '..r '��� � R OB AC 740 .� 'el S � 4 624D , . r. '.7 3.88Ac .. ti " 'ii ,"^1! yd ! ,." 740 .. ,.; *.;.. .01.1\c `" 2 27 Ac` fs. Apponmaion a Species$one,Trans.,' 4-4- ; H-. , . FLUCCS Mapping 110,Single Family Residential I . 624-D,Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm(drained) 0 © 740,Disturbed Land 2017A4iN obtained kom CollawCounty Properly Appraisera t"'\ Figure 4. Protected Species Survey Transect Map& Field Results Below are discussions of each listed species observed on the property: Wild Pine (Tillandsia fasciculate) Several common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) were observed in trees within the parcel. No other listed species or signs of listed species were observed on the property. , Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com 20 Protected Species Survey Table I. Protected Species List According to FLUCCS Category FLUCCS Potential Listed Species Scientific Name Designated Status FWC/FDA FWS ' 624 Florida Black Bear Ursus americanus floridanus T Florida Panther Felis concolor coryi E E Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea T Snowy Egret Egretta thula T Tricolored Heron Egretta tricolor T Abbreviations: Agencies FWC=Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA=Florida Deportment of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS=United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E=Endangered T=Threatened T(S/A)=Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC=Species of Special Concern C=Commercially Exploited Table 2. Birds, Mammals,Amphibians, Reptiles, & Plants Observed on the Subject Property Birds Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus DV N - Turkey vulture Cathartes aura DV N - Red shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus HV N - Mammals Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) Gray squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia N,DV N - Armadillo Dasypus novemcinctus OH N Reptiles Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) None None NA NA - Amphibians Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) None None NA NA - Plants Common Name Scientific Name Observation Listed? Status (Y/N) Wild Pine" Tillandsia fasciulata DV N CE =protected species Abbreviations: Agencies FWC=Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FDA=Flonda Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FWS=United States Fish and Wildlife Service Status E=Endangered Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com 21 Protected Species Survey ^ T=Threatened T(S/A)=Threatened/Similarity of Appearance SSC=Species of Special Concern CE=Commercially Exploited Observations DV=Direct Visual HV=Heard Vocalization OT=Observed Tracks OH=Observed Hole\Burrow MT=Marked Tree C=Cavity DB=Day Bed N=Nest Table 3. Field Time Spent on the Subject Property Date Start Time End Time Man Hours Task March 23,2017 2:00 pm 4:00 pm 4.0(2 ET @ 2 hrs) Species Survey Total 4.0 Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.etefloridacom 22 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT APPENDIX D DAVIDSON ENGINEERING SITE PLAN Earth Tech Environmental,LLC 1455 Rail Head Blvd,Suite 8,Naples,FL 34110 www.eteflorida.com 23 ............ iiiitnt tro`tE2 1 E 1 .P. GOLDEN GATE BLVD ti 1 / i ._.....,....J.,_.....`, ,. '''''',t,-‘• —--- 1 ‘.., *--.Aw AREA OUTLINED C I * 11) I "'‘'.... "'-f------ FOR SANCTUARY/ SI' '‘‘. ...,— MULTI-PURPOSE _ R 11514 /I - --------4 C BUILDING i ...,-,---, .,\,-, / '"IK — 132 PARKING 4 di I , ......_ i \ - — 300 SEATS MAX .1111P 6' .... .... I ; ' —• I ' i ( ii1 c 4 1 1----.. II i 1 i X/ I J g ‘ , t N\ \st. • MITII,V:4: % \ •we g 5 , ! ACCESSORY ATHLETIC FIELD t •NN\N : i 1 E I t \ \\ ! I \\\I\! = D ts" ' ''' s '\ 0 30 ACRE SEPTU IC -,..\\„, 1 DRAINFIELD \\"..<€i I i (RESERVED) *— .1111 i- 72,- Ill iI NE, -• ttt,......., \\4„,..N,Nt-\ i ST AVE SW i a - -- :.:7.4....., $ i ...' ,1 --- --- - - - -A. ,...- , , • 0 PRE I i . I . , . WALE IN MET ; 1 LIM]NARY-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -.w.. -- ,... 1 OF 1__.. .......... ATTACHMENT "D" Vicinity Map to Existing Parishioners 25 Z:1Active Projects 1G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 9511DWG1PIanning\GIS12017-04-25 GR SSGMPA(MEMBERSHIP LOCATION).mxd ■ I ■ ■ I I I I c ■ I ■ I I ■ I I I i II j ■ir— Immo r1 IN mar us mar rMMr.r.1•1110M1=MEM rrrrrrr r••ror.ir■rl • I `i + (OIL WELL RD IMMOKALEE RD , o • J ■ ? • • m • 1 .� 1. • o i la VANDERBILT BEACH CD I- I Wi w ii -1 0 GOLDEN GATE BLVD w o° f I • • a PINE RIDGE RD •I It 14 IX ■ W Y� d C •.7) I • i ZZ f/) IY M I R c.) • I it ILI L 0,00•01147'.". W J • p 0 RADIO RD 1 _ issi `- DAVIS BLVD ■ 0,r, vi 1 � ( .1o (''s' Legend iir�7 �,DATA&ANALYSIS AREA • �..I SUBJECT PROPERTY:6.25 ACRES • EXISTING CHURCH MEMBER LOCATIONS ' MAJOR ROADWAYS • r it,lt ir ti.■ COLLIER COUNTY BOUNDARY ----`URCES:COLLIER COUNTYZGEOGRAPHIC?INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2017) DEDAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES,FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXISTING CONGREGATION LOCATION 26 ATTACHMENT "E" Location Map of Alternative Facilities Offering Similar Denominational Opportunities 27 Z:IActive Pro'ects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 9511DWG1PIannin.1GIS12017-10-12 GR SSGMPA GR LOCATIONS FL.mxd NW 1100.411.11. c_N_____y_____ y _ A „",,,„„,..,_ 4001 HENDRICKS AV.E,-JACKSONVILLE. FL 32207 .,,. lit !._ . iiir - ',,,, ik „,,,, ,441, , , i , Iiii N,11110411 ‘L. ) I - )1/4 0 "1kt;� 1,1r* 1111111 /, 5416 COUNTY RD 579, SEFFNER \FL 33584 b ��\ t 11111 MS, II Illi a"-74V *;,:_,1 t 6423 MARBLETREE LN, LAKE WORTH, FL 33467 jE 1542 HARRISON W ST, HOLLYOOD,,-FL 33020 1950 VAN BUREN1FST, HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020. Niti ' r . LegendX11- ., • , M�.}• I EXISTING FLORIDA ROMANIAN BAPTIST DENOMINATION CHURCHES 41:.• • �VRCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2017) L. DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH D E 4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES,FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE:239-434-6060 EXISTING FLORIDA ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCHES 28 ATTACHMENT "F" Alternate Property Map (within Market Study Area) 29 Z:Active Pro'ectslGIGRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 9511DWG1PIannin.1GIS12017-10-12 GR SSGMPA ALT.PARCELS ZONING.mxd ` 22ALTERNATIVE;PROPERTIES STUDY AREA - Q1 UQ ACRES(SEPARATELY�COLLECTIVELY) ,=ALONG •OLLECTORORROWS 6ZONING '-Gu1 �C1GREZONE al CONDITIONAL QUA(WIT'OUT A GMPA REQUEST) I ;, ; I ,, , i IMMOKALEE RD li ANDERBILT BEACH* GOLDEN GATE BLVD t-,,,,, :< „1 , I I . :- } ,:; 3.66180.00,1,07 366,1.80.00.0.00 7 r '4 I RIDGE 11!) ,6 _ x s m s I 75,1:80000120. ., I ( I , Legend a p . • L.J DATA&ANALYSIS AREA .'�,�Sw�� MN SUBJECT PROPERTY:6.25 ACRES OLDEN IIJL�i7 u"tnysi� - ED MARKET STUDY AREA:AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE PROPERTIES tt COLLIER COUNTY(M=IMMI�1 IA__ EM DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH D E4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES, FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVNDR9M PHONE: 239-434-6060 AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE PROPERTIES 30 ATTA C H M E N T "G" Parcel 75180000120 Information 31 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 75180000120 I Site Adr. 4087 GREEN BLVD, NAPLES, FL 34116 Name/Address COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES INC 1454 MADISON AVE W City IMMOKALEE State FL Zip 34142 -i F----- Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 4615 646900 B 14615 15 49 26 5.17 I Legal SUNGATE CENTER PUD TRACT B, LESS THAT PORTION AS DESC IN OR 4468 PG 3302 Millage Area 0 i 100 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 1646900- SUNGATE CENTER PUD IN UNIT 26 School Other Total LUse Code 0 10-VACANT COMMERCIAL 5.245 6.4442 11.6892 Latest Sales History 2016 Certified Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) r Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 1,352,325 03/18/14 5020-3283 $ 2,900,000 (+) Improved Value $ 0 10/27/03 3431-48 $0 (_) Market Value $ 1,352,325. (_) Assessed Value $ 1,352,325 (_) School Taxable Value $ 1,352,325 1 (_) Taxable Value $ 1,352,325 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll 32 4/25/2017 Collier County Property Appraiser Collier County Property Appraiser MAP SUE: WAD- I MEDIUM I uaea I `q tlER C044 - _.. I i Zoom In t:l ' Zoom Out Identity ftoaarok Pan 10 Introduction .0:4x4-, Measure lit Search for Parcels by kr - •Search Results • FII County View Parcel ID:75180000120 Name:COLLIER HEALTH SERVICES INC -: e ' Previous StreetStreet://a Name:4087 GREEN BLVD - i ;;; View Builder r nite:B/1 " 4 .,.. /.. i Zoom To SIMYr� ._ .F • - ', Selected O Layers -0 • Clear rdap ft Legend4111! ,x Graphics fib Print c: ,i Overview Home Page ' Aerial Year: Help �' �r i s 2017'! �� Sales Year: L+ OFF • I jai •w @ 11 f'.. .. ka r.r.+'tom tYRw..,..0`_ at q fi , "- Aerial Photography:January-201716 inch)-2017 12 feet]-201612 feet-2016/60 feel) http://maps.collierappraiser.com/Map.aspx?ccpaver=1.9.6&ref=disclaimermaps&msize=L 1/1 33 ATTACHMENT "H" Sungate CPUD - Ordinance 09-06 34 Ay618 9 707r4� 10 ORDINANCE NO.09 -0 6 / RECEIVED MAR 2009 ; AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY /y g' COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, it. ,0 AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 0441, AS 412‘ �'' ``; �'�+ AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) FOR THE SUNGATE CENTER CPUD FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF GREEN BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD (CR 951), IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 10.0± ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-42, THE FORMER SUNGATE CENTER PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere, AICP of RWA, Inc. and R. Bruce Anderson, Esq. of Roetzel and Andress, LPA, representing Wynn Properties, Inc., and R. Bruce Anderson, Esq., representing Carbone Properties of Naples, Inc.,petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 15, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from Planned Unit Development (PUD) to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to be known as the Sungate Center,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Page 1 of 2 Revised 1-05-09 35 Sungate Center CPDD in accordance with the CPUD Document, attached hereto as Exhibit "A," which is incorporated herein and by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 95-42, known as the Sungate Center PUD, adopted on June 20, 1995, by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: 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 aq day of FibilAary/ , 2009. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGJT E.$ROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA -gt-‘ , ..M '. 1t;r% r BY: I-rrra.t rtt tv Clerk DO A FIALA,CHAIRMAN !t t�0 t�IR 7 IVISture,040e Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Yk-7.1j4 Steven T. Williams Assistant County Attorney Project History: Ordinance Number 95-42 This ordinance filed with the Seer toryof Stotes Off;cQ the day of fl'�arc�, 2.ca and acknowledgement ofthat Say ungate Center, PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Page 2 of 2 filing received this Revised 1-05-09 8I�` Dpua cark 36 SUNGATE CENTER COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED FOR: Wynn Properties,Inc. 9220 Bonita Beach Road Suite 200 Bonita Springs,FL 34135 PREPARED BY: 1YTA" ONSULTING IL. • •1 S. Robert J.Mulhere,AICP 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, Florida 34109 8 R. Bruce Anderson, Esquire Roetzel &Andress 850 Park Shore Drive Trianon Centre-Third Floor Naples,FL 34103 PREVIOUS ZONING APPROVALS ORDINANCE 92—93 ADOPTED 11/24/1992 ORDINANCE 95—42 ADOPTED 06/20/1995 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC DATE APPROVED BY BCC FGb.2A.2009 ORDINANCE NUMBER Zoog-o(p AMENDMENTS AND REPEAL 04441 , qG-14 Sungatc Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR•10325 Revised 1/20/09 TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Exhibits and Tables Statement of Compliance Section I Property Ownership,Legal Description 1-1 Section II Project Development Requirements 2-1 Table I 2-1 Table II 2-2 Section III Commercial Development Standards 3-1 Table III 3-4 Section IV Development Commitments 4-1 Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 38 LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT"A" CPUD MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT"B" CONCEPTUAL WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT"C" UTILITY FACILITIES & OFFSITE INTERFACE EXHIBIT EXHIBIT"D" PLAN SHOWING DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY TRANSPORTATION EXHIBIT"E" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF 0.96 ACRE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONVEYANCE EXHIBIT"F" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SHARED SLOPE AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT i ^ Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20109 39 SUNGATE CENTER CPUD STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development of approximately 10.00 acres of property in Collier County, Florida as a Commercial Planned Unit Development(CPDD)to be known as the SunGate Center.The CPUD shall comply with the goals, objectives and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan(GMP). The project is proposing a Commercial Planned Unit Development located within the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill (GGECI) Subdistrict, as identified on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map(GGEFLUM),in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan(GGAMP). 1. The subject property is located on the west side of C. R. 951 between 15th Avenue S. W. and Green Boulevard and is further described as Tracts"A",`B","C",and"D",a replat shown on the plat of SunGate Center CPUD, as recorded in Plat Book 27, pages 1 and 2 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 2. Allowable uses set forth herein are consistent with the commercial use limitations set forth in the GGECI Subdistrict,which reads as follows: Commercial uses shall be limited to: Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and personal needs, and Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C-1, C-2, C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code(Ordinance 91-102), adopted October 30, 1991. 3. As encouraged in the GGECI Subdistrict,the requested rezone is in the form of a CPUD. 4. Shared parking and access shall be provided for within this project. 5. The project does not provide for direct access to Collier Boulevard. 6. The development will be compatible and complementary to existing and planned surrounding land uses. Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 40 SECTION 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION,PROPERTY OWNERSHIP,GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND SHORT TITLE 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed for development under the project name SunGate Center Commercial Planned Unit Development. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Tracts "A", "B", "C", and "D", a replat shown on the plat of SunGate Center PUD., as recorded in Plat Book 27,pages 1 and 2 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP Tract "A" is owned by Carbone Properties of Naples, Limited Liability Company, an Ohio limited liability company, 5885 Landerbrook Drive,Suite 110,Cleveland,Ohio 44124. Tracts "B", "C", and "D" are owned by Wynn Properties, Inc., 9220 Bonita Beach Road, Suite 200, Bonita Springs, FL 34135. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION The property consists of approximately 10.00 acres of land located in the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida. Presently, +/- 2.04 acres are developed with a United States Postal Services Annex, and 0.91 acres along the northern and southern boundaries of the site fall within right-of-way easements (providing a portion of the 15t Avenue Southwest and Green Boulevard rights-of-way,respectively). The remaining+/-7.05 acres are undeveloped. 1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION It is the intent of the developer to convey +/- 0.51* of the +/- 7.05 undeveloped acres to Collier County for the expansion of Green Boulevard and to develop the remaining, undeveloped +/- 6.55** acres of the subject property with commercial uses and related accessory uses and structures consistent with the provisions set forth in the GGAMP GGECI Subdistrict, and the applicable provisions of the Collier County Land Development Code(LDC). *The total"R-O-W Conveyance"to County will be 0.96 acres,but 0.45 acres of that number lie within the"right-of-way easements"already accounted for, in Paragraph 1.4 above, as reducing developable area. **Last digit affected by rounding. 1.6 SHORT TITLE This Ordinance shall be known and cited as the "SunGate Center Commercial Planned Unit Development Ordinance". 1-1 Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 120/09 41 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section to delineate and generally describe the project plan of development, relationships to applicable County ordinances, the respective land uses of the SunGate Center CPUD,as well as other project relationships. 2.2 GENERAL A. Development of the SunGate Center CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections and parts of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as,but not limited to final subdivision plat, final site development plan (SDP),excavation permit,and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district in the LDC shall apply. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of building permit application. C. All conditions imposed and all graphic material presented depicting restrictions for the development of the SunGate Center CPUD shall become part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the CPUD site may be developed. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT PLAN AND LAND USE TRACTS A. The project Master Plan, including land uses for the various tracts is illustrated graphically by Exhibit"A,"CPUD Master Plan. LAND USE SUMMARY PARCEL PROPOSED USE ACREAGE Tract"A" Existing Commercial +/-2.04 Tract"B" Commercial +/-5.19 Tract"C" Commercial +/-0.79 Tract"D" Commercial +/-0.57 ROW Easements ROW +/-0.45 Current Roadway Dedications ROW +/-0.96 TOTAL +/- 10.0 TABLE I:Land Use Summary B. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown on Exhibit"A", such easements as necessary(utility, private, semi-private) shall be established within or along the various tracts as may be necessary. 2-1 Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Rcvised 1/20/09 2.4 DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY The project's commercial intensity is set forth in Table 2,below. PARCEL PROPOSED USE INTENSITY ACREAGE (SQ. FEET) Tract"A" Commercial 20,000 +/-2.04 Tract"B,C,and D" Commercial 63,000 +/-6.55 Right-of-way Easements& Right-of-way N/A +l- 1.41 Current Roadway Dedications Table II: Development Intensity 2.5 NATIVE VEGETATION RETENTION REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County GMP,and the Collier County LDC, a minimum of 15% of the existing native vegetation on-site is required to be retained or replanted. The site is partially developed with a postal annex and water management facilities. The site is almost entirely cleared; however,there are some existing trees. At the time of issuance of issuance of the first development order(SDP/PPL) 10% of the native trees shall be required to be retained or replanted with mitigation-sized native canopy trees in the landscape buffer.No preserve management plan or conservation easement will be required. 2-2 --. Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1120/09 43 i I SECTION III COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses within areas designated as Tracts A, B, C,and D on Exhibit"A",CPUD Master Plan. 3.2 MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL SQUARE FEET Commercial square footage shall be limited to a maximum of 20,000 square feet on Tract A and 63,000 square feet in aggregate on Tracts B, C, and D, for a total maximum square footage of 83,000 square feet. 3.3 PERMITTED USES1,2 No building or structure,or part thereof,shall be erected,altered or used,or land used in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses 1) Accounting,auditing and bookkeeping services(group 8721). 2) Amusements and recreation services(groups 7911,dance studios and schools only, and group 7993). 3) Apparel and accessory stores(groups 5611-5699). 4) Auto and home supply stores(group 5531), 5) Automobile parking(group 7521),garages-automobile parking,parking structures. 6) Barber shops(group 7241),except barber schools. 7) Beauty shops(group 7231),except beauty schools. 8) Business services (groups 7311, 7322, 7323, 7331-7338, 7361-7379, 7384, 7389 except auctioneering service, automobile recovery, automobile repossession, batik work, bottle exchanges, bronzing, cloth cutting, contractors' disbursement, cosmetic kits, cotton inspection, cotton sampler, directories-telephone, drive-away automobile, exhibits-building, filling pressure containers, field warehousing, fire extinguisher, floats-decoration, folding and refolding, gas systems, bottle labeling, liquidation services, metal slitting and shearing, packaging and labeling, patrol of electric transmission or gas lines, pipeline or power line inspection, press clipping service, recording studios, repossession service,rug binding, salvaging of damaged merchandise, scrap steel cutting and slitting, shrinking textiles, solvent recovery, sponging textiles, swimming pool cleaning, tape slitting, texture designers, textile folding,tobacco sheeting,window trimming,and yacht brokers). 9) Child day care services(group 8351). 10) Civic, social and fraternal associates(group 8641). 11) Depository institutions(groups 6011-6099). 3-1 Reference Executive Office of the President,Office of Management and Budget,Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1987 Edition 2 No permitted use(whether principal or accessory)shall allow for or a sexually oriented business or use,as defined in the Collier County Code of Laws or LDC. Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 12) Eating places(group 5812 only), 13) Food stores(groups 5411, including convenience stores with fueling and accessory car wash, 5421-5499). 14) Funeral service(group 7261 except crematories). 15) Gasoline service stations with accessory car wash (groups 5541 subject to LDC Section 5.05.05). 16) General merchandise stores(groups 5331-5399). 17) Hardware stores(group 5251). 18) Health services(groups 8011-8049, 8082). 19) Home furniture, furnishing,and equipment stores(groups 5712-5736). 20) Individual and family social services (group 8322 activity centers, elderly or handicapped; adult day care centers; and day care centers, adult and handicapped only). 21) Insurance carriers,agents and brokers(groups 6311-6399, 6411). 22) Legal services(group 8111). 23) Management and public relations services(groups 8741-8743, 8748). 24) Membership organizations(groups 8611-8699). 25) Miscellaneous repair services (groups 7629-7631, 7699 bicycle repair, binocular repair, camera repair, key duplicating, leather goods repair, locksmith shop,picture framing,and pocketbook repair only). 26) Miscellaneous retail (groups 5912, 5932-5960, 5963 except pawnshops and building materials, groups 5992-5999 except auction rooms, awning shops, gravestones, hot tubs, monuments, swimming pools, tombstones and whirlpool baths). Drug stores may have drive-through facilities. 27) Museums and art galleries(group 8412). 28) Nondepository credit institutions(groups 6111-6163). 29) Offices for engineering, architectural, and surveying services (groups 0781, 8711- 8713). 30) Paint,glass and wallpaper stores(group 5231). 31) Personal services(groups 7212, 7215,7216 nonindustrial dry cleaning only,7291. 32) Photographic studios(group 7221). 33) Physical fitness facilities(group 7991). 34) Public administration (groups 9111-9199, 9229, 9311, 9411-9451, 9511-9532, 9611-9661). 35) Real estate(groups 6531-6552). 36) Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores(group 5261). 3-2 37) Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors(group 7251). Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 45 38) Securityand commoditybrokers, dealer, exchanges, and services (groups 6211- 6289). 39) Self storage facilities (group 4225 indoor, air-conditioned and mini or self-storage only), if permitted within the C-3 Commercial Intermediate zoning district. 40) Social services(groups 8322-8399). 41) Transportation services(group 4724),travel agencies only. 42) United States Postal Service(group 4311 except major distribution center). 43) Veterinary services(groups 0742,0752 excluding outside kenneling). 44) Videotape rental(group 7841). 45) Vocational schools(groups 8243-8299). 46) Any other permitted principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA")by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including,but not limited to: 1) Uses and structures that are customarily and typically permitted as accessory and incidental to the uses set forth in Section 3.3.A.above. 3-3 Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1120/09 46 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE III COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 S.F. MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 75 FEET MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 S.F. SETBACK FROM NORTHERLY PERIMETER BOUNDARY 20 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE EXISTING 30 FOOT ROW EASEMENT THAT IS THE SOUTH HALF OF 15 th AVENUE SOUTHWEST. SETBACK FROM SOUTHERLY PERIMETER BOUNDARY 20 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERLY CPUD BOUNDARY,WHICH IS THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY THAT THE APPLICANT IS CONVEYING FOR THE WIDENING OF GREEN BOULEVARD SETBACK FROM WESTERLY PERIMETER BOUNDARY 25 FEET FROM THE WESTERLY CPUD BOUNDARY SETBACK FROM EASTERLY PERIMETER BOUNDARY 20 FEET MEASURED FROM THE EASTERLY CPUD BOUNDARY SETBACK FROM INTERNAL DRIVEWAYS 5 FEET SETBACK FROM ANY INTERNAL PLATTED PROPERTY LINE 10 FEET SEPARATION BETWEEN STRUCTURES 50%OF THE BUILDING HEIGHT,BUT NOT LESS THAN 15 FEET MAXIMUM ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT 50 FEET MAXIMUM ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT 62 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SAME AS FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES, EXCEPT THAT THE REQUIRED MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES OR OTHER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SHALL BE 10 FEET. 3-4 Sungatc Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 47 ____... SECTION IV DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development commitments for the development of the project. 4.2 CPUD MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Exhibit "A", CPUD Master Plan illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed tract, lot or land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final, and may be varied at anytime at any subsequent approval phase. Subject to the provisions of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all services and all common areas in the project. 4.3 TRANSPORTATION The development of this CPUD Master Development Plan shall be subject to and governed by the following conditions: A. Access points shown on the CPUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property boundary. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a CPUD amendment is approved. As a specific exception to the foregoing, this Applicant, and any successor Owner/Developer of this PUD, is assured that the remaining, western most of the existing driveways on Green Boulevard, as well as all three (3) existing driveways on 15th Avenue S.W., shall remain, with the understanding that the most easterly driveway on 151 Avenue S.W.may,at some future time, be restricted to egress only by,and at the sole discretion of,the Collier County Transportation Department. B. The County reserves the right, at its sole discretion to close the median opening at 40th Terrace SW on Green Boulevard, as well as any median opening that may be approved and constructed to accommodate left-turn egress from the Development's Green Boulevard driveway. C. Standard County practice dictates that if any required turn lane improvement requires the use of existing County rights-of-way or easement(s),then compensating right-of-way shall be provided at no cost to Collier County as a consequence of such improvement(s) upon final approval of the turn lane design during the review and approval of first subsequent development order. As a specific exception to the foregoing, any turn lane that this developer, or any successor owner/developer of this PUD property, may necessarily construct upon County rights-of-way shall not cause or require the provision to Collier County of any "compensating right-of- way,"as stipulated in the first sentence of this paragraph. 4-1 Sungate Center PUD.PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 48 D. Standard County practice dictates that if, in the sole opinion of Collier County, traffic signal(s), other traffic control device, sign, pavement marking improvement within a '1 public right-of-way, or easement, or site related improvements (as opposed to system related improvements)necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project,as determined by Collier County, are determined to be necessary,the cost of such improvement shall be the responsibility of the developer, his successors or assigns. Such being the case, any developer of this CPUD property shall be required to pay for or construct: 1) a sidewalk within the 15t1i Avenue S.W. ROW, for the entire length of the Development property; and 2) any left or right turn lanes that may be required for the accessing of any of the Development's driveways. Other than those stated improvements, however, this or any successor developer of this CPUD property shall not be required to make any contribution to or for the improvement or other alteration, past, present, or future, of Green Boulevard,Collier Boulevard,or intersection of the two. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONVEYANCE E. Within ninety (90) days following the latter to occur of: 1) the expiration of all appeal periods for PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 without an appeal being filed, or 2) the dismissal or other satisfactory resolution of any such filed appeals; Developer shall convey (the "Right of Way Land Conveyance") to County approximately ninety-six one-hundredths (0.96) acres of land, as depicted and labeled on Exhibit "D" as "0.96 AC. RIGHT-OF- WAY LAND CONVEYANCE" and more particularly described in Exhibit"E", for road right-of-way, drainage, utility, and ancillary purposes to be used by the County for the proposed expansion of Green Boulevard. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall cause to be removed from The Right—of—Way Land Conveyance all liens and encumbrances, except oil, gas and mineral reservations and existing easements for utilities and drainage. The Right—of—Way Land Conveyance shall be delivered to County via statutory warranty deed. County, at its sole cost and expense, shall provide Developer an ALTA title commitment to insure title to The Right—of—Way Land Conveyance. Said title commitment shall be utilized and relied upon by Developer as the authority for the existence of any and all liens, encumbrances, or qualifications as to the then-current state of title of the Right—of—Way Land Conveyance parcel. County shall record the deed in the Public Records of the County and shall assume the costs associated with the recordation. The Transportation Administrator or his designee may extend the conveyance date at his discretion. F. Developer shall provide to County evidence of the authority of the record title holder's executing representative to execute the above-referenced deeds,and shall obtain from all entities releasing their respective liens and/or encumbrances from the Right of Way Land Conveyance evidence of the authority of the executing representative to so execute on behalf of said entity. G. The parties acknowledge that the Right of Way Land Conveyance is characterized as property rights acquired by a highway or road agency for the improvement of a road within the boundaries of a public right-of-way. 4-2 Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 STORMWATER ACCEPTANCE H. Developer and any successor owners of the Development agree to accept, store,and treat, in perpetuity, all of the stormwater drainage from any section, or sections, of Collier County Right-of-Way that may be selected by County; provided that the total area of all roadway sections being so drained to, and accepted by, the Development does not, in total,exceed 1.02(one and two one-hundredths)acres of right-of-way. I. Developer and any successor owners of the Development further agree to cooperate with County in County's efforts to obtain regulatory permitting for the drainage arrangement stated in the prior paragraph, including the execution of any necessary commitment documentation and the granting of any easements or permissions that County may need to facilitate and assure the actual stormwater conveyance in accordance with the permits obtained. Furthermore, in the event that the Development's stormwater management system has not yet been constructed by the time that County begins its improvements to Collier Boulevard (County Project No. 68056), Developer agrees to permit County and its contractor to enter upon the subject property and construct the proposed stormwater retention and treatment pond, and to install the drainage structures necessary to out-fall from the right-of-way to the pond. Any spoils excavated by County in these activities may be left on the Development property. J. County, at its sole cost, shall deliver and construct all necessary structures for the conveyance of said stormwater to the Development's Water Management System, as depicted in Exhibit"B". K. County shall make all reasonable efforts to assure that no hazardous waste material is contained within the stormwater that County conveys to the Development's Water Management System. L. If any actions or improvements by County cause damage to Developer's water management system, County, at its sole cost and expense, shall repair and mitigate said damages. SHARED SLOPE AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT M. Within ninety (90) days following the latter to occur of: 1) the expiration of all appeal periods for PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 without an appeal being filed, or 2) the dismissal or other satisfactory resolution of any such filed appeals; Developer shall deliver to County a Slope and Construction Easement over the area depicted and labeled on Exhibit "D" as "SHARED SLOPE/CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT" and more particularly described in Exhibit "F". Said easement shall allow County to enter upon the easement area for the purpose of constructing County's adjacent roadway and to place upon the easement area any amount of landfill necessary to effect the proper slope relationship between the Developer's Land and the new roadway and ancillary roadway improvements such as sidewalks, drainage structures and street lights. The easement shall also grant, in perpetuity,to County the right to place and maintain, within the southern most three(3)feet of the western most two hundred thirty-five(235)feet of the easement,any lighting system that County deems necessary. 4-3 Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1/20/09 50 Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall cause to be removed from the Slope and Construction Easement all liens and encumbrances, except oil, gas and mineral reservations and existing easements for utilities and drainage. The ALTA title commitment referenced in Paragraph E (above) shall be utilized and relied upon by Developer as the authority for the existence of any and all liens, encumbrances, or qualifications as to the then-current state of title of the Slope and Construction Easement parcel. County shall record the easement in the Public Records of the County and shall assume the costs associated with the recordation. The Transportation Administrator or his designee may extend the conveyance date at his discretion. N. County shall replace any damaged or removed improvements or vegetation. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS O. There shall be no monetary or Collier County Road Transportation Impact Fee credit compensation to Developer for any of the above contributions. P. By virtue of, and in consideration of, Developer's cooperation and contributions as described herein, Developer shall not be held responsible, and shall not be charged for any past or future improvements to Collier and/or Green Boulevards, including but not limited to, roadway improvements, expansion, signalization, street lighting, sidewalks, bike lanes, and/or turn lanes. Nor shall Developer be required to make any payments in lieu of any of the foregoing. Developer's contributions satisfy all transportation fair share and mitigation requirements. As a specific exception to the foregoing, any developer of this CPUD property shall be required to pay for: 1) a sidewalk within the 15th Avenue S.W. ROW, for the entire length of the Development property; and 2) any left or right turn lanes that may be required for the accessing of any of the Development's driveways 4.4 ADDITIONAL COMMITMENTS A. Development within this CPUD shall comply with the lighting standards specified in Policy 5.1.1 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. 4-4 Sungate Center PUD,PUDZ-A-2006-AR-10325 Revised 1120109 51 i 1 r s I a II 11 ji,6.41ili 11 i. I .,.I ..I I I I W N I.;1:'‘ r� �7' Al2 g 111 I / 1 1 i AS S 11 s rantif : IffiMil .r.a.: -cc Rimpiefuji. ii _ ESE 11 14 i I S [carr .i ��. wir[wnlliiiiii 4 41"11-1/1-'4" •�wu[�►� M t =tinny nw�[[n !".P. i1 i• iliiiiiili a• U I q N utin[naw[u.U..iwuU. � i1 1 IIUI iII�11/MIIiluii iliffilli Bill i6'N __ .... 11111111a 1 :::: z CrCi z pp to 14 ,,.,„ ,,,,, _,.... ,.. � omuCI) R ct c� s'0 7d a8 r-1 ti t I rii O vC U �� • a 3 VJ i i� N ma) (.6)110 • Ig tij \ : r /1 raol FQ N jII 1 11I 52 _ _ � ; ;hi ; Ili ri li ii 14 .----, q UU! ! Ili 4 4 11 a e ilii I II III - ---4) 74... = __ `1 Il 1 35 Rig 4 .8.1'JYelL tttr. E ! ' Y_.3,011. 4illi Er: ' i 1 iil\. i1 I 41 3 ; a P 19 t l.11lF, d rd a I \ I EE '4i •i .9.Lovell 1 KI i -0.Lovell ,ra..u� / I. i \, =,.1..oval. I E 1 i; t a 3 IL. ‘. `'' 4 ' S , n 1 7 ol1 ,, i ›zi .} 1 --t i _ III . 5,7: . 4.L.,,..,,'" — —— il ....____ ; -a-'-. ! r) -- ---- ---- - • - - •-- --• — Oi;Eidag a ddd; ; m '''l= ElME =rum . v �.r..r,y : ! z , ri m gi vii T1' ' E !• �E7.. 1 !Emm .. b 3 WI k !... ...II. �• D �r ,.kIl EE�I t i# �'IiI ill IIs -i-i -i = n1 -MI t i ; 41 MEI=== {:= • 'q'ee. _ I1.511151= s :a_ — Ieu----€ e selFe ,11 iliiiiil_ EXHIBIT "A" 1Oa 4E = rniv w �xoPeRru INC Sungate Center DIA TAP' �' .. CPUD MASTER PLAN CPUD 10C"I"i a 0 . .. r�rraelelnwrw 0.0.411 papaw= 53 1 1 1 I 1 I g A 8 d Ptj I ili ill illi S ,% _ ♦ \ ,. J I \ air4 . . . . . . . ,. .. . . A l. 41 % kit % % % % / - i \' ° \`{ I `yZ i. 7 'M'Slflil HAPA � ` • N % ; ... 0 r ... , , „I , , I . , I , „ .. „ 1. , ,,,,,, Itl ::Im , , , „ pk., , „ „ „ .. . .. .. .. , „ , t„ 1.4 ......_., 1 aus. 1J14. C) C) • I p ,I\ �♦ - ♦ ,, ♦ ♦ ♦ I % ail. ♦ ♦ `i ♦Il ,„.! It '"---' P,:j a P• y „di s. -. ,.� i $ I1 I 1 EXHIBIT "B" .^,:.. m Al Mr Al" ° WYNN PROPERTIES NC ff� plArirrlersirzglemBMm,,,, ,._� Sungate Center aiedermi ^'X ""' CONCEPTUAL WATER CPUD . t Y FT 3L r�r `" s 011•111•••• {'J.II.K,KI. • •• , num MANAGEMENT PLAN �`� `'"' PROW:"°`� 54 ' 111•MINIIMINI "" 1&. mfr.! .1 1 11 Nipmftim iml . ! LE rill , c .tc 1 ' - oq 401.110 gap No Al il mu posing= 6.1 ffal, III. L 11•11111111111 fr:4),'"4 Nt1101311. 0 PIIIIIIIIIMIIIIWIIIIIKOII 111 ,- 11=1111 I '2 (.. o liTak:AC S. ) ion 1 1 --. _ 111111.01111 a_ , 1 h; L 11111111111151111 - 4:2 , .n0.Winigumeh. _ sospuina , .T .121...Lg 1., sidiftlibl c' . I% 7L 6, • , -. irri coL 'air 1113111111 ' , . . ..._ _ htabil OIL ? lb, ' 11116 1 I h?lic) h/Ict 1......,:vi 1 TREE .W. , + ,2 I 1111111111111111111111111111L ,. 1 libIL lin11111431111 . 1 - ---- tri -I 11111110 Mai S.W.. ,_ + 6, 1 111=16, i . 4i Naild1111101111111.111111 li 0,, !. - 6.. _ _ I t'l 01-j MEW COUNTY ROAD 951 _ -*---- EMNM =111.111.114Kti..4-43:114MININ3n_ ____ _ I „ I nine (-3 Kblig I I I 1 30 RAW n rti 1 11 . 022Q 1 I umeimmem - mo•N•mmmonmlimmmnl min 1 1 , I ill ---- 1 -- 1 1 --i------- - 1 EXHIBIT "C' ---, a NZ TIM MS care UW.. VW a *a — WYNN PROPERTIES INC n"-- fiFfilill r•art Sungate CenterDIEN UTILITY FALCPUD FICEIng 'WM MP. 111L. 5""n• OA" UTILCIITIES& . . . ,.. OFFSTIE INTERFACE EXHIBIT IVY ZilvaltrrA " "" rt — Ir"'" ---- -------2--,-------------- _ O 1!q!yx3 • ii!I� i 1 .1 l 1111 I l 17 .1 = y-r= , _____.......,‘„_______ Ytr t 'fr } 1amu, i 1i•1 0 a, i 'M'S -aa� I • I 1 I I 14104 J 1 i i 11! i I t Io I , iI ~ I 1 t HII , f , � 1 ,6 a: , . .'u ,. ..., ..ii 1 A311Y 1W5 1 itn h 1i I r— r-- I ; I ` I . I. ti f t 1 n , 1144 .0•01.) / r a a 11 ail 0 M•Mt IIIMCa A--I 11 ,,`,` WYNN PROPERTIES INC SUNGATE CENTER CPUDPtIrltikR4C-vPbunillemwlizigk4 , IA MVO lmru �"�h.a, XBTYB1CJTOFWAYDEDICA17(N soTow. 011120 SNARED SLOPE ry,AVrtICTIONEASEMENT Mr.1rY►V••YtM11M1Y i•IIMrt 41•111••4•• . V . I. MY.IPMn..4.01,... M OlO!/MN 56 EXHIBIT " E " LEGAL DESCRIPTION (0.96 ACRE RIGHT-OF-WAY CONVEYANCE) A PARCEL OR TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE COUNTY OF COLLIER LYING IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND BEING • PART OF TRACT "B" AND "D" SUNGATE CENTER P.U.D. AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGES 1 AND 2, THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEGINNING AT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT D: THENCE S.89'30'50"W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SUNGATE CENTER P.U.D. FOR 660.07 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT "B"; THENCE N.00'29'08"W., ALONG SAID WEST LINE FOR 64.25 FEET; THENCE N.89'30'50"E., FOR 235.00 FEET; THENCE S.00'29'08"E., FOR 2.25 FEET; THENCE N.89'30'50"E., FOR 393.62 FEET; THENCE N.52'59'23"E., FOR 39.14 FEET; THENCE S.00'29'08"E., FOR 85.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. CONTAINING 41,819 SQUARE FEET OR 0.96 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL AS BEING N.00'29'08"W. NOT VALID WITHOUT SIGNATURE AND RAISED SEAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR /b%z /• RICHARD V. NESTLER, LS# 4786 DATE SIGNED PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR SEE SHEET 2 FOR SKETCH REVISED 10/20/08 tMc ors 10/20/08 CLIENT: En�inrers,& s �/A 410WYNN PROPERTIESRSLI INC Snr�c} Mappers, AL. „ W 1 -S. Fluaxls,Pr(gcctMAnD crs mow R• TITLE= LEGAL DESCRIPTION 6610 WIDow Pork Ddw,Suit+ 200 N Fiorillo 34109 f �� 0.96 ACRE RIGHT—OF—WAY CONVEYANCE (2Jas9T-0578(PHONE) MAW (239)897-0578(Fox) MCI nyp, pCE PRDJECT SHEET 1 2 FILE 1E Of A MCR Z 15 49S 26E NUMBER: 050214.00,01 NUMBER: OF NUM8ER. 050241 SK2 FLORIDA t�R71FlCAtE OF Ai1THOR3ZATi0N lB/8R62 57 J . ......_ *** THIS IS NOT A SURVEY *** EXHIBIT " E " WEST UNE (71 . TRACT"8' L1 NOO'29'4W 660.09 (C) ` NOO'19'10 E 650.00 (P) i\�\\`�,`` z . t0 `2\11,..\:::\‘`,1,4 \ \`a tJ (///1:\:\\` O i \\ \ m SCALE 1"=100' .\ ``� N .VI0 r�CC \ \\\•0 DCD�o> z t�`. ``\ 25116' LINE TABLE \`• \ 00 LINE BEARING LENGTH P \�\\1_2 N ii'i Li NO0'29'08"W 64.25 . 8o L2 S00'29'0$"E 2.25 �mz L3 N52'59'23'E 39.14 1 L4 500'29'08 E 85.29 40TH {t RR. S.W. g \ \N 'CL'Elpdp g 01 �N. N \ N e P \` ., \\`Z jjy' zzI ` \ CD +SQA , ... ,�. f,i o`er \ R '.\ •.,, `d vi '. . \ 1 g ,,\\,\„(,,, LEGEND Y \\''. to POC — POINT OF COUENCEMENT co , \� `W P00 — POINT OF BEGINNING r \ \\ co O.R. .. OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK +,�\ N PB - PLAT BOOK �‘‘ POS — PAGES �, \ C = CALCULATED `�\\,, P c ENTE�\ {� CENTER UNE \. \ .,\. \ \` ,N, \\\`,\:\ I BEARING BASIS \ \, �. N00'29'0B"W 660.09 (C POB— L4 N0018'10'E 660.00 (P) SOUTHEAST CO 1NER TRACT"If SUNGATE CENTER P.U.D, S.R. 951 (P) COLDER BLVD. (F) (I' SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGAL REVISED 10/20/08 oe 10/20/08 CLIENT: 1r, WYNN PROPERTIES INC O 711.1 Survcyvrs&Mappers, 1 100 Z IL. V .1. ..1 . Amara,Project MuYagc►s Ol"14 p1'' TITLE: SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY 6610 Willow Pork Drive,Salt.200 RY Naples,Florida 34109 cixacco m: DESCRIPTION (239)697-0575(PHONE) MAW (239)597-0574(Fox) PROJECT SHEET sEc: 1WP: coRFEE www.conwlt—nvo.cxn 15 49S 26E NUMBER: 050214.00.01 NUMBER: 2 OF NUMBER 05024151<2 FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION LE1 6952 58 • EXHIBIT " F " LEGAL DESCRIPTION (SHARED SLOPE AND CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT) A PARCEL OR TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, THE COUNTY OF COLLIER LYING IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST AND BEING PART OF TRACT "B" AND "0" SUNGATE CENTER P.U.D. AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 27, PAGES 1 AND 2, THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT D; THENCE N.00/29.08"W., FOR 85.29 FEET; THENCE S.52'59'23"W., FOR 8.89 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE 5.52'59'23"W., FOR 30.24 FEET; THENCE S.89'30'50"W., FOR 393.62 FEET; THENCE N.00'29'0B"W., FOR 2.25 FEET; THENCE S.89'30150"W., FOR 235.00 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT "B"; THENCE N.00'29'10"W., FOR 15.75 FEET; THENCE N.89'30'50"E., FOR 652.92 FEET; TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE ,PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN. CONTAINING 11,005 SQUARE FEET OR 0.25 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. _._ SUBJECT TO EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD. BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL AS BEING N.00'29'08"W. NOT VALID WITHOUT SIGNATURE AND RAISED SEAL OF A PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR BY: _____.---- _/C/? 0 6' RICHARD V. NESTLER, LS# 4786 DATE SIGNED PROFFESIONAL LAND SURVEYOR SEE SHEET 2 FOR SKETCH REVISED 10/20/08 RSLTN�r $unry�L A{appers, 1/23/07 CUENT: WYNN PROPERTIES INC iAwEngin ' N/A TITLE: LEGAL DESCRIPTION O . . V V.L .i. I'lannets,ProjectD{ma+tect RY SHARED SLOPE AND 6510 Willow Park Drive,Suits 200 NEON, Florida 34104 CHttiftb M, CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT (234) 597-01575(PHONE) MAW (vrem 547-0575(Fax) sec, yip; rmC PROJECT l SHEET I FIE 050241 SK1 .� fLORIOA CERTIFICATE CP'ASI�RIZA110N LS/6952 15 495 26E NUW@ER: 050214.00.01 I NumeER: 1 OF 2 NUMBER: __� _, 59_ .. i *** THIS IS NOT A SURVEY *** EXHIBIT " F " LS N00'29'0F}"W 660.09 U _ \ N00'19'10"E 660.00 (P) \ WEST UNE tRACT.rr N \ l CO s O , ti * SCALE 1"=10D' N tor C jr �. O `. O L4\ `, cooaa \ COpiPpii LINE TABLE k. `° LINE BEARING LENGTH 40TH TERR. S.W. `\ O9-i -,...#4 , oLS N00'29'08"W 85.29 ,�` 0 N L2 S52'59'23"W 8.89 1L3 S52'59'23"W 30.24 \f", : ., 2 L4 N0019'08"W 2.25 g g \ illm L5 N00'29'10"W 15.75 Lol a, 0 \' anm-t Z Or S '\ 1§V>w ao to v y w \. M LEGEND to POC = POINT OF COMENCEMENT W\ g v POB = POINT OF BEGINNING co N -, 0 d $ PB 4 PLAT IAS CORDS BOOK PGS = PAGES \ C + CALCULATED ., P + PLAT ` Q =CENTER LINE I,\,1 =PROPOSED SHARED BERM EASEMENT '`. • .\ BEARING BASIS POB N00'29'08"W 660.09 (C) POC------ L1 N00'19'10"E 660.00 (P) SOUTHEAST CORNER SUNGATE CENTER P.U.D. • S.R. 951 (P) COLLIER BLVD. (F) SEE SHEET 1 FOR LEGAL REVISED 10/20/08 m,O ouc: CLIENT:7/23/x7 WYNN PROPERTIES INC Engineers, wue 1"C7NIN Sun�ej•o &M ppeE. "" 1 100 -,i. V 11 fey�S %tr ► i,.I4 I o TITLE: SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY OH" Suite 200 No Ia1,Florida 34109 o Ph DESCRIPTION (239)S 7-0575(PHONE) MAW (239vorw)597-0576 xaoom sea rWP �eeca PROJECT 050214.00.01 SHEET NU 050241 SK 1 FLORIDA CERTIFICATE OF AUTKOR�ATIDN LBK952_ 15 495 26E NUMBER: NUMBER: 2 OF 2 NUMBER: 60 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of : ORDINANCE 2009-06 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 24th day of February, 2009, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 27th day of February, 2009 . DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts aRAgClerk Ex-officio to l',16rd-of . County Commiaa oQers t , iiff ,...,. -„. , ,, , 4 . . , . f274, ..teli,/,' h..t...er--, -i-. ----- By: Martha Vergi tgo 'J Deputy Clerk L-' 61 ATTACHMENT "I" Parcel 36618000107 and 36618000000 Information 62 Page 1 of l Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary I Parcel No. 36618000000 Site Adr. 795 CR 951, NAPLES, FL 34119 Name/Address ARAND CORP ALINE JIDY ALFREDO JIDY PAUL JIDY JR 4184 NEW MOON CIR City j SANTA FE State NM Zip 87507 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 4610 325600 120 04610 10 49 26 2.37 Legal GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 1 N1/2 OF TR 120, LESS E 35FT FOR R/W AS DESC IN ORDER TAKING OR 14613 PG 1761 Millage Area 0 100 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo j 325600- GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 1 School Other Total Use Code 0 0 -VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 6.5246 11.6466 Latest Sales History 2017 Preliminary Tax Roll (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Change) Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 128,r..--.' 07/19/10 4590-3261 $300 04/16/07 4214-758 $150,000 (+) Improved Value $ 04/16/07 4214-756 $0 _(_) Market Value $ 128,673 05/04/05 3790-2413 $485,000 (-) 10% Cap $ 77,926 06/01/84 1085-760 $43,000 (=) Assessed Value $ 50,747 I (=) School Taxable Value $ 128,673 4 (=) Taxable Value I $50,7471 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll I http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/recorddetail.hMl?sid=611719110&Map=No&FolioNum=36... 10/11/2017 Page 1 of 1 Collier County Property Appraiser Property Summary Parcel No. 36618000107 Site Adr. Name/Address ARAND CORP ALINE JIDY ALFREDO JIDY RAUL JIDY JR 4184 NEW MOON CIR City SANTA FE ( State NM Zip 87507 1 Map No. Strap No. Section 1 Township Range Acres *Estimated 4B10 325600120141310 10 49 26 2.23 Legal GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 1 S1/2 OF TR 120, LESS E 35FT FOR R/W AS DESC IN ORDER TAKING OR 4613 PG 1759 Millage Area 0 100 Millage Rates 0 *Calculations Sub./Condo 325600 -GOLDEN GATE EST UNIT 1 School Other Total Use Code 0 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 6.5246 11.6466 Latest Sales History 2017 Preliminary Tax Roll (Not all Sales ace listed due to Confidentiality) (Subject to Chanye! Date Book-Page Amount Land Value $ 134,525 07/19/10 4590-3261 $ 300E (+) Improved Value $0 04/16/07 4214-758 $ 150,000 04/16/07 4214-756 $0 (=) Market Value $ 134,525 .+___ 05/04/05 3790-2413 $485,000 -) 10%Cap $75,756 (=) Assessed Value $58,769 (=) School Taxable Value $ 134,525 (=) Taxable Value $58,769 If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after the Final Tax Roll http://www.col lierappraiser.com/main_search/recorddetail.hil?sid=61 1719110&Map=No&FolioNum=36... 10/11/2017 Page 1 of 1 ` $ 1. 'g + 11, i.1,-,. . ... , , i r.x e . .,„ - ..! - - ....',--1:; ‘.-:._: :;,.; ',Atilt , , ,, r I.1 I . , 1 ;-1, i:,•.i .. http://maps.collierappraiser.com/output/Collier 201€1 sde0316540545210242.jpg 10/11/2017 ATTACHMENT "J" Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy— White Paper 66 Attachment "J" Oilcoer County Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper g,-_,'- o----- GOLDEN GATE AREA — C FUTURE LAND USE MAP m . .._ ____ ...,..„...._ ___ ..._ L ,. .,, . , .,,,, iii.i . . 7 . v,„ . . . , . 11181 . (i L_ — _ I 9 R S F R 1 b !I 4 . roe n2av'i+i mrt n0 n. — N, OM . , A M ;:' • . . .'-' ' ' ' ig I RLE I RIRE I RtlE I II?RR Prepared by the Growth Management Department, Community Planning Section Staff December 2017 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 1 of 220 67 1111 Co ier County Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Table of Contents Page Section 1: Introduction 1 Section 2: Background 4 Section 3: Public Outreach, Data and Analysis... 10 Section 4: List of Initial Recommendations 73 Appendix A: Public Outreach 78 List of Figures Page Figure 1: Golden Gate Master Plan Update 3 Areas 2 Figure 2: Golden Gate Area South Blocks 5 Figure 3: Golden Gate Eastern Estates Developed/Vacant Parcels 6 Figure 4: Golden Gate Western Estates Developed/Vacant Parcels .7 Figure 5: Golden Gate City Aerial 8 Figure 6: Golden Gate City Vacant Parcels 9 Figure 7: Golden Gate City Residential Parcels 11 Figure 8: Golden Gate City Future Land Use Designations 12 Figure 9: Proposed Golden Gate City Future Land Use Designations 14 Figure 10: Golden Gate City Redevelopment and Renewal Focus Area 15 Figure 11: Golden Gate City Activity Center Aerial 16 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 2 of 220 68 Co ier County Figure 12: Golden Gate City Planned Transportation Improvements 21 Figure 13: Golden Gate Eastern Estates Distribution of Residential Development26 Figure 14: Golden Gate Western Estates Distribution of Residential Development27 Figure 15: Golden Gate Estates Future Land Use Study Area 28 Figure 16: Golden Gate Eastern Estates Neighborhood Centers 30 Figure 17: Neighborhood Center at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevard 31 Figure 18: Immokalee Road and Oakes Boulevard Interface 32 Figure 19: Area 1 Conditional Uses, Commercial and Potential Areas for Conditional Uses 33 Figure 20: Area 2 Conditional Uses, Commercial and Potential Areas for Conditional Uses 34 Figure 21: Area 3 Conditional Uses, Commercial and Potential Areas for Conditional Uses 35 ^ Figure 22: Long Range Transportation Plan Highway Cost Feasible Plan 42 Figure 23: Long Range Transportation Plan Needs Assessment 43 Figure 24: Long Range Transportation Plan New Bridges 44 Figure 25: North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Project 52 Figure 26: Belle Meade Area RESTORE Project Area 53 Figure 27: Golden Gate Eastern Estates Non-Conforming Lots... 55 Figure 28: Golden Gate Western Estates Non-Conforming Lots 56 List of Tables Table 1: Watershed Management Plan Initiatives 60 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 3 of 220 69 Section 1: Introduction This White Paper provides a conceptual framework to address elements of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) restudy. The GGAMP is a separate element within the County's Comprehensive Plan.This framework serves as a vehicle to further vet and inform staff, community leaders and the public in advance of the specific language that will be incorporated into the transmittal documents for Growth Management Plan amendment, and the public hearing process. The GGAMP is the second of four restudies focused on eastern Collier County, as directed by the Board of County Commissioners (Board) on February 10, 2015. Focus areas of all four restudies include complementary land uses and economic vitality, including housing affordability, transportation and mobility, and environmental stewardship. As the staggered restudies unfold, relationships and synergies between the study areas are identified and maximized. The Community Planning staff in the Zoning Division of the Growth Management Department provide this document to describe the history and status the GGAMP (Section 2), the planning process, outreach, data and analysis (Section 3) and the list of Initial recommendations (Section 4). Appendix A includes the full documentation of the public outreach process and results. The Golden Gate area includes three diverse geographic areas: the eastern or rural Estates (east of County Road 951), the western or urban Estates (West of County Road 951) and Golden Gate City, an unincorporated area. With these differences in mind, public outreach was designed and pursued along these three geographic lines. However,this report will generally follow a format that separates Golden Gate City from both Estates areas. As understood from public outreach, the eastern and western estates have a great deal in common.Where differences exist,they are described in Section 3. Golden Gate City is fundamentally different than either of the Estates areas. The basic structure of the current GGAMP is divided into two main parts:The Goals, Objectives and Policies (GOPs) section and the Land Use Designation Description section. The former section sets forth vision,values, requirements and aspirations;the latter describes specific subdistricts and their land uses within the GGAMP. Both sections guide the Code of Ordinances and Land Development Code in enactment and updated amendments. As a non-substantive consideration, staff proposes that the GOPs and Land Use Descriptions remain as the organizational framework, but within two parts. One part will be the Golden Gate Estates,the other will be Golden Gate City. In this way, the GOPs pertaining to these very different areas will lend more geographic clarity. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 4 of 220 70 As with all restudy efforts, the fundamental premise is that any proposal for amendment to the existing Plan must reflect the goals and vision of residents and stakeholders. Residents responded well to outreach efforts and provided a foundation built on community vision and individual preferences. Non-resident stakeholders include interests that extend beyond the boundaries of the Golden Gate. For example, public water utilities in Collier County and City of Naples draw potable water from beneath the Golden Gate Estates area.The issues and potentials involved in water must be considered, along with other shared policy matters. Note on terminology in this White Paper:As shown on Figure 1,the Estates area east of Collier Blvd. (C.R. 951) will be alternatively described as the eastern Estates or the rural Estates; the Estates area Figure 1 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN UPDATE:3 AREAS '\\ C W 2 LEE COUNTY LINE Z T a n / Q]QW WIGQNSSD \ flit Ma RD OIL WELL RD t 1NTN s: Throughout this White paper are several figures or maps used for reference. These are also maintained in PDF format on our website, so that the public may view and zoom in, as needed, with greater picture clarity: http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning- division/community-planning-section/golden-gate-area-master-plan-restudy/library. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 6 of 220 72 Section 2: Background History of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan The Golden Gate area was first conceived, platted and developed by the Gulf American Land Corp. Development began in the late 1950's and the subdivision was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 1960. By 1965, 90% of the land was platted and marketing was well underway. The Estates portion of Golden Gate comprised 163 square miles (111,000 acres), nearly 8% of the County's total land area,and was believed to be the world's largest subdivision. It included 813 miles of roadway (mostly lime rock) and 183 miles of canal to drain the area for habitability. Prior to development, the area was regularly inundated by several feet of water during the wet season.The Estates subdivision included mostly 1.25, 2.5 and 5 acre parcels. It was intended to include single family, multi-family and commercial land uses, but was rezoned into low-density single family residential uses in 1974. By 1982, the minimum (legal conforming) lot size for all areas of the Estates became one unit per 2.25 acres. In 1983, the County entered into a settlement agreement with Avatar Corp., the successor to the defunct Gulf American Land Corp. By that time, leaders recognized additional acreage and funds would be needed to provide public services. The agreement included the provision of 1,062 acres — under County ownership to be managed for the purposes of recreation, utilities,community services and essential services.The land was also provided as a source of funds to construct the facilities. Prior to 1991, the Golden Gate area was governed by the County's Future Land Use Element (FLUE), part of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) first adopted in 1989. As mandated by the first GMP, the unique characteristics of the area were recognized in 1991 by the adoption of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP), a separate element in the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Citizens and County leaders recognized the unique quality of the area, and gave special consideration to natural resources, land use, water management and public facilities, as identified by a Citizen's Steering Committee. In doing so,former Objective 1, Policies 1.1 and 1.3 and Future Land Use Maps for Golden Gate were superseded. Nevertheless, other Goals, Objectives and Policies in the FLUE remain applicable to the Golden Gate area. In 1996, the Board adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR)for Collier County. As a result of that effort, the original Master Plan was replaced by a new GGAMP, pursuant to Ordinance 97- 64. In 2001, the Board directed a restudy of the GGAMP, undertaken by the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee. The Committee met on more than twenty occasions between June 2001 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 7 of 220 73 and June 2003 and proposed amendments to the Board for consideration in two phases.The stated goal of this restudy was to guide future decision making in a manner that balances the residents' need for basic services with natural resource and preservation concerns. Importantly, many of the topics heading todays restudy were closely reviewed by the Committee: commercial uses, conditional uses, rural character and transportation. Subsequently, amendments to the GGAMP were adopted in 2003 and 2004, reflecting community vision for the future of the area. Since the 1990's, the State of Florida had been purchasing parcels in the South Golden Gate Estates/NRPA area. Under the Florida Forever and Figure 2 Save our Everglades Golden Gate Estates LNNOK ALPS BRAD cJ programs, Picayune Strand South Blocks State Park was envisioned and pursued, along with l — significant restoration iR OIL WELL 004 11 activity. The acquisition i INNOBALEE ROAD 1 process was completed i .fi xAHDALL SOULE%ARO around 2006. Since then, 3 a VAAOUIBIL'1' L 1 miles of roadway and canals BE"II ROAD 6 x R OBI MN GATE T.,D BOULEVARD E S have been recontoured and ...$$$���[[[��� RRR Q§ L 1 4 PINE, QED won BLVU. --.-- - g three large pump stations o and levies installed, with o i'``. the aim of rehydration to f °G''''' - , restore natural sheetflow $ 9 LV]EBg7A 7T-7.5 &k tl1 for the benefit of wetlands, DAVIS BOA LEY,RD f I_ SA Pe aquifers and estuaries, aB under the direction of g _ South Florida Water A4, m u 'South —♦ I Gold.Gab Fatales Management District and ��< ' ; - the Army Corps of / g g_ Engineers. Accordingly, as 1 shown in green on Figure 2, g approximately 39,000 acres that comprised the "south i rt. { blocks" are no longer part 0 _I of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 8 of 220 74 Current Conditions Following the completion of the purchase and assemblage of Southern Golden Gate Estates by the State of Florida, the remaining area of the rural Golden Gate Estates remains at approximately 58,000 acres. The urban Estates comprise Figure 3 about 8,300 acres and Golden Gate City GOLDEN GATE RURAL ESTATES ( E OF 951) PARCELS TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS:APPROX. 23,808 approximately 2,500 Parcels with Structures:Approx. 11,296 acres. The Parcels without Structures:Approx. 12,512 characteristics of these Legend areas vary greatly. STRUCTUREIMMOKALEE RD The rural Estates PARCELS WITHOUT STRUCTURES .yy''' _ IV111, 1!1 t retains the most rural PARCELS WITH STRUCTURES 3. Inirlig it-mihi , P i character of the three '�"TfiV; 1 ;, , areas, given its size and ! 1,iii l t residential distribution. . 1„P II 'P13�� IIIiNi 1' , Because of the -'l.�si: -,-- I shg�i. 'Iin RI,1.-En. _ lliiPi -x= i; r'kr41 it development pattern ar F,.ia,t�Pt! :1' I 41,!ii is Or and changes in r. _l'a'w r, ,T,t,- condition over the past -`* `d/Nil, v., a 5 decades, flooding, .�° EERo 1l ' f g� „`°rE.f„ I� 1;� . 1 tYIDP , Ill a a. wildfire and wildlife • f, e= L _ 1rVIII IF`` e i l 5 1L ii Y1 ® conditions play a more N "� 1 '141 1 a P tru ,n ��ry}. 1! 9 i 1® �� 1 EC 1 i nl�l wf�"i w�. ja rial zmionrwiatil arm` im ortant role in VNDERelL BE MRD T i C_ISA1 .IH vl�i"Lata iii i gI11 10 p _ 111 a IPi's i�, I '1� eastern Estates rt, {( ��� ' 1�yp il • i ® �11I �5 el! ('-' -. { •l P LpmiI OI.�AI®f '1 11H 111 14374t1Nw1�®I Il I 1��wlm.u% !1_....a...,-.:..- ull= 1 d�@41 1®wrwl.l.fW.n ll i 1"wfl ti'rs'•xamr residents lives as1 fit:Ius �,IIIA :L,r �I� - _ -esu_ f itli aaPnvR P compared to the urban ' " t:11 '',--::,.-7.- :_ �.L_ i 3r3ulnr�li'�3I area. , I1_f , il 1 < {1q�1� _�A(1 QtEEN BLVD �, 3R*� .� t I n rL` I Ir. �'� Iiti fi As of 2016, the rural t..1 A '_#�I �« P�la� I4 .ft Estates was nearly 50% 1'i -” iair■w�a'".I 'll i i. built out as shown in ,, 11 IV v i tic "irk iN' I,r1l ,.'I! 0w ''Ifi R Figure 3, with a higher ---- Figure l- i� l�•' aPl� IggN concentration ofojO N '` ' ' dwelling units located a j / 0 0.5 1 2 3j nearest the urban area. ; � Miles The population % 4 projection for 2016 was Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 9 of 220 75 approximately 32,000 persons. For several decades, this area has been described as a de facto "affordable" housing area, given the land costs in comparison to urban locations. Though its developers built canals to "drain" and lower the water table, remnant wetlands remain on a significant portion of the eastern Estates, Figure 4 includingwithin GOLDEN GATE URBAN ESTATES areas (WEST OF CR 951) the Horsepen Strand lilt flowway. ll IMMOKALEE RD ' I Meanwhile, the pace — legend of development - MN DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL(APPROX.2.091) remains high in the _ It i -VACANT RESIDENTIAL(APPROX.430) eastern Estates. In ( fact, building permits VANDERBI BEACH RD issued in this area --i I r increased from 273 to 408 year to year, as `, s I measured second �- i 4 1 GOLDEN GATE BLVD quarter, 2016 to 2017. )1 n, "— In contrast to the ` I 1 ( II 8 rural, eastern Estates, ii ) I ,) M the western Estates is ���� � Is a e t r- more associated with i € t ( the urban area, `` GREEN° ■ although large lots o m, predominate. This z ' '' cs relatively smaller area 1 is in closer proximity to goods, services and job opportunities. GOL Ti: ' �- - 1 Because of its . p `' location, it is closer to A build-out with 86% of the lots developed, leaving only 14%vacant as of 2016. Figure 4 illustrates the number of residential parcels developed and the number of parcels vacant. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 10 of 220 76 Golden Gate City is at the heart of the GGAMP. As illustrated on Figure 5, the City comprises a denser population in close proximity to a mix of uses which include commercial, office, schools and parks. Although some canals create impediments, and some infrastructure needs improvement,the City is well connected to support a more walkable and bikeable community. Creating a vibrant, walkable community has been identified as a top priority by its residents. Figure 5 GOLDEN GATE CITY AREA A J I CO YY 1 ' - a , m « a r E cn • - • t a. r - The projected 2016 population of Golden Gate City was 24,000. Golden Gate City has a unique demographic; different than what is typically found in urban Collier County. The average age of its residents is 30, compared to 47 county-wide. There are 42% more persons per household (3.38 v. 2.38) and 65% less median household income ($40,000 v. $66,000). Nearly all parcels within Golden Gate City have existing development, however a few parcels remain vacant. Figure 6 shows the current vacant parcels, along with the underlying land use designation. Several vacant parcels exist in both residential and commercial designations. Many of the existing residential and business structures date back to the 1960's with land values exceeding structure Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 11 of 220 77 values. In addition, some of the larger commercial parcels within the Activity Center are now vacant big-box retailers. These circumstances are a foreshadowing of future redevelopment. Figure 6 GOLDEN GATE CITY AREA VACANT PARCELS } t I Vacant Parcels Golden Gate Master Plan _ '' V ' Eff I GG Urban Infill Commercial "'' .E..' Ify q �` U Activity Center (`7.11 ' `u •, -may ohm �j� Collier BLVD Commercial Subdistrict Downtown Center,Commercial Subdistrict fi wx'-`: GG Parkway Professional Office l. Commercial Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Q. �, to z "•- a , r __ �;^. � _ GOLDS ` W? e ....1',..1:: ,jr ;: . 17 1 t•' a‘,..^4,,,,,.^- �. tit .;,,,'^,"i.1IS # z• stiff y ,. ( S':"'# ..3_ +�,$ Y iw F r;ry 5t r .. -^. '; .t,, $ 1'' r z r.. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 12 of 220 78 Section 3: Public Outreach, Data and Analysis The Golden Gate area includes three diverse geographic areas: the eastern or rural Estates (east of County Road 951), the western or urban Estates (West of County Road 951) and Golden Gate City, an unincorporated area. With these differences in mind, the restudy effort included public outreach and planning analysis along these three geographic lines. This Section provides information reflective of the unique conditions of Golden Gate City and the Estates. As understood from public outreach, the eastern and western estates have a great deal in common and are discussed in this Section under the same Golden Gate Estates heading. Where differences exist, they are described. The focus areas of complementary land use and economic vitality, transportation and mobility, and environmental stewardship are addressed under both Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy public outreach process included extensive public engagement. Residents and stakeholders were encouraged to provide input through multiple platforms including eight public workshops, staff presentations to both the Golden Gate City Civic Association and the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, a user-friendly website with surveys, and communications through email distribution lists with approximately 330 stakeholders. Appendix A includes the public workshop summaries, polling and survey results, and other communications 1 from stakeholders. The public workshops for both Golden Gate City and the western --N, • and eastern Estates kicked-off with a visioning process. The intent was to determine if any of the community 6, values had changed. The visioning process lead to each communityA e, — _ w `, Iv developing their own vision s$r ......46„. statements. These community defined vision statements should provide guidance for implementing planning goals, objectives and .� tk policies. These are provided as a preface to the following Golden Gate /,' City and Golden Gate Estates sections. Golden Gate Estates Visioning Workshop Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 13 of 220 79 Golden Gate City The residents of Golden Gate City created a vision statement during the public workshops.This vision statement reflects the need for the County to adopt land use and transportation policies in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan that are people-oriented and support economic development and redevelopment. Each adopted policy should relate to and further the community's vision.This vision of a family-oriented community gives direction to consider residents of all ages, children, adults and the elderly, and how they safely move about town, and what destinations are available to help them thrive. Golden Gate City Vision Statement "Golden Gate City is a safe, diverse,family-oriented community that offers easy access to education, parks, shopping and services within a vibrant,walkable community." Land Use and Economic Vitality Within Golden Gate City there are numerous future land use designations ranging from single family residential use to heavy commercial use. Golden Gate City is a true mixed-use community. Within Figure 7 GOLDEN GATE CITY AREA FUTURE LAND USE ACREAGE Residential:Approx.2,255 Acres Non-Residential:Approx.291 Acres Schools:Approx.102 Acres v4.1 Schools Golden Cate Mester Plan GREEN BLVD OM 03 Urban Inftil Commercial IIII Activity Ginter -Cobler BLVD Commercial Subdistrict 1 Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict 00 Parkway Professional OfficeCommrci l Subdistrict Sento Barbaro Commercial Subdistrict I /74 0J Lti ..__ ,IU m J O tcc it V g • "0, GOLDEN GATE PKY _ — Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 14 of 220 80 Golden Gate City's four-square-miles, residents are in close proximity to schools, parks, goods and services. The majority of Golden Gate City is designated as residential (approximately 2,255 acres). Commercial areas (291 acres) are distributed throughout the community along the major arterials including Golden Gate Parkway, Santa Barbara Boulevard and Collier Boulevard. To accommodate both residential and commercial uses, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map provides six different commercial designations, each with different allowed uses, intensities and development standards. Figure 7 shows the Golden Gate City areas designated residential in yellow, school sites, and the six designated commercial or mixed-use areas. The majority of Golden Gate City is designated residential as seen on Figure 8. Well established, stable neighborhoods are the building blocks of any community and should be protected and enhanced. According to the most recent Collier County Property Appraisers information there are approximately 7,887 residential units, which includes 4,213 single family homes and 3,674 multi- family homes.The multi-family homes are condos,apartments,and a good number of duplexes.This Figure 8 v A Golden Gate City Single Family and Multi-Family Units f . l iI 1 r I_ 1,Legend I _',' Single Family ' m LL MEM(4,213 Units) N Multi-family ; .. "" 6 -(3.874 Units) i i; L______77- -( k —"�!. "i ` , T Golden Gabe City \ Ill - fwb. �. i � �fl iii �v 1I ,i— a 1 1 I C — ,lizii-Limn""'' " ,ifiii- - ' .. . EL 4 � I h 4 *' Ram s. s r, —gig - r;< 0.0.114.( . s:*.i: !::$' . ktri I _4 ri 6 sP L .ia11 „, _ ,.,. ___,,.. .. „,,ckt..„_ ......._ ! _.s. GOLDEN GATE PKY ' "' .„ :so I I ..,54:, 1 7 - ., in , '‘. -i 'if `i fur fs ty .„,,erm."11 ,ipttil. _. , , a 111" s -. --. ,i!Eli. i.. -' h Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 15 of 220 81 housing mix supports great diversity in housing choices within Golden Gate City and allows for aging in place within the same community. While the Golden Gate Master Plan offers a full range of commercial uses, many commercial areas remain under-utilized. Some of the largest stores, including K-Mart and Sweet Bay, have recently closed. During the public workshops,the majority of participants felt there isn't a need for additional commercial areas, but instead want to focus on redevelopment of the existing areas to bring in new businesses, shops, restaurants and services. Along with community public workshops, Collier County Community Planning staff organized a workshop specifically for all property owners within a commercial land use designation.The purpose of the workshop was to identify opportunities and constraints to developing commercial uses. In addition to noting desires to unify and simplify the uses, design standards and processes throughout the commercial designations, there was strong sentiment supporting the evaluation of redevelopment programs and tools for Golden Gate City. To set the stage for redevelopment and creating an authentic sense of place, it is proposed to simplify the commercial land use designations along Golden Gate Parkway, and provide consistency in the mix of uses and development standards.The following modifications are proposed to the land use designations and Future Land Use Map. 1. Modify the designation of the Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict(shown on Figure 7 above)to redesignate it and make consistent with the Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict.This change will simplify the effort to create design themes and development standards to benefit the community's desire for future redevelopment that is vibrant and walkable. 2. Add two properties along Golden Gate Parkway, not currently included in this designation. One property is at the northeast corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara, where a CVS store is currently located. The second property is the Coral Palm Apartments located between the Activity Center and the Downtown District. Including this property meets the intent of creating a mixed-use corridor. The addition of these two properties is forward looking to provide for greater development consistency along Golden Gate Parkway in the event of future redevelopment. 3. The final proposed change is to include the Wheels BMX skate park and band shell within the boundary of the Activity Center. The Activity Center provides many civic uses and including this park is consistent with the mixed-use intent of the Activity Center. This will provide Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 16 of 220 82 greater certainty that the park is well connected into the Activity Center and a focal point for community celebrations. Figure 9 PROPOSED GOLDEN GATE CITY AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP Legend N GREEN BLVD Category 60, Addition INN Golden Gate Urban Infill Commercial - Collier Blvd Commercial Subdistrict -----� Goden Gate Dowtow eCenter �-�- Commercial Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict L_ Urban Residential - Activity Center Addition Addition to o ! i-- , - i -_ -___,,,L,,..1 .! Wce re ri Z m ', t U 2S ii 4 Addition GOLDEN GATE PKY l� i There are two policies in the current GGAMP that call for community-planning and neighborhood- based planning programs, however, these policies have not been implemented. During the public workshops, residents expressed a clear willingness to participate in the planning process for their community. When asked, "would you be willing to participate in community-based planning program?", the majority of workshop participants were willing to engage in such a program. Continued community participation will be needed for future planning efforts such as redevelopment, urban design themes, development standards, and the creation of branding and marketing materials. To best facilitate community and neighborhood-based planning programs Collier County staff should engaged with and support the established Golden Gate City Civic Association and the Municipal Services Taxing District (MSTU), utilizing these established groups to involve residents in future planning efforts. Working with these associations builds cohesion, recognition and support for Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 17 of 220 83 i community leadership to continue their focus for improvements in Golden Gate City. It is proposed to work within the established Civic Association and the MSTU, their leadership, administration and outreach platforms, rather than creating a new community planning group administered by Collier County staff as currently called for in the Master Plan. Supporting Golden Gate City Redevelopment Golden Gate City contains several commercial areas that are centrally located to the population.The available acreage for commercial development is sufficient to support the residents of Golden Gate City and the surrounding area;therefore, there is not a need to designate additional areas. Instead, focus is needed within the current commercial areas.These areas are dated,auto-oriented and have some significant "dark boxes" resulting from big box store closures. For the community vision to be realized, redevelopment that is people-oriented is needed. The proposed areas to emphasize renewal efforts are the Activity Center and along Golden Gate Parkway(Figure 10). Figure 10 Redevelopment and Renewal Area of Focus "' yx '� it y�,".t�5 prx"73i::'"::"...:*:;,,,,, .,- :41`;',.,./.:r !,:ii-rhi.-1,-_,-4.1' — ' .., r, -,11 lir , a # 4 44 s. . < 'V -,,,,..4. rig. '4V . .'ra " k Page 18 of 220 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 84 There are three distinct areas within the Activity Center; one is the civic area where the community center, library and other civic uses are located, the second area is where the Winn-Dixie is located, and the third area is where the vacant K-Mart building is located. Both the Winn-Dixie plaza and the vacant K-Mart plaza each have a single owner, making these large aggregated parcels more viable for redevelopment (Figure 11). Figure 11 Activity Center Development Areas As developed, these three ; r areas within the Activity • _-0,- , Center do not interconnect or i . - " s° . - relate to one another. They ‘„ ,,,,, • were clearly developed - - j, separately without a vision or „4 consideration for the whole. , 'V ,; :, 4'� , This is a shortcoming of the full Kr potential of this Activity ' ` if. ' . e . '. '`, * '�i�y Center. Moreover, the Activity `+'"4 ", , t g. `` t � ,--x' ',.:R"`',..• r"�l $ t ,l �R s � T Center plazas were developed ),�1i * f'` * ,=Q .� ' x ` r in an auto-oriented pattern " r".`", -r. - .• g ' R ey IP—- - \\,,,:.with access and circulation favoring the automobile. This d r TM • ` �. P- e ' :.' _ !'_ *..t.., .;„ _' . .sh` +�Sift form of urban development, also found along Golden Gate Parkway, creates impediments to the community's desire to be a safe, walkable, vibrant community. The typical auto-oriented pattern creates an "anywhere USA" and lacks authentic community identity. Opportunity Naples (2014) has been a guidepost for Collier County economic development. Opportunity Naples found a need for shovel ready sites for target industries in Collier County. The report also found "growth trends in Collier County's age dynamics risk the future sustainability of the local workforce. Collier County's 25 to 44-year-old population is proportionally smaller than every comparison area except Sarasota County, as is Collier's percentage of 0 to 19-year-old residents. Without an influx of younger workers migrating to the County or a spike in birth rates, Greater Naples could face a significant shortfall of replacement workers for future retirees. Likewise, there will be an occupational shortage in Collier County if qualified workers aged 24 to 44 are not recruited to the area to replace retirees.” This age group, and most specifically the millennials, is one of the most sought-after market segments. Fortunately for Golden Gate City the median age is 30, falling right into that desirable workforce age range. Study after study shows millennials are increasingly choosing vibrant, healthy, walkable communities and rejecting the automobile-centric land use patterns of the generations before them. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 19 of 220 85 Golden Gate City has the basis to be just the type of place the young workforce and their employers are searching for. Further supporting mixed-use, allowing employment centers, and improving the walking infrastructure can become an economic development strategy—a tool to retain and attract a skilled workforce and to build a sustainable economic base. To increase job opportunities within Golden Gate City, and provide nearly shovel ready sites, it is proposed to add several specific land uses to the Activity Center designation. These uses support target industries such as, advanced manufacturing, software development, and data and information processing. To ensure a process to determine compatibility with the surrounding area, these new uses within the Activity Center are proposed as conditional uses, hence nearly shovel ready. Alternatively, the Board could allow these as permitted uses and promoted development standards within the Land Development Code to address compatibility. There are several redevelopment programs that could assist in furthering economic development within Golden Gate City. Collier County uses two of these tools. First, the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). Collier County currently has two CRAs,one in Immokalee and one in the Bayshore Triangle area. The establishment of a CRA is a very lengthy and bureaucratic process. At the state legislative level, CRAs have recently come under scrutiny with some legislators supporting their disbandment. The advantage of the CRA is the County's administration, engagement and oversight of the redevelopment area projects, along with Tax Increment Financing (TIF). However, Golden Gate City's demographic and economic profile is similar to that of Immokalee and Bayshore and while a CRA may benefit Golden Gate City, it is likely to compete for grants with the other two CRAs therefore inhibiting the potential of the all CRAs. The second tool the County uses is the Innovation Zone. Ave Maria town centers are designated Innovation Zones. The Innovation Zone, created by BCC Ordinance 2010-20, is a local TIF tool to promote economic growth and diversity. Innovation Zones may be designated by the BCC through the implementation of Economic Development Plans adopted by resolution for each Innovation Zone. Per the Ordinance, "the use of available TIF revenues within an Innovation Zone as a dedicated economic development tool and funding source enhance the general welfare of the County through the advancement of new employment opportunities, the implementation of redevelopment initiatives, the creation of new economic development opportunities and locations and the expansion of existing employment centers." By permitting specific light industrial uses and employment centers for target industries within the Golden Gate City Activity Center,there is a clear intent to promote economic growth in Golden Gate City,thereby making the Innovation Zone an applicable and viable tool for redevelopment.As a local tool,the BCC is able to designate Innovation Zones without State oversight. Measuring the pros and cons of each redevelopment tool, it is proposed for the Board to designate an Innovation Zone which Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 20 of 220 86 encompasses the Activity Center and Golden Gate Parkway to promote economic growth and redevelopment. In the Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict there is a provision for a minimum project size of one acre. Most parcels are half or a quarter of this size making it less feasible for the property owners to develop or redevelop their properties under this requirement. It is proposed to remove this limitation in effort to support the property owners desire to develop their property consistent with the uses allowed. The Land Development Code may be revised as necessary to address any development standards needed to support this change. The Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, located along the western side of Collier Boulevard between Golden Gate Parkway and Green Boulevard allows heavy commercial with some properties presently zoned C-5, the most intense commercial district. Sustainable communities need appropriate locations for heavy commercial zoning. This land use designation is well located and there are no changes proposed. However, it should be noted that some homeowners located within the western portion of this Subdistrict were very surprised to learn their home had a heavy commercial land use designation.The previous restudy expanded this subdistrict boundary back into a single-family neighborhood. Careful consideration should be given within the Land Development Code to ensure design standards are in place so homeowners are not negatively impacted. Growth Management Plan Policies The following goals, objectives, policies and land use designations outline the land use provisions currently adopted. The policies are relatively non-descript and do not necessarily form a clear the direction for Golden Gate City. This outline is followed by policy recommendations proposed to identify and further the community's vision. Related Existing Provisions in the GGAMP Goal 4: To preserve and enhance a mix of residential and commercial land uses within Golden Gate City that provides for the basic needs of both the local residents and the residents of the surrounding area. Objective 4.1: Provide for residential and commercial land uses that meet the needs of the surrounding area in the development and redevelopment within Golden Gate City. Policy 4.0.1: Development and redevelopment with Golden Gate City shall be guided by the residential and commercial needs of the surrounding area. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 21 of 220 87 Policy 4.1.1 Collier County shall develop an implementation schedule for the creation of a community-planning program for Golden Gate City... Policy 4.1.2 Collier County shall begin to examine, by holding community meetings,the feasibility of establishing neighborhood-based planning programs within Golden Gate City that focus on the unique or distinct features of the different portions of the community. While focusing on distinct areas within the community,such neighborhood planning efforts as may be established shall not neglect Golden Gate City as a whole. Policy 4.1.3: Collier County shall examine the feasibility of crafting land development regulations specific to the Golden Gate City community. Such regulations shall focus on the unique circumstances of this community. Existing Non-residential Land Use Designations (synopsis) High Density Residential Subdistrict To encourage higher density residential and promote mixed-uses in close proximity to Activity Centers,those residential zoned properties permitting up to 12 dwelling units per acre. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict: The primary purpose of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict is to encourage redevelopment along Golden Gate Parkway in order to improve the physical appearance of the area and create a viable downtown district for the residents of Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates. Mixed-use Activity Center Subdistrict The Activity Center designated of the Future Land Use Map is intended to accommodate commercial zoning within the Urban Designated Area. Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. Golden Gate Urban Commercial In-fill Subdistrict This Subdistrict is located at the southwest quadrant of C.R. 951 and Golden Gate Parkway. Commercial uses are limited to low intensity and intermediate commercial uses similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict The intent of the Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict is to provide Golden Gate City with an area that is primarily commercial, with an allowance for certain conditional uses. Thy types of uses permitted within this Subdistrict are low intensity retail, offices, personal services and institutional. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 22 of 220 88 Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Commercial Subdistrict The provisions of this Subdistrict are intended to provide Golden Gate City with a viable professional office district with associated small-scale retail. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict The primary purpose of the Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict is to encourage redevelopment along Collier Boulevard in order to improve the physical appearance of the area. This Subdistrict is intended to allow a mix of uses, including heavy commercial within those areas presently zoned C- 5. Recommended Policies • Establish land use designations to protect established, stable, neighborhoods and provide opportunity for redevelopment and renewal through development practices that promote compatibility. • Support redevelopment of Golden Gate Parkway to provide for a viable pedestrian environment adding to the vibrancy and walkability of Golden Gate City. • Add land uses within the designated Activity Center intended to promote job growth and strengthen the economic health of Golden Gate City. • Protect the land uses allowing for diversity of residential housing. • Engage with the Golden Gate Civic Association and MSTU to further community planning programs. • Consider redevelopment tools such as an Innovation Zone to further economic development and redevelopment strategies. • Develop amendments to the Land Development Code to support and implement redevelopment initiatives including incentives for building remodeling and renovation. • Develop a branding and marketing plan for Golden Gate City. • Ensure pertinent incentive programs are made available to those seeking business creation and redevelopment opportunities in Golden Gate City. • Modify the land use designations along Golden Gate Parkway to create a consistent development pattern. • Add target industry uses to the Activity Center. • In the Santa Barbara Commercial District, remove the minimum project size of one acre. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 23 of 220 89 Transportation and Mobility Golden Gate City has a well-connected neighborhood roadway network. However, nearly all streets lack sidewalks or other infrastructure to support walking.This severely limits safe transportation for Figure 12 Golden Gate City Transportation Features - t c - TRANSPORTATION FEATURES.. a ScnoolzC•Hdng 6iaawea. ` ,! 'i' 3 ,4; Fre Station ts�Wng Posed Seoul.. x ._{ T ` s basting Enke Lane tt ` ,l _Este.,Bus Rm.. �. 1 1. t�br"'t' F,r.aea a wre RoaAe ,c a °w a* r PINE RIDGE RD likk Ne p.,. .. -. MSTU Baedraewn Prgr<ts A ii a T �-�FuOure Sifleetl[e . i *Al .w. LA Future Tranul PatF-ii-RMa ' Ica PerMf Sherd!Btr.ma • Furtne Transit Trane Mr Ce - ` e � «ay 3 ypp �'. Sa,dYAres + Y 11 At ` yt f Q[ , GREEN BLVD.' ,. y M_ _ e .. . _ YY kit . (e } t1iIf . .ice R N ,1 4 .L _4 ;.m 1 rr q( i t el^- T i 1.,,,...!,, y -v s i- 11 :1:,!:;4...'7:-.' Z€ 1 2 sr q �1� } S '},.,,^`�"� S- i--_. s � .h"k r, y f •� ci dap+ •.'aY. r - -;5.{ a' s sa { d ; ' .. r-,4-1--i-:,,,..--- • 3s .1'. ** ?'"tit .., T';,-.,' �a - ita l''-'- n as 7.'=e;..- �g ,i.:. t t, 7:- .. - lei .,� xis f' as r•� �^ ,�,� +�,. µEq,, .. 54.1 R w w 4. l i 3".*; ,:*,....z... I a R'.}-1't , e i' a + - .. = c - # i.�r 4 T a .- FGUA�s - ,,a ' t as pc....� Y . - .. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 24 of 220 90 children and those that don't drive. During the public workshops, there were few complaints of traffic congestion, apart from a few residents' concern about peak-hour traffic on Santa Barbara Boulevard at the Green Boulevard intersection. The primary transportation focus of residents is improving walking, bicycling and transit access. This is reflected in the Golden Gate City vision statement. It was reported during the public workshops that many Golden Gate City residents are bicycling to work in the coastal area. Recognizing Golden Gate City is a family oriented community, many of the citizens are not of driving age; rather, they are children and seniors that are no longer driving trying to get to services, schools, parks and friends homes. The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan Needs Assessment shows a needed demand to improve Santa Barbara Boulevard north of Golden Gate Parkway, and that is the only roadway improvement shown as "needed." The critical need for transportation improvements in Golden Gate City are those that support walking, bicycling and transit. Figure 12 shows the existing sidewalk systems is limited to those areas surrounding schools. A few planned sidewalk construction projects are mainly along arterial roads. Very few streets have bike lanes.The Collier MPO has identified the transit need in Golden Gate City by including a future transit transfer point, indicated with a blue circle in the center of Golden Gate City. Additionally, recognizing the transportation needs of pedestrians,the Collier MPO recently initiated the Golden Gate City Walkable Community Study. This study will assess and prioritize pedestrian facility needs for Golden Gate City based on quantitative and qualitative factors. This study will provide guidance to improving the waling conditions in Golden Gate City. Further, it will help the Golden Gate City achieve their vision of a safe, family-oriented community. Following completion of the study and acceptance by the Collier MPO, the approved study recommendations should be incorporated into the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Growth Management Plan Policies The following goals, objectives, policies outline the related transportation provisions currently adopted. This outline is followed by policy recommendations proposed to identify and further the community's vision. Related Existing Provisions in the GGAMP Policy 6.2.3: Sidewalks and bike lanes shall provide access to government facilities, schools, commercial areas and the planned County greenway network. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 25 of 220 91 Objective 6.3: Coordinate with local emergency services officials in planning and constructing road improvements within Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City to ensure that the access needs of fire department, police and emergency management personnel and vehicles are met. Objective 7.3 Develop strategies through the County Growth Management Division —Planning and Regulation for the enhancement of roadway interconnection within Golden Gate City and the Estates Area including interim measures to assure interconnection. Recommended Policies • Support all transportation needs within Golden Gate City with an emphasis on walkability. Walkability will be improved through the implementation of the recommendations of the MPO's Walkability Study. • Within the Activity Center, maintain multiple connections to the surrounding neighborhoods and through the Activity Center while providing safe and direct access to transit stops within or adjacent to the Activity Center. • Consider protecting alleys from vacating process where there is reasonable connection and continuity for future pathway corridors. • Initiate periodic speed studies in Golden Gate City and when appropriate, utilize traffic calming measures and speed limit reductions to ensure a safe pedestrian environment. Environmental Stewardship The primary concern for potential environmental degradation in Golden Gate City is associated with the many private wells and septic tanks. As reported by Collier County Utilities Department, residences so near one another pose a significant risk of contamination to individual water wells or supply-sources for the entire region. Private water wells and septic tanks age over time, have a limited lifecycle, and have a wide disparity in the level of maintenance by various property owners, affecting the life and functionality of the tanks. Currently, only one complete quadrant of four within Golden Gate City has access to a treated potable water supply from a private utility, Florida Governmental Utility Authority (FGUA). At their June 27, 2017 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners provided direction to County staff to initiate a due diligence process and negotiate terms of acquisition of FGUA. Integrating the Golden Gate City system into the Collier County Public Utilities system and expanding utility services to homes and businesses within Golden Gate City provides a long-term strategy to address potential environmental impacts and system reliability. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 26 of 220 92 Growth Management Plan Policies While Golden Gate City doesn't encompass significant natural resources, it is important to focus on policies related to utilities for the reasons stated above. The adopted policies are related to the Florida Governmental Utilities Authority. The proposed provisions reflect the County's initiative to assume responsibility of maintenance and expansion of utilities for Golden Gate City. Related Existing Provisions in the GGAMP Objective 1.2: Ensure public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service. Policy 1.2.3: Consistent with Chapter 89-169, Florida Administrative Code, the Florida Governmental Utilities Authority, or its successor, shall provide updated water and sewer service data to the Collier County Water and Wastewater Authority on an annual basis. Policy 1.2.4: Due to the continued use of individual septic systems and private wells within a densely platted urban area, the Florida Governmental Utilities Authority, or its successor, is encouraged to expand their sewer and water service area to include all of that area known as Golden Gate City at the earliest possible time. Recommended Policy • Maintain and expand sewer and water service in accordance with the Collier County Water and Sewer District Implementation Plan. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 27 of 220 93 Golden Gate Estates Golden Gate Eastern Estate Vision Statement "The Golden Gate Eastern Estates is an interconnected, low-density residential community with limited goods and services in neighborhood centers, defined by a rural character with an appreciation for nature and quiet surroundings." Golden Gate Western Estate Vision Statement "Golden Gate Western Estates is a low-density, large-lot residential neighborhood in a natural setting with convenient access to the coastal area." Land Use and Economic Vitality Within the GGAMP,there are Goals,Objectives and Policies(GOPs)as well as a Land Use Description Section that pertain specifically to Estates land uses. This section describes the status, review and community recommendations pertaining to GOPs and Estates land use descriptions, both east (rural) and west (urban) of CR 951. Generally, the land uses can be divided into these categories: Residential, Commercial and Conditional.Additionally, policies related to public facilities,adjacent land uses and notice provisions are considered. Residential Land Uses Golden Gate Estates is an area primarily intended for residential uses. Of the 66,000 acres that make up today's Golden Gate Estates,over 95%is reserved for residential use under the current plan.This is consistent with Goal 5 of the GGAMP that balances the preservation of rural character, wooded lots, the keeping of livestock, the ability to grow crops. wildlife activity and low density residential with limited commercial and conditional uses. As of 2016,the rural Estates residential lots total almost 24,000 in number.Approximately half have been developed.Absent future changes in conservation of parcels for environmental or recreational purposes, the current population of 31,100 can be expected to double by build-out. Figure 13 shows the existing distribution of developed residential areas within the rural Estates. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 28 of 220 94 By contrast, Figure 14 shows Figure 13 the development of urban GOLDEN GATE RURAL ESTATES(E OF 951)PARCELS Estates lots is much closer to TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS:APPROX.23,808 build out. In this area,86%of Parcels with Structures:Approx.11,296 Parcels without Structures:Approx.12,612 the parcels have been Legend developed, leaving only 430 STRUCTURE —II RI vacant parcels in this much 1 PARCELS WITHOUT STRUCTURES Cf 1 ft,i., i _ 4 smaller portion of Golden ; PARCELS WITH STRUCTURES Lr' ' 'i ,1-, . Gate Estates. I ', 1r i 1 � Ui, 1 k FE i, , ,N ii ="� -� An analysis of building i- $ 1 ` illi activity in Golden Gate t •• ' ,l, to��..i Estates suggests that L "a ;�11 , development is currently 111611:001.1£ "°"" `� fjn r t,iii;,na ^4�Ij, t ° '" i, «« Y �1c accelerating. When I i; f L4 �F 411- , . i. y comparing annual totals as 8 , i r ` z i Svc`1' i`,' 104.111ATOE.... -74,..it f ,...., of second quarter, 2017 to .i. n, , -"---71-7'- s. second quarter, 2016, permit — ,-n-, �� - h if .'u -'} I.4.1 _ applications rose from 273 to ,.i '' 408, an increase of almost 50%. Taken together, 681 „ .a ii housing starts over this 2- 4” .J 1 year period suggests Ali. -1-tq �al.1 economic vigor in a post- , high foreclosure market. a Q N 1 0 0.6 7 2 3 Mies / r/imf Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 29 of 220 95 Figure 14 During public outreach, residents GOLDEN GATE URBAN ESTATES (WEST OF CR 951) and stakeholders did not 11111 advocate any major changes in -11 IMMOKALEER-` 'l residential land use. Most � Legend I i individuals polled preferred to "_ am DEVELOPED RESIDENTIAL(APPROX.2,891) maintain a low density residential E'l'i' —VACANT RESIDENTIAL(APPROX.430) l f environment with few changes. ' In fact, the Golden Gate Estates VANDERBI BEACH RD .� 1 �� in Area Civic Association (GGEACA) .I voiced the preference for a "low :, GOLDEN GATE BLVD density overlay" to protect its i ( ° .character well into the future. ) )_The minimum lot size wouldloll € "! r remain unchanged, with the Ic' I ) MN ) 1 o possibility of recombining some • 1;I i ! 5 I . legal non-conforming (smaller) o ` ( ■ lots. No new designations of Z residential areas to ? , Neighborhood Centers were ) suggested.The sole conversion of I GOLD "r'1 i LiA,' ..rte_ ) residential areas endorsed by the a II 11155`,'!in 3 a • is I public was for office type N A commercial along a short length �� �► of Immokalee Road in the Urban Estates and the possibility of non-residential land uses near the Randal Rd. curve on Immokalee Rd. Residents were polled about some specific aspects of Residential land use. Polling questions included allowing group homes as a permitted use and changing the rules surrounding home-based businesses. Public sentiment was against any change in either topic area. When asked about the desirability of allowing rental of guest houses, polls found mixed results. At a public workshop held in November 2016, 56%of respondents were in favor. In contrast, only 26% responded favorably at a February 2017 public workshop. Currently, there are approximately 700 guest homes in the Estates area. Based on the strong environmental preferences in response to other issues, staff does not recommend guest house rentals, as it would tend to weaken the desire to retain a lower density, lower impact community. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 30 of 220 96 Some requested changes, as described in the environmental portion below, relate the desire to recombine legal non-conforming lots and to require or incentivize on-site stormwater retention and other water-related initiatives to maximize water quality, percolation and floodplain protection. Also, noted in the environmental section, are recommendations for strengthening wildfire prevention and lighting standards. These provisions cross several land uses, including residential land use. Public Notice Although the concept of strengthening various notice provisions was not queried or mentioned in public outreach workshops, staff has observed one notice issue in the context of public petitions. Currently, mailed notices are required in advance of Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) as well as certain public hearings. Where required, it would be beneficial for all involved to provide notices along the entire length of dead-end Estates avenues or streets where a project makes direct impact, if the length is greater than the required linear distance of 1,000 feet. (See Non-Residential Uses/Notice provisions, below.) Specific Property Re-designations From time to time staff was queried about specific properties and whether there would be any specific land use changes recommended. Staff understood its Restudy scope as one essentially limited to universal principles- either in land use or other GOPs. However, it is always possible that, during the Public Hearing process, public officials will endorse land use changes in a parcel specific manner. For example, parcels owned by the County may be Figure 15 Future Land Use Study Area the subject of Board direction at 33rd AVE NE Transmittal to effect affordable OIL WELL RD „> or senior housing needs, or to '', accommodate other public uses such as park and ride locations, or other land uses. One specific o location that gained attention 3 g following public outreach is the area in the vicinity of the 1 25th AVE NE �� RANDALL BLVD Immokalee Rd. curve near IMMOKN IE RD Randall Blvd. This is a location Randal Blvd m»rc�$ .�,ct 24th AVE NE .. .- .........___.. where significant transportation planning is underway, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 31 of 220 97 area may be suitable for non-residential uses such as an activity center or other designation. The recommendations below include this area as a future study area to determine appropriateness of re-designation, following the completion of the Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Road Corridor Study.The depiction of the future study area, below, extends from 33d Ave NE to properties west of Wilson Blvd., and may be adjusted before the study begins. Staff recommends that the study commence upon the completion of the Oil Well Rd. and Randall Blvd. transportation study. Growth Management Plan Policies Related Existing Provisions in GGAMP: Designation Description/Residential Estates Subdistrict: Single family residential development is allowed within this Subdistrict at a maximum density of one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of guest houses. Objective 5.3: Provide for the protection of the rural character of Golden Gate Estates. Policy 5.3.0.1: Rural character protection provisions shall provide for the preservation of such rural amenities as, but not limited to, wooded lots, the keeping of livestock, the ability to grow crops, wildlife activity, and low-density residential development. Policy 5.3.2: The Land Development Code shall continue to allow and further encourage the preservation of native vegetation and wildlife indigenous to the Estates area. Objective 1.4: Provide a living environment within the Golden Gate area, which is aesthetically acceptable and protects the quality of life. Policy 1.4.0.1 Collier County shall provide a living environment that is aesthetically acceptable and protects the quality of life through the enforcement of applicable codes and laws. Policy 1.4.1: The County's Code Enforcement Board shall strictly enforce the Land Development Code and other applicable codes and laws to control the illegal storage of machinery, vehicles and junk, and the illegal operation of commercial activities within the Golden Gate area. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 32 of 220 98 Recommended Policies • See Non-residential Land Uses and Environmental Recommendations. Neighborhood Centers and Non-residential Uses Presently, there are three (3) Neighborhood Center designations in the Rural Estates and one (1) on the eastern edge of the urban Estates. In addition to Neighborhood Centers, there are four (4) mixed-use or commercial Sub-districts in the rural Estates and six (6) within the urban Estates. The locations can be seen below in Figure 16. During the public outreach meetings in the rural Estates and in the urban Estates, no new Neighborhood Centers were suggested or desired. Rather, there was strong sentiment to increase the availability of commercial uses in adjoining RFMUD and RLSA areas. In this way,the predominant Figure 16 Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Golden Gate Master Plan Category GOLDEN GATE ESTATES CONDITIONAL USE SUBDISTRICT NE INFIUL COIMERCIAL (=NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER SUBDISTRICT I.MISSION suBDISTWCT FUTURE LAND USE MAP -PINE RIDGE RD MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT -RANDALL BLVD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT "A.A.\ -RURALBETTLEMENTAREA MI ESTATES SHOPPING CENTER IM.\IOIiA1./:4:RD f -sOUTY•ROOKE OFFICE SUBDISTRICT -EVERGLADES RANDALL SUBDISTRICT ^i URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT -GOLDEN GATE PAWS INSTITUTIONAL SUBDISTRICT -IAESTERN ESTATES INFILL SUBDISTRICT 'INTERCHANGE ACTIVITY CENTER SUBDISTRICT W f RESIDENTIAL ESTATES SUBDISTRICT 7 P m i \ L--- -. I F it (RI.WELRIR OIL II ELI.RD RARDALLKAI) IIIMOKALIT RD ' C ' P 7 , 3 v i\NUE ILI BE',V R RD C G 7 P 3 r COLDER GAI'E BLVD NS' -y GOLDEN GAIL ID VD -- � tee PIVE GE n g a ,.U1 C G ,LI It m C rr(wr F RADIO RD �� NrERSTATE-7, DAVIS RINI/ Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 33 of 220 99 rural, residential character of the Estates could be maintained. Importantly, by placing office, commercial, business and industrial parks in these adjoining Districts, shopping, employment and entertainment opportunities would emerge in closer proximity to the Estates, and within easier drive times. As noted in the Master Mobility Plan (2012), reverse trips and shorter trips (fewer vehicle miles travelled) yield benefits to infrastructure demand, local economy, quality of life, environmental protection and public safety. Resizing the Neighborhood Centers Although no new Neighborhood Centers were desired by the public, there was a clear desire by those within the rural Estates that the three Neighborhood Centers should be "right-sized", to function appropriately within a rural context. For example, Figure 17 shows the three quadrants within the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center contains development areas of 8.45, 7.15 and 4.86 acres, as seen in the figure below. As stated by the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (GGEACA), these Figure 17 Centers should be allowed Neighborhood Center at Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards "sufficient (increased) area for road development, septic/wastewater treatment, and water retention." Additional rationale would include parking, future right- of-way expansion and effective buffering from residential uses. �2 r •A• :al 'V �' r .7 The GGEACA recommended an 80-acre maximum node for each of the three rural Neighborhood Centers.This equates to a maximum of 20 acres per quadrant- an important measure because at least 2 of the 3 rural Neighborhood Centers will not develop all 4 quadrants. In most instances 20 acres will not be required to build an efficient development area, but can serve as a maximum under the Master Plan. Upsizing of any Neighborhood Center would require a rezoning of the property. The maximum acreage per quadrant is not an entitlement but allows the applicant to request zoning greater than the current Future Land Use Map would indicate, under criteria, without a requirement to amend the GGAMP. In all, there are 10 commercial or mixed-use subdistricts in Golden Gate Estates. For the most part, these subdistricts emerged over the past 20 years through private plan amendment applications and Board approvals. As noted, the scope of this Restudy does not include additional site-specific Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 34 of 220 100 recommendations. Further, stakeholders do not presently support additional site-specific commercial designations. Immokalee Rd./Oaks Blvd. Interface There is one location within the urban Estates best described as a potential corridor re-designation. This is an area along the Immokalee Road/Oaks Estates interface as shown in Figure 18. Currently zoned uses among the 16 parcels located in this corridor include 2 commercial uses (C-1), 8 conditional uses and 6 residential uses. One of the residential uses is entitled to a transitional Figure 18 Immokalee Road and Oakes Boulevard Interface '1 Legend N ./ v �-L , #\ -__.1- - ,oik = .„� cis, POTENTIAL CU ,.\ • , . *,, �,Iv OM EXISTING CU&PU -COMMERCIAL 44)/7'' , — "• *�� ' al ,� all ilr All I 1***” a I 1 • i Hole: (e)"Commercial"includes parcel.toned eemmerciel and/or designated mmne O 1 on dee —"--- — Golden hate Area cYbin1 land Use Map and/or developed commerdal. _ _ (b)Most en Is a ruW"percale would also n engible tor•Conditional c Uee. _ ��' .�,� a n This meg m a guide. el Golden Gab Ma tenter Man should M eomuged to determine -�— '-- and/or confirm e2gIMMy el land uses -. �`` - l l l l l l l l l l -- = 11 o op al `' ...„1 tiabb. air iiIIIIT ______ H Immokalee RD mismismismormow 20 21 I 30 if 90 150 Autumn Oaks LN t0 23 ___ _�. .._ 09 & l® 12 122 132 109 conditional use application.Another is a County-owned parcel for water retention.Thus,five parcels could retain existing residential zoning or apply for a CU or rezone to C-1, under the recommendation below. When asked about additional conditional uses in the western Estates, a slight majority felt that additional locations were not needed. However, when asked whether the Immokalee Road/Oaks interface should have future land uses to include office and conditional uses,over 75%were in favor. The public understood that a more unified planning approach to this corridor could result in better outcomes, including access points and continuity. For this reason, the recommendation below suggests a FLUE designation that allows rezone applications for C-1 uses as well as conditional uses in this corridor. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 35 of 220 101 Conditional Uses Conditional use opportunities in Golden Gate Estates include churches, social and fraternal organizations, child care and adult day care centers, Figure 19 private schools, group care APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES,COMMERCIAL, AND POTENTIAL AREAS FOR CONDITIONAL USES IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES facilities (such as nursing homes and assisted living �° Legend I i POTENTIAL CU facilities) and model r,1 -EXISTING CU&PUN -COMMERCIAL homes. As conditionaluses, they are generally "'~"`Ar.F..'•"'°' "~.eNx" "ep."me°H■w.'Cam...0.oxce4wewk sts be e.qW b e Cne.. w.e i 6/Thsee.PM..rh,neG.4e.0..e.e..M.Mx Nn Oro.M conic.le...In. , appropriate if compatible ' iwith neighboring uses, and N should be limited as to location and number. A Ni .44^s " " _ 11 ri e GGAMP allowance for { — conditional use provides a �; i i ' i w = right to seek approval, not1111! MOW = �� { �u1a�� 1I Ali I lim- a right for the use at any 1n11 11111111111EMIZ4 ^ 1 1 I/11I -3! x1111 WuItwawa i location. Typically, if 1■1■■II/I41 -r'1711AIY11m111ztams- W 11PENIIIIIJ1 =IIIITHEIIIrNIIIIII<1=It 1■1r.lIIIIi rr I o"w111•11I!E"II granted, conditional uses nr!0�!!"e �` i .-..a relsm inowi ■ ,. - ,.1..,.., Mann NII MOI are subject to numerous "' "' °'S=1 lhJ"T1to il11111 U. conditions of development Ii' UI f Aand o eration. ii s!ili 1 1;;;i ! - The GGAMP allows 1 r',�n I�.. J- � 1 MIIIIIIIIIIIIIII conditional use jou Flom II I%Hil it= Ill to s applications for properties !! "-' mosimius designated as residential. t - t' i�� t However, the locational --- iiiiimlc` r M NE ��{ 'r1,,. - i n 1 Ili a r4 1 1? ••••{ {{{� -- criteria are extremely ■t■s■..t:r tomes - rl..'-' l limited,except for essential services. The Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use provisions allow such applications if immediately adjacent to a designated Neighborhood Center (there are 4 in total). The Transitional Conditional Use provisions allow applications for conditional uses if adjacent to some, but not all non-residential uses. In addition,there are further restrictions along Golden Gate Parkway from Livingston to Santa Barbara Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 36 of 220 102 Figure 20 APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES,COMMERCIAL, AND POTENTIAL AREAS FOR CONDITIONAL USES IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES J i € ■ally_ ,w 11oi/ aw�l/ssitwle''— aw. iji ■Itllit111�rlllllllul0� IIIien ImIU11I11111111IIIell��11ZI�1a��r1'Utz MINI— Isu7tiIII.UIIn11AE�allr°II- mitimi erarommilissimmer7rmucameranow en so1s11Ga111:rIns11a1II -laUnlll =111111111111�M� ew®rE•si•1 •Ills■9�OM•/:rl9'uI;."u..= ■11li1 ?194IIIIse1■sem..'"'®t®11 1171 - ;� i. ■eemeeM..1==eineeneeelLrme Aerie° CII°IIIneemenwi =rIOANI 1 (!� ♦ ■llis149/11r1=:A99sllsell,.[i•IINiI �11lIIt1a1uMNIl� ,SN.ri�1 ��qq,�� ■°II•IIUE•I =IASAI.111: Urn.tte =11111nin •M oN= �'7Jll�aii 1111 ■n1s1M.s1 -N1M1°n riJs11r(IICC1111111a1tlra=�9 .Cwwd ■111:1/lgd.e =19Ar1ISIIP�.I7s11s171..7A119I11st111r� GNI.1.E. _ ■III•AIAA•1 T1 •1°•IIP 717:11:•1= AeA1111.16amr �r1-asn ei miin1111is11e11 =1111M11111111==1411111111 11==11111101111111111111111111112=1111 ■111114?r.° �1A/MIIUIII -I IMAM II =9A!°I1111@Clr�"-1r 1111% S ■ntrll•Raiz=@@@r me111--(ir114El==minim rrrtsNINI oe:r mos.brAIP I u1IIIIPW ill ri911111.111P=11i11111111=VIM1EslrrE� 111 • -Pis 9 t'' seeeom•UM0-:n1Nn■111=e:IIUIIUD==IIIIII oneo leo-za! g entstewseemrreemelteet-roomeme=r,ele 111•IIE.�lRt�.7=111 unneessel==eummu 1:=Rl•elrle==n11111MICrs� owrME�rnlNi•� -1IIIe�I�IIl ....asrs11uiaaaaesari..iii®®isi�s_raeierrasiliaiise•n ®a� - ..01,„„,...............................,„............,...,... A_ s, III ° tar.r.r®Asia:`-s's-•iee-ss''r"rr�Gi's��:aG:�iraffiaera� csrares ° 11' +�-6 "I IJIIIilt.sera• sa11.sa•.amsM•rssss®srls11asss•�ss•Uasssass11•i�t MUi 6 1 I' ■assamosssuommassenesom rsmrlangsssssume slime -. menue•/uIn11etetteaoeleetn/R 941!111 IIIIIn eeeete11nitst lot eiluul•I llilll Ii1@llm,"''iltlu°i.11°rl0rwt1 :R mommessommo smeeleo a Ilnnnllumletneau nnumll111 IlnliemuMlIUUUI 110111111111111111111•111101111111101111111 1111111111111111 1R mII IIiO'+Melees:lasspesseusoassios11ssmaere �ii®s_GsTi •aas_aslii= .11ln�ri as�II it` . � o�� tun.ien:= - - -_ - - - =_Csousss•NrM*NNIwltr�tl@,t sc 11111010.11111- o-�- -- - -.:=--_ =- -•IiUMM®i1oS_r1 11111111111H - -- - -:111101.1® 1l1 -- 111.01411111 ==IIXII 111111111=1M11111111 111.01!11111 ----==- - =-- -1I1111.1@nl nmum:C: _-- -P---:==11111 �9911s� 1�4 - teInnlulnlu oseA-- -nera, rwn�e� -== =---=- -•111■ NIN== 1emem1m/tIItllnlfu � -'���� ..MIS =o��11111111 IIIII - 11111111111111 1•11111=r0400111111111111111111111 - 11:1em1111 _ 1 w =111•11/11111411111111114 - I 111 =oo oPees-----.._ P 1 1114141MI M!N =11141rts1111111• I111111E11111 -let ese°II11°IIIIIHIA°IIIIII - toms =N11m! 1t!'U1na -11111 ell-III IL II �:w�� - InnlUn/i ..UNI NAM IA-w:_••!.n°NIa", 11l91l111n/IIoo e IIsd=CSIs1A•I - - Ue/•11011 --- -®ee: 1�1=-Ael1�9:.. -IP..11111111I -a-=-a-o-=-=®.0 Legend OAo=rMr11� n111111116 ( _j poi anAucu A 11.11111111.1 - 11AA!l'n111 .------e IR - 1111�+•lu■ ---""' EXISTING cURPu rIPISI� - MINN e��1NIrm - ,"'"\e tMle Y I1111n11ne a.COMMERCIAL IssOl .- NEIN==1111•1111111111111111111 - IIIIIIMIIIa rm. essom -RrolI sereelleem 1 in)•co...., a+..na.o«...i,.v,w.a..... ..i.�.aw.tee ee.,.a,.menereel 11.10. .1=11.1=1111111111111.1.111111110.4 - Inlll.Il/a o.w..GK.•,..raw.1...U..we.w««woke*w�.... o •ler--R1`si•1rNIO1l IIB!47'roil C. AO Sleet'Gemmel., mel.n a ,:we...*IeNe�w�eseleagee Ike•�elm.w lUse ,., .,,-.... l�==1•>•1s� __•111111ot11I b -••- OW,el,...,..a w®_orsuall and on the west side of Collier Blvd. The limited availability for conditional use applications can be gleaned from the analytic Figures 19, 20 and 21.The areas marked in yellow indicate conditional use potential under the current GGAMP. Because Golden Gate Estates is 50% built out, it is likely that additional locations would be useful for conditional uses as development progresses. With this in mind, staff sought public feedback on the possibility of expanding location potentials. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 37 of 220 103 — Figure 21 _ 1 f_ APPROVED CONDITIONAL USES,COMMERCIAL, - Jjkaes IJ x■ 11■ r .iq AND POTENTIAL AREAS FOR CONDITIONAL USES 111 41111 1�1■ 111111: IN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES °� l� r■ �� 1ilnill I ""° 1 t 1111 �■ 11111111E 1111111111-=1111111111k”!1 Legend 1 �.,� ! ■ ni==�ur�a=riiiiiiiilII . :.f POTEMW.CU V III 11111Y7711111111 111,11 11111 ■ I r■:_M1 r=1111111111.11 6 ►..7 1111111'.""1911111 -EXISTING COI PU r■__i 1rirI11UMIE1 F /r- 111 11111'91 t^III / Mil COMMERCIAL N r/-= x11/1II1IC1 xer-..- 11th,,"1111:1 T MIN==MI r11t111I1I61 11•_11 {a}•tamma'<w•m.mda.oats.dolled eowebeeelal miler d.iM'etd demurral*ereb 1 ■1■=11 x1111111111111/ =Gerd..Caste Mn ie..tend Use M.0MYf&NOW..(0e1rMIM, . MIIIIII== MIIII1111111'1111■ 1bl Most"Commoner oat,.would Mee M a111M1for d Comitiral II. morn!: 11;IIt111I111111 • ■ k"Thie mei;b 0ilvWa.The Geller.)Gals AMMAN Pleb 111101M be teneYlted le ielebellee �rr'- -- = _ ante.,"mem eeManvofland.. x11== Iiii it= O- ••11I11rlI{ . 1 1111F7...t. - ■ _ 11111II1111 nnwIUl 1 IIIIIllUU1= MMT7 .milli lIUI -IIwO a II:III-111 Ill II"Ill III I r■ -111NI=111111111111 2:::111111101.1.7.7=l;-r=1",: NM PT I'rt r:11"1^.1'1111■ IMIN=.111113 1111=1111111111111 11111111111111111116 111111111111=011/111191 =-=======_==-==J 1 12111=7.11* IN Z.:H1111111111 'm1111II11IaPv1111IIu11==III11.1r 1 ie=_ "_IIIIIIIIIIII uuuumuut 111111e'f111111 Inn .1"1111 IIIIIn1I4. rR Hr t1It.I 1X11111111 lullnnll rr - t • 111111,...1111:1111M1.11 _... I xi I ' 1111111111111111=11110111111 ate■ " 11111.1 111.11 1111 ,rit I,1, I M; x[1 • u111n111111u1 ■1111111111 111111."...1111.7.111 FT1111 .■ ...-I 1111111I111t11X III11111111 A _ w fi�tI■■ 'i �P 1111-IA' wiiiliii1111 .." _., - ---_ - - PI9C 1' 'IT� I ■r■ :1.x xlnlII I _ -^--^ 1 x■ ■�IIIII/l .� �Y - 1 1■e I x111X I 1x(,1! 1-arm I IxIIIIII 111 II =M 1 =1111"." -I 1 ■r■ .11,,111„1 _ ea 11111I11IInoi..1161•..,1 ra IIIIIIIIIIInIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIU ■..1111= I .iifiiiiiiiii= IIIIP,I,M111 9111111111.,111111111It "•1'111111 ■�P7711111111•1111111111•11111".1.1== .n I•Iu11111111 X1 111111111111 =II11111111 11/111111111 '1•".1111::- ■x■ Ix�f1r 111111/111 R� ,",-1,—.•*_ ,� 111U1"'}111 XII �I.NIIIIII..:111111IIiI 41111111 ■�► =1M�M1111 1 = I111II11111/111 =i11111t 111 1111 111111.111 11111/I Rr■ irr11111111 Sl - ■Iau till E M1111/1111 I111111111f1 Itf"IIIU r■4 run"! ��A . IIIIn1t1I1==1=01111111,a11uuh1hihuhuh1fhhhhuhh1 ■1/11111111 II/IIII1 111IIIIIIIIIIIIII r■rle:_ r11111I11t yIP, ■1111•1111111 HIIIIIII uIIIIIIIIII - 1111.111{ I■ ■ llter IIIa ■ .X1111 UIItt11IIi1111 l 1X1111 ■ MIII''!nlli ■11111111111111 IIIIIIIIt III 116IIIIIIIII 1111111111■ L• U==�x11x uI11111i al ■11111.1 I Illi IIIIt1I1 _.111111111111 11IIIIIU11111011117,11110.0.0101.1"."9== . .. t • 111111111111111 -111111111111_=IIIII11n/= 1111.111111■ 11x11=-eRrx11tt111I11 11111111"1 1111 "' '111111111. ..111111.111111=-"'I'I11111I1 1.111111.!"711111111111111111111111111°.1.11== 111111111111111=1111111111111==111111111111==1111111111V1 ■1•■ x11111111.1 ii, ...,1„..,.....,,.„„...„,.,1111111/IIt-=-s'1.111111U ..,,,..........,,,== ..............,...,=7„,=====imln=1111111111U FINS-=1�■Lx1111111111 = 1'lt1.1117.91111111111/0111111111“1.1=UI.IlI I,.f 1'11 ■R■ i .- •- U TRrR:=1111 •1/1111111111 =e 311 r i-E 1 11:11111 P 11 n==l pijn� _--. ---' -'I 1■11iU:: - IIIIU/CaII. 1, lir=:•--_ _ . - - _ . _--^__:_._•-•-• --_--- C I ■■t■--i■__ 11111111"'==l1. 1.-.. 11 -• ""•---r===:--i- __• ■. 1.r■==rrR�r11I111I111==:1111 t1IIII II -_ Y' U 1111111-...11101111111=1111111111111,11C:=1111 irrir�wr■xuuuunc=1111► IXIIIIXII11111111f111111111110"„".N".III11II111IIII1.I111ttt111 11I111111111111111111I1111IIIIIXIIIIIIIS _"_..111 le Ii141r■1x111I11111111111111 '•1 1141111111111111111111111111111111111111e IIIItttlllt II IIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIII III 111111111 II IIIIIIII Mir., 1=110111111111111111111111 11111111 - - �1O it■e •Orrrlll"""..III==111.1■ ...ler----...r .. . - - --- - -•le ■ix.==M rlIIlIIIIII:=IIIlN 11111111:. ..P..= ,_.. : _.__ --_._....•..... I /it:�1U I!I""'°111.7=1111M 1•••"1II J R■■I■Z='a N IIIIIIIIi III1■ .__..s .- _ 11 111 -11 Arterial Intersections Surveys in the rural Estates indicated a preference to allow some additional potential CU locations if limited as to location and type. A majority stated that additional CUs should be allowed at more locations, and specifically allowed at arterial intersections (described as 4 or more lane roads intersected by 4 or more lane roads). Slightly less than half of those surveyed in the urban Estates thought that CUs should be considered at major intersections (45%v. 50%). While suitability of land use underlies this recommendation, we note that there is a possibility that the conversion of use from residential to conditional use could potentially increase future ROW acquisition costs for future road expansion. A compilation of the intersections that would qualify as include: Rural Estates • Everglades Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. • Golden Gate Blvd. and Collier Blvd. (east quadrants) • Vanderbilt Beach Rd. and Wilson Blvd. (future) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 38 of 220 104 • Everglades Blvd. and Randall Rd. (future) • Wilson Blvd. and Immokalee Rd. (future, south quadrants) Urban Estates • Logan Blvd. and Pine Ridge Rd. • Golden Gate Pkwy. and Santa Barbara Blvd. (west quadrants) • Logan Blvd. and Vanderbilt Beach Rd. (future, SW quadrant only) (Note: "future" designation derived from 2040 LRTP) Based on this recommendation, a total of 6 quadrants in the rural Estates could qualify for CU application, not considering current land uses at those locations. An additional 10 quadrants could support conditional use applications in the rural Estates, based on improvements indicated in the MPO's LRTP. In the urban Estates, a total of 6 quadrants could qualify for CU application not considering current uses. An additional quadrant could qualify based on the MPO's LRTP. Public opinion differed when individuals spoke about church uses. Opinions ranged from allowing churches along major road corridors to eliminating any additional locations for churches. Staff's recommendation, below, is the addition of the major arterial intersections (as defined) as a locational criterion for CU applications; plan language would allow parcel assemblage where minimum ingress/egress requirements dictate. The CU applicant should demonstrate the need for the requested acreage in the context of the intended use and facilities and ingress/egress recommendations. Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd. Special Provisions As noted in the Related Existing Provisions section, below, there are special provisions related to Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd.frontages.As described above,the only change to the Golden Gate Parkway provisions would be a change allowing CU applications for properties located at the corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd. The two quadrants at that location are currently zoned PUD or CU. With respect to the Collier Blvd. Special provisions, the GGAMP currently requires adjoining conditional uses on two sides, rather than the transitional conditional use provision requiring certain non-residential uses on one side only.Staff observes that, during a public hearing for a zoning change request at 13th Ave SW and Collier Blvd, a conditional use was not available under the GMP due to this provision. However, the property in question was located next to an industrial type (PUD) use, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy white Paper 12/19/2017 Page 39 of 220 105 which could make a CU a suitable transition to adjoining residential. For this reason, the recommendation below would remove the Collier Blvd. Special Provision. We also note that this specific recommendation was not vetted during public outreach workshops. Accordingly, this fact should be noted during the Transmittal process. Communication Towers Communication towers are listed conditional uses in Golden Gate Estates. As such, they are limited to the locational criteria found in the Designation Description section.The available locations for cell towers are extremely limited, as these are not "essential services" as defined in the Land Development Code. As technologies quickly advance, the applications for communication transmission devices may look considerable different in just a few years than they do today. Individual consideration of proposed installations should be reviewed in each instance. A solid majority of residents surveyed, both in the rural Estates and the urban Estates, indicated dissatisfaction with existing cell service. Over 75% of the rural estates residents surveyed believed that communication towers should be conditional uses, available at any location in the Estates.The recommendation below retains this land use as a conditional use, requiring application, notice and public hearing, but available for application at any location in the Estates(at least 2.25 acres in size). Conditional Use Acreage At present, conditional uses are generally limited to 5 acres. Although not specifically queried in public outreach, staff sees the 5-acre limitation as creating problems similar to the acreage limitations within currently approved Neighborhood Centers. The issues noted there are adequacy of stormwater retention, buffering, parking, roadway needs and septic provisions. In some cases, the current 5-acre standard may prove sufficient. However, applicants may wish to request a greater acreage. This request would remain subject to the public hearing requirements of the Conditional Use, but the provision for greater acreage in the GGAMP would relieve the applicants from amending the GMP to creating otherwise unnecessary sub-districts. Rather than suggesting 20 acres as recommended by the GGEACA for Neighborhood Centers, a more modest 10-acre maximum is recommended. If embraced, staff also supports enhanced buffering requirements similar to those required for the Neighborhood Centers. Public Facilities In addition to the growing transportation network in and near the Estates, numerous public facilities serve Estates residents. The eastern Estates is served by: two high schools, several elementary and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 40 of 220 106 middle schools; three fire stations; 2 EMS stations; Sheriffs stations; a library; community parks and a regional park under design. Additional public facilities are planned to accommodate the growth in population, as monitored by the County's Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and coordinated through the Growth Management Department and associated County departments, including the Collier County School District and independent agencies. With regard to public facilities as a land use, members of the public stressed compatibility within a predominantly residential area. Specifically, there is interest in developing rural architectural standards for public buildings as well as other non-residential structures. A unified architectural standard can provide a greater sense of identity to the Estates District. In addition, there is interest in updating development standards such as setbacks and buffers, particularly as public uses intensify at existing or future locations. Firebreak Staging and Park and Ride Park and ride facilities are essentially parking areas that can serve several purposes. As many rural estates residents commute to the urban area for daily work, or for occasional shopping and entertainment,a park and ride area can support voluntary ride sharing to and from proximate urban locations. Ride sharing applications for mobile devices have emerged as a helpful tool for commuters. At an appropriate time, bus/transit service could also serve these locations. The importance of park and ride and ride sharing for community-wide benefits was underscored by the Master Mobility Plan (accepted by Board, 2012) and by ULI in their review of housing affordability (2017). Additionally, as part of the initiative to support natural disaster prevention and response programs, portions of these facilities could be used for staging equipment,vehicles and operations. Nearly 40% of the citizens polled reported that they would consider using such facilities. It is suggested that the County consider appropriate locations for these facilities, with locational criteria including direct access to arterial roadways and buffering,and apply for Board approval through the Conditional Use public hearing process. Adjacent Future Land Use Districts The eastern Estates is bounded by The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) on 2 sides and the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) on another.There are two essential parameters of interest to eastern estates residents. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy white Paper 12/19/2017 Page 41 of 220 107 First, residents are very enthusiastic about the possibility of more robust economic development in the RFMUD and RLSA. Residents desire more proximate commercial areas for shopping and services, and want employment opportunities. For these reasons, residents were highly supportive of RFMUD Village centers, RLSA towns, and freestanding business and industrial park locations in these Districts. The potential for eastern Estates residents to shop and work within shorter distances and outside of the urban area is a great benefit to them, and this advantage redounds to County taxpayers through reduced miles travelled, lower capital and maintenance costs for roads, and a reduced carbon footprint. Second, eastern Estates residents desire compatibility of uses where adjoining Districts develop adjacent to the Estates. Enhanced buffers and setbacks are suggested at the interface of these Districts. These development standards will be specified by LDC review and amendment, and reflected in the Policies of the GGAMP. Notice Provisions Although not discussed in the Restudy outreach workshops,staff has observed past private petitions that involved Estates re-designation and rezoning. In the Estates, written notice provisions related to Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs) and public hearings extend 1,000 feet from the property lines of the project (compared to 500 feet in the urban area). In reality, affected Estates residential uses may extend the length of a dead-end street. A typical dead-end street in the Estates is approximately one mile. Accordingly, many affected residents are not provided with written notice. The recommendation associated with this topic would require written notice beyond 1,000 feet, where traffic impacts can be reasonably anticipated, as a result of the land use change, on a dead- end street or avenue in the Estates. In such a case, notice should be provided along the entire length of the affected street or avenue. Growth Management Plan Policies Related Existing Provisions in the GGAMP: Objective 5.3: Provide for the protection of the rural character of Golden Gate Estates. Objective 1.2 Ensure public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 42 of 220 108 Goal 3: To provide for basic commercial services for purposes of serving the rural needs of Golden Gate Estates residents, shortening vehicular trips, and preserving rural character. Existing Land Use Designations (synopsis) Neighborhood Center Subdistrict: Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future land use map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the estates zoning district within the Golden Gate estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional uses, one of the following four sets of criteria shall be met: a) Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: ... b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Blvd. Special Provisions: ... c) Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Uses Provisions: ... d) Transitional Conditional uses: ... Recommended Policies: • Protect the low-density character of the Estates by resisting private petitions to change the GGAMP existing residential land use designations in the GGAMP, other than the limited locations described below. • Allow applications for rezoning to upsize existing Neighborhood Centers to accommodate ingress and egress, parking, buffering, water management, well, septic or package plant siting, future right-of way expansion or additional open space not to exceed 20 acres per quadrant. This provision does not guarantee that upsizing will be granted, but provides an opportunity to request commercial rezoning based on the above-stated needs. • Allow conditional use or C-1 rezone applications for the Immokalee Rd. corridor(Oaks area). This provision does not guarantee approval, but allows application without amendment to the GMP (5 parcels affected). • Add an additional locational criterion for conditional uses to include major roadway intersections, defined as the intersection of a 4-lane roadway (or greater) with a 4-lane roadway (or greater), as identified in the Long-Range Transportation Plan. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 43 of 220 109 • Adjust the Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions to allow conditional use applications for properties at the intersection of Golden Gate Pkwy. and Santa Barbara Blvd. • Adjust the Collier Blvd. Special Provisions to allow the same locational criteria as currently allowed at other locations in Golden Gate Estates. • Allow conditional use applications at any location (of at least 2.25 acres) in Golden Gate Estates for the erection of communication towers, without need to amend the GGAMP. • Develop architectural standards in the Land Development Code that apply to commercial, conditional and public facility uses in the rural Estates to create coherence and area identity that reflect the rural character of the area. • Seek public acquisition of appropriate parcels, with conditional use approval, for "park and ride" uses, to serve private carpooling, public transit and emergency prevention and response program activities. • In its review and adoption of GMP amendments to the RFMUD and the RLSA, the County should reflect the need for appropriate buffers and setbacks from adjoining Golden Gate Estates properties, with specific development standards in the LDC. • Where GMP Amendments or Rezoning actions require written notice to homeowners within a given distance of the subject parcel, notice requirements shall also be extended the length of any dead-end street or avenue where a direct transportation or aesthetic impact can be reasonably anticipated. • Following the completion of the Randall Boulevard and Oilwell Road Corridor Study, the Zoning Division shall evaluate the future land uses along Immokalee Road in the vicinity of Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for any proposed changes to the future land use. Transportation and Mobility Estates residents expressed their views on several transportation-related topics. Among other issues, peak hour conditions capture the attention of residents who face congestion on a recurring basis. Beyond immediate concerns, the public expressed preferences for long term considerations. These include bridge priorities, 1-75 access, lime rock roads, route alternatives, greenways and pathways, road design and park and ride facilities. Many transportation projects are expressed in existing Plan language. Augmentation of these provisions are suggested to convey preference and direction for future consideration. At the heart of the transportation discussion is the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), adopted in 2015 by the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Of note, as shown on Figure 22, within the road network are planned improvements to Wilson Blvd. North and South, as well as the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to 8th Ave, NE. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 44 of 220 110 The Collier MPO is Figure 22 a federally mandated and COWER 2°4° Long Ran 4° federally funded TransPoRanon�' ," ® © Lill i transportation „',„,t! -1,:t* policy-making ` ,rt,44,i'f'.. ; ,� organization and i5 I Highway Cost Feasible Plan ' ; ,;;, made Up of Highway Improvements by Funding Period g .' :::::14:,i:,;: ":" .- representatives of l local governinglibi bodies. The MPOiiiiiiiiiii � , has the authority to F 4 Y d plan, prioritize, and — _x '. w.a select �;� ;� - „ "� �� , _,: a --i transportation � `- projects for federal funding [ ` t appropriated by ` 1 the US Congress 1� ,ti ,' � • through the US 1 :" jJ ` . „,,:,,,4 -.,..-, ,-1— - Department of , f ol �h 4 Transportation, `� � " � 4,1,4,,,,.;::ei.,:i-154- .;:1-...,:,- „7„, V Federal Highway \ -.„., ,,I Administration and Federal Transit , [i �_� Administration. J ''� y ��f — t: In addition to { Estates residents, {'` ^.--, �, � Collier County N citizens, taxpayers and visitors are also stakeholders in the transportation and mobility concepts involving Golden Gate Estates.The synergy expected between the surrounding Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and Rural Land Stewardship Area village and town development with the largely residential Estates area is a prime example. Retail, service and job opportunities in and around future towns and villages will result in shorter trip lengths for current and future Estates residents,when compared with trip lengths today. In addition Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 45 of 220 111 to shorter trip lengths, north-south and reverse direction trips, particularly at peak hours, will be a positive factor in road infrastructure demand and resulting levels of service. Figure 23 This synergy was also highlighted in COWER2040 � recommendations in Lang RangerranspartacanPian n � , �•© ,i'+' the County's Master 1 - ' Mobility Plan (MMP), I Needs ASSESSIM accepted by the �{ im. lee 000,01510x Board in 2012. MO • µ" Recommendation #3 Iii in the MMP calls for incentivized goods, _' 1101 services and jobs in Neighborhood Htti4 ® f j`, 1 •> Centers, the RFMUD , i - Villages and the -- ( i fru,•yar-la Orangetree Settlement area to , r reduce the vehicle Naples miles travelled by "" estates residents. Aupan Mobility related to LSEf issn',. '_ _. _ _ .. the Estates is also n addressed by Recommendation #9, i ,,turfy Area enhanced localized connectivity through KInterchange improvement Marco bridges and other ,,,, ,t F '�; Island -—'' k 40 Intersection improvement connectors, and by ' 'r k,"'' • elm Roadway Improver, -nt Recommendation #13, development of Everglades park and ride lots. These concepts are further discussed below. As noted on the 2040 LRTP cost feasible plan, the MPO has designated additional study areas in and around the Estates.The Randall Rd./Oil Well Rd. study is currently underway.The North Belle Meade Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 46 of 220 112 study area is not yet funded. Staff recommends funding for route alternatives study of the North ^ Belle Meade east/west corridors in order to accommodate area planning efforts in the North Belle Meade Receiving area and to provide linkage for Estates residents travelling to south Collier County and the urban area. Funding will need to be identified for alignment, design and ROW acquisition. Bridge Connectivity within Golden Gate Estates Existing GGAMP objectives stress the importance of increasing linkages within the local road system to reduce traffic on arterial roadways, Figure 24 shorten trips and increase overall road capacity. In addition, coordination COWER 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan with emergency services , officials is mandated for "_ I County staff and MPO. - !2 I CMS/ITS and IMMIMMiaNew Bridge Projects , In August 2008, the �l'•�h 4 . Collier County jilt �� Transportation ServicesIII "V V ifxt Division produced the t - A m East of 951 Horizon Study " fi g.�' & row} rtR t31 9 for Bridges. The study included stakeholder ' : ' -,..,;.:1, -:::',:lif'''4.' (� �# input from Emergency ' service providers, a1 t *..4.,,— r1�4 r � ; environmental groupsch Q Hgrt ,0:4.1_1_31-k, ` and other County p 0 Divisions. The study ► u"� � F considered emergency j'i © � � - © , service response times, Na IT"':i!1/46:34:tile � � evacuation needs, public ♦ . service efficiencies, 3ij"j .M , general mobility `P improvements and public sentiment. Design and cost considerations were components of the study, but costs have increased significantly since that study was completed. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 47 of 220 113 The outcome of the study prioritized eleven bridge construction projects in eastern Golden Gate Estates. Subsequently, three (3) bridges have been programmed: • 8th St. NE at Cypress canal (fully funded) • 16th St. NE at Cypress Canal (partially funded) • 47th Ave NE at Golden Gate Canal (partially funded) Staff is currently seeking full funding via gas tax revenue funding for the 16th St. NE and 47th Ave. NE bridges. Each bridge costs approximately$8m to $9m (2016 figures) to construct. During public outreach, the GGEACA urgently requested consideration for a fourth high priority bridge, located at 10th Ave. SE at the Faka Union canal. This request was based on public safety concerns, in the contexts of emergency response and emergency evacuation.The recommendation was endorsed by North Collier Fire and Rescue. For this reason, the initial recommendation below calls for an update to the bridge study within the next 2 years. As of this writing, County staff has begun planning for the public outreach associated with the updated study. A provision currently in the GGAMP specifically calls for the construction of a north-south bridge on 23d St., SW, as one of three alternatives to address emergency evacuation. As emergency services and evacuation concepts will be foremost in the bridge evaluation and update, this provision is recommended for removal from the GGAMP. Concerns were raised about the cost components of sidewalks and bike lanes on and leading to all bridges, both with respect to right-of-way acquisition and construction.Therefore, the updated study should include prioritization, design alternatives and cost components. The requirement for sidewalks and bike lanes leading to new bridges should be reviewed in the context of the individual bridge location. Eight of the initial eleven bridges are depicted on Figure 24. Additional locations will be studied as part of the Bridge Study Update. 1-75 Interchange The GGAMP currently calls for coordination between the County and FDOT to implement a study of a potential interchange "in the vicinity of 1-75 and Everglades Blvd." In 2012, the County petitioned FDOT to consider an interchange through the submission of an Interchange Justification report (IJR). At that time, FDOT concluded that it could not recommend forwarding the IJR to the federal Highway Administration.Subsequently,the Board approved a course of action that would request emergency access to 1-75 (now approved), consider an updated IJR between 2020 and 2025, and to "continue Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 48 of 220 114 to work with FDOT, other permitting agencies and NGOs to complete an environmental impact assessment and mitigation plan". By the use of the term "in the vicinity of 1-75 and Everglades Blvd., staff understands this as allowing alternative locations within Sections 31 through 34, T49 S, R28 E, and proposes this specificity for the GGAMP. Accordingly, the current GGAMP language should be updated to include the IJR submission in coordination with the MPO and its LRTP, and continuation of environmental assessments in coordination with all stakeholders, if feasible from a cost/benefit standpoint. It should be noted that emergency (limited) access to 1-75 was granted subsequent to the 2012 IJR submission. In addition to 1-75 access, concerns were raised by residents and by the GGEACA regarding traffic conditions on Everglades Blvd. The residents and association would like to protect against the possibility of expanding Everglades Blvd. beyond 4 lanes. For this reason,a recommendation appears below to limit expansion of Everglades Blvd. to no more than 4 lanes, as shown on the 2040 LRTP Needs Assessment. At a GGEACA meeting in November 2017, it was suggested that the 4-lane design maximum apply to all future roads to and through Golden Gate Estates. That idea does not appear as a recommendation because its more appropriate path for consideration is through the Collier County MPO. Lime Rock Roads The GGAMP calls upon the Transportation Department to explore alternative financing methods to accelerate paving of lime rock roads in the Estates.As of 2016,there were 29 miles of unpaved roads remaining in the Estates. At the current rate of nearly 3 miles per year, all lime rock roads would be paved in approximately 10 years. Residents have commented that an acceleration of paving may be more cost-efficient. Lime rock roads require maintenance costs that may be somewhat higher than paved roads. Additionally, the added ad valorem revenue potential from home values that appreciate due to improved road access may also influence the cost/benefit assessment.Staff recommends that the County update the study the relative costs and benefits of paving lime rock roads on an accelerated basis, and provide the study result to the Board with 2 years of adoption. More recently, the BCC embarked on a budgeting schedule that would provide sufficient funds over a three-year period to complete the paving of lime rock roads. Accordingly, the recommendations Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 49 of 220 115 include an alternative recommendation that the County will budget for the completion of paving in fiscal years 2018 through 2020. Greenways The GGAMP calls for a public network of greenway corridors that connect public lands and permanently protected green space, emphasizing use by non-motorized vehicles and using the existing or future public rights-of-way. The Collier MPO 2012 "Comprehensive Pathways Plan" provides the vision for a Greenways and Trails Program as a separate network from the overall Pathways Program. It notes that the provision of off-road facilities addresses safety and comfort concerns of pedestrians and bicyclists.This would allow a more focused approach to greenways and the identified entity to secure funding and expertise. As noted in the public outreach surveys, a majority of citizens favor the retention of this concept to create a greenways program. The GGAMP policy should be updated, however, to encourage coordination between the County Parks and Recreation Division and the MPO to identify areas of responsibility in planning, funding and implementation of a greenway plan. Road Design Eastern Estates residents commented on various aspects of road design for both new and expanded roadways. As communicated through the GGEACA, preferences include a rural road design without curbs and gutters, Florida Friendly (depressed) medians to the extent landscaping would be employed, and a preference for eminent domain on one side of an existing local street rather than partial takings on both sides. While these preferences are noted here, the MPO and the County Transportation Division design with specific site requirements that vary from one location to another. Moreover, these elements are best suited for review and public comment under the statutory public vetting requirements of those agencies. As such, the GGAMP should remain silent on these design preferences. Park and Ride Lots See Land Use/Non-residential Uses. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 50 of 220 116 Growth Management Plan Policies Related Existing Provisions in the GGAMP GOAL 6: To provide for a safe and efficient county and local roadway network, while at the same time seeking to preserve the rural character of golden gate estates in future transportation improvements within the golden gate area. OBJECTIVE 6.1: Increase the number of route alternatives for traffic moving through the Golden Gate Area in both east-west and north-south directions, consistent with neighborhood traffic safety considerations, and consistent with the preservation of the area's rural character. Policy 6.1.1: In planning to increase the number of route alternatives through the Estates Area,the Collier County Transportation Division will prioritize the following routes over other alternatives: a. The extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from its current terminus to DeSoto Boulevard. b. The development of a north-south connection from the eastern terminus of White Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. c. The development of a new east-west roadway crossing the Estates Area south of Golden Gate Boulevard. Policy 6.1.2: Collier County shall continue to coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation to implement a study of a potential interchange in the vicinity of 1-75 and Everglades Boulevard. OBJECTIVE 6.2: Increase linkages within the local road system for the purposes of limiting traffic on arterials and major collectors within Golden Gate Estates, shortening vehicular trips, and increasing overall road system capacity. Policy 6.2.1: The County shall continue to explore alternative financing methods to facilitate both east-west and north-south bridging of canals within Golden Gate Estates. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 51 of 220 117 Policy 6.2.2: Planning and right-of-way acquisition for bridges within the Estates Area local road system shall make adequate provision for sidewalks and bike lanes. Policy 6.2.3: Sidewalks and bike lanes shall provide access to government facilities,schools, commercial areas and the planned County greenway network. OBJECTIVE 6.3: Coordinate with local emergency services officials in planning and constructing road improvements within Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City to ensure that the access needs of fire department, police and emergency management personnel and vehicles are met. Policy 6.3.1: The Collier County Transportation Planning Section shall hold at least one annual public meeting with Golden Gate Area emergency services providers and the local civic association in order to ensure that emergency needs are addressed during the acquisition of right-of-way for design and construction of road improvements. Policy 6.3.2: The Collier County Transportation Division shall continue to coordinate with Golden Gate Area emergency services providers to prioritize necessary road improvements related to emergency evacuation needs. GOAL 7: To protect the lives and property of the residents of the greater Golden Gate area, as well as the health of the natural environment, through the provision of emergency services that prepare for, mitigate, and respond to, natural and manmade disasters. OBJECTIVE 7.2: Ensure that the needs of all applicable emergency services providers are included and coordinated in the overall public project design for capital improvement projects within the Golden Gate Area. Policy 7.2.1: Preparation of Collier County's annual Schedule of Capital Improvements for projects within the Golden Gate Area shall be coordinated with planners, or the agents or representatives with planning responsibilities, from the Fire Districts, public and private utilities, Emergency Medical Services Department and the Collier County Sheriff's Department to ensure that public project designs are consistent with the needs of these agencies. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 52 of 220 118 Policy 7.2.2: Planners, or the agents or representatives with planning responsibilities, from the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department and the Collier County Sheriff's Department will receive copies of pre-construction plans for capital improvement projects in the Golden Gate Area and will be invited to review and comment on plans for the public projects. OBJECTIVE 7.3: Develop strategies through the County Growth Management Division — Planning and Regulation for the enhancement of roadway interconnection within Golden Gate City and the Estates Area, including interim measures to assure interconnection. Policy 7.3.1: The Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services,the Collier County Transportation Division,Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, and other appropriate Federal, State or local agencies, shall begin establishing one or more of the following routes for emergency evacuation purposes: a. An 1-75 Interchange in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard. b. Improved emergency access from Everglades Boulevard to 1-75. c. Construction of a north-south bridge on 23rd Street, SW, between White Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. Policy 7.3.2: All new residential structures shall comply with NFPA (National Fire Protection Association, Incorporated) 299 Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, 1997 Edition, as adopted by reference in the Florida Fire Code or the most recent edition. Policy 7.3.3: Modified portions of existing structures shall meet NFPA Standards through the adoption of appropriate regulations in the County Building Codes. Policy 7.3.4: County-owned property within Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to an active, on-going management plan to reduce the damage caused by wildfires originating from County-owned properties. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 53 of 220 119 Recommended Policies • The County Transportation Planning Section shall provide an update to the 2008 East of CR 951 Bridge Study with recommendations based on emergency response, evacuation times, cost components and other considerations to the Board within 2 years of adoption of this policy. • Everglades Blvd. between Golden Gate Blvd. and 1-75 shall not be expanded beyond 4 lanes. • The County shall coordinate with FDOT and the MPO's 2045 LRTP to submit a revised Interchange Justification Report for an interchange at 1-75 in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd (T 49, R 28, S 31-34). • The County will update and report on the timing of the paving of lime rock roads, including a cost/benefit analysis for accelerated programming,within 2 years of adoption of this policy; Alt.:The County will budget the full completion of the paving of lime rock roads in fiscal years 2018 through 2020. • Planning, funding and implementation of potential greenway trails shall be coordinated under the MPO's Comprehensive Pathways Plan in coordination with the County's Parks and Recreation Division. • Seek public acquisition of appropriate parcels, with conditional use approval, for "park and ride" uses, to serve private carpooling, public transit and emergency prevention and response program activities. • Encourage the MPO's identification of funding sources for design and ROW acquisition of an east-west arterial roadway into North Belle Meade to facilitate land use planning in that area. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 54 of 220 120 Environmental Stewardship Watershed and Related Water Resource Topics In 2011, the Board accepted the Collier County Watershed Management Plan (WMP), which was developed over several years by staff and consultants. The WMP covered the major basins within Collier County, including the Golden Gate/Naples Bay Watershed.The underlying study included an evaluation of the surface Figure 25 water and groundwater, North Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration Project wetlands and related • Legend environmental resources, (�NGGEFW Project Boundary ' and theperformance of the �' � . a;Horsepen Wetlands - i current water management NGGEFW Wetlands ; facilities in providing the description , desired levels of services for111111 cypress � j Everglades Blv HydricFletwood a';.-V; .t - flood control, water supply, •• ' , Hydric Hammock Winchester Head " k,� , x `, i water quality and , ., Marsh . : r environmental protection. swamp Forest N. v A3 ,. 0 IIII It recommended initiatives Wa1efrtr. that would serve as a guide 0 05 1 2Maes for staff in developing + • •, policies, programs, '.,- ' • ordinances and regulations � -5 '4h '1 :• Golden Gate Blvd. ,,* , for further consideration by the Board.The major water . GG Main Canal 1 resource concerns , identified for the GGAMP ' region include: — - - • Excessive fresh North Belle Meade water discharges at from canals into t Naples Bay • Lack of appropriate levels of flood .3w protection KK Iff • Pollutant loading , ,, associated '-. ssociatedwith r. . ° .�. � � ���� .. .;��, ,,, '• I development and land use activities • Aquifer impacts due to reduced recharge and increased withdrawals Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 55 of 220 121 Notably, among the WMP ranking of projects for benefit to cost ratio, the Golden Gate Estates Flowway Restoration project scored highest. Accordingly, the North Golden Gate Estates (NGGE) Flowway Restoration Project ensued. Its purpose was to reconnect the primary wetland flowways in the Estates area, particularly the major wetlands of Horsepen Strand and Winchester Head for eventual restoration of the flowway connection from NGGE to the historic Henderson Creek/Belle Meade watershed as shown on Figure 25.The Study was completed in 2013, funded in part by FDEP and SFWMD. As a result of the Study, the historic and remnant flowway connections were identified and a plan was recommended.As a first phase of its implementation, 42 new culverts were installed in selected sections of NGGE and the project was completed in August 2014.The study also yielded a conceptual design for diversion of stormwater into North Belle Meade. In 2016, as part of an application for BP settlement "RESTORE" funds, the Collier County Comprehensive Figure 26 Belle Meade Area RESTORE Project Area Watershed Improvement Legend Plan was developed and >+ +t� E accepted by the Board. - 2- Lee county Belle Meade Area S . Picayune Strand State Forest • Collier;County This plan, co-sponsored `.e«�* ¢--Golden Gate Gana by Rookery Bay National DCoHierCounty Watersheds . - canals Estuarine Research Lade Reserve, outlines a 4=, rehydration effort _ j Be11A eaade NaplesBay (: ±. '1 designed to provide { . . greater balance between ; ''f the Rookery Bay and PicayuneStrtnd StateFores Naples Bay estuaries, # through diversion of a `fir° '-, Rookery say i portion of Golden Gate watershedt . Canal flows to the Belle Rookery Bay Meade area. The RESTORE funds are 0 2.5 5 10 intended to aid in design and implementation of the project. A depiction of the area in relation to watersheds appears in Figure 26. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 56 of 220 122 In 2017, as part of the implementation of a non-structural WMP recommendation, the Board adopted newly revised surface water maximum allowable discharge rates, now applied to development in 16 additional County basins, including the main Golden Gate Canal Basin. The reduced allowable discharge rates convey County-wide benefits, but it should be noted that they do not apply to single family parcels, such as those previously platted in Golden Gate Estates. Additionally, the Board amended stormwater standards in 2017, directly impacting Estates lot development.The amendment requires a stormwater plan for all lots and provides a new threshold for engineered plans based on percentage of impervious lot coverage. This addresses site specific issues but does not address area-wide stormwater concerns. The aquifers beneath the Estates provide potable water supplies to residents of the Estates, and to customers of the two major public water utilities serving City of Naples and County residents. In meetings with Golden Gate Estates residents and with the GGEACA, a strong preference emerged regarding conservation principles related to the protection of water resources. Ideas and support for those ideas included wetland preservation initiatives and aquifer health. Residents and community leaders value the relationships among components of water policy: floodplain management (dispersion and diversion), water quantity and quality, aquifer recharge, salt water intrusion and estuary health. The following subsections reflect ideas and comments presented by residents and considered by County staff. Necessarily, most of these ideas will require additional study and debate, and therefore appear as aspirational recommendations. Lot Combinations Most of Golden Gate Estates was platted into 5 acre tracts by Gulf American Land Corporation(GAC), the developer of the Estates, although many larger and smaller lots were also platted. The Land Development Code currently allows lot splits into parcels no smaller than 2.25 acres with frontage of at least 150 feet. However, that was not always the case. Smaller lot splits were allowed in the past: prior to Oct. 14, 1974 in the former "Coastal Area Planning District" and prior to Jan. 5, 1982 in the former "Immokalee Area Planning District". These legal non-conforming lots (sometimes referred to as "band-aid lots") abound in the Estates, both in the western area, Figure 27, and in the eastern area, Figure 28. Of the 27,250 total parcels in the Estates, 7,275 are non-conforming. Of those, 3,397 (nearly half) are not yet developed. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 57 of 220 123 Citizens and representatives of the GGEACA suggested that these lots might be re-combined, if possible, through an incentive- based system. The rationale behind Figure 27 recombining these smaller lots GOLDEN GATE RURAL ESTATES(E OF 951)PARCELS relates to water benefits- TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS:APPROX.23,808 watershed, floodplain, aquifer and Parcels<=1.5Acres:Approx.6,433 (Parcels with Structure:3,036;Parcels without Structure: 3,397) estuary related. It has been said by Legend a former District 5 Commissioner, „<Y,,,,,0 -Parcels<=1.5 Acres without structure(Vacant) ,l �� that protection of this low-density Parcels<=1.5Acres with structure gill t,r area translates to a "CountyDRGR _�GoldenGateRuralEstatesBoundary +,}� L . (density reduction, groundwater M),h 10'+4 I�i' , i 1 ‘,t°'�,, .II recharge) area without cost to the I 1 1 ni County." It follows that further �t�t.I,uur. l/11l tilF--- ,density reduction in the Estates can ;�,';' I�l a � enhance these benefits. Larger lot -- . - I z MHS a sizes with relatively less impervious 1I 1.Ii. Iritli't jkli:��1�i}� FA area generate less run-off per lot, 1,1',' , !, , . li'''r I ''i,, I I , , , 1.l l ,l�'i 1, Ylitilhi and contribute to surface water _ _ • g Y 1 1 II It, attenuation, water quality benefits, a:aiI�,YY,si _ ,I .1. `, floodplain storage capacity, aquifer 1 , 1 '�"sir:y`�` IR' recharge and less flow or"pulse" to -`' 'Y t 'l "i' _ _ '�.'i '';S t;11+,l 'I p 9 1Itl _ �.-�. Il: � � �t � canals and estuaries. GRE..N9 j y �,1 L }t� 11 1 f tI''' I. Ideas to incentivize small lot L.. )1, i, i;tI iii recombination have included tax i,p 'h,;'+(p+i ;y • incentives, impact fee reduction e; N 1 and credits for stormwater 1 0 e_5 1 2 3 ' MibY stewardship, if a stormwater utility _ is created. Not all potential solutions will suit every situation. For example, it would be possible to recombine vacant parcels to create a larger parcel with any of the above suggestions. On the other hand, combining a vacant 1.14-acre parcel with another developed lot takes impact fee credits out of the equation. Moreover, the legal and fiscal basis for implementing incentives requires further study and Board direction. Ad valorem tax abatement would require a referendum before County voters. Impact fee credits may necessarily require a study to keep overall impact fees in a neutral revenue position. The costs and benefits of all incentives need further study to determine fiscal impact and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 58 of 220 124 quantifiable benefits. For these reasons, the recommendation related to this initiative supports further study within a defined time period to implement any incentives for recombination. Following the study, if the Board directs Figure 28 implementation, its provisions would - be \ GOLDEN GATE ESTATES WEST OF 951 PARCELS contained in the Land Development TOTAL NUMBER OF PARCELS:APPROX.3,442 Code or Code of Ordinances. \\\ Parcels<1.5 Acres:Approx.842 (Vacant Parcels:136;Developed or Other Parcels:706) Legend Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) -Vacant Parcels(Parcels<1.5 Acres) -Developed or Other Parcels(Parcels.1 5 Acres)— credits in the Estates ' i'f 'iv li Community Planning staff attended _ ` iil� W numerous Comprehensive Watershed ' 8 Improvement Plan Ad Hoc Technical `�tl� l l J VANDERBILT BEACH RD Advisory Board (CWIP) meetings, - r l exchanging concepts related to the 0 ;,lii � existing TDR program (RFMUD) and Z_t �) GOLDEN GATE BLVD w O a 0 potential Golden Gate Estates Z ;(i. . .9, 1 l initiatives. One idea that gained D `nnon n i s I ..,_IIA 1 pli1E RIDrp R attention was the potential issuance of �� all?! ,l' i � j I T1 ,! TDR credits as part of a sale or i ` t � ��� donation proposal for parcels within f )i) current or future acquisition areas.The liI 1 I examples of two specific wetland sites, i1 It Red Maple Swamp and Winchester " -- 11.1.mill. t1i( 5n . 3 dldri mu,p'. CO w Ill 1-i,i =jlu Id ./. Head within the Conservation Collier i ium,.l a llt iwIr , acquisition areas were discussed and °" studied. The "Gore" properties and surrounding area could also be RADIO RD considered. -------T The CWIP committee understood its role as a technical advisory committee,and not a policy advisory committee. Accordingly, by motion at its March 7, 2017 meeting, CWIP recommended the concept of using TDRs for acquisition of select wetland parcels as "consistent with CWIP goals in improving the floodplain, surface hydrology, aquifer recharge and connectivity of the watershed". In the Committee's view, a recommendation beyond consistency would have exceeded their scope. In the meantime, the Board considered the idea of external (outside of RFMUD Sending lands) sources of TDR credits at its RFMUD Workshops in January, May and June of 2017. Staff had Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 59 of 220 125 DWM is a means to reduce the full impact of single family development on water resources and management. To the extent that homeowners can attenuate stormwater runoff in quantity and quality before it reaches swales and canals, the better County water goals may be achieved. To be sure, DWM is not a "one size fits all" solution. Parcels with very little wetlands on or nearby may be able to detain some water toward the back of the lot, so long as detention is very temporary, its elevation is sufficiently above the wet season water table and does not interfere with the proper functioning of septic systems. Properties with high percentages of wetland areas might require an engineered solution and/or an incentive-based approach to convey drainage easements to the County at relevant locations. The best proposal for DWM on single family Estates lots will be simple to understand and apply. Consideration should be given to regulatory approaches (required detention or limited fill quantity) and incentive-based approaches and whether to apply various rules to developed and undeveloped properties.Among other ideas, abatement of stormwater utility billing can be considered.Study and public input on a regulatory approach for new home construction should be included. The Restudy recommends a formal study of solutions that will be equitable, reasonable in cost, and understandable to land owners. The study feasibility should commence as funding becomes available. At its meeting on November 8, 2017, the Floodplain Management Advisory Committee found, by motion, that DWM would be an important feasibility study for application to the Estates. Potential of the C-1 Canal and other Golden Gate Canal Relievers The GGEACA spoke in favor of further improvements to the connector C-1 canal. The C-1 connector provides a 1.7 mile east-west link from the Golden Gate Main Canal to the Miller Canal. Due in part to numerous crossings that have constrained its effectiveness,the C-1 has historically played a minor role, serving as an equalizer depending on the head differential between the Golden Gate and Miller Canals. In view of its strategic location, improvements to the canal's capacity could add operational flexibility and allow Golden Gate Main outflows to be moved south by the Miller Canal. In addition, this initiative would also require design and placement of an in-line gated structure to control flow exchanges, and ensure that desired flow directions are achieved. The concept of Aquifer Storage and Recovery systems was also encouraged by the GGEACA to divert wet season flows from the Golden Gate Canal. This is another capital-intensive initiative, and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 61 of 220 127 recommended a modest allowance of TDR credits as part of an acquisition program in Golden Gate Estates, if the number of credits would have a nominal effect on overall TDR supply and price. Staff also noted that implementation could be difficult within the same RFMUD currency or domain, because property values are much different in the Estates as compared to RFMUD Sending Lands. The Board did not reach any consensus on this issue, but held it open for later discussion. Given the complexity of the evaluation and completion of the RFMUD Restudy, staff is now of the opinion that acquisition of Estates lots for stormwater benefits using RFMUD TDR credits should not be pursued. As stated by some RFMUD stakeholders, a closed system, at least on the supply side, should be more predictable while avoiding the dilution of currency to Sending Land owners. One alternative is the further study of a second credit system, (Transfer of Development Units or TDUs), which could direct Estates density values to urban development.This could be considered in the context of County(or other agency)ownership of quality wetland or high habitat value locations. The related recommendation, below, suggests an evaluation in a timeframe directed by the Board. Dispersed Water Management The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association has also been in favor of the concept of dispersed water management (DWM) as a means of attenuating stormwater to the benefit of residents. The typical Estate lot is 660 feet deep, encouraging the owner to construct a home and accompanying impervious areas (driveways, parking, etc.) close to the roadway. This leads to stormwater run-off to roadside swales with eventual conveyance to the nearest primary or secondary canals. Several recent studies (including the Watershed Management Plan (2011), have indicated that the present system of conveyance and treatment of stormwater run-off in the Estates is deficient in providing the desired levels of service for flood protection,water quality improvement,groundwater recharge, fire protection and restoration of historic flowways. Protection of water resources in this area is critical to the health of the public water supply, including wellfields for Collier County and the City of Naples. The road and drainage infrastructures have virtually eliminated some of the historic wetland flowways, leading to exotic infestation, draw-down of the water table and severity of wildfires. As the extent of impervious area continues to grow, the antiquated canals and swales cannot fully accommodate runoff, leading to frequent nuisance flooding. Major structural modifications to the current conveyance system does not appear feasible, either environmentally, economically, or socially(if private property rights are encroached). Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 60 of 220 126 County should continue to study costs, feasibility and possible implementation as a long-term beneficial initiative. Finally,flood control can be more _ "•� easily measured, predicted and accommodated by coordinating with the South Florida Water Management District to review their Level of Service Standards for primary water management canals within the County. Educational Components Many of the concepts noted above or measures currently in place should be augmented by Golden Gate Canal public education efforts where possible. Residents, potential buyers and builders of single family homes in the Estates would be well served by a better understanding of water-related issues and programs, and how these serve their self-interests. Wetland maintenance, aquifer recharge, floodplain protection and Firewise concepts should be stressed. As an example, builders and land owners should become aware of the benefits of adding "freeboard" to building plans, which will provide even greater flood prevention beyond current base flood elevations (BFE) standards, as well as providing National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) discounts in premium. Other Watershed Management Plan Initiatives The structural (S) and non-structural (NS) projects listed in the table below were derived during the development of the County's Watershed Management Plan, and have particular relevance to Golden Gate Estates. These projects have the potential to benefit the Golden Gate Estates community by addressing flood control, water supply, water quality, and environmental protection and restoration. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 62 of 220 128 Table 1: Selected Structural (S) and Non-structural (NS) Water management Improvements in GGAMP Recommended by WMP Project Name Watershed Project Description Comments/Status (S)North Golden Gate Golden Gate Canal, Reestablish habitat and *Two feasibility and Estates Flowway Naples Bay and hydrologic connectivity modeling studies have Restoration Project Henderson Creek—Belle along two wetland strands been completed;and,a (Winchester Head and Meade for eventual restoration of network of 42 culverts was Horsepen Strand) the historic flowway to the installed in project's first Rookery Bay Watershed phase. *Funding and evaluation of other project segments are needed (NS) North Golden Gate Golden Gate Canal, Multi-parcel (60) *Land donations are Estates Land Naples Bay&Faka Union acquisition within the accepted through the Acquisition for Canal Winchester Head area offsite preservation Winchester Head provision of the LDC Wetlands Preservation *Funding for acquisition and/or additional land donations is needed (5)Corkscrew Regional Golden Gate Canal& Hydrologic restoration by *Project scope has been Ecosystem Cocohatchee berm removal,vegetation defined Watershed/East Bird control, ditch blocks and *Funding is needed Rookery Swamp flowway redirection Hydrologic Restoration Enhancement (S)Northern GGE, Unit Golden Gate Canal& Wetland restoration in the *Project scope has been 53 Acquisition and Cocohatchee area of Shady Hollow Rd. defined Restoration Ext.and 38th Ave. N.W.Ext. *Funding for land by berm removal and exotic acquisition and restoration vegetation control is needed (5)Golden Gate Canal Golden Gate Canal& Six Tracts conveyed by GAC *Funding for feasibility Water Quality Naples Bay to Collier County totaling 33 study needed Improvements acres,with 3,646 ft.of frontage along the GG canal system,to be used for isolated water quality treatment (NS)Stormwater All Watersheds Restoration and protection *Retrofit options such as Retrofit Project of existing natural systems sewer inlet protection, by establishing retrofit debris collectors,and bio- programs to address swales have been existing developments, identified by staff public facilities and other *Pond inventory and SOPs areas that lack treatment established for county owned facilities *County staff,in cooperation with the Water Symposium,to monitor county stormwater ponds and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 63 of 220 129 establish Best Management Practices. *Ongoing efforts to establish new programs to meet project objectives Project Name Watershed Project Description Comments/Status (NS)Water Quality All Watersheds Define water quality *Ongoing program that is Monitoring Program conditions in estuaries and periodically reevaluated along canal networks to and adaptively managed achieve greater distribution by the County's Pollution in the groundwater Control staff. (Specific monitoring network recommendations for monitoring completed in 2014) (NS)Verification of No All Watersheds Implement requirement for *Modeling was used to Floodplain Impact development to verify no evaluate future impact upstream and development alternatives downstream for the 100 on DFIRM base flood yr./72-hr.design storm elevations(BFE)in GGE. event The analysis of future build-out shows an increase of BFEs in the range of 0.25—0.5 feet assuming current development practices(fill placement for SF homes). This is well below the NFIP threshold of 1 ft.increase. *Consider implementation (NS)Flood Protection All Watersheds Propose a standard 25-yr *SFWMD is modeling the Levels of Service design storm for drainage primary canal system on arterial roads and 10-yr. *County to follow with design storm for collector modeling of the secondary and neighborhood roads to system increase flood protection *Staff to continue to refine levels of service concept for inclusion within the planning process for the CIP (NS) Low Impact All Watersheds Implementation of a LID *The Pollution Control Development(LID) program that would apply Section is developing a LID Program to all new development manual to be used as a countywide technical working document by the community At its November 8, 2017 meeting,the Floodplain Advisory Committee approved a motion in support of the Watershed Plan Initiatives as important to include within the GGAMP. Related to that, the GGEACA stressed the importance of hydrologic connections by suggesting that future acquisitions by Conservation Collier should prioritize hydrological benefits above other review criteria. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 64 of 220 130 recommendations include language in support of these concepts, and staff believes that the Conservation Collier recommendation should be fully vetted during the public hearing process. Growth Management Plan Policies Related Existing Provisions in the GGAMP OBJECTIVE 1.3: Protect and preserve the valuable natural resources within the Golden Gate area. Policy 1.3.0.1: The County shall protect and preserve natural resources within the Golden Gate area in accordance with the Objectives and Policies contained within Goals 6 and 7 of the Collier County Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Policy 1.3.1: The Collier County Environmental Services Department shall coordinate its planning and permitting activities within the Golden Gate Area with all other applicable environmental planning, permitting and regulatory agencies to ensure that all Federal, State and local natural resource protection regulations are being enforced. --- Policy 5.3.2: The Land Development Code shall continue to allow and further encourage the preservation of native vegetation and wildlife indigenous to the Estates Area. Policy 7.1.4: The Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall hold one or more annual "open house" presentations in the Golden Gate Area emphasizing issues related to wildfires, flooding, emergency access and general emergency management. Generally: Conservation and Coastal Management Element Capital Improvement Element Stormwater Management Sub-element Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 65 of 220 131 Recommended Policies • The County will continue to pursue the Watershed Management Plan initiatives as financial and staff resources become available. • The County will periodically coordinate with the South Florida Water Management District to review the Level of Service Standards for primary water management canals within the County. • The County will encourage the combination of parcels less than 2.25 acres in size with adjacent parcels,to preserve the low-density advantages within Golden Gate Estates.Within 2 years, GMD staff will recommend to the Board potential incentives to apply to developed and undeveloped lots. • The County will evaluate the potential for a second transfer of development units/rights program (TDU) to transfer density from Estates lots to the urban area, and will consider transfer of ownership options, in a timeframe directed by the Board. • The County will commence a formal study on the feasibility of dispersed water management (DWM) for single-family Estates lots, and determine whether a DWM initiative should be voluntary or mandatory and the extent to which the program should apply to developed and undeveloped properties. • The County will continue to identify and implement educational opportunities related to water resources for use by parcel owners, home owners, builders, real estate professionals and the public to aid in understanding and addressing the owner's financial and personal interests as well as area-wide impacts. • Acquisitions of parcels in Golden Gate Estates by Conservation Collier shall be consistent with Watershed Management Plan objectives,and shall prioritize hydrologic benefits above other review criteria. Wildfire Preparedness According to the Florida Forestry Service, Fire has always been a natural occurrence in South Florida. Sparked by lightning, wildfires cleared old brush and other fuels within forested areas. Biologists know the value of these periodic burns, as habitat and other natural values become refreshed. However, as population has moved further into the "wildlands" and development has dried the landscape, wildfires emerge as a very serious threat to people and property. Golden Gate Estates is situated within this urban/wildland interface. Community leaders have been aware of this threat for many years.The"Firewise" standards created for development in the Rural Fringe have been a part of the Land Development Code for well over Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 66 of 220 132 10 years. Policy provisions within the GGAMP are numerous, and have been part of the Master Plan for many years (see existing provisions, below). Concurrent with the GGAMP Restudy, the Board directed the Bureau of Emergency Services (BES) to provide an overview and recommendations related to wildfire risks, responsibilities and funding. In early 2017, current mitigation practices were outlined with recommendations for improvement. It was noted that brush fire calls per year have reached an average of 130. Springtime, 2017 came with hundreds of wildfires across the state, following a severe "dry season" that resulted in area-wide and state-wide drought. Collier County was particularly hard hit. A March . ;,. wildfire burned - x r. ' over 7,000 acres in Picayune Strand • State Forest. In April, the "3d Avenue Fire", stoked by high winds, tore across the North Belle 2017 Wildfire in Picayune Strand State Forest Meade area and narrowly missed more developed portions of Golden Gate Estates. Thousands of acres burned, thousands were evacuated, and seven homes were lost. At the Board's direction, a multi-agency technical working group was formed under the existing structure of the Emergency Management Advisory Group. This working group was tasked with making recommendations to the Board by September, 2017, to address priorities for bolstering the County's defenses against wildfires. It was noted that educational programs continue to provide excellent resources for self-help in mitigating individual property risks. Likewise,the Florida Forestry Service and the Independent Fire Districts, supported by mutual aid, were roundly applauded and appreciated for the excellent work performed in response to these events. While this working group has not reported its findings at time of this writing, funding issues in support of landscape scale mitigation activities will be at the center of attention. Funding for fire Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 67 of 220 133 break creation and maintenance and for prescribed burn activities needs augmentation. Several alternatives have been suggested to supply the Forest Service and Independent Districts with the tools and resources for a higher level of safety, including a Golden gate "fire utility fee" through an MSTU and general revenue funding. Also under review will be Land Development Code standards and Collier County Water Sewer District raw water access issues. Improvements to LDC language or permitting procedures are under review. A number of strategically located raw water wells have already been retrofitted for Fire Department use. As stated by Mr. Dan Summers, Division Director, BES, a community-wide effort to improve wildfire mitigation "is a marathon, not a sprint". In other words, this is a hazard that must stay on the County's radar for continual opportunities to enhance and support wildfire mitigation for many years to come. Continual opportunities should consider: • Effective and fair funding options • Resource readiness • Clear legal and procedural boundaries • Notifications and alerts • Mutual aid agreements and Interlocal Agreements • Educational components • Land planning opportunities Growth Management Plan Policies Related Existing Provisions in the GGAMP: GOAL 7: To protect the lives and property of the residents of the greater golden gate area, as well as the health of the natural environment, through the provision of emergency services that prepare for, mitigate, and respond to, natural and manmade disasters. OBJECTIVE 7.1: Maintain and implement public information programs through the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services, Collier County Sheriff's Department, Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, and other appropriate agencies, to inform residents and visitors of the Greater Golden Gate Area regarding the means to prevent, prepare for, and cope with, disaster situations. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 68 of 220 134 Policy 7.1.1: The County, fire districts that serve the Golden Gate area, and other appropriate agencies, shall embark on an education program to assist residents in knowing and understanding the value and need for prescribed burning on public lands in high risk fire areas. Policy 7.1.2: The Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall actively promote the Firewise Communities Program through public education in Golden Gate Estates. Policy 7.1.3: The Collier County Land Development Services Department of the Growth Management Division shall evaluate the Land Development Code for Golden Gate Estates and shall eliminate any requirements that are found to be inconsistent with acceptable fire prevention standards. This evaluation process shall be coordinated with the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services. Policy 7.1.4: The Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District and the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall hold one or more annual "open house" presentations in the Golden Gate Area emphasizing issues related to wildfires, flooding, emergency access and general emergency management. OBJECTIVE 7.2: Ensure that the needs of all applicable emergency services providers are included and coordinated in the overall public project design for capital improvement projects within the Golden Gate Area. Policy 7.2.1: Preparation of Collier County's annual Schedule of Capital Improvements for projects within the Golden Gate Area shall be coordinated with planners, or the agents or representatives with planning responsibilities, from the Fire Districts, public and private utilities, Emergency Medical Services Department and the Collier County Sheriff's Department to ensure that public project designs are consistent with the needs of these agencies. Policy 7.2.2: Planners, or the agents or representatives with planning responsibilities, from the Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department and the Collier County Sheriff's Department will receive copies of pre-construction plans for capital improvement Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 69 of 220 135 r projects in the Golden Gate Area and will be invited to review and comment on plans for the public projects. OBJECTIVE 7.3: Develop strategies through the County Growth Management Division —Planning and Regulation for the enhancement of roadway interconnection within Golden Gate City and the Estates Area, including interim measures to assure interconnection. Policy 7.3.1: The Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services,the Collier County Transportation Division,Golden Gate Fire Control and Rescue District, and other appropriate Federal, State or local agencies, shall begin establishing one or more of the following routes for emergency evacuation purposes: d. An 1-75 Interchange in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard. e. Improved emergency access from Everglades Boulevard to 1-75. f. Construction of a north-south bridge on 23rd Street, SW, between White Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard. Policy 7.3.2: All new residential structures shall comply with NFPA (National Fire Protection Association, Incorporated) 299 Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, 1997 Edition, as adopted by reference in the Florida Fire Code or the most recent edition. Policy 7.3.3: Modified portions of existing structures shall meet NFPA Standards through the adoption of appropriate regulations in the County Building Codes. Policy 7.3.4: County-owned property within Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to an active, on-going management plan to reduce the damage caused by wildfires originating from County-owned properties. Recommended Policies: • The County shall explore options for funding of wildfire prevention measures, including funding support for the Florida Forestry Service and Independent Fire Districts, including but not limited to a Golden Gate Estates MSTU and general fund revenue. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 70 of 220 136 • The County will review and update as necessary all interlocal agreements and mutual aid agreements to assure coordination of legal, procedural and educational components of Wildfire prevention. • Update references to Independent Fire Districts. Lighting Standards A recent policy guide created at the request of the Board, entitled "Collier County Lighting Standards", describes the importance of proper lighting for the health and welfare of County residents: "Well coordinated and designed lighting systems are an effective way to enhance the feeling of security and comfort throughout the County."This policy guide became effective in 2017, and is intended to be updated periodically as standards and conditions change. It applies to County facilities such as roads, parks, public facilities and utility sites and will be incorporated into new and retrofitted lighting at all such locations. Consistency, economy and best management practices (BMP's) are underscored. This policy guide mirrors a longstanding desire of Golden Gate Estates residents to protect their rural environment from light pollution. It is important to Estates residents for environmental reasons- both natural and human environments. Safety, aesthetics and the natural environment are fostered by best management practices lighting standards. i • Photo courtesy of the International Dark-Sky Association/FAU Currently, the GGAMP provides specific guidance for street, parking and recreational lighting including appropriate fixture types such as "low pressure sodium" lamps. Appropriate shielding is also called out. These standards are well intentioned but in some cases limiting in that lighting technology changes more frequently than the Master Plan. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 71 of 220 137 The desire for "dark sky" lighting standards in the Estates was strong- 90% of the public polled supported "dark sky" lighting standards.The public was not polled as to a voluntary or a regulatory approach. Given the County's leadership role in researching and updating standards for its own facilities, this research can greatly benefit the Estates residents, both directly as public spaces are improved, and as a template for broader application moving forward. As the County transitions its lighting at new and renovated locations, more feedback and best practices can be discovered. In addition, a study of commercial lighting county-wide is planned. Given these advances, the recommended lighting policies for the Master Plan should reflect a flexible and updated approach. Broad language may be most suitable. More specific provisions will be incorporated into the LDC or referenced therein. Growth Management Plan Policies Related Existing provisions in the GGAMP: Objective 5.1: Provide for new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers. Policy 5.1.1: Consistent with public safety requirements, street, recreational and structure lighting within Golden Gate Estates shall be placed, constructed and maintained in such a manner as to prevent or reduce light pollution. In implementing this Policy, the County shall apply the following standards: a. If a streetlight or an area light is required, it shall be of the type specified to protect neighboring properties from direct glare. Area lighting shall be shielded such that direct rays do not pass property lines. Low-pressure sodium lamps are encouraged while halogen type lamps are discouraged. 1. Where required, the street lamp shall be of the high pressure sodium type and have a "cobra head with flat bottom" style or be fully shielded so that light is directed only downward. Street lamps shall be mounted on a wood pole at a height and wattage recommended by the appropriate electric utility and as appropriate for a rural area. 2. Parking lot lamps shall be low-pressure sodium type lamps and shall be mounted so that they point downward without direct rays extending past the parking lot, building entrance, walkway or other area intended to be illuminated. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 72 of 220 138 b. Where lighting of recreational areas is required, such lighting shall be mounted so as to focus illumination on the areas intended to be illuminated, and to limit the amount of light that extends outside of the intended area. c. This Policy shall not apply to Tract 124 and the north 150 feet of tract 126, Unit 12,Golden gate Estates, located in the southwest quadrant of the Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards Neighborhood Center. Objective 5.3: Provide for the protection of the rural character of Golden Gate Estates. Recommended Policies: • Eliminate the specificity found in Policy 5.1.1; consider standards for the LDC. • County owned facilities shall comply with the Collier County Lighting Standards. • The County shall continue to coordinate with FDOT and FPL to provide guidance and reach agreement on roadway standards and security lights. • The County will consider lighting standards for commercial and other non-residential uses, and may provide specific Land Development Code standards for such uses within Golden Gate Estates consistent with its rural character and specific lighting zone classifications within. • The County will consider lighting standards for residential locations within Golden Gate Estates within the Land Development Code, and determine whether such standards will be encouraged or mandatory and the extent to which they apply to new or existing residential development. Septic Tank Service Golden Gate Estates is a very low density subdivision, where maximum allowed density is 1 unit per 2.25 acres. Given the cost and in-feasibility of supplying centralized water and wastewater service, residential development relies on well and septic systems. Centralized service was considered during the "East of 951 Services and Infrastructure Horizon Study" (2006). However, the estimated cost per parcel for water and wastewater ($112,000) far exceeded the benefit. Maintenance of septic systems in the Estates requires periodic pumping and removal of septage, among other maintenance costs. Residents expressed the concern over cost of service and legal disposal during the public outreach meetings, suggesting that the County should provide a processing facility within Collier County to keep costs and compliance within check. In addition, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 73 of 220 139 transport of this material outside the County typically involves more road miles traveled compared to in-County disposal. In a broader initiative, Collier County has embarked on an initiative to create a "Bio-solids Management Facility" (BMF). The BMF would ideally result through solicitation for a build, design and operate entity selected by the Board, providing efficient and compliant processing of bio-solids, oils, grease, septage and similar by-products. The likely location for this facility would be the Resource Recovery Business Park located near the landfill. The outcome of the BMF initiative is expected to result in cost effective and environmentally sustainable treatment of these waste streams, producing energy and high quality fertilizer by-products. The BMF solicitation is currently in Step 2 of the solicitation, having narrowed the search to three qualified forms. Step 2 proposals are due in 2017, and an award of contract is anticipated in early 2018.The selected entity will operate the facility for a minimum of 25 years, and design the facility so that it is expandable for future needs. Septage collection and treatment is part of the RFP; its efficacy is yet to be demonstrated. Growth Management Plan Policies Related existing provisions in the GGAMP: Objective 1.2: Ensure public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service. Objective 1.3 Protect and preserve the valuable natural resources within the Golden Gate area. Objective 5.2 Balance the provision of public infrastructure with the need to preserve the rural character of Golden Gate Estates. Recommended Policy: • The County will continue to pursue a best management practices approach to making septage treatment available within Collier County, as a component of bio-solid processing, either directly or through a public private partnership. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 74 of 220 140 Preserve Exemption Currently the GMP and LDC require a portion of the native vegetative present on property to be set aside as preserve when property is developed. Exceptions to this requirement include single-family home sites situated on individual lots or parcels, single lot splits or where property is used for agricultural purposes. Subdivision of land into three or more lots or parcels requires approval of a subdivision plat, which in turn triggers the requirement for a preserve, among other requirements. As the platting of the Golden Gate Estates predated this requirement, no preserves were required as part of its establishment. There are a limited number of lots within the Golden Gate Estates subdivision (depicted as the Estates Designation on the County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM))which could be divided into three or more lots, each a minimum of 2 1/4 acres size. Analysis by staff shows a total of 75 lots remaining in the Estates Designation, north of 1-75, which could be subdivided as such (6.75 acres or more). These lots range from 6.78 acres to 12.97 acres, with all but two of these lots less than ten acres in size. Lot splits allow 2 parcels from a single tract, and because a re-plat is not required, lot splits fall squarely within the exemption to a required "preserve" area. Environmental staff believes it excessive to require small preserves for the remaining few lots that could be subdivided into three or more 2.25 acre single family lots. If subdivided as such, preserve requirements for all but two of these would be less than 1.33 acres, assuming they were entirely covered with native vegetation. Long term viability of these preserves is also a concern given their small size and location within a large single-family subdivision, with no other preserves or greenways to provide connection. Moreover, preserve exemptions for a limited number of 3 way splits would be consistent with the requirements of all other(12,000+) undeveloped Estates parcels. Related existing provisions in the GGAMP: Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.1: "...native vegetation shall be preserved through the application of the following minimum preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria...except for single family dwelling units situated on individual parcels..." Note;As interpreted by the LDC, "the single-family exception is not to be used as an exception from any calculations regarding total preserve area for a development containing single family lots" (Sec. 3.05.07 B). Recommended Policy: • The subdivision of tracts 13 acres or less in size within Golden Gate Estates shall not trigger preserve requirements under CCME Policy 6.1.1. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 75 of 220 141 Section 4: List of Initial Recommendations A. Golden Gate City 1. Land Use and Economic Vitality • Establish land use designations to protect established, stable, neighborhoods and provide opportunity for redevelopment and renewal through development practices that promote compatibility. • Support redevelopment of Golden Gate Parkway to provide for a viable pedestrian environment adding to the vibrancy and walkability of Golden Gate City. • Add land uses within the designated Activity Center intended to promote job growth and strengthen the economic health of Golden Gate City. • Protect the land uses allowing for diversity of residential housing. • Engage with the Golden Gate Civic Association and MSTU to further community planning programs. • Consider redevelopment tools such as an Innovation Zone to further economic development and redevelopment strategies. • Develop amendments to the Land Development Code to support and implement redevelopment initiatives including incentives for building remodeling and renovation. • Develop a branding and marketing plan for Golden Gate City. • Ensure pertinent incentive programs are made available to those seeking business creation and redevelopment opportunities in Golden Gate City. • Modify the land use designations along Golden Gate Parkway to create a consistent development pattern. • Add target industry uses to the Activity Center. • In the Santa Barbara Commercial Subistrict remove the one acre project minimum. 2. Transportation and Mobility • Support all transportation needs within Golden Gate City with an emphasis on walkability. Walkability will be improved through the implementation of the recommendations of the MPO's Walkability Study. • Within the Activity Center, maintain multiple connections to the surrounding neighborhoods and through the Activity Center while providing safe and direct access to transit stops within or adjacent to the Activity Center. • Consider protecting alleys from vacating process where there is reasonable connection and continuity for future pathway corridors. • Initiate periodic speed studies in Golden Gate City and when appropriate, utilize traffic calming measures and speed limit reductions to ensure a safe pedestrian environment. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 76 of 220 142 3. Environmental Stewardship • Maintain and expand sewer and water service in accordance with the Collier County Water and Sewer District Implementation Plan. B. Golden Gate Estates 1. Land Use and Economic Vitality • Protect the low-density character of the Estates by resisting private petitions to change existing residential land use designations in the GGAMP, other than the limited locations described below. • Allow applications for rezoning to upsize existing Neighborhood Centers to accommodate ingress and egress, parking, buffering, water management, well, septic or package plant siting, future right-of way expansion or additional open space not to exceed 20 acres per quadrant. This provision does not guarantee that upsizing will be granted, but provides an opportunity to request commercial rezoning based on the above-stated needs. • Allow conditional use or C-1 rezone applications for the Immokalee Rd. corridor(Oaks area). This provision does not guarantee approval, but allows application without amendment to the GMP (5 parcels affected). • Add an additional locational criterion for conditional uses to include major roadway intersections, defined as the intersection of a 4-lane roadway (or greater) with a 4-lane roadway (or greater), as identified in the LRTP. • Adjust the Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions to allow conditional use applications for properties at the intersection of Golden Gate Pkwy. and Santa Barbara Blvd. • Adjust the Collier Blvd.Special Provisions to allow the same conditional use locational criteria as currently allowed at other locations in Golden Gate Estates. • Allow conditional use applications at any location in Golden Gate Estates for the erection of communication towers, without need to also amend the GGAMP. • Develop architectural standards in the Land Development Code that apply to commercial, conditional and public facility uses in the rural Estates to create coherence and area identity that reflect the rural character of the area. • Seek public acquisition of appropriate parcels, with conditional use approval, for "park and ride" uses, to serve private carpooling, public transit and emergency prevention and response program activities. • In its review and adoption of GMP amendments to the RFMUD and the RLSA, the County should reflect the need for appropriate buffers and setbacks from adjoining Golden Gate Estates properties, with specific development standards in the LDC. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 77 of 220 143 • Where GMP Amendments or Rezoning actions require written notice to homeowners within a given distance of the subject parcel, notice requirements shall also be extended the length of any dead-end street or avenue where a direct transportation or aesthetic impact can be reasonably anticipated. • Following the completion of the Randall Boulevard and Oilwell Road Corridor Study, the Zoning Division shall evaluate the future land uses along Immokalee Road in the vicinity of Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for any proposed changes to the future land use. 2. Transportation and Mobility • The County Transportation Planning Section shall provide an update to the 2008 East of CR 951 Bridge Study with recommendations based on emergency response, evacuation times, cost components and other considerations to the Board within 2 years of adoption of this policy. • Everglades Blvd. between Golden Gate Blvd. and 1-75 shall not be expanded beyond 4 lanes. • The County shall coordinate with FDOT and the MPO's 2045 LRTP to submit a revised Interchange Justification Report for an interchange at 1-75 in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd (T 49, R 28, S 31-34). • The County will update and report on the timing of the paving of lime rock roads, including a cost/benefit analysis, within 2 years of adoption of this policy. Alt.:The County will budget the full completion of the paving of lime rock roads in fiscal years 2018 through 2020. • Planning, funding and implementation of potential greenway trails shall be coordinated among the County's Parks and Recreation Division and the MPO. • The County will consider public acquisition of appropriate parcels, with conditional use approval, for "park and ride" uses, to serve private carpooling, public transit and emergency prevention and response program activities. 3. Environmental Stewardship Water Resources • The County will continue to pursue the Watershed Management Plan initiatives in Golden Gate as financial and staff resources become available. • The County will periodically coordinate with the South Florida Water Management District to review the Level of Service Standards for primary water management canals within the County. • The County will encourage the combination of parcels less than 2.25 acres in size with adjacent parcels,to preserve the low-density advantages within Golden Gate Estates.Within Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 78 of 220 144 2 years, GMD staff will recommend to the Board potential incentives to apply to developed and undeveloped lots. • The County will evaluate the potential for a second transfer of development units/rights program (TDU) to transfer density from Estates lots to the urban area, and will consider transfer of ownership options, in a timeframe directed by the Board. • The County will commence a formal study on the feasibility of dispersed water management (DWM) for single-family Estates lots, and determine whether a DWM initiative should be voluntary or mandatory and the extent to which the program should apply to developed and undeveloped properties. • The County will continue to identify and implement educational opportunities related to water resources for use by parcel owners, home owners, builders, real estate professionals and the public to aid in understanding and addressing the owner's financial and personal interests as well as area-wide impacts. • Acquisitions of parcels in Golden Gate Estates by Conservation Collier shall be consistent with Watershed Management Plan objectives,and shall prioritize hydrologic benefits above other review criteria. Fire Control • The County shall explore options for funding wildfire prevention measures, including funding support for the Florida Forestry Service and Independent Fire Districts, including but not limited to a Golden Gate Estates MSTU and general fund revenue. • The County will review and update as necessary all interlocal agreements and mutual aid agreements to assure coordination of legal, procedural and educational components of Wildfire prevention. • Update references to Independent Fire Districts. Lighting • Eliminate the specificity found in Policy 5.1.1; consider standards for the LDC. • County owned facilities shall comply with the Collier County Lighting Standards. • The County shall continue to coordinate with FDOT and FPL to provide guidance and reach agreement on roadway standards and security lights. • The County will consider lighting standards for commercial and other non-residential uses, and may provide specific Land Development Code standards for such uses within Golden Gate Estates according to its overall rural character and specific lighting zone classifications within. • The County will consider lighting standards for residential locations within Golden Gate Estates within the Land Development Code, and determine whether such standards will be Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 79 of 220 145 encouraged or mandatory and the extent to which they apply to new or existing residential development. Other • The County will continue to pursue a best management practices approach to making septage treatment available within Collier County, as a component of bio-solid processing, either directly or through a public private partnership. • The subdivision of tracts 13 acres or less in size within Golden Gate Estates shall not trigger preserve requirements under CCME Policy 6.1.1. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 80 of 220 146 Appendix A Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Public Outreach Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 81 of 220 147 Introduction The Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) public outreach process included extensive public engagement. Residents and stakeholders were encouraged to provide input through multiple platforms including eight public workshops, staff presentations to both the Golden Gate City Civic Association and the Golden Gate Estates Civic Association, a user-friendly website with surveys, and communications through email distribution lists with approximately 330 stakeholders. As the GGAMP has the three distinct areas of Golden Gate City, the Eastern Estates (east of Collier Boulevard) and the Western Estates (west of Collier Boulevard), staff focused outreach to provide individual attention to each area. In this way, staff was able gauge the public's perspective on unique differences in values and priorities. In part, these values can be visualized with the outcome of the first set of workshops where staff engaged the stakeholders to envision the future. A series of questions were asked through surveys that were distributed during the workshops and were posted on the dedicated GGAMP restudy website. The following word clouds summarize the values and expectations of those who participated in the process. The surveys and word clouds formed the basis for the communities' vision statements. Staff first drafted the vision statements based on information provided, and at following public workshops the participants refined the statements. The goals, objectives and policies of the GGAMP should recognize and implement these vision statements. Golden Gate City Vision Statement "Golden Gate City is a safe, diverse, family-oriented community that offers easy access to education, s pp g parks, shopping and services within a vibrant, neighbornoon walkable community." city-center w, as u i uufe ` "' o milli' services eautiful education @Clltic:s Y6U;:<Itlese kpss101s owe M MYllet Ucp," resident's fIC kahle -Won't r#11i ike-mentur working-class green space workforce ho sing Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 82 of 220 148 Golden Gate Eastern Estate Vision Statement communi working- less "The Golden Gate Eastern Estates is an commercial nodes interconnected, low-density residential community ...large °tss n,gle-family with limited goods and services in neighborhood „sailO abl centers, defined by a rural character with an a■Waar tta livestock a urMAWS appreciation for nature and quiet aitlertatlw.,,. ......�.„,w.., surroundings." rOSI sas y� variety SINVICIIS urr impi loaf-densitvqIII 1etc ry-living environmentpeacefui recreation Golden Gate Western Estate Vision Statement fism. "Golden Gate Western Estates is a low-density, afrnri �untt 1et large-lot residential neighborhood in a high alae g g limited commercial natural setting with convenient access to a.t u■oa eattOWn671111 the coastal area." flO iC mer I te%iVHit nhIaI'I environment no conditional Nw VaBic nal bpi bI , ,istinct gate va eSt fes prrvac 10W- ensity Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 83 of 220 149 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Eastern Estates - Introduction Public Workshop, April 20, 2016 As guests of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Introduction: At the invitation of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (GGEACA),Collier County planning staff introduced the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) restudy which will result in an update to the GGAMP. The purpose of the staff presentation was to identify the major components of the GGAMP, and particularly as it pertains to the Eastern Estates (east of CR 951) area. Emphasis was placed on major themes and the idea that visioning for the future should consider many factors as they contribute to the well-being of the next generation. Meeting Summary: Michael Ramsey, President of the Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association opened the meeting. He greeted elected and appointed County and District officials, as well as various candidates for County Commission Districts 5 and 3. Approximately 125 community members or stakeholders attended the meeting. Mr. Ramsey described the purpose of the meeting as an introduction of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan update process, and asked residents to not get sidetracked with other specific topics that are not a part of the GGAMP. As an example, the issue of fracking should not be discussed, as it is not a Master Plan concept. Commissioner Tim Nance provided an overview of GGAMP in the context of other Planning Restudies and the importance to the Golden Gate area residents. He reminded the group of the relevance of the"green map", in that Over 75%of the County's area is already in conservation status, and that the Rural Fringe Receiving Areas are among the last development areas left in the County; they can complement the Estates if carefully planned. He indicated that all four Restudy areas would consider the same important elements to help achieve consistency between Restudies: land use; transportation/mobility; water; environment; and economic vitality. He reported that an Oversight Committee has been appointed to help direct public involvement, consistency, sustainability and economic vitality, and introduced Jeff Curl, the Oversight Committee member representing the Golden Gate area. Community Planning Manager Kris Van Lengen provided a PowerPoint presentation,and stated that this would be the first of several GGAMP meetings, and that this first meeting is in the nature of an introduction. Content includes an update of relevant issues in the Rural Fringe Mixed-Use District Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy white Paper 12/19/2017 Page 84 of 220 150 Restudy, concepts currently embedded in the GGAMP, and finally a high-level visioning exercise for the future of the Eastern Estates. Consistent among all Restudies is the planning wheel-a process matrix that describes present plans, public outreach, staff data and analysis, development of alternatives, republication, ultimately with recommendations that reflect stakeholder consensus, and finally re-initiation of public outreach. The process may include several turns if the "wheel" prior to formal public hearings. A reflection of the current progress of the Rural Fringe Restudy included the fact - that there w: e: 4- '4to �,, ; : '. incentivize uses that are not , . '41. presently adopted- most particularly free-standing employment centers and sports venues. GGEACA and attendees were encouraged to attend future Rural Fringe meetings-as close neighbors with commercial and mobility issues;they are true stakeholders in that process.The nexus among three Restudy areas, all within 3 miles of North Golden Gate Estates, was also noted, highlighting the total commercial activity in the area that would benefit the Estates while adding no further Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers. A balance is needed among all commercial centers and activities. The discussion on current GGAMP provisions began with an overview of currently scheduled meetings, which will be rotational among Eastern Estates, Western Estates and Golden Gate City. A brief history described the major Restudy between 2001 and 2003 as well as the several private Growth Management Plan amendments that followed. Key features of the current GGAMP, as pertain to the Eastern Estates, were listed under the matrix described by Commissioner Nance. Interpreting the current goals of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as it relates to the Estates, an "existing vision" was derived and described as a low density residential community with rural character, limited commercial services, safe and efficient roadways, and emergency services coordination. Principal Planner Anita Jenkins provided an interactive visioning session. She began by describing the nature and purpose of a community vision: what the community should look and feel like after implementation, as envisioned by residents. After discussing the purpose, Ms. Jenkins challenged the audience to complete brief answers or descriptions to a number of visioning questions: How does the Eastern Estates complement the County as a whole, what is it the best location for, what would you like to read in the newspaper about the area, 10 years from now, what things would you suggest to improve the area? Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 85 of 220 151 Individual slips were distributed throughout, and attendees wrote their visions in answer to these questions. A total of 45 full sets of questionnaires were returned. A summary of the written comments can be found here. It was announced that the questions would be available on the web site as a survey questionnaire for those that wished to provide input in that manner. Following the exercise, participants were encouraged to share their ideas.Various themes emerged, particularly the preservation of the rural character of the Eastern Golden Gate area. Some spoke in support of a sense of place, including renaming/rebranding the Eastern Estates and the streets, creating institutional and commercial architectural standards that are more suitable for the rural character. Other areas of importance were protecting important watershed areas, and creating greenways. Residents also wanted to discuss the Rural Lands West project, the Habitat Conservation Plan and noted fracking was a concern. Commissioner Nance addressed these topics and noted other venues and agencies will be covering these issues more thoroughly. The Community Planning agenda item on Golden Gate Area Master Plan introduction, concluded at 8:40; the GGEACA meeting agenda items resumed at this time. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 86 of 220 152 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Western Estates - Introduction Public Workshop, May 11, 2016, 6:30 PM Golden Gate Community Center Introduction: Collier County planning staff provided an introduction to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) restudy which will result in an update to the GGAMP.The purpose of the staff presentation was to identify the major components of the GGAMP, particularly as it pertains to the Western Estates (west of CR 951) area. Emphasis was placed on major themes and the idea that visioning for the future should consider many factors as they contribute to the well-being of the next generation. Approximately 60 people attended. Meeting Summary: Greg Ault, Principal, AECOM, as consultant for public outreach, began by discussing his role in the process and the importance of area-wide planning as we think about future generations. He introduced his staff and County staff, and described his favorable impressions of the area from the point of view of a non-resident. Community Planning Manager Kris Van Lengen provided a PowerPoint presentation,and stated that this would be the first of several GGAMP meetings, and that this first meeting is in the nature of an introduction. Content includes an update of relevant issues in the four area Restudies, concepts currently embedded in the GGAMP, and finally a high level visioning exercise for the future of the Western Estates. Consistent among all Restudies is the planning process- one that looks at current provisions and conditions, asks what can be improved, alternatives for improvement, and ultimate decision-making by the Board of County Commissioners. Important focal points include permitted land uses, transportation issues, environment, and economic vitality. Citizens were encouraged to use on-line resources to supplement their understanding and provide input when surveys become available. Mr. Van Lengen presented the idea to study GGAMP in three separate segments: Eastern Estates, Western Estates and Golden Gate City. There were no objections raised to this approach. The history of the GGAMP was discussed, including the fact that ten amendments to the plan have occurred since the last major restudy was completed in 2003. After describing the organization of the GGAMP document, it was noted that the major provisions related to Goals, Objectives and Policies were identical to those of the Eastern Estates; low density, rural character, infrastructure and emergency services needs. Residents might consider whether they wish to emphasize a unique vision and goals. Unlike the Eastern Estates (approximately 50% built out), the Western Estates is 88% built out. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy white Paper 12/19/2017 Page 87 of 220 153 With respect to Land uses, permitted uses and conditional uses were described. Also noted was the special language in the GMP describing the limitation on , additional conditional uses along the Golden Gate Parkway. I The vast majority of the citizens who attended appeared to live within close proximity to Golden Gate Parkway. Accordingly, there was significant comment from the attendees related to the fact that they do not wish to change any of the current land use restrictions related to Golden Gate Parkway. Mr. Greg Ault asked for a show of hands in favor of no change to the land �� ' ` uses on the Parkway. There was nearly unanimous agreement, as shown in the photos below and by virtue of the responses received in the visioning session. Principal Planner Anita Jenkins1111 rt * 14 provided an interactive visioning session. She began by describing the Sit nature and purpose of a community vision: what the community should look and feel like after implementation, as envisioned by residents. After discussing the purpose, Ms. Jenkins challenged the audience to complete brief answers or descriptions to a number of visioning questions: How does the Western Estates complement the County as a whole, what is it the best location for, what would you like to read in the newspaper about the area, 10 years from now, what things would you suggest to improve the area? Individual slips were distributed throughout, and attendees wrote their visions in answer to these questions. A total of 45 full sets of questionnaires were returned. A summary of the written comments is shown below. It was announced that the questions would be available on the web site as a survey questionnaire for those who wished to provide input in that manner. Attendees expressed a strong desire to maintain the low-density residential character of their neighborhood with no commercial uses. Below is a summary of questionnaire responses: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 88 of 220 154 I. The Western Estates will be Distinctive for: o Large lots near town with quiet, open and peaceful character o Rural beauty with traditional neighborhoods consisting of dead-end streets where neighbors know one another o No commercial uses or special uses, maintaining uncluttered thoroughfares o Natural habitat with areas for wildlife and environmental protection o Single-family living for local working families 5 Agriculturally and livestock friendly per allowances II. The Western Estates will be a premier location for: o Peaceful living with private single-family homes 5 Beautiful gateway to the City of Naples f Quiet estates residential living o Family and neighborly atmosphere safe for children & Low traffic o Small town feel o Wildlife and agriculture o A remote animal services substation to support domestic animals found in the area a Accessible to services while maintaining a rural character 5 Well maintained infrastructure a< A predominantly residential community with supporting uses including senior housingalong arterials. B Maintain distinction from Golden Gate City III. How does the Western Estates area complement Collier County? & Untouched and quiet nature maintains the charm of Naples area o A respite from commercial blight o Peaceful living close to town o Provides a non-gated, peaceful, estates-living neighborhood between the City of Naplesand Golden Gate City o Serves as the gateway to Naples a< Gives long-term residents a place to raise generations a< Maintains the value of environmentally friendly neighborhood with little commercial uses f Unit 29 should be its own neighborhood, rather than part of Western Estates Clean, crime-free area a< Maintains true to the existing master plan o Provides affordable living for year-round residents Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 89 of 220 155 o High value residential housing with limited commercial and special uses o Desire to be the "Pine Ridge Estates" of the area IV. What is the full potential for your community? e Safe, cohesive neighborhood for families a Desire to maintain privacy o Maintain the existing character, no need for further enhancements or intrusions o For the area of Unit 29 to be sub divided into its own area similar to Pine Ridge Estates a Commercial and additional uses will only destroy the potential o Country living close to town 0 Enhance the "Gateway to Naples" a Most desired residential acreage in Collier County Ability for growth of environmental protection services o Addition of public services including parks and libraries with small, neighborhood commercial development to support local neighborhood V. Reading the newspaper in 10 years, what would the headline say about the Western Estates? o "One of the best places to retire with friendly people" o "Unique and faithful community that supports the integrity and charm of Naples" a "A great and convenient place to live" o "We are not a part of Golden Gate City" e "Local homeowners rejoice over being left alone" o "A pearl of beauty that truly complements Collier County" o "A wonderful residential community to live in" o "Commissioners gave in to their supporters and turned it into another Pine Ridge Road" o "This community stayed the same" o "Premier Estates living 3 miles from the beach" o "Beautiful corridor to the City of Naples" o "Excellent quiet location close to town provides solitude from busy work life" o Depends on how much "commercial" money changes hands with commissioners "This master plan has not changed in 50 years. What a wonderful place" o Hardly anything-this area is quiet. 4 "Estate living still exists" 0 "Close to everything in town while maintaining privacy" Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 90 of 220 156 VI. What three things would really improve the future of the Western Estates? Not amending the master plan No commercial uses & Maintain privacy Maintain traffic flow without addition of lights or stops e Enhance Golden Gate Parkway west of 1-75 into a lush landscaped corridor serving as gateway to Naples e Uncouple the 4-block area from the GGAMP ¢ Increase wall height for 1-75 to reduce noise permeation & Enforce existing laws and ordinances ¢ Small localized sub-neighborhoods with neighborhood commercial development thatsupports rural areas Establish additional wildlife and environmental preservation areas e Provision of public services and access to schools, museums, parks, etc. e To never build a RaceTrac in our area Create a name/identity for our neighborhood ¢ Re-study traffic impacts of J-75 interchange Consider traffic light at 66t Street SW e Water feature at SW corner of Golden Gate Pkwy and Livingston is a very welcome,positive feature e Sidewalks f Nature conservancy ¢ Community gardens The workshop concluded at 8:35 p.m. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 91 of 220 157 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Golden Gate City - Introduction Public Workshop, June 8, 2016 Golden Gate Community Center Introduction: The Collier County Community Planning staff provided an introduction to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) restudy,which will result in an update to the GGAMP.The purpose of the staff presentation was to identify the major components of the GGAMP, particularly as it pertains to Golden Gate City and environs. Emphasis was placed on major themes and the idea that visioning for the future should consider many factors as they contribute to the well-being of the next generation.The meeting was noticed and 3 electronic signboards were placed in collector roadways in the City for a period of three days.Approximately 25 people attended. Meeting Summary: Community Planning Manager Kris Van Lengen provided a PowerPoint presentation,and stated that this would be the first of several GGAMP meetings, and that this first meeting is in the nature of an introduction. Content included an overview of all area restudies, concepts currently embedded in the GGAMP, and finally a high level visioning exercise for the future of Golden Gate City. The presentation explained the interrelationships between studies and the ' .# t.,,1' * timing of each. Discussion ;�; x • . also included the process, identifying current plan provisions of importance to `t�. '\••' y " the community, identifying • ,, opportunities for ,1O v improvement and ., incorporating the community's vision and values to bring forward to the Board for its consideration. The role of the Growth Management Oversight Committee was also covered. The discussion on current GGAMP provisions began with an emphasis on website content and various opportunities for interaction and input and an overview of currently scheduled meetings, which will be rotational among Eastern Estates, Western Estates and Golden Gate City. A brief history described the major Restudy between 2001 and 2003 as well as the several private Growth Management Plan amendments that followed. Key features of the current GGAMP, as Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 92 of 220 158 pertain to Golden Gate City, were described under the 2 major portions of the GMP: Goals, Objectives and Policies, and Land Use Designations. Interpreting the current goals of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as it relates to the Golden Gate City, an "existing vision" was derived and described as a recognition of distinct neighborhood areas within the City,the value of sub-area plans along with City-wide plans, consideration of a GG City Land Development Code, the importance of connections to the greater Naples area, and a reference to utility expansion. Various Land Use categories were described and discussed, most notably the Mixed-Use Activity Center, the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict and the Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict. The Golden Gate Parkway entryway into the City was also discussed. Questions and comments related to GMP and zoning overlays followed. Of note were comments related to the desire for a focal point within the Activity Center or nearby, roadway concerns and beautification. Principal Planner Anita Jenkins provided an interactive visioning session. She began by describing the nature and purpose of a community vision: what the community should look and feel like after implementation, as envisioned by residents. Key subject areas are land use, transportation, environment, economic and social activity and identity. After discussing the purpose, Ms. Jenkins challenged the audience to complete brief answers or descriptions to a number of visioning questions: How does Golden Gate City complement the County as a whole, what is it the best location for, what would you like to read in the newspaper about the area 10 years from now, what things would you suggest to improve the area? Consultants from AECOM also provided examples of streetscapes, walkability and City entryway features to stimulate imaginations. Overall, citizens seemed most interested in enhanced community facilities, infrastructure,and expression of art and culture native to the area.Specifically, a recommendation was made to extend the private utilities water to greater portions of the City (not wastewater), small business incubation, international food and arts locations, and the use of existing canals for recreation such as kayak and paddleboard. Individual slips were distributed throughout, and attendees wrote their visions in answer to these questions. A total of 35 questionnaires were returned. Below is a summary of questionnaire responses: I. Golden Gate City will be known for: Cleanliness Affordability New Growth and Development Celebrated Diversity Safety Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 93 of 220 159 II. Golden Gate City will be a great location for: Raising Families E Affordability E Community Services & Mobility f Recreation III. How does Golden Gate City complement Collier County? E Diversity E Center of Activity o Accessibility to workforce IV. What is the full potential for your community? f Unifying to accomplish goals 0 A place of flourishing families, business, and community services E Safe and effective for all modes of transit ¢ A downtown destination V. Reading the newspaper in 10 years, what would the headline say about the Western Estates? E Clean safe and friendly with a lush landscape E Third fastest growing city in the state of Florida E Golden Gate notes first million-dollar home sale E A great place to raise a family ¢ Number one most inviting community E Golden Gate wins state championships in sports, music, arts and more 0 More full-ride scholarships provided to residents per capita than anywhere in Florida E Community rallies to improve image E The remarkable turnaround and revitalization of Golden gate The city that met the needs of its people VI. What three things would really improve the future of Golden Gate City? E Code enforcement E Safety of mobility (pedestrian, bicyclists) E Infrastructure e Creation of a CRA o Reduced public transit headways E Creation of a community trolley 0 Lighting E Preservation of green space Increased homeownership Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 94 of 220 160 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Golden Gate City Public Workshop, October 13, 2016 Golden Gate Community Center Introduction: The GGAMP Restudy-Golden Gate City Public Workshop was attended by several Golden Gate residents, county staff members, and local elected officials. The client team introduced the current GGAMP and presented a draft vision statement derived from the results of resident visioning questionnaires and surveys. Finally, an audience polling session was conducted to obtain attendee feedback. Meeting Summary: Attendees revised the draft vision statement to read: "Golden Gate City is a safe , diverse family-oriented community that offers easy access to education, parks, shopping and services within a vibrant, walkable community." .-. Audience polling was conducted to obtain additional feedback in a manner that did not require attendees to self-identify with their answers or opinions in a group setting. Results of the audience polling are attached. Dialogue included: • active code enforcement day and night as opposed to the current complaint-driven code enforcement model • safety for all dimensions of Golden Gate City • additional lighting • limits to additional density • concern for the limited service area of potable water infrastructure and high costs associated with water infrastructure within existing service area o representatives of FGUA cited need to maintain and repair existing aging infrastructure prior to expanding service areas o understanding the importance of this discussion, the Golden Gate Civic Association offered to invite FGUA to a future civic association meeting where they could focus on the infrastructure concerns specifically • desire for additional distribution of commercial in the north area of Golden Gate City (Green Boulevard) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 95 of 220 161 • support for enhanced and uniform development rules for commercial and mixed-use areas • additional entertainment and recreation options for young adults • support for citizen-driven planning efforts. Golden Gate City Workshop: 10/13/2016 1 Do you live in Golden Gate City •No •Yes — i 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% •Resident Which option best represents your ■Business Owner relationship to Golden Gate City? Developer/Representative ■ •Elected Official •Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% mimiiiii How satisfied are you with the potential locations of commercial uses in Golden Gate City? ■Very Unsatisfied ■Somewhat Unsatisfied Not Sure How Satisfied are you with the ■Somewhat Satisfied locations of existing commercial uses ggg in Golden Gate City? St.` •Very Satisfied I 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 96 of 220 162 Do you think Golden Gate City should have its own unique standards for architecture or landscaping? Do you have adequate health care resources in Golden Gate City? Would you volunteer one evening per month ■No to serve on a planning committee? Not Sure ■Yes Do you agree with existing policies about citizen-driven planning efforts? Do you support a more uniform set of E j development rules for commercial or mixed- use areas? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■Retail ■Personal Services What type of commercial use is most needed in Golden Gate City? = Dining ■Offices ■Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ' i I •Government Services What type of institution is most ■Places of Worship needed in Golden Gate City? •Adult and Child Care Centers ■Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 97 of 220 163 � I ■Expanded Should home-based businesses change in •Reduced any way in Golden Gate City? 4 Stay the Same ■Not Sure 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■Never How often do you walk to get somewhere in ■Monthly Golden Gate City? R Weekly ■Daily 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% N I j Do you have school-aged children that walk or ride bikes to school? ■Yes I don't have children 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Street Lighting Of the following options,what is your 111 top priority for improvement in Golden ■Traffic■ Calming Gate City? <Sidewalks •Bike Routes/Lanes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 98 of 220 164 Have you ever used Collier Area Transit(CAT) •No service? Yes i I 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% How satisfied are you with gateway design for Golden Gate City along Golden Gate Parkway? •Very Unsatisfied How satisfied are you with the current ■Somewhat Unsatisfied CAT service times and schedule? w Not Sure •Somewhat Satisfied ■Very Satisfied How satisfied are you with the current CAT routes? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 99 of 220 165 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Golden Gate Western Estates Public Workshop, October 20, 2016 Golden Gate Community Center Introduction: The GGAMP Restudy-Golden Gate Western Estates Public Workshop was attended by several Western Estates residents, county staff members, local elected officials, as well as developers and their representatives. The client team introduced the current GGAMP. Greg Ault presented a draft vision statement derived from the results of resident visioning questionnaires and surveys. Finally, an audience polling session was conducted to obtain attendee feedback. Meeting Summary: Kris Van Lengen, Planning Manager, provided an overview of the Western Estates in the context of the entire GGAMP and the urban area of Collier County. He noted the Western estates is a little more than 10% of the area and population or the Eastern Estates, but is 86% developed compared to 47% in the East. Also discussed was the structure and content of the Master Plan. Permitted and conditional uses were reviewed, and the locational restrictions for conditional uses were presented.Attendees agree that the corridor along the south side of Immokalee Rd.should be unified under a designation allowing C-1 uses. The concept of additional CU locations at major intersections was presented, along with incentive-based lot combinations. Attendees revised the draft vision statement to include the terms "natural", "large-lot/estate-lot", "limited-commercial/non-commercial" to read: "Golden Gate Western Estates is a low-density large-lot residential neighborhood in a natural setting with convenient access to the coastal area." Audience polling was conducted to obtain additional feedback in a manner that did not require attendees to self-identify with their answers or opinions in a group setting. Results of the audience polling are attached. Dialogue included: • requests for transparency in notifications of conditional uses • requests for information regarding future plans for county-owned parcel at Vanderbilt and Collier Blvd • outlook and vision for attendees with properties fronting major arterials as well as the 1-75 interchange is very different than others Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 100 of 220 166 o higher noise levels o higher traffic o less desirable to residential buyers o the word "commercial" is undesirable, but residents need the services that commercial brings with it • desire to incorporate pedestrian/bike trails/passive recreation using creative thinking with limited R.O.W. • lack of traffic lights along Golden Gate Parkway makes left turns difficult during rush hours • existing Parks& Recreation facilities' programming is at maximum capacity and unable to accommodate all desired users • call to resist external pressure to change or develop further • desire for more inclusive dialogue relating to areas outside of the Golden Gate Parkway corridor • strong opposition to any commercial uses • concern for poor or lack of cellular reception in the Western Estates • mixed support to allow rental of guest homes • strong support for incentivized voluntary small-lot combination program • desire for the recognition of smaller"sub-areas" that comprise Western Estates Golden Gate Western Estates Workshop: 10/20/2016 Do you live in Golden Gate Western Estates? •No Yes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 101 of 220 167 •Less than 1 Year ■1>5 Years How long have you lived in Golden 5>10 Years Gate Western Estates? •10>20 Years 1111 •Over 20 Years ■I don't live in GG City 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% •Resident Which option best represents your •Business Owner relationship to Golden Gate •Developer/Representative Western Estates? •Elected Official Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■Retail What type of commercial use is most •Personal Services needed in the Western Estates? •Dining ■Offices { ■Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■Reduced Should home-based businesses change in ■Stay the Same any way in the Western Estates? ■Not Sure •Expanded 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 102 of 220 168 How satisfied are you with the neighborhood identity for the Western Estates? I I How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of assisted living facilities and nursing homes in or near the Western Estates? How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of group housing options for seniors or persons with special needs in or near the Western Estates? ,1011.1 How satisfied are you with cellular reception/service in or near the Western Estates? ■Very Unsatisfied •Somewhat Unsatisfied ■Not Sure How satisfied are you with the •Somewhat Satisfied availability and locations of religious institutions in or near the Western •Very Satisfied Estates? How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of child care and adult day care in or near the Western Estates? How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of social organizations in or near the Western Estates? How satisfied are you with the locations of existing commercial uses in or near the Western Estates? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 103 of 220 169 Do you have adequate access to ped/bike trail system in or near the Western Estates? 1111 Do you have adequate access to public spaces in or near the Western Estates? 11. Do you have adequate access to ■ neighborhood parks in or near the Western Estates? 1 Do you agree that raising livestock and crops should be allowed in the Urban Estates? Would you volunteer one evening per month to serve on a planning committee for the Golden Gate Area? 111111111 Would you be in favor of a voluntary"small lot combination"incentive program? ■■.. •No Should there be a change to allow rental of your guest house?(Do-over) ■Not Sure ■Yes Should there be a change to allow rental of your guest house? Would you support an Interchange Activity .■ Center at the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and 1-75? 1 ' Would you support office or conditional uses along Immokalee Road? j .■ Do you support conditional uses at any other locations not currently allowed? Do you support conditional uses at major intersections? Do you support office uses at major intersections? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 104 of 220 170 ■No Would you consider a voluntary Not Sure association for the Western Estates? •Yes,sub-areas ■Yes,as a whole 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% •Never How often do you walk to another ■Monthly destination? Weekly •Daily 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■Bus How do your school-aged ■Car children get to school? Bike or Walk I don't have school-aged children 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% How do you feel about existing public ■Not Enough Light street lighting in the Western Estates? Perfect Amount Too Much Light 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 105 of 220 171 f ■Street Lighting Of the following options,what is your -: top priority for improvement in the ■Traffic Calming Western Estates? ;V:,,, -1 v,Sidewalks 1 ■Bike/Ped Trail System 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 106 of 220 172 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Golden Gate Eastern Estates Public Workshop, November 3, 2016 UIFAS Center Introduction: The GGAMP Restudy-Golden Gate Eastern Estates Public Workshop was well-attended by approximately 130 Eastern Estates residents, stakeholders, and county staff members. The client team introduced the current GGAMP and presented a draft vision statement that was produced as a result of resident visioning questionnaires and surveys. An audience polling session was then conducted to obtain additional feedback. Meeting Summary: Kris Van Lengen, Planning Manager, provided an overview on the Master Planning process, demographics of the area, existing public facilities, existing approved GMP locations for Neighborhood Centers and -+••••"" conditional uses, and coordination with the RFMUD restudy in providing nearby _ opportunities for retail, l�` • - '' ' ti � service and jobs for Estates -.._• Abik .tea residents. Transportatione Ain study areas were discussed r `� as were watershed and other environmental topics. The following draft vision statement was presented to workshop attendees: "The Golden Gate Eastern Estates is an interconnected, low-density residential community with limited goods and services in neighborhood centers, defined by a rural character with an appreciation for nature and quiet surroundings." Upon presenting the draft vision statement, attendees were asked to provide feedback and potential revisions. Responses included the following terms and subject areas: • No interference • Nature/natural/environment/park/recreation Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 107 of 220 173 • Family-oriented • Health and safety • Code enforcement • Rural/country-living • Protection of natural character • Desire for services including: postal, medical, governmental, community and recreation • Access to retail goods and personal services • Desire to change the wording "limited" presented within the draft • Acknowledgment of watershed/sheetflow • Sidewalks, bus stops, and refuge for school-aged children Audience polling was conducted to obtain additional feedback in a manner that did not require attendees to self-identify with their answers or opinions in a group setting. Results of the audience polling session are attached. Additionally, attendees were encouraged to provide additional comments and feedback using written comment cards. Dialogue and comments received during and after the polling session included: • desire to preserve foliage on properties and only clearing necessary areas for wildfire protection • concern for the high volume of heavy equipment operating within and traveling through the Eastern Estates • mixed support for additional conditional uses including churches and assisted living facilities general satisfaction with availability/locations of social organizations mixed satisfaction with availability/locations of child care/adult day care, religious institutions, group housing options, assisted living facilities, general dissatisfaction with cellular reception/service • desire for roadway expansion and additional connectivity to the west • mixed support for additional commercial land designations, with general support for small shopping centers as opposed to large centers • call for effective code enforcement • desire for equestrian and other recreational trail networks Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 108 of 220 174 • request to prohibit fireworks and pyrotechnics in an effort to protect wildlife and prevent wildfires • requests for improved drainage • strong support for an 1-75 interchange in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard • general support for industrial areas or business parks to provide jobs and support trade near to the Eastern Estates • strong support for non-residential architectural standards specific to the Eastern Estates • support to allow rental of guest houses • overwhelming support for an incentivized small-lot combination program • general support for an incentivized transfer of ownership program Golden Gate Eastern Estates Workshop: Instant Polling Results, 11/03/2016 Do you live in Golden Gate Eastern Estates? ■No Yes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% •Less than 1 Year ■1>5 Years How long have you lived in Golden 5>10 Years Gate Eastern Estates? ■10>20 Years E.Over 20 Years I don't live in GG City 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 109 of 220 175 1 i ■Resident 1 Which option best represents your ■Business Owner relationship to Golden Gate Eastern Estates? Developer/Representative � ■Elected Official , 1 •Other 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% i (This space intentionally left blank.) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 110 of 220 176 How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of assisted living facilities and nursing homes in or near the Eastern Estates? How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of group housing options for seniors or persons with special needs in or near the Eastern Estates? How satisfied are you with cellular reception/service in or near the Eastern Estates? How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of religious institutions in or near the Eastern •Very Unsatisfied Estates? •Somewhat Unsatisfied it Not Sure How satisfied are you with the •Somewhat Satisfied availability and locations of child care and adult day care in or near the ■Very Satisfied Eastern Estates? How satisfied are you with the availability and locations of social organizations in or near the Eastern Estates? How satisfied are you with the potential locations of commercial uses in or near the Eastern Estates? How satisfied are you with the locations of existing commercial uses in or near the Eastern Estates? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 111 of 220 177 ■Retail What type of commercial use is most II Personal Services needed in the Eastern Estates? •Dining I ■Offices I j ■Other t. 1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% (This space intentionally left blank.) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 112 of 220 178 I Should there be trails and greenways in the Eastern Estates? 1 I 1 .0.1.1.1 Should there be usable public spaces in the Eastern Estates? Watershed Concept 2:Would you support a voluntary transfer of ownership program for undeveloped parcels identified by a watershed committee? 1 Watershed Concept 1:Would you support an 1 incentive to owners who wish to combine a 1.14-acre lot with an adjoining lot? Do you support an 1-75 connection in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard? 1 ■No MI Not Sure I Would you use a Transit Park&Ride or Ride ■Yes Sharing Facility? Should there be a change to allow rental of your guest house? i Do you want specific architectural standards for non-residential uses in the Eastern 1 Estates? Should there be more neighborhood 1 commercial centers throughout the Eastern I 1 Estates? Should there be a larger commercial center central to the Eastern Estates? Mill.W, , I 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 113 of 220 179 a""1 I I I Is there a need for an industrial area or •No business park to provide jobs and Not Sure support trade in or near the Eastern Estates? •Yes,nearby-not in a Yes,in the Estates 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% ■Reduced Should home-based businesses change in ■Stay the same any way in the Eastern Estates? Not Sure ■Expanded 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% •Allow everywhere •Allow along arterials Should potential Conditional Use a Only at select locations applications change in any way in the Eastern Estates? •Only certain kinds at additional locations ■They should not change 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Not Sure Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 114 of 220 180 Golden Gate City Commercial Property Owners Meeting February 16, 2017 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Introduction: To better understand the Golden Gate City commercial properties opportunities and constraints, a public workshop was scheduled specifically for these property owners. Staff mailed a meeting notice to all owners of record with property designated existing or future commercial use. The meeting was well-attended by approximately 60 property owners,various county department staff members, the Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development staff, and County Commissioner Burt Saunders. Meeting Summary: Kris Van Lengen, Planning Manager, provided an overview of the Master Plan restudy process. Anita Jenkins, Principle Planner, discussed the previous Golden Gate City public workshops and specifically the vision statement the Golden Gate residents drafted for their community. Staff described the different commercial land use districts within Golden Gate City and how '', ate- it these districts applied to their property. To invite discussion �' . �.. - 4' related to improvements that —=�� let�, could be made to the Master Plan, staff asked questions related to future plans for commercial properties, and what obstacles in redevelopment had been / identified. Property owner's provided the following comments: • Wants to redevelop within the next five years (Santa Barbara district) to do medical. o Problem is traffic safety concerns along Santa Barbara, o LDC requires project minimum of 1 acre rather than 1 parcel. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 115 of 220 181 o It would be helpful if the rezoning to commercial happened because properties are being advertised as residential rather than commercial. o Would like to build more duplex or triplex; city water is not available but would like it to be. o Thinks septic is a good optional because of the cost to install central sewage • Development standard and setbacks need to be amended to accommodate change from residential to commercial. • Plan for affordable housing in the in the residential area in the Golden Gate City. o When rezoning property it was discussed how to capture pass by traffic to be viable commercial. What happens to the displaced people when switching from residential to commercial? o Vertical mixed-use was discussed and identified as an option to maintain residences within commercial properties. • Golden gate parkway discussion that nobody is required to redevelopment the property. Can it be kept as residential if the owner does not live in it? Big concern so that owners can keep property regardless of who lives there. • Concerns about too many parcels changing from residential to commercial which will entail to pushing out those who want to stay residential. • If a CRA what percent would go into the pool? o It varies as the property values increase. Sliding scale based on the value of the property. • How many properties would have to agree to transfer from residential to commercial in Golden Gate section. o Mike Bosi, Zoning Director, discussed possible restrictions for creating a PUD. Parcel number would vary based on the LDC codes such as parking and square footage. • Traffic control to protect residents if conversation rate increased. • Would like more cafés and restaurants in Golden Gate City. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 116 of 220 182 • Realtor participating in the meeting provided perspective that if a community is more mixed-use the property values will increase • Promote remodeling without putting restrictions, better to let the owner based their remodels based off being grandfathered in rather than having to meet current LDC codes. • Discussion how the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce can help Golden Gate City by promoting pad ready sites on their website. • Commissioner Saunder's provided concluding remarks encouraging redevelopment of the Golden Gate City commercial areas and mentioned the potential for utility conversion and state funding to help off-set costs. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 117 of 220 183 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Golden Gate Eastern Estates Public Workshop, February 22, 2017 UIFAS Center Introduction: The GGAMP Restudy-Golden Gate Eastern Estates Initial Recommendations Public Workshop was attended by approximately 31 Eastern Estates stakeholders,and county staff members.The client team introduced the current GGAMP and presented a revised vision statement that was produced as a result of resident visioning questionnaires and surveys. An audience polling session was then conducted to obtain level of support for existing and newly recommended GGAMP policies specific to the Eastern Estates. Meeting Summary: Kris Van Lengen, Planning Manager, presented information on the status of the restudy, prior meetings, area demographics and key topic areas. Anita Jenkins, Principal Planner, presented results of visioning from prior meetings, including the community's consensus on its distinctive qualities. Audience polling was conducted to obtain level of support for potential new policies and existing policies in a manner that did not require attendees to self-identify with their answers or opinions in a group setting. Results of the audience polling session are attached. Additionally, stakeholders were encouraged to provide comments and feedback through written comment cards and group dialogue. Dialogue and comments received during and after the polling session included: • Conditional Uses at arterial intersections o Desire to preserve arterial intersections for potential future commercial as opposed to conditional uses since they are the most desirable to commercial property developers. o Need for larger conditional use parcels to be compatible with the surrounding community. • Transportation and mobility o Desire for an increased rate of road paving. o Concern for increased congestion on Everglades Blvd with a potential 1-75 interchange. o Increased need for designated refuge/waiting areas for students waiting for school buses. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 118 of 220 184 o Desire for the interchange to be aligned with RFMUD receiving areas due to future increased population densities. o Concern for the future character of streets adjacent to a potential interchange. o Desire to limit access to or from the interchange. • Desire for larger buffers and setbacks for non-residential uses. • Need for appropriate lighting at rural intersections, without over-lighting entire corridors. • Need for reflective street signage and way finding o Strong concern for an increase of built guest homes and the overall effects on the community and population density if a policy were changed to allow for the lease of guest homes as well as adverse impacts on infrastructure, watershed, and code enforcement. o Desire to make senior centers and wellness centers a conditional use. Golden Gate Eastern Estates Workshop — Instant Polling Results: 02/22/2017 •Resident Which option best represents your ■Business Owner relationship to Golden Gate Eastern Estates? Developer/Representative •Elected Official •Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Do you live in Golden Gate Eastern Estates? ■No Yes 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 119 of 220 185 71 i i I, How long have you lived in Golden , ,a •Less than 1 Year Gate Eastern Estates?(do-over) Zi ■1>5 Years 1 5>10 Years •10>20 Years How long have you lived in Golden a w Gate Eastern Estates? IN Over 20 Years ,.I don't live in GG City t 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% (This space intentionally left blank.) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 120 of 220 186 Retain existing policy to pave lime rock roads. The County will develop rural architectural standards for commercial and institutional development in the Estates. j I ; Neighborhood centers may be increased in size to accommodate stormwater,septic and buffer requirements. Accommodate growing demand for employment,goods,services,and entertainment with provisions adjacent to the Estates. Add new provision to allow •Strongly Disagree communications towers. ,- ■Somewhat Disagree •Not Sure Add newrovision to allow Group "k P � •Somewhat Agree Homes(7-14 people). Strongly Agree Add new provision to allow Conditional ; Uses at arterial intersections.(do-over) Add new provision to allow Conditional Uses at arterial intersections. Retain existing policy to preserve the rural character of the Eastern Estates. Retain existing policy allowing for livestock and crops. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 121 of 220 187 The County will consider a TDR program for natural resource protection. The County will promote the combination of 1.14-acre or similar "small lots"into adjoining lots through incentives Retain existing policy that the County will encourage"dark sky"lighting standards. Retain existing policy that the County will consider incentives for wetland preservation. IIIII Retain existing policy to conduct wildfire mitigation education and prevention •Strongly Disagree programs. ■Somewhat Disagree • The County will update setback and Not Sure buffer standards for non-residential uses •Somewhat Agree in the Estates and for adjoining uses in the RFMUD and RLSA. Strongly Agree Retain existing policy to coordinate a future I-75 interchange in the vicinity of Everglades Boulevard. Retain existing policy to increase north- south and east-west route alternatives. Retain existing policy to create a '�`�' greenway plan. kn,vs Retain existing policy to schedule(or :n udate)and fund bridge improvements. I I I i 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 122 of 220 188 Do you support the ability of owners to rent/lease their guest homes. , max; The County will create new lighting I standards within the LDC. 4,4 , I •Strongly Disagree The County shall continue to work toward the goal of providing a septic •Somewhat Disagree -4;41 ' disposal facility located in Collier A; Not Sure County. •Somewhat Agree 1 The County will continue efforts to � � j ■Strongly Agree support independent fire districts and Florida Forestry Service in public education,planning,and resourcing related to wildfire prevention and response. The County will consider dispersed water storage and watershed connectivity to,through,and from the Estates. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 123 of 220 189 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Golden Gate City Public Workshop, April 26, 2017 Golden Gate Community Center Introduction: The GGAMP Restudy Golden Gate City Initial Recommendations Public Workshop was attended by approximately 10 Golden Gate City stakeholders, and county staff members. The county staff introduced the current GGAMP and public outreach to-date. An audience polling session was then conducted by the client team to obtain level of support for existing and newly recommended GGAMP policies specific to Golden Gate City. Areas of focus included complementary land uses, economic vitality, transportation and mobility, and environment. Meeting Summary Audience polling was conducted to obtain consensus for potential new policies and existing policies in a manner that did not require attendees to self-identify with their answers or opinions in a group setting. Additionally, stakeholders were encouraged to provide comments and feedback through group dialogue. Dialogue during and after the polling session included: • Code Enforcement — While discussing the information on page 10 of the PowerPoint, some of the attendees recommended that code enforcement be added as an additional "focus" idea. Some of the attendees were concerned with the way that environmental code — such as the removal of invasive trees—is enforced. • Architectural Review — Some of the attendees voiced that they would like to establish a review board to oversee architectural standards. • Stormwater improvements. — After the conclusion of the meeting, there was discussion of opportunities in future construction for stormwater systems improvements. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 124 of 220 190 Golden Gate City Workshop - Initial Recommendations: 04/26/2017 I wo,"" ii Do you live in Golden Gate City? ■No a Yes I 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% i •Less than 1 Year i ■1>5 Years 1 How long have you lived in Golden 1 ■5>10 Years i Gate City? �. e�- �.t 11110>20 Years 1 ■Over 20 Years 1 don't live in GG City 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% - Iiiii0 •Resident Which option best represents your ■Business Owner relationship to Golden Gate City? ■Developer/Representative ■Elected Official ■Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% , Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 125 of 220 191 Golden Gate Professional Office Subdistrict: Promote mixed-use standards, including vertical mixed-use. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict: Remove 1-acre rezone requirement. � I Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict: Promote mixed-use standards,including vertical mixed-use. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict: Remove prohibition on rental housing. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict: Promote mixed-use standards,including vertical mixed-use. ■Disagree No Opinion Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict: ■Agree Remove prohibition on rental housing. 1111 I I Consider provision in zoning overlay to allow property improvements even if not to some of today's development standards (ex: parking,landscape,setback,etc.) The County should consider one or more zoning overlay(s)to reduce the cost and complexity of individual rezone petitions. Mixed-use provisions and Land Development Code standards should strive for uniformity Commercial sub-districts should be simpler and more cohesive,emphasizing mixed-use and supporting redevelopment opportunities. (do-over) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 126 of 220 192 Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict: Retain Plan language related to pedestrian connectivity and alternative modes of transportation. Explore feasibility of CRA, Business Improvement District(BID),or Innovation Zone within Golden Gate City. Adopt appropriate tools for business enhancement,such as incubators or accelorators. Enhance community cultural assets, international focus,and community identity. Enhance community participation in area and sub-area planning through a county- fostered initiative with the ultimate goal of self-sustained community planning. •Disagree ®No Opinion Collier Boulevard Commercial Sub District: ■Agree Should certain light industrial uses be allowed if adding jobs to GG City? - CollierBoulevard Commercial Sub Distract: Do you agree with the uses within this Subdistrict? I ! Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict: Should the boundaries of the Subdistrict be expanded? Golden Gate Professional Office Subdistrict: Increase height to allow 3 stories adjacent to Golden Gate Parkway. Golden Gate Professional Office Subdistrict: Expand uses to C-3 ' (commercial)and residential_ 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 127 of 220 193 Develop a program requiring removal of all exotic vegetation using Golden Gate City as a pilot. Continue stormwater outfall and connectivity improvements for flood control. Seek appropriate grant funding opportunities for conversion of septic to sewer service. Continue canal/outfall water monitoring ■Disagree for surface and groundwater contamination as it relates to septic. ■No Opinion ■Agree Study potential for utility service conversion from Florida Government Utility Authority to Collier County Water Sewer District. Express need to conduct a pedestrian bridge connectivity study over canals. { Identify and prioritize traffic-calming locations. 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 128 of 220 194 Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict: ■No Should the Uses include"light industrial"if No Opinion compatible with neighborhood? •Yes I, I 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 129 of 220 195 Correspondence Regarding Golden Gate City Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 130 of 220 196 Office of Business and Economic Development Research Memo: (April 18,2017) Golden Gate Area Master-Plan (GGAMP)1 Overview: Collier County's Economic Development is inclusive of Golden Gate City particularly with respect to retail and commercial business. However, various sources reveal that there is limited Industrial land which has been retarding the County's capabilities for investment attraction and expansion2. This update provides a great opportunity to create an environment to bring more development to the area covered by the Golden Gate Area Master-Plan(GGAMP). Big Boxes are increasingly becoming vacant big—box stores i.e. 'dark boxes'3 at a time when the GGAMP remains heavily focused on Commercial use. Commercial Zoning is defined by Florida statutes4, to include activities predominantly connected with the sale, rental and distribution of products or performance of services while industrial-use means activities connected with manufacturing, assembly, processing, or storage of products. Industrial-use facilitates greater value-added activities associated with improved jobs and wages, while lower value-added investments usually promoted by commercial use activity, are generally subject to greater job termination, and this seems the opposite of the vision for the GGAMP. Industrial areas would indeed serve as a major economic boost for the county and in the Golden Gate area. However, industrial zoning would require buffers and other ways to separate business use from the residential areas. Heavy industrial-use has been associated with negative community impacts including environmental pollution. Proposing Mixed-use, or allowing certain light-industrials uses as a conditional-use would be a great way to update the GGAMP. Conditional-use would allow for county staff to review and ensure that each proposed use will not negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. The main objectives for Golden Gate City could be further promoted and facilitated where the GGAMP includes mixed use and conditional use zoning that promotes light-industrial-uses and business parks in Goals 4 and 5 of the plan. This could also enable greater investments in some of Golden Gate City's currently unused and underutilized `big-box' spaces e.g. Sweet Bay, Sears and K-Mart. Points: • The 44 respondents included in the GGAMP survey6 indicated they wanted Golden Gate City to: o facilitate new business as a top priority for improving Golden Gate City's future; 1 http://www.colliergov.net/home/showdocument?id=66933 http://www.colIiergov.net/home/showdocument?id=764 3 http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/bbtk-factsheet-blight.pdf 4 https://floridaldr.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/relevant-florida-statutes-definitions.pdf 5 Light or limited industrial zoning is intended for lands appropriate for low-intensity,light and medium industrial activities.Typical uses include assembly and fabrication industries,warehousing,distribution centers, administrative offices,and business support services that typically do not cause noiseair,or water disturbances or pollution.(see http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Fairfield/html/Fairfield25/Fairfield2506.html retrieved April 18,2017. 6 https://docs.google.com/forms/d/17Yols-i6vU-QMxD6RLNvPoW6NbkZFNfjwGJzBW WRgBo/viewanalytics Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 131 of 220 197 Office of Business and Economic Development o be distinctive for middle-class workers and new growth; o be a premier location for investment; • The Office of Business and Economic Development(OBED) reviewed the GGAMP and encourages more mixed or conditional-use zoning that promotes light-industrial activities and business parks. Goals 4 and 5 could be revised to include specific reference to advanced manufacturing, including automated apparel, light assembly and 3D printing, as well as call centers. • Several large retailers, including Payless, K-Mart, Sweet Bay and Sears are closing a significant number of stores in Collier County. That provides an opportunity for timely amendment to the Land Development Code (LDC) development standards and permitted uses that could help to bring new businesses to the area. For example, Sears in Chicago has repurposed a 127,000 square-foot store into a multitenant data center. This could be replicated in Golden Gate City if developers were allowed the proposed flexibility in development standards. Currently, there is vacant commercial and retail space, and a revision to the LDC to include mixed or conditional-use developments that promote light- industrial activities and business parks could help to meet resident's needs. Throughout the nation, transforming plaza districts to mixed-use developments is a growing trend (see http://newsok.com/article/5545159 and http://mixeduse.sochaplazas.com/work/ ). Revising the GGAMP to allow such transitions could help improve the area's economic competitiveness. Some tracts within Golden Gate Area are designated as Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zones and mixed-or conditional-use could aid in their development. Action: OBED to- • coordinate with Zoning Division, GGCRA-MSTU and other affected parties at meetings prior to the public workshops this summer to work on discussions and drafting considerations for incorporating greater mixed-and conditional-uses that promotes light- industrial use and business park activities in Goals 4 and 5 of the GGAMP; and • participate in the GGAMP Public Workshops. http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/06/former-sears-kmart-stores-become-data-centers/ Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 132 of 220 198 From: Michael Currier<mcurrier@govmserv.com> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2016 11:10 AM To: VanLengenKris Cc: Donna Lizotte; Ron Jefferson; JenkinsAnita Subject: RE: Golden Gate City and FGUA Attachments: GG-MAP SERVICE AREA-W&WW-UPDATED_2011.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Kris: I am not aware of FGUA sponsored line extensions since purchase in 1999.The most recent line extensions were constructed and paid by development; Publix on CR 951 and Collier schools. From: VanLengenKris [mailto:KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 11:29 AM To: Michael Currier Cc: Donna Lizotte; Ron Jefferson; JenkinsAnita Subject: Golden Gate City and FGUA Hello Michael: Many thanks to you and Donna for attending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy public workshop last evening. I appreciate that you shared maps of your served area for water and wastewater service in Golden Gate City. I have two follow-up requests: 1. Can you provide those maps in PDF format so that the detail and color is more evident? 2. Can you share any examples of extending service to new street areas and how it worked out? For example, number of new residences included, cost per customer for impact fee and connection charge, etc.? Have you made any new connections in the past 10-20 years either in GG City or in your Service area just west in GG Estates? Thanks for helping us understand the underlying issues and business plans of FGUA, and thanks too for planning to meet again with residents at an upcoming Golden Gate Civic Association meeting. Respectfully, Kris Van Lengen,JD,AICP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division,Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-7268 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies 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 wilting. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 133 of 220 199 From: DelateJoseph Sent: Friday, October 07, 2016 1:00 PM To: MoscaMichele Cc: JenkinsAnita; VanLengenKris Subject: RE: GG City improvements Attachments: GoldenGateCityStormwaterDrainageSystemlmprovementPlan_CurrentConditions_2016.pdf; Golden Gate City Stormwater Drainage Improvement Project_NE1.pdf; Golden Gate City Stormwater Drainage Improvement Project_NW1.pdf; Golden Gate City Stormwater Drainage Improvement Project_SE1.pdf; Golden Gate City Stormwater Drainage Improvement Project_SW1.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged This is a multi-year project that may take 20 years from start to finish. It is a maintenance project to replace the stormwater pipes and catch basins (stormwater inlets) in the 4 square mile GG City only. There are no ponds or new improvements planned. The total estimated construction cost is$15M in 2012 dollars. This amount obviously will be higher by the time is fully constructed due to inflation, construction cost increases, etc... The design costs are approximately 15-20%so that would add an approximate$3M to the 2012 total. Funding will be in small amounts as it is available and budgeted on a yearly basis. The County has requested a $1M FLA legislative earmark for this upcoming session but that is only a possibility of receiving funding. Attached are maps of the 4 Quads plus a relatively recent current conditions map that is mostly up to date. As a side note,we like to call it stormwater management, not drainage or flood control, even though the graphics say otherwise. Thank you. From: MoscaMichele Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 2:04 PM To: DelateJoseph Cc: JenkinsAnita; VanLengenKris Subject: RE: GG City improvements Hi Joe, The County's Community Planning staff would like information about the stormwater improvements slated for Golden Gate City(refer to below email). I provided them with the below excerpt/information from a recent presentation given by Jerry. In addition,the 2016 AUIR identifies funding for the project in fiscal years 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 for"DC" —design, permitting, and construction. GG City Outfall Replacements • Proposed Funding in FY 17: $500,000 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 134 of 220 200 • Four-square-mile area of Golden Gate City • Replacement and improvements to existing aging infrastructure: ➢ Replaced old catch basins with ditch bottom inlets with grates ➢ Installation of sumps at catch basins ➢ Re-grading and sodding of swales to prevent erosion When you have a moment,would you please provide Kris with the requested map(s)or graphics and any other pertinent project details. Thank you, Michele IMiche(e X Tosca,AICP Principal Planner Growth Management Department Capital Project Planing,Impact Fees&Program Management Division 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,FL 34104 tel. 239.252.2166 From: VanLengenKris Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 11:40 AM To: MoscaMichele Cc: JenkinsAnita Subject: GG City improvements Hi Michelle: You mentioned the outfall replacement project for GG City stormwater, ($.5m, FY 17). Do you have a map of the improvement locations, or graphics from studies to show improvement areas in flood control for certain blocks?Also, are there any other future stormwater improvements in the next 5-10 years? Thanks, Kris Van Lengen,JD,AICP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division,Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-7268 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies 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 pr in writing. 2 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 135 of 220 201 From: VanLengenKris Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 3:08 PM To: 'Sandra Mediavilla' Cc: JenkinsAnita Subject: RE: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Attachments: text GGAMP City Downtown Center Comm Sub.pdf; FLUM Downtown Commercial Subdistrict.pdf Hello Sandy: Thank you for your inquiry. I am attaching language and a reference map currently contained in our Comprehensive Plan within the Golden Gate Area Master Plan section.This material dates back to 2004.The Subdistrict containing your address is called Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict. We are in the process of a "restudy", which means we want to obtain public comments and make changes reflecting public consensus and changed conditions.The area shaded on the map indicates one of many Subdistricts that was identified more than 10 years ago for redevelopment.You can read the language describing the intent. The Future Land Use (FLU)designation is a bit different than zoning. I believe your property is zoned residential. Nevertheless,the FLU would give a property owner the right to request a zoning change,subject to compatibility with surrounding areas and other considerations. As you will be unable to attend the meeting, please feel free to let me know whether you agree with this designation. I infer from your comments that you would prefer that addresses along 23d Ave SW not be a part of this FLU designation. Please feel free to confirm or expand. We will provide written comments to the hearing bodies after we assemble initial recommendations for change. Meanwhile, please feel free to contact me with further questions and comments. Very truly yours, Kris Van Lengen,JD,AICP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division,Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-7268 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies From:Sandra Mediavilla [mailto:SandraMediavilla@napleslaw.us] Sent:Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:04 PM To:VanLengenKris<KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net> Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Kris: I am a property owner within the City area of Golden Gate. I received your letter yesterday regarding the GGAMP and informing me of the meeting to be held on February 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm. Unfortunately, I work until 5:30 therefore will not be able to attend the meeting. But let this email serve as my comments on the information contained in your letter. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 136 of 220 202 Your letter indicates that my property(which is clearly residential) is "allowed to have commercial uses". I am hopeful you are not referring to the residential portion of Golden Gate City. I live at 4340 23rd Ave. SW. I have owned the house — and resided in the house since 1976. While the entire area and population of Golden Gate City has greatly changed over my 41 years in the area, I cannot and will never agree to this residential area becoming in any way commercial. I am hopeful that when you refer to "commercial property owners",you are referring to those areas of the City which are already commercial in nature, i.e.951,the Parkway,Santa Barbara Blvd. etc. I cannot imagine that any portion of the residential areas of the City of Golden Gate would be deemed or somehow turned into a commercial area. As it is now, I live in an area which is now filled with people who are not of the nature as when I first moved into this neighborhood. If I were able to afford it, I would remove myself from this area to an area more to my liking. If this is not the case, please let me know and I will see if I can get the time off to attend your meeting in person. I look forward to hearing back from your office. Thank you. Sandy Sandra B. Mediavilla Florida Registered Paralegal Parrish, White& Yarnell, P. A. 3431 Pine Ridge Road, Suite 101 Naples, FL 34109 Phone: 239-566-2013 Fax: 239-566-9561 E-mail: SandraMediavillac napleslaw.us bs7 Please consider the environment before printing this email lir/Yr\ PARRISH, WHITE & YARNELL, P.A. attorneys at law Both Sandra Mediavilla and Parrish, White & Yarnell, P.A. intend that this message be used exclusively by the addressee(s). This message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Unauthorizea disclosure or use of this information is strictly prohibited. if you have received this communication in error,please permanently dispose of the original message and notify Sandra Media villa immediately at(239)566-2013. Thank you. 2 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 137 of 220 203 IlFg1U 44, GOLDEN GATE PRESS STATEMENT RE: POTENTIAL COUNTY ACQUISITION FOR STAFF USE This transition [of the Golden Gate Utility System]follows the original FGUA vision and historical practice - of partnering with local governments to acquire private utility systems, move them to public ownership and improve their condition to a high quality municipal standard. The FGUA has an agreement with the local or"host"government wherever we are[now in 14 Florida counties]to convey these systems to those governments when they desire. The Golden Gate system was among the first acquired by the FGUA when it was formed in 1999.The Golden Gate system was one of several systems purchased from Avatar Holdings, Inc(Florida Cities Water Company). Other systems acquired with Golden Gate included Barefoot Bay(Brevard County), Carrollwood (Hillsborough County), Poinciana (Osceola & Polk Counties),and a system in Sarasota County. Since the inception of the FGUA,there have been a number of utility systems acquired and then conveyed to local governments. When purchased by the FGUA,the Golden Gate system can be described as"troubled" by its physical and financial condition. Its high customer rates are directly attributed to the initial cost to purchase it from the private owner and the capital improvements required to bring it to its very good current condition.As the FGUA prepares to turn the utility over to Collier County,the system has strong finances as evidenced by the 2015 credit ratings of"A2" by Moody's and "AA"from S&P. Further, it has been recognized with awards from the Florida Water Environment Association and the Florida Water and Pollution Control and Operators Association in recent years for its quality operation and safety practices. We are pleased to have served our mission of improving the system, providing very good customer service and putting it in the best possible condition for it to become part of the county utility system. We look forward to working with Collier County on what we hope will be a seamless transition. Last Update-June 26, 2017 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 138 of 220 204 Correspondence Regarding Eastern Golden Gate Estates Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 139 of 220 205 From: MottToni Sent: Friday, April 01, 2016 5:28 PM To: VanLengenKris Cc: DowlingMichael Subject: 1983 Agreement-GAC Land Trust Attachments: 1983 Agreement.pdf; Reserved and Available List with Folio 2016.xlsx Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Kris, Sorry I missed your call. Please find attached the 1983 Agreement between Avatar Properties Inc, f/k/a GAC Properties Inc. and Collier County. Michael Dowling is the liaison with the Golden Gate Land Trust Committee. Also attached is the list of remaining properties. I'll be out of the office next week Monday through Wednesday and perhaps we can meet and discuss and questions you may have after that. Just let us know. Thanks 71 Toni A. Mott, Manager, SR/WA Collier County Real Property Management 3335 Tamiami Trail East - Suite 101 Naples, FL 34112 Telephone Number: 239-252-8780 Fax Number: 230-252-8876 Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 140 of 220 206 OQa42sllKain 18 AN a 22 COLLIER COUNTY RECORDED AGREEMENT THIS A[3til' ands and entered into this 15th dry of Novaaaber, („D o• ,t-, 1983, bets MICAR PRCPE TI8;5 INC., f/)C/a/ GAC PROPERTIES /NC., a am — Florida corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Company", and (O/u.189 O C" • N ussuY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "C unty", acting by and through its Hoard of Oeunty Commissioners. WITNESSET H: WHEREAS, the Omgpany entered into a Consent Order with the Federal Trade Omeission dated July 23, 1974, which in Section III, Paragraph E, provided for Oohmpany to donate 1,100 acres of land to ca County, in the subdivision known as "Golden Gate Estates", to be used .13 o to provide facilities for such things as recreation, utility and b .a- G7ca csra o .nity service for the existing aostfatursidents and visitors of l'l — Collier County, and to provi .f of - -,:-7-ta fund improvements within the area known as Ee es , .4-a .'-.,. herein• and f EREAS, the af. ). •i .. -nt Oder was i.,...,ny and the Federal Trade ...,-*, in a Modifying Order iss . April 17, 1979 - . the •;Fy' mrd r no longer required the 0+•,,+- 144. .,,._ to deed to County the ,10r,ein Go-Taen--"C 1 `". ` .ter; an WHEREAS, the Cohty has a-• • ••-• eceipt o, previousl •--•-• land frau the i.,.. r 1 -., i _ .,* . . . .cr '. •- conveyed by "�!'- 061.`; -,. "' (E1tEAS, •. an ty by mut to ilir rem:pima that ti ,;*r f . :■► +61 •,,`"f by • 4i,.-.*. ! County remains ! tial need to enable the ty to +eet' . present and fut ".)t.'. g is needs of the Golden ;�tat!gs - . -.• REAS, the `•F has determined that the nt of that certain Agr..1da October 4, 1977 have been -.•.ia, - ly satisfied by various .. JP,. . . - Company, incl limited to exchanges of purchase • o e.+111;.+j :`i` 4. sera, and expenditure and tendering to a _ _ o(tia._ • ,canal maintenance and water retention facilities; THEREFORE, in consideration of the aforesaid premises, it is mutually °covenanted and agreed between the Cany and the County as folloms: 1. The Company hereby reaffirms that it will donate by special warranty deed 1,061.5 acres of property in Olden Gate Estates to the County. Golden Gate Estates is made up of the property shoran in Exhibit "A' attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. 2. The Company and the County mutually agree that the following described lands will be conveyed in accord with the following schedule: a) On or before December 1, 1983, the Company will convey to the Canty the lands listed in Exhibit "8" enooapassing approxi- mately two hundred ten (210) acres. These lands are within the area marked I as shown in red as set forth in Exhibit "C" hereto which is incorporated herein by reference. CoWftC'.a.ory7r.oR 7 —elpi1- /. 7*.iy in�nr-,end prAtseaared 5NG/N>0�( rAs^Rs�l7y°vt� ,c;.,;ix., x1CA Bate Area Master Plan Rt24tliitictrifEite Paper Page 141 of 220 co..a:aabies.Fonda 33134 ^1 , 207 0C1052 000492 OR BOOK PAGE b) On or before December 31, 1983, the Oonpany Trill convey to the County approximately two hundred twelve (212) acres within the area marked II as shore in blue as set forth in Exhibit "C'. c) On or before December 31, 1984, the Compaany will convey to the County appracimately two hundred ten (210) acres within the area marked III as shown in brown as set forth in Exhibit "C". d) On or before December 31, 1985, the Oaapany will convey to the Cbenty approximately two hundred fifteen (215) acres within the area marked IV as shown in green as set forth in 87xhibit "C'. e) On or before December 31, 1986, the Company will convey to the County approximately two hundred fourteen and five tenths (214.5) acres within the area marked V as shoe in yellow as set forth in Exhibit "C". 3. The Co pony and County will meet in October of each calendar year referenced in Paragraph 2 so as to mutually establish and agree upon the property to be deeded from n_Qon !,s...inzentory to the County for that particular year. ete tt a I. and County are unable to do agree thenAikklila ..ee upon a mutually acceptable •f"':�,�a'-• arbitrator to settlei .'r, - as to property to be do : -. .' Ai - County by the Company for •t .: icular year. In the e tha, t e-found the County are una, e to :. -- as to a mutual l: a .-. ,.1kindeprdent arbztra r.; , then the ,.. .. • and the County :... ee ` . abide by • -ti. .., to the , - i•, Arbitration -,- ..:a '! : •Al_ . r 1: ve . .-� T- what properti_- she ` •. do,. -. f• . 4. Thea i --, to icer .. County thirty _ . ys .re - ' -. y-..-fir.. tie i'a. ., u CYmnitiment : . . e to be good and insu abl �, .jec to b, and coning laws, 'ons, reservations, 1' t».-... --__ - of record, tames for - oe of the year fon. • " .. :: p- t of conveyance and ,•iiL S. If the county has ti.. - objections, they must _• in writing tot .,n forty- five (45) days from Coun r _ - '#C it -,, . In the i event that the title shall not . ~t. •- insurable, F i. Company, at Oampany's option, may cure such defects and shall have • sixty (60) days in which to do so, which additional time will extend the conveyance date herein provided. If after reasonable diligence on Company's part, said title shall not be made good and insurable within the time provided, the Company shall have the obligation hereunder to substitute other inventory land in Golden Gate Estates of a similar t' nature and acreage. The Company and the County will mutually establish and agree upon the property to be substituted in accordance with the above. s` 5. The lands deeded to the County pursuant to this Agreement s.1 shall be used only to provide governmental facilities for existing and LA future residents of Collier County, with all capital improvements to be t physically located within the geographical boundary of the area known as "Golden Gate Estates" and any proceeds frau the sale of dedicated lands as provided herein shall be utilized for capital projects, as • .i Golden Gate Area Master Plan Rtiltt2 -1 tliite Paper Page 142 of 220 .\ ` 208 it 1 001052 000193 OR BOOK PAGE • provided herein, to be located within the area )mown as "Golden Gate Estates'. The governmental facilities which can be constructed ton said property or with the proceeds of the sale of the property include fire protection facilities, police facilities, public schools, libra- ries and recreational facilities and equipment necessary for the oper- ation thereof. Neither the property donated nor the proceeds from the sale of any dedicated property shall be used for the purposes of ac- quisition, construction or maintenance of roads and bridges, or similar projects. If it is determined by a count of competent jurisdiction that the County has allc ud the lands or any part thereof to be used for any purpose other than the aforesaid, the ownership and title thereto shall revert to the (many. The conveyances provided for herein shall be made by the asipany to the County regardless of whether a present or immediate need exists for such acreage in the year of conveyance. The parties hereto recognize that the progress of development in Golden Gate Estates beams.. .: need for facilities, is not dependant upon the • i''... •, e,• . -in. The company shall have the r''_ • to • - ., and..a ,4 • , and mineral rights for - . . .- donated hereunder, - the right of reasonable -ng .d and egress. In the event the �4. or- ation for or expl.-tati., cf.-any- oil or minerals on sub' I-.•- results in •: ther . ..:.' . in a dimini :n, in value f subject proper ,, the •.i .: _.. - .. 'fy ful y the y f. is such damage or 'id . itt t 6. The •. , y -,r . to :.: aa :. .« ..: or ^ and all reven , .- =• by ue of : _ ,f any 4•+ `y described herei..• I - ,. •.•l - ,,,,t'- et - "`. collected so tha- kit .- be determined that said .' uss ve utilized only for • •, • ••--s provided herein. y 7. It is . >- and agreed that the Coun -L., 4-.- right to sell or tr...- . �- .squired hereunder. :. - - �.i ty shall not sell or trade 1) `A. 0% of said lands a • ='r '' year. L. The County does hereby agr-- tha . ... 1 shall be subject to the same limitations . =le • is purposes within Golden Gate Estates as described in Paragraph 5. Funds acquired from the sale of the lands shall be used for governmental purposes as described above and shall be used only to acquire other lands, equip- ment, materials or for the constructing of improvements as hereinbe- fore described in Paragraph 5. Before any lands nay be sold or traded, the County shall have an appraisal completed by an M.A.I. and the r contemplated conveyance may be consummated only if: (a) the sales price is ninety (90%) percent or more of the appraisal fair market value or, (b) the appraisal fair market value of the property to be ■- received in trade is ninety (90%) percent or more of the appraisal fair e market value of the lands to be traded by the County. All appraisals herein shall be undertaken and dated within ninety (90) days of the closing date of the particular transaction. Upon such sale or trade the company shall quit-claim deed the reverter interest of Company referenced in Paragraph 5 to County. ,, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Rpt lityMite Paper Page 143 of 220 \ . 209 011057 000494 OR BOOK PAGE 8. It is understood and agreed that the Oonpany shall have the right of first refusal to acquire any property the County desires to sell or trade under Paragraph 7 above. The County shall notify the Company of all teens and conditions of any such sale or trade and the Company shall have the right and option for thirty (30) days after receipt of such notice to elect to acquire the property for the same consideration and upon the ease terms and conditions. If the property is subject of a trade, the County shall, through the appraisal referenced in Paragraph 7, establish the fair market value of the property and the Company shall have the right to acquire the property to be traded for said fair market value amount. The Qhspany shall have thirty (30) drys from the receipt of such notice to respond to the County by notifying the County of its desire to exercise the right of first refusal. If the right of first refusal is not exercised by Company within the stated period, the County shall have the right to sell or trade the property to such •' - , but only at the price of sale and upon the terns t r:: • ..,,, icated to the Company. Nb sale . . ..._ --`, • til the foregoing requi .,-, = O cedglied with by the m - ight of first refusal .. J th the land, and failure of '•• .. to exercise such r' t i7`ate shall not effect the - right to exer 'se that ris e arising. Zone status of title to 4 s+•,Ii y . .,- -. with . right of irst ' T, " _ Tat ,he "' ` ...... refusal Opti. . r . ..-17:-v. e, s= time of .. _, . . .f . *. !.17 . ` t . pr..- y . County conf i.,_ _ 4 - a- ed for -- = or i ilt Shall be elig •r i. oe o = • '1 't. 9. In vi-- - premises and in coni.- r ion the 1. obligations ',!:=4"..i.:-ibil ities hereund , t =-. ' y re, _ =-s the Crmpany, its t ..rporation and ertheir su.K-i.-' i:-. - and L all obligations e-.. ti'kilities, as set forth inA -,-nt dated October 4, 197 . ...i. which is atta.. _- . -'ked Exhibit NEP, and incorpo _Py r ,, N'ti‘-')om 10. The Company and the we - ' , ually sharing in revenues from the sale of excavated spoil materials in the Golden Gate Estates area, and it is mutually understood and agreed that during the duration of this Agreement, the County will continue to have such rights as the Company can convey, at no cost therefor, to utilize such spoil materials that remain available frau time to tine, for fill purposes on the various land parcels conveyed hereby, if such is deemed by the County to be needed. This Agreenent will terminate on December 31, 1986, except for the provisions of this Paragraph 10. i 11. All amendments, alterations, modifications or changes to this i. Agreement to which the parties hereto mutually agree, shall be in $ writing and duly signed by authorized representatives of each party. In the event notice is required to be sent to Company or County r pursuant to an ane d ent, alteration, modification or change, or pursuant to compliance with or default of any obligation set forth herein, such notice shall be delivered by Certified Nail to: 44/. Golden Gate Area Master Plan RtB'Wite Paper Page 144 of 220 \. 4 210 0C 11152 0001 95 OR BOOK PAGE 0144PANY: AVATAR PROPERTIES INC. c/o Avatar Holdings Inc. Attention: Legal Department 201 Alhambra Circle Coral Gables, Florida 33134 COUNTY: crummtauNTY Board of County Ovmtissioners Collier Canty Courthouse Naples, Florida 33942 FERAL TRACE BION: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION Bureau of Consumer Protection Enforcement Division i4ashitgton, D.C. 20580 12. Company affirms that it is duly incorporated and in good standing in the State of Florida, and that the execution and performance of this Agreement is in its corporate powers, having been duly authorized, and is not in contr..e.-• ..,, of the law or the terms of its charter, by-laws or of - .. .., •- •: .-,,o;: :6-6 agreement to which it is a party or , i.t, ' "' .... - --•: ts or other writings sutra f • ty with this Agr ,42 - _. ter in connection with .. •nt are or shall be true, car ' , . ,,.lete, valid and genuine r g,- :.- = ts that it has every' ight 6. enter into thi7`Agr nt 13. The i o the State of da hall n the .. tion and in • - 'on • 1 --- -•t. 14. This is re r� -n to • r- -• to • parties here •t .iiifpr.•>.1, y above, and th ni- _ •` _._- . '-.,- 4-4, - , -. understandings11‘r. 15. Other lime= set forth herein, - •es - that there are �'� .,• ._, representations , :-I•Ir—, oral or written relati , -. Agreement. 16. It is her-. •,alt`_. •, law, custom or .--=---41t6- contrary notwithstanding, that `�` f• rikY.�- all tines to enforce the conditions and ag . ie .i .61,1!'' . ed in strict accordance with the terms hereof, notwithstanding any conduct or custan on the part of the Conpany in refraining from so thing; and further, that the failure of the Company at any time or times to strictly { enforce its rights hereunder, shall not be construed as having created a custan in any way or manner o ntrary to the specific conditions and f agreements hereof, or as having in any way modified or waived the sane. 17. If it should beoame necessary for either of the parties hereto to resort to legal action or arbitration under this Agreement, W -5- Golden Gate Area Master Plan R1E24tlittyWYKite Paper Page 145 of 220 L 211 1 Crf052 0 0 0 L 9 6 . OR BOOK PAGE the non-prevailing party shall pay all reasonable legal fees, mets and other expenses incurred by the prevailing party, including attorneys' fees at trial or appeal level. 18. Invalidation of any provision or clause in whole or in part by judgment or Court order shall, in no way, effect any of the other provisions or clauses which shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS NIF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed according to their proper authority and seal, this day of 77 r- ,s , 19?..3-. AVATAR PROPERTIES INC. Witnesses: (CORPORATE ') • BY:WiLA441.11,::1 ; ---) 1... .... Q`'o[/ / Attest: c .4,-,. I4---uJ ..... ' "4 i .. C 0 71'0\1 Co:.1.4116 ,I°NERS ‘721// I '‘glir Y(-, ' 7 * - , -------1."...tes.t:‘J.. - .,31101‘44" f/C "id*: . - ''''', `.,1 ' ( ) •• __ (:).i, • , k...., :) .,.. 0 tlir y -6- Golden Gate Area Master Plan RbIltlitlyWiTiite Paper Page 146 of 220 ` 212 I EXHIBIT "B" UNIT TRACT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE -Aka- 8.036- S-.-÷5-1--ee-ki7--+W 1-7H- Le,Ff' 6 39L N. 75' of N. 150' 1.13 7 81 Entire Tract 9.11 11 107B E. 75' of W. 180' 1.17 Q cD 11 139D S. 75' of S. 150' 1.17 = n• 0 v 13 20D W. 75' of W. 150' 1.17 o cn x r.,s - 13 144C S. 75' of N. 150' 1.17 14 114D S. 75' of S. 150' 1.13 14 127 Entire Tract 5.77 15 35B N. 75' of S. 180' 1.13 16 84C W. 75' of E. 150' 1.13 v 17 1BC 7Dit o 1.13 0 17 368 { 1.13 Is c 1 rn 17 89 ( Entire Tract ,, 4.62 `J 17 10. 0 75' of E. 150' 1.13 18 'D . 75' of S: 50 ' 1.17 189B 1.13 18 55 y. a Tliii'.1 4.43 186 . ' o; o , 150' C"" 1.13 18 N. 75' of S. . 80' :4 . 1.17 19 11 • E. 75' of W. -•r,;; 1.13 20 2 ' Entire Tract FN 0 8.78 20 17A 0 W. 105' of W. 18. ie,S. 1.59 20 81D 1.13 20 134C .-S' + 1.17 23 315 W. 75' of E. 180' 1.13 23 58W W. 180' of 330' 1.75 23 75A N. 105 ' of W. 180' 1.63 23 80D E. 75' of E. 150 1. 23 119D W. 75' of W. 150' :.:3 23 142A N. 105' of N. 180' 1.63 23 143A S. 105 ' of S. :80' 1.65 2b 59C E. 75' of .50' 1.:3 24 525 W. 75' of E. 180' 1.2.3 24 688 W. 75' of E. 180' 1.13 moi /o1cgg Gate Area Master Plan R1ERftl.91'Mniite Paper Page 147 of 220 ' 213 I UNIT TRACT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 24 97 Entire Tract 4.42 24 106C E. 75' of W. 150" 1.13 24 126A E. 105' of E. 180' 1.63 • 25 25B E. 75' of W. 180' 1.13 25 26A W. 105' of W. 180' 1.59 in oiD o 25 28A E. 105' of E. 180' 1.59 co 0 p cn 25 28C E. 75' of W. 150' 1.13 PC 1.4 25 77A W. 105' of W. 180' 1.59 26 13A E. 105' of E. 180' 1.59 27 3OB E. 75' of W. 180' 1.13 27 53A W. 105' of W. 180' 1.59 W. 75' of E. 150' 1.13 0 27 96C o -CO CD i.13 28 35D E. 75' of E. 150' r> - 28 98D o 1.13 rn opo 33 103D >✓ h x-f(0 1.13 33 104B �"W. 75' of E. 180 1.13 48 43C N. 75' of S. 150' 1.13 _ 48 12 0 . 75 a .r' 1.17 49 6: 5 --1. . . 8/.' .59 49 1°6 E .60 (:1::3 49 11 ' .f ,180' \ .17 50 l, : S. 75' of N. :0' 1.17 50 2 '‘‘.*:\:...e.\ N. 105' of N. „ ' (� 1.59 50 24D N. 75' of N. 1.5. ' `�"" 1.13 50 66A S. 105' of S. 180' 1.59 50 103D '• y0\"1 . �. 1.13 51 3D ` . „ o - r 1.17 S1 10D S. 75' of S. 150' 1.17 51 35D S. 75' of S. 150' 1.13 s 51 43C S. 75' of N. 150' 1.13 1 i 51 69D S. 75' of S. 150' 1.13 e 51 50B S. 75' of N. 180' 1.13 • 51 107C N. 75' of S. 150' 1.13 • 95 A Entire Tract 4.09 r 95 38B E. 75' of W. 180' 1.13 95 47D w. 75' of W. 150' 1.13 95 53W W. 180' of 330' 3.92 95 95D J. 75' of W. 150' _.13 95 105D S. -5' .,f E. 1:0' - - ..t Golden Gate Area Master Plan R�ttaty1 White Paper Page 148 of 2-tr lo/4/83 1 ' L 214 LA1tt01/ n - lat..: 3 O . J UNIT . TRACT DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 95 106C W. 75' of E. 150' 1.13 96 - Road R/O/W - S32, T48S, 29.28 --� R26E 96 121 Entire Tract 4.52 97 10 Entire Tract 5.67 a 193 15A S. 105' of S. 180' 1.59 co CD 193 16C N. 75' of S. 150' 1.13 o o CR 7c ra 193 21B S. 75' of N. 180' 1.13 193 48B S. 75' of N. 180' 1.13 193 54B N. 75' of S. 180' 1.13 193 72D W. 75' of W. 150' 1.13 193 93A S. 105' of S. 180' 1.59 0 193 94D S. 75' of S. 150' 1.13 -n o D : 193 135 n e r 3.00 m co 194 27A ' ,A . c ' . .'. \1) ' 1.59 194 27C N. 75' of S. 150' . 1.13 194 30A . ' of S. 180' 1.59 194 34' ". 5' : _:%1: 01.13194 5 .13194 6 DS. 75 o .13 194 8'En . 0' .13 194 ' 92 W. 75' of E. ' ' i.C"� •.13 �'„� 195 85 Entire Tract (:) 4.77 1 195 115B • S.-75' of N. 180' = i 1.13 iS 195 131N `-/ 150' of 330' +t��� 2.50 195 133S - p �..,1WC 3.00 195 135S S. 1;. • • ' 3.00 • i t Golden Gate Area Master Plan Riafl1.®!" ffilifite Paper Page 149 of 220 215 L I rf' ! f57 000500 ItECi1LiI/ER'S MEMO: Legibility BOOK writing. Typing or Printing O R BOOK PAGE unsatisfactory in this docent when received. - -• UNITS BY NUMBER 4,-:a:-..r,_ __- : EXHIBIT 0 ("Chu .•r,n:ir r.�ar.�'y" hzv- .'c c i:e;,:i.:: _ _ i :l:..:t: 01 ...,.•.r:y -•v:' :15�).0(1f:7:;: of Collier County, Florida ("::.._ C:.:inty") co accept, in principal, a program for the completion of the roads and canals in Golden Gate Estates and the eventual acceptance of such roads and canals by the County. This Agreement is a ^� co subject to approval of the Bankruptcy Court. o cro T` N• The Company estimates the total dollar value of its planned expenditures to be $3,100,000. This total is broken • down into four categories as per the..attached Schedule A. • The Company would propose to fund $300,000 to the County to be utilized for capital improvements, maintenance o o and restoration work in t] -te Estates canal system. u o. -•��� *. c, The Company pr- •o;�fes ,.Bry =eO 1 tely $300,000 or rn such sum as is , - • , to accomplish' ering and 1 � restoration o ' tho-e canals lying South of etra Boulevard and North o Ta am' ,: - (w1Lc ' - s are oss hatched on Exhibit a e ,10111. T -The ,mp• ti„ s ;. o and reme- dial effo 1• road e1 - the raising of •a elevations on certa 'i road- pr antly South of SteAlt 'toulevard and fort r- ia' i.l las t identified by ke lines on Exhibit 2 a r, •e•,. would cost Mr approximately $1,' .4 (,y The Company prop• sus n of $300,00 or such sum as is necessary to accomplish the raising of • _ road elevations, a::4 ane estimated cost of the road restora- tion and remedial efforts for unaccepted completed roads, (uhi rh work could be deferred until the County determined to have it accomplished) is approximately $700,000. The Company proposes to fund this $700,000 to the County for use for capita] improvements, restoration and rnaintet:_1•rce a:: required by the Golden Gate road system. . P14- REGI7Rt)k:6'S ytl;Jitl:or Pr ot+r • .ri° ttlie tu • of wrilill�• durnent �\ pn,ari•f a. ,,ry n ..Ern re'rived. Golden Gate Area-Master Plan RISM121yriTlite Paper Page 151 of 220 217 L atd,'Cacy 1�), tiii ..ouw..y t;t:a:- o: :J :„:,,, fi.:. ':l, „ .a:'..S : The Company would he ; groeable to the $300,000 canal fund referred to above and the $700.000 road fund referred_ to _above comprisingi a single $1,000,000 fund for use by the CD a h County for capital intprovemeots. and maintenance of roads co — and/or canals in the Golden Gate Estates area. a cnCD ro The Company proposes to spend approximately $1,200,000 for water management (retention) and related structures to enhance the overall water management of the Golden Gate • • Estates Area. The details of the proposal which at present -'o contemplates• a 500 acre plus or minus retention pond with p -0 o controlled discharge will be refined and_worked out with the A; Ln ca County Engineer and i76* ety .al engineers engaged by the C . - e Compa rior -to corn- , mencement of n rice thereof. ' The Coany ,r Aoses t r.• dap oxi mat l y' 00,000 on . drainage an dtEe work in d.-_ •n to t at set oral above, 1 ` including he p ,• c � ) 13.- , thet peri- meters. of hx, •1 to Es at,�ea. As st '• rev ously, e .mp n -,, • is • ie sp initial approval of '"tom, bove concept, which - ce•t i 614 s the • ii !. acceptance by . tion of the entire44 r, Estates canal system (wi-h / ' xception of the as outh of ` � van the Stewart Boulevard a . . 1.1_ p tender of the sum of $300, i.4 --tth -Trustees of GAC to the County. Implicit in the request is the understanding that an application for acceptance of those canals South of Stewart Boulevard and North of Tamiami Trail will he accepted by the County upon the completion of the clearing t t. R EMI ti I/ER'S MEMO: Legibility of writing. Typing or Printing Un,ati•fart,.ry in this do.wibent ,.torn re,rire.1. Golden Gat- • ea a aster Plan R1414tttyf illite Paper Page 152 of 220 '\ 1 218 . atm rY;totation wu . contempiarea ner.,•:. . co...t.!ition consisLcnr ...;i ;- originJ: 2.,.:,,!: .-. -... .-..,:-..:, • - ... • • , RE IT RESOLVED chat the fon2goins proefz: is hcry • .••••••., approved in principal, subject to EurtIler ..r,.:Einctment. DATED: October .4, 1077 • ORD. OF COU::TY COISSIONERS ATTEST. . COLLIER COFTV, FLORIDA • WILIA) 1....!/4UUMNgv/elk 4.7 • - •- - ' A ' Ilk; •__ 6, - J . ' j 7 .." ; , Jr...••0.• se — ...". Arc ar .. . Chairman . _ .... . :a•, : " , . i • •' (.1.- -....: • . _ c, . ca . _ . . ... . .. . ••.• • • CAC CORPORATIOn :o 2 .. . ; • • cu • . .. . • cD = • , W1;tpesaad: . . c).N.cii • . AL. . ;41.7 ... ile AO...?.:40" 0"f , , • _ :4, ,,,...4, . ; . ,-. -. - . : • Co-Trustees R00-' -v-Ve • y .„. C.)diN.,,,t, • C:I 10 CD ' M X'. Crl 0, CEI ., ,... .. GO — • . ..•••••••., ' st..... , . . . . ! i . k.. . . 1-• ' I? •', t , . .t • I RECORDER'S 'MEMO: Legibility of urit;ng. Trt .: yping or Pr ,in unt,atiAlartory in thil; document w hew Gold n date Area Master Plan haitlfilfWeigite Paper Page 153 of 220 .---.. A ' 219 001052 000504 • e 7....7 7 OR BOOK PAGE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 1. Canal Maintenance $600,000 This provides for cleaning of . North Arca 32+ Miles e approximately • $300,000 and clearing of South Canals • (South of Weirs) Q approximately - $300,000. - 2. Road Restoration Remedial $1,200,000 efforts on unaccepted Roads, plus raising certain South Roads to Construction Standards. . A. Raising est. cost $500 R. Reston • an „ = • dial 7(1-ftilik " {10 3. Ela.- --gement (Retention J.,, $1,200,000 ,ted structures. f c 4. Dra ag - . •'ike Tozk $ 100,000 °Ali ' ..., ...Ls, $3,100,000 • Ai P , :OA, s 4,;;:, ,, tl s riL d. ►+moo.:o;` ,.. Golden Gate Area Master Plan RatalOPY ite Paper Page 154 of 220 1 a 220 II - N11 r rI 1 W Q Q a a I 1 a Q I 11 1 Ili 1 il Milli II F a Q - - - - - - v v v v v Gs7 � s � � a � a e¢ e¢ w A R mC - - d ¢ Q Q ¢ Q d z O V a i iiii i ii iiiiiiiii li U a 1 HA MINN v r n v e r v Q1U ! E 1 III li 0 I 110 iii X00008000 v Q I: ■M©©O©OMOOMMEMBEIMMBBMEIMME 8086®®®B®0 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 155 of 220 221 From: Heidi Liebwein <heidi.liebwein@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 2:08 AM To: VanLengenKris Subject: Golden Gate Growth Management meeting at Collier Extension Good morning, During the meeting it was said we were to go on the website and provide feedback. I tried and was not successful as to where, so I am sending my thoughts in this email. I do not think you should build in Golden Gate,the people who bought out there were aware of the drive when they bought out in Golden Gate. IF they are willing to accept being very rural and the drive in to retail stores,then that is how they wanted it,or they would not have bought out so far. Please do not build in Golden Gate. Thank you, Heidi Liebwein Property owner in GG 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 156 of 220 222 From: Susie Mahon <susiemahon@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:40 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Future of Golden Gate Estates We won't be able to get to the meeting tomorrow evening but wanted to give our input. We would love it if Green Blvd could be extended to 16th. We live at what used to be at the corner of White Blvd and 23rd street sw- but now it's a "sweeping curve". Drivers love to speed around that curve and there have been several accidents-they don't all show up in accident reports because they're mostly one car accidents-people being stupid and running into our fence or mailbox-then they leave.The traffic on this corner is really bad especially between 3 and 6 pm - it's very difficult to get out of our driveway safely during that time. Is there a way to reroute the landscape trucks and trailers?-all the landscape companies out here seem to have grown by leaps and bounds-Stahlmans, Renfroe and Jackson, Case and then there's American Farms -some of their trucks are now double semis.The 45 mph speed limit is way too fast when they're going around this curve and many times people are passing each other on the curve or when they straighten out in front of our house. Also,all these trucks are going to tear the roads up. Also,would it be possible to widen the lanes on White Blvd a little-some of the vehicles/trucks are so wide they hardly fit in the lane. Thank you, Charlie and Susie Mahon Sent from my iPhone ,"1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 157 of 220 223 From: Ron and Lilianne<militorl@rogers.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:50 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Future of Rural Golden Gate Good afternoon Thank you for the invitation to the community meeting held October 6th. Unfortunately we are in Canada right now and could not attend. We own a home at 4325 10th St. N.E. which intersects with 47th Ave N.E. 47th Ave is a well travelled street that runs off of Immokalee Road. In term of safety, this is a very narrow street with many children meeting their school buses every weekday morning. Many parents can be seen waiting at each corner with their kids in the car because it is not safe for them to wait for the school bus on the side of the road. The entrance to our neighborhood where 47th intersects with Immokalee needs a face-lift. It would be very nice to see nice landscaping and lighting on both corners to welcome residents and guests coming into the area Thank you Sincerely Ron and Lilianne Milito 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 158 of 220 224 From: castillaglass120@gmail.com Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 12:05 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Future Plan recommendation Please open 1-75 and Everglades Exit the ramp is there,we need acces Thank you Angel and Ingrid Castilla Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 159 of 220 225 From: Octavio Sarmiento Jr<sammyosjr@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 5:06 PM To: JenkinsAnita Cc: Kitty Paz Subject: PARADISE FACILITIES Attachments: BROSURE_0301.pdf; collier_2016_sde031519696081546.jpg; EMAIL0305.pdf; LETTER_ 0304.pdf; patio and legalization-Model.pdf 1 (6 files merged) (2).pdf; PROPERTY APPRAISER_0302.pdf; SURVEY.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Hi Anita, How are you? Hope you are doing well, we spoke on the phone few times in reference of a Church and now we also have this other Project that we had start prior, We are now also informing you of the intend and plans of Extension to the Existing Home Care Facility. I am attaching letter, documentation of the Home Care Facility, Parcel ID, Site Plan, Additions and Expanding Plans and more, so you can be aware of our intentions. Plans of expanding and adding from Six Residents to a total of 14 Residents and we love for you to add us and help us, so we can count with you and the County to be part of this new changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan, that will allow us to Expand. We like obtain that window of opportunities and continue our project, which then will continue with SDP building permits and others. Let me know if there is anything else you may need from us. My best Regards Thank you Octavio 1100 Commercial Blvd # 118 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 160 of 220 226 From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2016 7:55 AM To: ScottTrinity; WilkisonDavid Cc: VanLengenKris Subject: FW: Future of Golden Gate Estates Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged FYI -sharing issues identified Original Message From: Susie Mahon [mailto:susiemahon@comcast.net] Sent:Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:40 PM To:GGAMPRestudy Subject: Future of Golden Gate Estates We won't be able to get to the meeting tomorrow evening but wanted to give our input. We would love it if Green Blvd could be extended to 16th. We live at what used to be at the corner of White Blvd and 23rd street sw- but now it's a "sweeping curve". Drivers love to speed around that curve and there have been several accidents-they don't all show up in accident reports because they're mostly one car accidents- people being stupid and running into our fence or mailbox-then they leave.The traffic on this corner is really bad especially between 3 and 6 pm - it's very difficult to get out of our driveway safely during that time. Is there a way to reroute the landscape trucks and trailers?-all the landscape companies out here seem to have grown by leaps and bounds-Stahlmans, Renfroe and Jackson, Case and then there's American Farms-some of their trucks are now double semis.The 45 mph speed limit is way too fast when they're going around this curve and many times people are passing each other on the curve or when they straighten out in front of our house.Also, all these trucks are going to tear the roads up. Also,would it be possible to widen the lanes on White Blvd a little-some of the vehicles/trucks are so wide they hardly fit in the lane. Thank you, Charlie and Susie Mahon Sent from my iPhone 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. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 161 of 220 227 From: ScavoneMichelle Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2016 4:07 PM To: militorl@rogers.com Cc: VanLengenKris; WilkisonDavid; JenkinsAnita; ScottTrinity; KhawajaAnthony; AhmadJay; WilkisonDavid; PutaansuuGary; LulichPamela Subject: RE: TO 6153/RE: Future of Rural Golden Gate Mr.and Mrs.Milito, Thank you for providing your comments.We appreciate your input. Staff will be reviewing all input received and forwarding to appropriate staff for future planning and programming as funding availability permits. On behalf of Staff, Michelle Scavone,GMD Operations Coordinator From: Ron and Lilianne [mailto:militori@irogers.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:50 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Future of Rural Golden Gate Good afternoon Thank you for the invitation to the community meeting held October 6th. Unfortunately we are in Canada right now and could not attend. We own a home at 4325 10th St. N.E.which intersects with 47th Ave N.E. 47th Ave is a well travelled street that runs off of Immokalee Road. In term of safety, this is a very narrow street with many children meeting their school buses every weekday morning. Many parents can be seen waiting at each corner with their kids in the car because it is not safe for them to wait for the school bus on the side of the road. The entrance to our neighborhood where 47th intersects with Immokalee needs a face-lift. It would be very nice to see nice landscaping and lighting on both corners to welcome residents and guests coming into the area Thank you Sincerely Ron and Lilianne Milito Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 162 of 220 228 From: Jayne Sventek <jsventekl@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 6:27 AM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Possible improvements Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Good morning... Thanks for the update on the meeting, unfortunately, I have out of town guests coming that day. If things change we hope to attend. My question concerns cell phone towers,which I have been questioning for over fifteen years for our area. It doesn't matter if it is ATT or VERIZON, our area which is directly off 951 between Pine Ridge and Vanderbilt, have limited cell signal. In fact,we built in 1990 and not much has changed near us. When we pass Logan and head towards 951 on Pine Ridge Road, passing Temple Shalom,the signal has always cut out and becomes garbled. My friends know my location while driving when I am on the phone as I pass. Also,the fairly new Publix at 951 and Pine Ridge, is known for no signal once you step inside. Even our street has limited cell reception and we have a unit in our home from ATT to boost cell strength. It is a microcell tower,they call it. I have contacted at numerous times, both cell companies and they inform me a tower is governed by county rules and regulations. They can only be installed on a school,fire station etc grounds. This needs to be looked into and see what areas need the tower, not the best spot for the tower, held by the county. I welcomed one on my nearly three acres years ago. I am not sure if this issue is on the agenda, but needs to be looked into. Come and ride with me for a day and hear how bad the signal is. Is there an agenda at this point,you may send to residents? Thank you and I wait to hear from your office. Have a great day. Mrs. Patrick B. Sventek 4680 First Avenue SW Naples, FL Sent from my iPad 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 163 of 220 229 From: Michael R. Ramsey<michael.r.ramsey@embargmail.com> Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 2:05 PM To: VanLengenKris Cc: JenkinsAnita; Jflan241@aol.com; petergaddy@gmail.com; 'Tim Nance' Subject: RE: Estates bridges The 3 bridges that went through the MPO and were approved for funding and construction,were in the original bridge study from the E of 951 Horizon Report and recommended by all Emergency Response Agencies are: 1. 8th St. NE at Cypress Canal 2. 16th St. NE at Cypress Canal 3. 47th Ave NE at Golden Gate Main Canal As these 3 bridges move through engineering and permitting they have acquired more construction cost and it appears that we may get only 1. The extra costs are coming from items such as sidewalks and tiebacks causing additional permitting costs especially in mitigation The #4 bridge needed is a t 10th Ave SE over the Faka Union Canal. This bridge is needed because south of the Golden Gate Blvd the residents on Desoto and Everglades do not have the ability to have Emergency Agencies respond to them in 8 minutes. In many cases the response time is 15 minutes or more. Second there is only 1 evacuation route on for residents of Desoto. This bridge would allow more evacuation options for residents of both Everglades and Desoto south of Golden Gate Blvd. Third the Bridge would allow more access to Palmetto Elementary School as an Evacuation Shelter. Ramsey From: VanLengenKris [mailto:KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net] Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 8:50 AM To: Michael R. Ramsey Cc: JenkinsAnita Subject: Estates bridges Mike: At last night's meeting,you mentioned "three bridges"that the GGEACA determined to be high safety/evacuation related.The first one you previously provided to me: 10th Ave SE between E'glades and De Soto. Can you please identify the others. We plan to speak with Transportation Dept. about a number of issues, and would like full input and clarity on the GGEACA recommendation. Thanks, Kris Van Lengen,JD,AICP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division, Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-7268 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 164 of 220 230 From: Carol Pratt<tjack730@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2017 6:43 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Wildlife and Greenway To All Whom This Concerns: Although wildlife and green spaces weren't the biggest consideration in GGE community development, it was prominent none-the-less (in the"clouds",these were some of the larger words). With the many road extensions and expansions slated in future development, now is the time to make plans for wildlife, which many of us in GGE value and consider a quality of life issue. Vanderbilt Beach Road Extension (VBX) has been continually moved forward on the list of projects in the county. Do you know existing natural wildlife corridors will cross this road once it is extended? I hope the county will plan for wildlife underpasses on VBX,and also consider other safeguards to protect the multitude of species which inhabit this area, including protected species such as fox squirrels,gopher tortoises, and Florida Panthers. For all future roads, plans should include the safeguarding of wildlife with underpasses,fences,through education,etc. As you well know, it is easier and more cost effective to get ahead of something like this,then to try to fix something later. Currently,Jim Flanagan (Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, of which I am also a member) and I are trying to get signage to warn drivers to be on the lookout for bears, panthers, and other wildlife on the roadways.This will also inform newcomers of the existence of bears and panthers in the county,which still comes as a surprise to many GGE residents. Signage of this nature should be a part of the Master Plan. A greenway has been brought up many times in the discussion of the Master Plan. A bicycle and pedestrian trail could be made alongside VBX.An independent trail is what I am suggesting- not a narrow path which is actually part of the road. I hope you will put, or keep, wildlife conservation as a part of the GGE Master Plan. If you need more information on anything I have written, please let me know and I will provide it. It has been my experience that the majority of people living in GGE want wildlife as part of their community. Thank you for considering my thoughts and suggestions. Sincerely, Carol M. Pratt 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 165 of 220 231 4 if hi The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Inc. PO.Box 990596,Naples,FL 34116-6002 Estates-Civic.orr 11-02-16 GGEACA Board Meeting Discussion— Rural Golden Gate Estates Issues Growth Management Plan Update November 2, 2016 Kris VanLengen Collier County Growth Management Department Growth Management Plan ReStudy Manager GGAMP ReStudy -Rural Estates Mr. VanLengen, The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association held a working session on 10-08-16 in preparation for providing input to the GGAMP ReStudy. The following concepts were presented for discussion and reviewed at our 11-02-16 GGEACA Board Meeting. We present them to you for discussion and incorporation with the public comments for the GGAMP ReStudy. Further consideration and discussion is also suggested for the challenges and opportunities to allow for"agricultural past-times" and agricultural-related"eco-tourism" in the rural areas. As well, further definition and discussion of home-based businesses and recognizing the impacts to neighbors and infrastructure for certain business operations._ The following concepts are consistent with a low-density,low-impact,rural residential community. Further definition of"rural character" and "self-sustainability" will help better define the concepts of community character and practical application that many people who consider Golden Gate Estates their home and why they moved here. The large-lot, low-density woodlands/agricultural environment associated with this unique place is rare among community choices- such is rare in Florida real estate as well as across the United States- and what makes Golden Gate Estates so desirable. Thank you for your leadership in this effort and the opportunity to provide input to the future of our community through the GGAMP ReStudy and the overall Comprehensive Growth Management ReStudy Respectful - Ramsey,President Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association On behalf of the Board of Directors Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 166 of 220 232 02 November 2016 Page 2 The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Inc. PO.Box 990594 Naples,FL 34116-6002 Estates-Civic.org A. Complementary Land Uses 1.) Formal Low Density Overlay for the Rural Estates—eliminate densification of E zoning Benefits: * DRGR/Watershed over 90,000 acres at no cost to the taxpayer Complimentary to Corkscrew Community and Sending lands in RFMUD and RLSA • Well Field Protection—county and municipal (Naples) • Community Character • Secondary habitat transition between Conservation land and development 2.) Incentivize the recombination of 1.14 acre lots (legal non-conforming) Development credit(voluntary TDR program)for use in urban density and infill? See also GGWIP 3.) Update LDC regarding compatibility requirements, setbacks, and buffers for all non-residential uses in the Estates including but not limited to Convenience Commercial, Churches, Schools, utilities. 4.) Update LDC regarding land clearing regulation and setbacks, for all uses to be consistent with Wildfire safety and management recommendations established by the Collier County Fire Districts and the Florida Forest Service. 30 feet of defensible space and acceptable setbacks for all Estates lots to allow access of emergency vehicles and equipment Consideration: Completion of the Estates Community Wildfire Protection Plan 5.)Establish appropriate Setbacks and Buffers and compatibility standards for all adjacent RFMUD and RLSA land uses. Previously recommended changes permitting non residential land uses in the RFMUD must be applied so as to preserve the rural residential character of Golden Gate Estates. To that end, it will be essential to establish appropriate buffers and transitional uses, together with appropriate controls over the location of utility service lines and transportation corridors. To achieve these goals the following recommendations are submitted: a.) Projects directly abutting residential property shall provide, at a minimum, a one-hundred (100)foot wide buffer in which no parking or water management uses are permitted. Twenty- five (25)feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer type C as outlined in the LDC. A minimum of fifty (75) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained or created native vegetation and must be consistent with appropriate subsections of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The 100 foot buffer shall not be part of a setback, but will be a separately platted tract. Setbacks shall be a minimum of 50% of the height of any structure other than single family. b.) A solid masonry or concrete wall 8' high and on a 3' berm at the development(RFMUD) side of the 100' buffer shall be required. The buffer area shall be supplemented where needed to assure an 80% opacity is reached within one year. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 167 of 220 233 02 November 2016 Page 3 The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Inc. PO.Box 990596,Naples,FL 34116-6002 Estates-Civic.org c.) All lighting shall be consistent with the Dark Skies initiative. Parking lot lighting shall be restricted to bollards except as may be required to comply with lighting standards in the Land Development Code (Ordinance#04-41, as amended) and other governing regulations. d.) Rural roadways as typically used within the Golden Gate Estates neighborhoods shall not be used for access or utility conveyance to any new development. Appropriate truck route management tools need to be employed to limit Community impact from adjacent development. All adjacent RFMUD and RLSA residential and commercial uses should be considered. 6.) Develop Rural Architectural Standards 7.) Develop Rural Median Landscape Standards B. Transportation and Mobility -Roads 1.) Complete the study for a New I-75 Interchange in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd. Consideration: Restricting expansion of Everglades Blvd. to 4 lanes to service Estates needs. RLSA growth Management planning should address appropriate right of way and developer contribution to meet RLSA transportation needs for the predicted population growth (est. 300,000+)in this planning area. No unreasonable impact on the established low density Estates. 2.) Prioritization of the improvement of Wilson Boulevard North to commercial services, and the Wilson Extension south to White Lake Boulevard to link Golden Gate Estates to North Belle Meade Receiving lands and future economic development. Provide a needed road corridor to the north, south, and west. Wilson-Benfield Corridor Study. 3.) Extend White Lake Boulevard east to the proposed new I-75 Interchange in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd. 4.) Complete the Green Boulevard Extension Study to identify an East-West corridor linking North Belle Meade Receiving lands to CR 951 and points west. Consideration: Extension of Golden Gate Parkway rather than Green Blvd., to improve connectivity and reduce the need for excessive Eminent Domain through the Estates. 5.) Complete the Randall Boulevard Extension Study to identify an East-West corridor to the RLSA. S Curve Concept review. Consideration: Improvements to intersection of Randall Blvd and Immokalee Road are a critical infrastructure need and the choke-point of Randall/Oilwell/Immokalee Rd. Consider an emergency declaration to accelerate needed improvements at this intersection due of impending transportation failures. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 168 of 220 234 02 November 2016 Page 4 The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Inc. PO.Box 990596,Naples,FL 34116-6002 Estates-Civic.org C. Economic Vitality—Commercial Development 1.) Commercial Goods, Services,Jobs for the Estates provided primarily from zoning in adjacent areas including: Orange Tree PUD, RFMUD Receiving Lands (846 Partners, N. Belle Meade), and RLSA (Rural Lands West) 2.) Possible focused Commercial Overlay within the Estates adjacent to existing Commercial in the Randall Blvd. /Oil Well Rd. area east to the intersection of Wilson Blvd. and Immokalee Rd. * Along Randall Blvd. adjacent to Publix (already zoned/) * Randall Curve/Golden Gate Land Trust 40 acre parcel across from Orangetree * Wilson Blvd. /Immokalee Rd. intersection 3.) Update Standards/Size of Convenience Commercial parcels in the Estates to provide sufficient(increased) area for road development, septic/wastewater treatment, and water retention D. Environmental Stewardship/Watershed Management Water Resources Management: 1.) Incentivize single family Water retention/detention and Dispersed Water Storage in the Estates to retain/detain storm water and promote groundwater recharge. Ponds, swales, other 2.) Support completion of the North Golden Gate Watershed Improvement Plan. GGWIP to improve drainage, support aquifer recharge, integrate with Picayune restoration. 3.) Consideration of ASR Wells in Receiving lands, especially Sec15 T49S R27E to retain/detain water from the Golden Gate Main Canal. 4.) Development of the C-1 Connector Canal and weirs to divert storm water east from the Golden Gate Main Canal to points south and east. 5.) Update regulation of impervious surface/percolation on different size Estates Lots. a. Special treatment (more restrictive)for legal, non-conforming 1.14 acre lots 6.) Review impacts and unintended consequences of a recent Ordinance(1 acre impervious rule) requiring berming and containment of water on residential properties as this impedes natural sheetflow. Intent of ordinance may have an urban coastal zone purpose and intent, however rural woodlands interface functions differently 7.) Plan for County Septic Disposal Facility to facilitate proper maintenance and legal disposal of septic waste and encourage responsible, legal management of waste from private on-site sewage treatment and disposal systems. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 169 of 220 235 02 November 2016 (9 Page 5 The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Inc. i1 PO.Box 990596,Naples,FL 34116-6002 Estales-Civic.org Environmental/Conservation: 1.) Develop policies that discourage the migration of climax predators from conservation lands and RFMUD and RLSA Sending lands into the residential interface in Golden Gate Estates other and adjacent areas. 2.) Consider the development of a Voluntary TDR program and Bank to facilitate the transfer process of development credits granted for the recombination of 1.14 acre lots and wetland lots that are fundamentally unbuildable and included in the GGWIP overlay 3.) Consider Dark Sky lighting standards for rural areas for lighting at transportation infrastructure, commercial development centers, conditional use areas, and for residential standards. 4.) Consider planning for future landfill in RLSA area given the planned population, proximity of waste disposal to eastern-drifting center of the County's residential population, and expected life and capacity of existing Collier County landfill. General Perspectives for Consideration: General recognition, distinction and acknowledgement that one size does not fit all relative to County-wide application of standards of law and community character. Consideration: Urban Coastal Zone functions differently than eastern rural areas, and as such, review processes for growth management plan changes and Land Development Plan changes should take into consideration the local application and applicability and evaluate for unintended consequences and diverging, inconsistent and incongruent intents of such changes. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 170 of 220 236 �` `tl; e. ' + t The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Inc. PO.Box 990596,Naples,FL 34116-6002 Estates-Civic.org 28 November 2016 Kris VanLengen Collier County Growth Management Department Growth Management Plan ReStudy Manager GGAMP ReStudy- Rural Estates RE: Follow up on 02 November 2016 letter regarding GGAMP Mr. VanLengen, The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association have received more input after the 03 November 2015 GGAMP workshop regarding the Eastern Golden Gate Estates future growth. Thank you for your leadership in this effort and the opportunity to provide input to the future of our community through the GGAMP ReStudy and the overall Comprehensive Growth Management Restudy. Respectful) Ar/ M' - 'amsey, President Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association On behalf of the Board of Directors Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 171 of 220 237 28 November 2016 Page 2 The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association Inc. PO.Box 990596,Naples,FL 34116-6002 Estates-Civic.org Surface Water Management/Drainage This is considered to be the highest priority for determination for the Rural Estates and is dependent on the water management through and around the N Belle Meade Area of the RFMUD. The continued buildout of the Rural Estates and the RFMUD north of I-75 and west of the RLSA,will significantly increase impervious surface area and storm water runoff. Concurrently,there is concern for protecting groundwater recharge for the multiple areas that depend on Rural Estates groundwater resources.This issue directly effects future Residential property protection,Economic Development,Water Resources,Wildfire Protection and Transportation Design. The planning effort that needs to be undertaken would update the drainage of water from the Rural Estates to the Henderson Creek Canal. Both Marco Island Utilities and Rookery Bay are looking for more water. Economic Diversification/Development This would be the second prioritization after future surface water management has been reviewed. Economic Diversification/Development within the Rural Estates is small commercial nodes at selected intersections with each node totaling approximately 80 acres maximum. Planning of the Rural Estates nodes and zoning will be significantly influenced by the larger commercial diversification/development in the adjacent areas of the RFMUD and RLSA. The Rural Estates seeks coordination of with the RFMUD and RLSA with the larger commercial areas. Also,the design,planning and zoning for the Rural Estates Small Commercial Node areas with be greatly influenced by drainage and ground water availability. Transportation Design These would the 3rd area of Prioritization after Surface Water Management and Economic Diversification/ "•••\ Development have been reviewed. These are to be added to the recommendations in the First Letter of 02 Nov 2016. These recommendations should be added to the GGAMP for Rural Estates because they are not discussed or transmitted in any other part of planning for the Rural Estates. These recommendations are not to replace the MPO efforts. a. No expansion of roads from 2 lane to 4 lane,East of Everglades Blvd. b. Prioritize transportation design that moves traffic North and South within the Rural Estates. a. Prioritize installing a bridge on 8th St. SE @ Frangipani. c. Prioritize expansion of Randall Blvd,2 lanes to 4 from Immokalee Road to Everglades d. Do not allow"S"curve from Randall to Oil Well. e. Prioritize Future 1-75 interchange at or east of Desoto Blvd. f. No more"chicanes"or other traffic slowing designs that prevents school buses or other vehicles from safely traveling a 2 lane road in opposite directions. Cell Towers More locations should be identified for Cell Tower Construction. Residents favor improving cell tower coverage. Prioritizing land zoning for this development is needed. 1 acre Impervious Rule This rule was imposed on residential development in the Rural Estates without study or discussion. This rule requires singly family lot owners to implement surface water retention if the amount of impervious surface on their lot exceeds 1 acre.This rule needs to be eliminated. The impacts of these rule are: a. Significant increase to the road drainage swales b. Significant increase to the Big Cypress Basin Canals without planning c. Ecolcogical damage to adjacent wetlands by drying them out,preventing water flow. d. Significant increase in wildfire danger by draining wetlands faster in the dry season. Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 172 of 220 238 Collier Soil & Water Conservation District Dennis P. Vasey, Chairman 14700 Immokalee Road, Suite B . , ,'.; Naples, Florida 34120-1468 February 17, 2017 Mr. Leo E. Ochs, Jr., County Manager County Manager's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5746 Dear Mr. Ochs, The Board of Supervisors believes that wetland parcels constitute a valuable resource for carbon sequestration. Ecosystem enclosures 1, 2 and 3, attached. The District has a keen interest in parcels purchased to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the residents of Collier County. Specifically, the Board of Supervisors believes that Conservation Collier Program parcels, when evaluated for their carbon sequestration value, could serve as a bank for funding maintenance and salaries, annually, and provide a substantial water quality and incentive opportunity for mitigation purposes in response to code enforcement and permit activity. The District reviewed the "Wetlands and Climate Change" article in light of using county-owned Conservation Collier Program wetland parcels to provide Transfer of Development Rights incentives from a "Bank." To create the Bank would require a list of Conservation Collier Program wetland parcels. Once provided, the District would create and manage, under an Interlocal Agreement, a log of wetland sequestration value, prepare documents of sale of whole or fractional share sales, and undertake monitoring activities. Sincerely, Dennis P. Vasey Attachments: a/s Cc: The Honorable Penny Taylor, Chairman, 3299 E Tamiami TRL, STE 303, Naples, FL 34112 Mr. Steve Carnell, Department Head, Public Services Department, 3299 E Tamiami TRL, Naples, FL 34112 Vacant Nancy Richie Dennis P. Vasey Clarence Tears Rob Griffin Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Web Site: http://www.collierscd.org Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 173 of 220 239 4 MIH s �� CII:IiH � NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS M.James Burke•Christopher L. Crossan • Norman E. Feder•J. Christopher Lombardo■John 0. McGowan February 14, 2017 Leo Ochs, County Manager Collier County Manager's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112 Mr. Ochs: Please allow this letter to evidence the support of the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District for the approval and construction of the following bridges currently contained in the Golden Gate Estates Bridges project: • 10th Avenue S.E. between Everglades and Desoto • 8th Street N.E. from Golden Gate Blvd. to Randall Blvd. • 16th Street N.E. from Golden Gate Blvd. to Randall Blvd. • 47th Avenue N.E. from Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd. The connectivity that these bridges would increase public safety with enhanced mobility allowing for faster response times for emergency services (EMS, Fire, CCSO) and improved evacuation routes during hurricanes, wildfires or other natural disasters. These bridges are supported by both the Horizon Study and the Bridge Study (2009). We ask that Collier County Growth Management seriously consider approving these bridges within the Golden Gate Estates Bridges project which will assuredly enhance life safety for the residents and communities in the area. Sincerely, James Cunningham Fire Chief Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 174 of 220 240 Correspondence Regarding Western Golden Gate Estates Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 175 of 220 241 From: Chris Henning <chenning@continentalfin.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 4:06 PM To: VanLengenKris Cc: rrosin@peat.com; ELLEN ROSENBERG (ellenrosenbergdesign@gmail.com) Subject: RE: Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Mr.Van Lengen: To carry forward from our previous discussion, we own 2 parcels in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan- Urban Estates. These parcels are 6715 Golden Gate Parkway(currently a residence) and the approximately 7 acre parcel (as referenced here-the "Undeveloped Parcel")at the north-west corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd. Our objective with these parcels is to develop a commercially-viable project. Our group purchased the Undeveloped Parcel in 2007 with the intention of building a medical office building for Anchor Health. At the time, one of the partners formerly associated with our group, Paul Zampell,was in the process of building a medical office for Anchor Health on 951. Paul believed that Anchor wanted to proceed with our parcel as well. Unfortunately, after acquiring the Undevleoped Parcel,Anchor Health,the prospective tenant,decided that it no longer wanted to expand its office locations and withdrew from the project. Having lost our intended tenant and unable to locate an alternate medical office user, we ordered a market study which identified healthcare as a use which would generate sufficient demand to support development. We incurred significant architectural and planning costs in the course of coming up with a mix of assisted living, memory care, skilled nursing, and independent living units on the property.The PUD did not support alternate healthcare uses so we sought zoning relief which ultimately was tabled shortly before Mr.Joseph Rosin, Mr. Zampell's original partner, passed away. The Undeveloped Parcel is one of 2 parcels designated as Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict on the "Future Land Use Map." Note that though referred to as "Future" on the map, it is the land use zoning currently in place for the undeveloped parcel.We are limited to a single story structure of not more than 35,000 square feet, and the only permitted use is for medical office. Unfortunately,the limitations imposed make this parcel nearly impossible to develop and none of the prospective purchasers who have contacted us, are interested in the current zoning. We would like to develop this property for commercial purposes consistent with other properties in the area, such as the CVS across the street from us.The corner parcel across from us to the south on Golden Gate has,to our knowledge, been acquired with the intention of commercial development. As more residents move to the area, it is only natural that signalized corner parcels such as ours be developed with retail uses to support them. We appreciate your consideration and would request either that the Commercial Infill Subdistrict restrictions be changed, or that the Development Parcel be moved to a new designation that would allow for more commercial options than currently exist. Should you have any suggestions in terms of participating in the general master plan review process that is going on, please let us know. _, Sincerely, Chris Henning Ill 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 176 of 220 242 847-291-3700 From:VanLengenKris [mailto:KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday,June 10, 2016 3:43 PM To:chenning@continentalfin.com; rrosin@peat.com Cc: lenglish@barroncollier.com; dgenson@barroncollier.com;JenkinsAnita Subject:Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy. Chris and Robert: We discussed a property of interest to you approximately 2 months ago. It is located in a future land use designation: Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict. It is zoned PUD,and located in the northwest quadrant of the Santa Barbara and Golden Gate Parkway intersection. As an update,we began a series of public outreach meetings, all introductory in nature, pertaining to Rural Estates, Urban Estates and GG City.We will resume in the fall with topics more granular in nature,such as comp plan and zoning subdistrict overlays.A meeting summary of the Urban Estates introductory meeting can be found at: http://www.colliergov.net/your-government/divisions-s-z/zoning-division/community-planning-section/golden-gate- area-master-plan-restudy/public-workshops . 1. My notes indicate that you were considering sending an e-mail at some point to express your points of view. 2. I thought you might be interested to know that we met with Barron Collier engineers/planners,who expressed an interest in development in the SW quadrant of the same intersection. In case you think there might be commonality of interest or perspective, I have copied them on this e-mail and you may wish to contact them directly. Sincerely, Kris Van Lengen,JD,AICP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division,Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-7268 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies 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. 2 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 177 of 220 243 From: WeeksDavid Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 6:13 PM To: wconfoy@comcast.net Cc: VanLengenKris Subject: RE: MEETING Mr. Confoy, How about June 24 at 3:00pm? I would be joined by colleague Kris van Lengen, Community Planning Manager. P We ak. David Weeks,AICP,Growth Management Manager Collier County Government,Growth Management Department Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples,FL 34104 phone:239-252-2306; E-fax:239-252-6689 email:davidweeks@colliergov.net;website:www.colliergov.net 4-The- . r- C7 c.r er.rr t J From: wconfoy@comcast.net [mailto:wconfoy@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 1:55 PM To: WeeksDavid Subject: FW: MEETING Dear David Thank you for accepting this email requesting your time to visit with some of your fellow Naples citizens for discussion of the upcoming review of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Specifically we represent the neighborhoods that would be affected by any change proposed to Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Rd. and Santa Barbara. We hope to present our reasons for opposing such changes as not being in the best interests of the surrounding Communities at large. We have a roll up display showing each property owner along this gateway&will demonstrate why the residents on both sides of the street wish it to maintain its residential character. Many of us have lived here 20, even 30,years, have our families close-by&wish to maintain the Master plan as it was written by the County. Yes, it might be a bit early but the summer is upon us and our schedules never seem to be in sync. Better to give you an early look see into what is ahead,than when it is right upon us. We know that the outsiders are working towards the opposite goals & have been visiting persons like yourself to support &endorse a re-zoning change—a change to which we are totally opposed . Obviously we hope to show you why&solicit your support when the time arises. Dan Brundage,Tom Collins& myself will attend;we sometimes have two others&will give you their names when they confirm their availability to us. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 178 of 220 244 We are generally available any weekday in mid afternoon. Right now we can all be there this month between the 23rd and the 29th in the mid to latter part of the afternoon.An hour or less is requested. I don't believe you would be disappointed in what we can show you. Thank you Bill Confoy-- 262-0802/643-0001 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. 2 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 179 of 220 245 From: Carlos Vasallo <cvasallo@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 4:18 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Western GG Ests Hello Thank you for the meeting last night and keeping us informed and involved. I would like to know what the county's plan is for the property it owns at the southwest corner of Vanderbilt Bch Rd & Collier Blvd. Last night there was a question about a nature trail/bike path and lack of land for it. You might recall when Collier Boulevard was expanded a few years ago a rec. path was added on the East side of the CR951 canal using the easement. Some units, for example units #1, #2, #95, & #32 have a canal at the end of the streets, using the existing canal easement a loop could be built from Vanderbilt Bch Rd to Pine Ridge Road with a nature/bike path on both sides so residents from both sides could use it. Please add me to your email list for future meetings. Thank you, Carlos Vasallo 4381 5th Ave NW 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 180 of 220 246 CIGradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects May 1, 2017 Mr. Kris VanLengen, AICP Via Email: KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net RE: Tracts 103 (east 180'), 119, and 120 Golden Gates Estates, Unit 26 Dear Mr. VanLengen: We represent the property owner of the above referenced parcels located at the SW quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and 13th Avenue S.W. The parcels total approximately 12.5 acres. This property had a pending Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) amendment in 2014, which the property owner requested it to be placed in abeyance, in order to participate in the re-study process. An aerial location exhibit is attached for your convenience. We wanted to provide you with some additional information regarding the parcel as a follow-up to our meeting on April 4, 2017, which we believe will demonstrate that this property should be re-evaluated for the potential of non-residential land uses as part of the re-study effort. Under the current GGAMP, the site is designated Estates, and based on the existing criteria, the site is only eligible for one dwelling unit per 2.25 acres. The site is ineligible for even Transitional Conditional Uses. The property owner recognizes that the property's proximity to the quasi- industrial FP&L PUD, and the newly 6-lane segment of Collier Boulevard, renders it illogical and incompatible for very low density residential uses. The property owner had previously proposed to amend the GGAMP to re-designate this property as an additional Neighborhood Center, with additional restrictions on buffer and setback standards for the 12.5+/- acre property. It has been our consistent contention that the property is not appropriately designate for only low-density residential dwellings due to the changing neighborhood conditions with the expanded Collier Boulevard and the increasing number of vehicle trips that utilize this major roadway corridor serving the eastern areas of Collier County. An economic analysis had also been prepared in support of the amendment, which demonstrated that the demand for additional office and retail services could be supported by the growing population of both Golden Gate City and the Estates area east of Collier Boulevard. Additionally, with the then impending expansion of Collier Boulevard to a 6-lane arterial roadway, additional pass-by trips were anticipated, also contributing to the market viability for office, retail and service uses. In our prior discussions with Growth Management staff, they were not supportive of an amendment to the GGAMP that would result in retail and office development on this site. They did; however, support an amendment that would re-designate this site as a Conditional Use Sub- District which would then permit the owner to submit a Conditional Use for a variety of non- Q. Grady Minor&Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com . . u.' • I .- Mr. Kris VanLengen RE: Tracts 103 (east 180), 119, and 120 Golden Gates Estates, Unit 26 May 1, 2017 Page 2 of 2 residential uses. Some of these land uses would include churches, schools, day care, group housing/group care, private schools and social/fraternal organizations. In our most recent discussions with you, you too acknowledged that the site may no longer be appropriately designated to only permit low density residential development. In that meeting, we discussed the possibility of possibly modifying the Transitional Conditional Use section of the GGAMP in order to permit this property to qualify to apply for a conditional use. The GGAMP already acknowledges that these conditional uses can be good transitions between non-residential and residential land uses. We believe that a minor amendment to paragraph 3e), Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria would be appropriate to specifically indicate that this property would be eligible to seek a conditional use of the E, Estates zoning designation. The amended language could read: 5. The east 180 feet of Tract 103, Tract 119 and Tract 120, Unit 26, Golden Gate Estates are eligible for conditional uses as identified in Estates zoning district. We would appreciate your consideration of this minor change to the GGAMP as you continue your re-study efforts. We believe the unique location of this parcel adjacent to the existing FP&L PUD, which permits not only electric generating substations, but also open equipment storage, maintenance and fueling facilities and any other use deemed appropriate for FP&L(since the FPL plant is no longer subject to local zoning restrictions) is incompatible with very low density residential use. The property too, is located on a 6-lane arterial, which contributes to the incompatibility of the site for residential use. Attached are photos of the FPL plant, the subject property and its intersection on Collier Boulevard Sincerely, t� r D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Attachments c: Via Email Larry Brooks Bruce Anderson GradyMinor File Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 182 of 220 248 From: Barbara Coen <barbcoen@comcast.net> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 7:51 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: RE: GG Master plan proposal. Keep the Estates Residential. Dear Mr.Van Lengen, I,too live on 68th Street S. W. and am VERY opposed to Edwin Koert's plan for my neighborhood. I would be at the meeting tomorrow, but am in Kansas City dealing with family matters. This man is only concerned about making a buck. He does not care at all about our residential neighborhood I implore you to deny his request to re-zone so that he can make our neighborhood look like Pine Ridge Road. We are not Miami, nor do we want to be! You may contact me at: 239-777-4085 if you need more information. Thank you for your time in this matter, Barbara Coen 2780--68th Street S.W. Naples, FL 34105 barbcoen@comcast. net 239-777-4085 Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE DROID On May 10, 2016 3:51 PM,VanLengenKris<KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net>wrote: Dear Ms.Turner: Thank you for your interest and comment. We will preserve your comment related to Golden Gate Area Master Plan, Western Estates. If you wish to be added to our distribution list for meeting announcements, etc., please let me know. Respectfully, Kris Van Lengen,JD, AICP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division, Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-7268 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 183 of 220 249 From:Angela Turner[mailto:ajturner37@hotmail.com] Sent:Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:33 PM To:TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>;VanLengenKris<KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net> Cc: barbcoen@comcast.net; Dan Dagnall<dan.dagnall@gmail.com> Subject: GG Master plan proposal. Keep the Estates Residential. After receiving a letter regarding a meeting planned for tomorrow to possibly re-zone our residential neighborhood to commercial I submit the following letter and past correspondence. When Commissioner Taylor was running for election she promised us that this would not happen. I am hoping that that promise will be kept! Golden Gate Master Plan. Keep the Estates Residential. Golden Gate Parkway. We have previously objected to the proposed changes in making the area between Livingston and Santa Barbara with ANY commercializations. We built our home in 1989 and unlike Pine Ridge Road there are too many private homes that feed onto the Parkway. Since exit 105 from 1-75 and the overpass was put in place it is almost impossible to get out of our street as it is, especially in season. We have already had over 3 fatalities at the end of our street and when I wrote to the County to request a light be put in place because of the gym and Bingo hall at the end of our street and the alterations to the other streets that have to utilize ours to make UTurns to head west it is a nightmare. The County flat out said "no, a stop light would cause more accidents". We have too many families with young children and children who are now learning to drive to be put in danger. Again, Golden Gate Estates was built for residential and it was well over 30 years ago. Too many families have taken stake in their properties and homes to be violated by commercialization. The investors who are attempting this change are not for the benefit of the residents...it's money for their pockets. The apartment complex that was just built on the corner of the Parkway and Livingston should prove to be another traffic _ nightmare. 2 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 184 of 220 250 Subject: GG Parkway From:ajturner37@hotmail.com Date:Wed,4 Jun 2014 19:37:33 -0400 To:fredcovle@colliergov.net Commissioner Coyle, We,the residents off Golden Gate Parkway, recently received correspondence regarding a request to re-zone the one mile radius that impacts our home. I wanted to share the most recent correspondence from them and my response. I am afraid that many of our neighbors did not take into consideration the initial letter that was sent and have not read it. This is very disturbing that these people are trying to modify our existing peace and security. Would you please take the time to read their proposal and let us know if there is anyway they can actually achieve what they are asking for. Thank you. Angela Turner Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From:Angela Turner<alturner37@hotmail.com> Date:June 4, 2014 at 7:25:06 PM EDT To: "edwinkoert@msn.com" <edwinkoert@msn.com> Subject:GG parkway Not liking this at all. Your proposing to use our street as a major road and a gas station. I need to know who on 68th Street SW responded to your initial letter. I already tried for a light,as I mentioned before, and the County flat out declined. Why would 68th Street SW want to allow the traffic and further dis-value to our homes, not to mention the safety of our children. 3 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 185 of 220 251 Pine Ridge extension has all the stuff they need getting off 175. That part is hideous. We have a beautiful landscaped exit as it is, it doesn't t*"1 need to be destroyed by adding anymore commerce to the frontage and making our homes less attractive. Closest gas stations are already good enough for those who choose not to use the Pine Ridge amenities. Why are you concentrating using 68th and 60th when you don't own any properties at the "proposed" sites for first modifications. Mr. Perrine is the realtor for the properties that were acquired and the owners, as well as the original company that purchased the parcels that Wildcat I and II,whom you are the trustee, now own, knew that these were residential. Why is he putting his on the market for 4 million and 2 million with a description that says "Possible commercial usage, ideal for gas station, church, retail shopping, etc". Why is he lying. Putting that out as a possibility is baiting a proposed buyer and misleading! Your initial mailing would have been thrown away but I had the time to actually open and read it. Maybe that is why you have not gotten the responses. I am certain that NO ONE on our street is going to go for these changes. Angela Turner Sent from my iPad On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:36 PM,edwinkoert@msn.com wrote: To all who has responded: The purpose of our rezoning initiative is not to offend anyone, but to inform all of the property owners 4 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 186 of 220 252 located within the GGPkwy geographic area of our activities to have the corridor rezoned to a commercial application. Believe me,your view"for or — against" our rezoning activity does not offend me. Everyone has an opinion, and as such, yours, as- well-as your peers, is just as important and will be considered too. I am an old Florida Boy from youth -7-years (the East coast- Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale through high school 1958) My homestead address is now a retirement community off of 1-75 Exit 240, known as Sun City Center. However, I, as-well-as Brent have two each 35-year old dogs in the hunt fronting GGPkwy, and as such, I am in the Naples area quite frequently. My specific properties are on the West side of 1-75,fronting GGpkwy,one on the North side and one on the South side of GGPkwy. My foot prints in the Naples area goes back to the early sixties. To assist you on Brent and my thoughts, I am attaching two graphic diagrams. The diagrams include all of the properties fronting the East and West Side of 1-75, including our suggested modifications. The PDF diagrams can be enlarged by increasing the zoom percent within the PDF. Also, attached a a letter containing our thoughts on the development of the area. You may wish to review them, or discard them. While reading the WORD document you may wish to have the diagrams available. We do make the information available to all. As each of you are aware, initially, I released 700- mailings. Currently, 16 of you have responded, and I thank you for your input. Sincerely, f � Edwin H. Koert 5 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 187 of 220 253 239-289-4420 edwinkoert@msn.com <GGPkwy-East Side of I-75.pdf> <GGPkwy-West Side of I-75.pdf> <GGPkwy-032414-Hard look at the North and South Sides.doc> 6 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 188 of 220 254 HELP PRESERVE THE QUIET, RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHO *BE INVOLVED" May, 2016 To:Concerned Citizens, You are being contacted because you live in our neighborhood and signed a petit community leaders to prohibit the allowance of any commercial rezoning effc approximately two mile stretch of Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Boulevard, Enclosed are the following: 3. A Notice from Collier County Government of a public meeting/worksho 6:30 p.m.on Wednesday, May 11 at Golden Gate Community Center. See the re meeting is a public workshop held for the purpose of obtaining the con' concerning the possibility of making changes to the Golden Gate Area Mast4 changes could potentially include amendments to the Master Plan that commercial development or apartment buildings alone Golden Gate Par Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 2. Questions and Answers Concerning the Proposed Commercialization Parkway. This information was previously distributed to you by our neighbo response to the efforts of property owners along Golden Gate Parkway to so their efforts to commercialize the Parkway. WHAT TO DO: ATTEND THE PUBLIC MEETING/WORKSHOP, AND FUTURE MEETINGS CONCERNING Ti PROVIDE YOUR INPUT AND SUPPORT. YOUR PRESENCE AT THESE MEETINGS WILL G TOWARD EXPRESSING THE RESOLVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO AVOID THE NEGATIVE WOULD RESULT FROM ZONING CHANGES ALONG THE PARKWAY. PROVIDE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO COLLIER COUNTY. YOU MAY RECEIVE NOTI( MEETINGS BY PROVIDING YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO COLLIER COUNTY, BY CONTAC LENGEN AT 239-252-7268 OR THE EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO SEND AN EMAIL. WHETHER OR NOT YOU ATTEND THE MEETING, WE ENCOURAGE YOU LEADERS KNOW YOU OPPOSE THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE PARKWAY, YOU CAN TO: KrisVanlengen@colliergvv.net STATING: "I WISH TO MAKE KNOWN MY OPPC CHANGES TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ALONG GOLDEN GATE PARI LIVINGSTON ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD. I OPPOSE THE COMMERCIAL PARKWAY OR APARTMENTS ALONG THE PARKWAY. I AM IN FAVOR OF MAINTAININ( RESIDENTIAL ZONING WHICH PROTECTS THE QUIET, RESIDENTIAL CHARM NEIGHBORHOOD." TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO BE INVOLVED. IT IS OPPOSITION TO BE HEARD. 7 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 189 of 220 255 Collier County Government Growth Management Department Contact: Connie Deane Zoning Division Community Liaison 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive 239-252-8192 or 8365 Naples, Florida 34104 colliergov.net twitter.com/CollierPlO facebnok.com/CollierGc voutube.com/CollierGor April 27,2016 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Collier County- Requests Public Input on Golden Gate Area Mash Collier County is hosting the second workshop in a series of public meetings focusing on t Area Master Plan (GGAMP), The GGAMP is the county's long-range planning doeumcr Gate area that shows the vision for the community in the next 10 to 20 years, The plan cor growth, what it should look like and how land uses should be arranged to live, work, shop The next meeting will focus on the area of Golden Gate Estates west of Collier Bouleva will be held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 11 at Golden Gate Community Canter, 41 Parkway, Naples, Florida 34116 It is critical to the success of the Master Plan that the residents of this area participate in def vision for their neighborhood. Public participation is needed. Agendas will he posted prior at haus://www.collierstov.net/GMPrestudies, During the coming year,there will be various opportunities to provide public opinion and sl on the CiGAMP, including advertised public meetings, digital forums, website inlormatior web content. All interested parties are invited to visit https://www.colliereov.net frequently,to see the background materials,current planning efforts and areas for direct pul county planners may research and gather the issues and concerns important to all stakehoh email updates or to provide comments, please email us at: GGAMPRestudv(aicolliereov.. Two or more members of the Board of County Commissioners, City of Naples City Cow Marco Island City Council or any of their respective advisory committees may be pi participate at these workshops. The subject matter of these workshops may be an item for action at future meetings of these boards, councils or agencies. Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or o accommodations in order to participate in these proceedings, should contact the Collier C Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail E., Naples, Florida 34112,or 239-25 as possible, but no later than 48 hours before each of the scheduled events. S accommodations will he provided at no cost to the individual. a Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 190 of 220 256 Questions and Answers Concerning the Upon announcement that the 1-75 Proposed Commercialization of Golden tate planned. the residents expressed Parkway development of the interchange might commercial and conditional uses consistently made their concernn% knc leaders, and the response from such What is being Drowsed? There is an effort underway to been that the impacts of adding the change the Collier County Growth Management Plan, and surrounding residential neighbt►rhtw thereafter the County's zoning ordinance,to allow commercial and the neighborhood would he pro uses along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road development; recognizing that inter:}: and Santa Barbara Blvd (the '`Corridor"). The proponents of development, in fact, in considcratit this change are a group of owners of residential properties that and those of the community at largi front on Golden Gate Parkway. The proponents of leaders put in place significant harrit commercialization are proposing to ultimately rezone the rezoning and the expansion of conditii entire Corridor from end to end. Many of the lots along the Corridor have been acquired by investors, developers and what barriers are in plat commercial interests. The proponents are pooling their money commercialization of the Corridor' to hire attorneys, engineers and other professionals. The has been for a loin! time, zoned proposed changes would involve approximately 170 acres of residential zoning classification land, 'Their first step will be to propose an amendment to the commercial uses;and the Growth Ma pan of the Collier County Growth Management Plan known as long time, designated the Corr the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (the "GGAMP"), which neighborhood to he used for primarily guides future land use decisions and presently prohibits commercial uses along the Corridor. In December 2007,contemporaneous the 1-75 interchange, the Board of Why should this chane t4 the Growth Management Plan consistent with a great deal of cont be resisted? if the proponents are successful in changing the consideration, adopted an amendme.-. GGAMP,it will pave the way for the Corridor to he filled with contained the following policy statcm commercial uses; very similar to what presently exists on Pine Ridge Road in the area near the 1-75 interchange, in order to "Recognizing t facilitate such development along the Corridor, significant residential nature of tl changes to the roadway system in the neighborhood arc being surrounding the planned 1-7: proposed. The proponents want to create a system of hack Golden Gate Parkway, a: roads along the full length of the rear boundaries of the lots restrictions on conditional fronting on the Parkway to facilitate access to commercial Conditional Uses Subseetioi establishments.They want to eliminate direct access to Golden Gate Area Master Plan. the Gate Parkway for many of the existing streets. They want to further commercial zoning install additional traffic lights along the Parkway and funnel abutting Golden Gate Poi all neighborhood traffic into centralized intersections. The i.ivingston Road and commercial establishments, including gas stations, Boulevard. No new comms convenience stores, retail establishments and offices will be permitted on properties attract additional traffic and congestion to the area, including accessing Golden Gate Park transient traffic from 1-75. Significant additional roadway above-defined segment. IN. improvements and utility facilities, such as scwet and water, exception fur that existing will have to he created to support the development and Golden Gate Estates Co+ additional traffic. These development efforts and their impacts Subdistrict. which is la would likely span multiple decades, as has happened on Pine northwest corner of the Ridge Road. The adverse impacts on the Naples community, Golden Gate Parkway and and particularly on the remainder of the surrounding Boulevard]. neighborhood. will he significant. And there is no present demand or need for additional commercial establishments in Also, as a result of the same the area that can justify these adverse impacts. The same Board of County Commissioners types of businesses and services a., are being proposed are requirement regarding conditional use already nearby. -Recognizing Is this a new issue for the surrounding neisthborhood'' No, residential nature of II it is not. The residents of the surrounding neighborhood have „.4;„„ ,,.,,., ..o.,.....oa 1_7 9 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 191 of 220 257 i Livingston Road and Santa Barbara of local area neighborhoods we Boulevard, except" [there is a limited anticipated. The only changes that ha exception for David Lawrence teenier, are those which were anticipated. Center Point Community Church and provisions of the GGAMP restricting essential services]_ Further no properties adopted in anticipation of such chan abutting streets accessing Golden Gate area: actually, in anticipation of the pre Parkway within the above-defined segment to hear as a result of those changes. shall be approved for conditional uses except" /there is a limited exception for The proponents will also assert that the David Lawrence Center, Center Point desirable places to live, Some prop Community Church and essential services]. Parkway. recognizing the value of the have made sizable investments in bu As mentioned above, the Growth Management Plan.'CiCiAMP their homes to make them nice pine is intended to guide future land use decision making. widening of the Parkway and increase Commercialization of the Corridor would require first convinced their property will ul amending the above provisions of the GGAMP. Amending "Commercial- and are therefore hold the GUAM"' is an expensive and time consuming process,and their property. Some proponents migh amendments must be approved by a super-majority(minimum that a certain level of blight along of 4 votes)of the 5 member Board of County Commissioners. favorable to their cause. A clear sign, The goal is to keep these substantial harriers in place and to - that the area will remain residential w prevent commercialization, the health and viability of the entire n an even more desirable area for all Na Why is this happening now? Property values have been commute through. rising. The proponents of commercialization see an opportunity to sell or develop their lots and reap large What can von ( financial rewards. There have been changes in local "^'N government leadership; and the proponents are hopeful that The good news is that there are signi the resolve of the community and local government leaders to and substantial hurdles that the propos resist the commercialization of the Corridor has dwindled. in order to achieve their objectives. They believe, perhaps, the time is ripe. Those are the real why there should be any change to the reasons. GC/AMP. On the other hand, the government leaders to maintain t However, the proponents will assert that they are unfairly appearance and utility of the Corrid4 restricted by the current provisions of the CrGAMP. Yet, surrounding neighborhood and protect while the community undertook the process of considering the residents has not been tested. It i. future land uses in the Corridor and surrounding neighborhood residents of the neighborhood to spe; through public hearings, the proponents were almost entirely influence in order to resist the pressure; absent. On the other hand, those interested in avoiding the bear by the proponents of commerciali: commercialization of the Corridor spoke out. And there was strong community-wide sentiment to keep the Corridor You can expect to be invited by : uncluttered by commercial uses, involved. You may be asked to sign government leaders, write letters, nue Note that the above provisions of the GGAMP apply equally voice your .opinion. The extent to to"properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway neighborhood participate in this process within the above-defined segment" (i.e., the side streets), bearing upon the outcome. You are en Unfair'? matter with people residing insi neighborhood; to encourage the Furthermore,many of the proponents have purchased their lots commercialization of the Corridor. along the Corridor subsequent to adoption of the current provisions .of the CUCiAMP, blowing well that they were Traditionally, the Naples community ai purchasing a lot in a residential area - designated to remain a in favor of maintaining the predotninan residential area. of the Corridor. They have put in f•—••• commercialization. The proponent The proponents will assert that a change to GGAMP is Golden Gate Parkway will not prevail necessitated by significant changes to the surrounding area the surrounding neighborhood act as it resulting from the 1-75 interchange, other roadway said it does not Matter. Please take . . .. 10 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 192 of 220 258 From: Elizabeth Foster<elizabeth@judithliegeoisdesigns.com> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 12:22 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Fwd: Western Golden Gate Estates Planning Study Sent from my iPhone Date:October 28, 2016 at 10:58:55 AM EDT To:<GGAMPrestudv colliergov.net> Subject:Western Golden Gate Estates Planning Study To Planning and Zoning Division, Regarding ongoing study of uses for Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara Avenue to Livingston Ave: We request, to maintain rural character of this area, that existing zoning in this area remain in place as currently in effect and no additional commercial use be permitted. Thank you, Elizabeth Foster 2711 68th St.SW. Naples FL34105 239-777.8818 Elifoster@hotmail.com 0 = 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 193 of 220 259 From: Barbara Coen <barbcoen@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 8:16 AM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy To Whom it may concern: have lived on 68th Street S.W. since 1989. In that time, I have watched the construction of 1-75 Exit 105, the Golden Gate bridge over Airport Road, and the development of a huge apartment complex on the corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. I love my residential area and I am against letting it be taken over by companies like Race Trac and other commercial uses. I am also concerned about any more large apartment complexes being constructed due to the already massive traffic concession that exists now. I wish I could attend one of the three workshops to discuss my views, but I have conflicts all 3 dates® Thank you for your consideration of my opinions, Barbara S. Coen 2780 68th Street S.W. Naples, FL 34105 Phone: 239-777-4085 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 194 of 220 260 From: Tony Ojanovac<amoappraisals@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:04 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan west of Collier Blvd (CR951) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed To Whom It May Concern, I live 2830 66th St SW and attended a meeting held by Collier County on 05/11/2016 regarding the GGAMP. I would like to be on record that I, along with the large majority of other at the above mentioned meeting, am NOT in favor of making any portion of Golden Gate Parkway(between Santa Barbara Blvd & Livingston Rd)commercial.There is no need whatsoever for this proposal, as there are plenty of commercial areas within one square mile of this area. In addition, present traffic in this area is already heavy without potential commercial use parcels. We want the GGAMP to remain as written, as the commissioners promised, and left alone. Anthony M. Ojanovac Cert.Res. RD7070 AMO Appraisals, Inc. Sent from my iPhone 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 195 of 220 261 From: Daniel Jenkins <dwj2790@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 2:35 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: Golden Gate Master Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Mr. VanLengen, I am writing you to express my strong opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. I oppose the commercialization of the Parkway or Apartments along the Parkway. I am in favor of maintaining the "Estates" residential zoning which protects the QUIET, RESIDENTIAL character of our neighborhood. — Thank You, Daniel W. Jenkins 2718 68th ST SW Naples, FL 34105 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 196 of 220 262 From: Kevin Keyes<kevinkeyes99@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 6:00 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: GGAMP I wish to make known my opinion to any changes to the Golden Gate Area master plan along golden gate parkway between Livingston road and Santa Barbara boulevard. I oppose the commercialization of the parkway or apartments along the parkway. I am in favor of maintaining the "Estates" residential zoning which protects the quiet, residential character of our neighborhood. Sent from my iPhone 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 197 of 220 263 From: eflenney@comcast.net Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:26 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan This correspondence serves as my opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan along Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. I oppose any type of commercialization along the Parkway, or any type of apartments along the Parkway. I am in favor of maintaining the "Estates" Residential zoning which protects the quiet, residential character of my neighborhood; as it was meant to be. Elizabeth Lenney 3220 66th Street SW Resident at this address 21 years 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 198 of 220 264 From: boystrave117@comcast.net Sent: Monday, July 11, 2016 3:26 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: Commercialization of GG Parkway Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged We wish to make known our opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate area master plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We oppose the commercialization of the Parkway or apartments along the Parkway. I am in favor of maintaining the "Estates" residential zoning which protects the quiet, residential character of our neighborhood. We are interested in receiving notices of future meetings. Thank you, Carmen and Jorge Lopez 2831 64th Street SW Naples, FL 34105 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 199 of 220 265 From: Jo Gennis <josephinegg@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 11:24 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: GoldenGate Master Plan This email is to notify you of my opposition to ANY changes in the Golden Gate Master Plan (along Golden Gate Pkwy.,between Livingston Rd. and Santa Barbara Blvd.). I oppose the commercialization and/or apartments along the Pkwy. We must keep the "estates zoning" ( as promised )to keep our neighborhood 100% residential. Currently, large single family homes are being built and sold in this area. Many of the older homes have been upgraded. Children who grew up here, are now adult homeowners. This is a prime residential area and we want to keep it that way. Sincerely, Larry&Josephine Gennis 2711 66 St. S.W. Naples,F1.34105 Sent from Jo's iPad 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 200 of 220 266 From: dapbrock@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2016 5:56 PM To: VanLengenKris Cc: dapbrock@comcast.net Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan - Opposition to Commercialization We wish to make known our strong opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We oppose the commercialization of the Parkway or apartments along the Parkway. We are in favor of maintaining the "Estates" Residential Zoning which protects the quiet residential character of our beautiful neighborhood. Please keep us informed of any changes - proposed or otherwise - at the address below. Thank you. Derek and Pam Brock 2845 66th Street SW Naples, Florida 34105 dapbrock@comcast.net Derek- 239-404-3848 cell Pam- 239-961-5136 cell Sent from Xfinity Connect Mobile App 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 201 of 220 267 From: Whitney Murphy<wnofl@aol.com> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 11:20 AM To: VanLengenKris Subject: Oppose Commercialization of Golden Gate Parkway I wish to make known my strong opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. I strongly oppose the commercialization of the parkway or apartments along the parkway. I am in favor of maintaining the "Estates" Residential Zoning which protects the quiet, residential character of our neighborhood. Please add me to the Collier County Government email list so that I may receive notices of future meetings regarding this matter. Thank you very much, Whitney Murphy 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 202 of 220 268 From: ohmantrisha@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 6:08 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: GGAMP I wish to make known my opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. I oppose the commercialization of the parkway or apartments along the parkway. I am in favor of maintaining the "Estates" residential zoning which protects the quite, residential character of our neighborhood. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy white Paper 12/19/2017 Page 203 of 220 269 From: JenkinsAnita Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 8:23 AM To: Tony Ojanovac Cc: GGAMPRestudy; VanLengenKris Subject: RE: Golden Gate Area Master Plan west of Collier Blvd (CR951) Tony, Thank you for taking the time to attend the meeting and provide your written comments in the email below. Your involvement is very much appreciated and your comments will certainly be maintained as part of the record. We have added your email address to the distribution list and will notify you when the next public meeting is scheduled. In the meantime, please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or would like additional information. Sincerely, Anita Jenkins, AICP Community Planning Section Collier County Growth Management Department 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8288 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies Original Message From:Tony Ojanovac [mailto:amoappraisals@gmail.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 11, 2016 7:04 PM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan west of Collier Blvd (CR951) To Whom It May Concern, I live 2830 66th St SW and attended a meeting held by Collier County on 05/11/2016 regarding the GGAMP. I would like to be on record that I, along with the large majority of other at the above mentioned meeting, am NOT in favor of making any portion of Golden Gate Parkway (between Santa Barbara Blvd & Livingston Rd) commercial.There is no need whatsoever for this proposal, as there are plenty of commercial areas within one square mile of this area. In addition, present traffic in this area is already heavy without potential commercial use parcels. We want the GGAMP to remain as written, as the commissioners promised, and left alone. Anthony M. Ojanovac Cert.Res. RD7070 AMO Appraisals, Inc. Sent from my iPhone Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 204 of 220 270 From: Lisa Pearl <lisampearl@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:24 PM To: VanLengenKris Cc: Lisa; Scott Pearl Subject: Opposition to the commercialization of the parkway Dear Kris, We feel very strongly about voicing our opinion and concern for the proposed development along Golden Gate Parkway. My family and I wish to make known our opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate area master plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We fully opposed the commercialization of the parkway or apartments along the parkway. We are in favor of maintaining the estates residential zoning which protects the quiet residential character of our neighborhood. Please protect our town and the families that have called Naples home for over 20 years. Scott, Lisa, Zachary and Riley Pearl 2690 66th Street Sw Naples, Fl 34105 Downing Frye Realty 239.248.2705 LisaMPearl@gmail.com 2014/2015 Platinum Award Winner www.NaplesHomeSpecialist.com 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 205 of 220 271 From: Eric Solomon <elsolomon65@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:22 PM To: VanLengenKris Cc: Jessica Horowitz Subject: Proposed Commercialization of Golden Gate Parkway Dear Mr.VanLengen We have lived at 2760 66th St SW, Naples since August 2013. One of the primary reasons we purchased that particular piece of property was the longstanding developed residential nature of the community and its proximity to all Naples has to offer. It is important that our voices are heard at the County level. Unfortunately we are unable to personally attend tonight's workshop regarding the commercial rezoning efforts due to prior commitments. To be clear we wish to make it known that we vehemently oppose any changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We oppose commercialization of the Parkway and/or apartments along the Parkway. We are in favor of maintaining the Estates Residential Zoning which protects the quiet, residential character of our neighborhood. We welcome all opportunity to be heard. If you wish to speak with us directly my cell number is (239) 293-7138 and Jessica's is (239) 293-6954.You are of course also welcome to email us anytime and would be most appreciative if you would include us on all correspondence pertaining to this matter on a go-forward basis. Thank you for your time. Eric Solomon &Jessica Horowitz 2760 66th Street SW Naples FL 34105 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 206 of 220 272 From: VanLengenKris Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 9:25 AM To: 'Don Stevenson' Cc: Mike Bosi (MichaelBosi@colliergov.net); JenkinsAnita; FrenchJames; SawyerMichael; WilkisonDavid Subject: RE: GGAMP zoning change to allow Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway??? Attachments: GGAMP Upcoming Workshops News Release final 4-20-16.pdf; Golden Gate Area Master Plan 2nd Workshop News Release 5-11-16.pdf Dear Mr. Stevenson: Thank you for your interest in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy("Restudy").Your communication will be retained for the record, and we will add your contact information to our e-mail distribution list. The attached notices should help explain the nature of the Growth Management Plan Restudy. These notices were provided as press releases to local news outlets and posted on the County's website. At the request of several residents, this notice was also e-mailed to those residents.As the Restudy ideally involves all 36,000 households in the Golden Gate Area, it was not financially feasible to provide letter notices to all homes. We were pleased to provide an introduction to the Restudy to a group of residents in the Estates area west of Collier Blvd. on May 11, 2016.As you will note,the nature of the project is to examine all aspects of the current GGAMP, determine whether its provisions reflect the values and vision of residents and stakeholders today, and provide observations and recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. We hope that you will visit our website noted in the attachments,to be updated frequently, so that you can review the current plan provisions, communicate with staff, and plan on attending future meetings as approved by the Growth Management Oversight Committee. To our knowledge,there has been no recent rezone proposal for Golden Gate Parkway properties. Yours, Kris Van Lengen,JD,A1CP Community Planning Manager Zoning Division,Collier County 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-7268 www.colliergov.net/GMPrestudies From: Don Stevenson [mailto:Don@DonStevensonDesign.com] Sent:Thursday, May 12, 2016 7:38 PM To:VanLengenKris<KrisVanLengen@colliergov.net> Cc: FialaDonna<DonnaFiala@colliergov.net>; HillerGeorgia <GeorgiaHiller@colliergov.net>; HenningTom <TomHenning@colliergov.net>;TaylorPenny<PennyTaylor@colliergov.net>; NanceTim <TimNance@colliergov.net>; FrenchJames<jamesfrench@colliergov.net>; SawyerMichael<MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net>;WilkisonDavid <DavidWilkison@colliergov.net>; BosiMichael<MichaelBosi@colliergov.net>; WeeksDavid <DavidWeeks@colliergov.net>;jenkinsanita@colliergov.net; BellowsRay<RayBellows@colliergov.net> 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 207 of 220 273 Subject:GGAMP zoning change to allow Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway??? Importance: High Dear Kris, I have been sent communications stating that the GGAMP is exploring a change in zoning to allow commercial uses on Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. My personal home is located on 66th street SW, literally one lot away from Golden Gate Parkway. My family an I are adamantly opposed to any changes to current zoning of the parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. This topic has come up previously by varied developers and we have opposed them every time they surface. I am not sure if you are the person in charge of the upcoming workshop or not, but I received your name in connection with the proposed workshop to discuss rezoning of the Master plan associated with the Golden Gate Parkway area between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. I will be reaching out to all of my contacts in the Collier County Growth Management Division to voice my opposition, as well as all of the county commissioners. Over the last 20 years I have been involved in countless development projects, PUDs, SDPs Replats and Rezones in Collier County, many of them residential and commercial rezoning projects,therefore I'm very experienced in the process. For the record, No Public Notice was Mailed to my home address which indicates that the public meeting may have not been properly advertised per the Collier County requirements. This is extremely alarming to say the least, especially knowing that the various developers have been trying to sneak this type of zoning change by the residents of this area for years now. I will be in adamant opposition to any change to the parkway zoning, and use all my professional resources, my experience and my company resources to make sure our neighborhood zoning remains unchanged. Commercial applications are not the right use for this area, it is and always has been zoned residential and estates. The traffic impact study reports (TIS) for this section go GG Parkway will also show the danger to the public if any commercial development is considered for this area in question. Please help to keep our residential neighborhood and our children safe from the dangerous traffic and social impacts of a change of this nature to the current zoning. During the installation approval process of the I-75 Interchange installation in December of 2007 the county commissioners adopted language into the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP)that specifically and undeniably restricts any new modifications of improvements of Commercial development on the stretch of Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. other than the existing Center Point Church and The David Lawrence Center. Please review the Master Plan language that was adopted in 2007 and forward this information to the county commissioners and your supervisors for review. Please keep my email on your communication list regarding any items or communication related to and changes to the GGAMP between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. Thank you for your time. Don Stevenson, President Don Stevenson Design, Inc. Lotus Architecture, Inc. AA#26001786 2950 Tamiami Trail N. Suite 16 Naples, FL 34103 Phone: 239-304-3041 Email: Donc DonStevensonDesign.com Web: www.DonStevensonDesign.com 2 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 208 of 220 274 From: Angela Turner<ajturner37@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:33 PM To: TaylorPenny; VanLengenKris Cc: barbcoen@comcast.net; Dan Dagnall Subject: GG Master plan proposal. Keep the Estates Residential. After receiving a letter regarding a meeting planned for tomorrow to possibly re-zone our residential neighborhood to commercial I submit the following letter and past correspondence. When Commissioner Taylor was running for election she promised us that this would not happen. I am hoping that that promise will be kept! Golden Gate Master Plan. Keep the Estates Residential. Golden Gate Parkway. We have previously objected to the proposed changes in making the area between Livingston and Santa Barbara with ANY commercializations. We built our home in 1989 and unlike Pine Ridge Road there are too many private homes that feed onto the Parkway. Since exit 105 from 1-75 and the overpass was put in place it is almost impossible to get out of our street as it is, especially in season. We have already had over 3 fatalities at the end of our street and when I wrote to the County to request a light be put in place because of the gym and Bingo hall at the end of our street and the alterations to the other streets that have to utilize ours to make UTurns to head west it is a nightmare. The County flat out said "no,a stop light would cause more accidents". We have too many families with young children and children who are now learning to drive to be put in danger. Again, Golden Gate Estates was built for residential and it was well over 30 years ago. Too many families have taken stake in their properties and homes to be violated by commercialization. The investors who are attempting this change are not for the benefit of the residents...it's money for their pockets. The apartment complex that was just built on the corner of the Parkway and Livingston should prove to be another traffic nightmare. Subject: GG Parkway From:ajturner37@hotmail.com Date:Wed,4 Jun 2014 19:37:33 -0400 To:fredcoyle@colliergov.net Commissioner Coyle, We,the residents off Golden Gate Parkway, recently received correspondence regarding a request to re-zone the one mile radius that impacts our home. I wanted to share the most recent correspondence from them and my response. I am afraid that many of our neighbors did not take into consideration the initial letter that was sent and have not read it. This is very disturbing that these people are trying to modify our existing peace and security. Would you please take the time to read their proposal and let us know if there is anyway they can actually achieve what they are asking for. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 210 of 220 276 Thank you. Angela Turner Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From:Angela Turner<aiturner37@hotmail.com> Date:June 4, 2014 at 7:25:06 PM EDT To: "edwinkoert@msn.com" <edwinkoert@msn.com> Subject:GG parkway Not liking this at all. Your proposing to use our street as a major road and a gas station. I need to know who on 68th Street SW responded to your initial letter. I already tried for a light, as I mentioned before, and the County flat out declined. Why would 68th Street SW want to allow the traffic and further dis-value to our homes, not to mention the safety of our children. Pine Ridge extension has all the stuff they need getting off 175. That part is hideous. We have a beautiful landscaped exit as it is, it doesn't need to be destroyed by adding anymore commerce to the frontage and making our homes less attractive. Closest gas stations are already good enough for those who choose not to use the Pine Ridge amenities. Why are you concentrating using 68th and 60th when you don't own any properties at the "proposed" sites for first modifications. Mr. Perrine is the realtor for the properties that were acquired and the owners, as well as the original company that purchased the parcels that Wildcat I and II,whom you are the trustee, now own, knew that these were residential. Why is he putting his on the market for 4 million and 2 million with a description that says "Possible commercial usage, ideal for gas station, church, retail shopping, etc". Why is he lying. Putting that out as a possibility is baiting a proposed buyer and misleading! Your initial mailing would have been thrown away but I had the time to actually open and read it. Maybe that is why you have not gotten the responses. I am certain that NO ONE on our street is going to go for these changes. Angela Turner Sent from my iPad 2 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 211 of 220 277 On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:36 PM,edwinkoert@msn.com wrote: To all who has responded: The purpose of our rezoning initiative is not to offend anyone, but to inform all of the property owners located within the GGPkwy geographic area of our activities to have the corridor rezoned to a commercial application. Believe me,your view "for or against" our rezoning activity does not offend me. Everyone has an opinion, and as such,yours, as-well-as your peers, is just as important and will be considered too. I am an old Florida Boy from youth -7-years (the East coast-Hollywood/Ft. Lauderdale through high school 1958) My homestead address is now a retirement community off of 1-75 Exit 240, known as Sun City Center. However, I, as-well-as Brent have two each 35-year old dogs in the hunt fronting GGPkwy, and as such, I am in the Naples area quite frequently. My specific properties are on the West side of 1-75,fronting GGpkwy, one on the North side and one on the South side of GGPkwy. My foot prints in the Naples area goes back to the early sixties. To assist you on Brent and my thoughts, I am attaching two graphic diagrams. The diagrams include all of the properties fronting the East and West Side of 1-75, including our suggested modifications. The PDF diagrams can be enlarged by increasing the zoom percent within the PDF. Also, attached a a letter containing our thoughts on the development of the area. You may wish to review them, or discard them. While reading the WORD document you may wish to have the diagrams available. We do make the information available to all. As each of you are aware, initially, I released 700- mailings. Currently, 16 of you have responded, and I thank you for your input. Sincerely, Edwin H. Koert 239-289-4420 edwinkoert@msn.com <GGPkwy- East Side of I-75.pdf> <GGPkwy-West Side of I-75.pdf> <GGPkwy-032414-Hard look at the North and South Sides.doc> 3 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 212 of 220 278 k M HELP PRESERVE THE QUIET, RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHO( *BE INVOLVED* May, 2016 To:Concerned Citizens, You are being contacted because you live in our neighborhood and signed a petitic community leaders to prohibit the allowance of any commercial rezoning effot approximately two mile stretch of Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Boulevard. Enclosed are the following: 3. A Notice from Collier County Government of a public meeting/workshop 6:30 p.m.on Wednesday, May 11 at Golden Gate Community Center. See the re% meeting is a public workshop held for the purpose of obtaining the comr concerning the possibility of making changes to the Golden Gate Area Mastel changes could potentially include amendments to the Master Plan that commercial development or apartment buildings alone Golden Gate Park Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 2. Questions and Answers Concerning the Proposed Commercialization o Parkway. This information was previously distributed to you by our neighbor response to the efforts of property owners along Golden Gate Parkway to soli their efforts to commercialize the Parkway. WHAT TO DO: ATTEND THE PUBLIC MEETING/WORKSHOP, AND FUTURE MEETINGS CONCERNING TH PROVIDE YOUR INPUT AND SUPPORT. YOUR PRESENCE AT THESE MEETINGS WILL GC TOWARD EXPRESSING THE RESOLVE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO AVOID THE NEGATIVE WOULD RESULT FROM ZONING CHANGES ALONG THE PARKWAY. PROVIDE YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO COLLIER COUNTY. YOU MAY RECEIVE NOTICI MEETINGS BY PROVIDING YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS TO COLLIER COUNTY, BY CONTACT LENGEN AT 239-252-7268 OR THE EMAIL ADDRESS BELOW. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO C SEND AN EMAIL. WHETHER OR NOT YOU ATTEND THE MEETING, WE ENCOURAGE YOU LEADERS KNOW YOU OPPOSE THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE PARKWAY. YOU CAN 1 TO: KrisVanlengen@coliiergov.net STATING: "I WISH TO MAKE KNOWN MY OPPOK CHANGES TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ALONG GOLDEN GATE PARK' LIVINGSTON ROAD AND SANTA BARBARA BOULEVARD. I OPPOSE THE COMMERCIALI PARKWAY OR APARTMENTS ALONG THE PARKWAY. I AM IN FAVOR OF MAINTAINING RESIDENTIAL ZONING WHICH PROTECTS THE QUIET, RESIDENTIAL CHARM' NEIGHBORHOOD_" TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND ENCOURAGE THEM TO BE INVOLVED, IT IS OPPOSITION TO BE HEARD. 5 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 213 of 220 279 Collier County Government Growth Management Department Contact: Connie Deane Zoning Division Community Liaison 2800 N. Ilorseshoe Drive 239-252-8192 or 8365 Naples, Florida 34104 collieraov.net hvitter.com/CollierPIO faeehook.com/CollierGo'i vontube.com/CollierGov April 27,2016 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Collier County Requests Public Input on Golden Gate Area Maste: Collier County is hosting the second workshop in a series of public meetings focusing on tr Area Master Plan (GGAMP). The GGAMP is the county's long-range planning documen Gate arca that shows the vision for the community in the next 10 to 20 years. The plan cons growth, what it should look like and how land uses should be an-anged to live, work, shop The next meeting will focus on the area of Golden Gate Estates west of Collier Boulevar will he held at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 11 at Golden Gate Community Center, 47( Parkway, Naples, Florida 34116 It is critical to the success of the Master Plan that the residents of this area participate in deur vision for their neighborhood. Public participation is needed. Agendas will be posted prior t at haps://www.colliers;ov.net/GMPrestudies. During the coming year,there will be various opportunities to provide public opinion and sh on the CIGAMP, including advertised public meetings, digital forums, website information web content. All interested parties arc invited to visit https://www.colliereov.net/i frequently, to see the background materials, current planning efforts and areas for direct pub county planners may research and gather the issues and concerns important to all stakeholdd email updates or to provide comments,please email us at: GGAMPRestudvecollieraov.n Two or more members of the Board of County Commissioners, City of Naples City Coun Marco Island City Council or any of their respective advisory committees may be pr( participate at these workshops. The subject matter of these workshops may be an item for action at future meetings of these boards, councils or agencies. Anyone who requires an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or of accommodations in order to participate in these proceedings, should contact the Collier Cc Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail E.,Naples, Florida 34112,or 239-25t as possible, but no later than 48 hours before each of the scheduled events. Su accommodations will he provided at no cost to the individual. 6 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 214 of 220 280 Questions and Answers Concerning the Upon announcement that the 1-75 i Proposed Commercialization of Golden Gate planned. the residents expressed Parkwaydevelopment of the interchange might I commercial and conditional uses, consistently made their concerns knot leaders, and the response from such I What is being proposed? There is an effort underway to been that the impacts of adding the I change the Collier County Growth Management Plan. and surrounding residential neighborhood thereafter the County's zoning ordinance,to allow commercial and the neighborhood would be pntt. uses along Golden Ciate Parkway between Livingston Road development; recognizing that into-rc hr and Santa Barbara Blvd (the "Corridor''). The proponents of development. In fact, in consideratiat this change are a group of owners of residential properties that and those of the community at large. front on Golden Gate Parkway. The proponents of leaders put in place significant barrio commercialization are proposing to ultimately rezone the rezoning and the expansion of conditio entire Corridor from end to end. Many of the lots along the Corridor have been acquired by investors, developers and What barriers are in place commercial interests. The proponents are pooling their money commercialization of the Corridor? to hire attorneys, engineers and other professionals. The has been for a long time, zoned proposed changes would involve approximately 170 acres of residential zoning classification tl land, Their first step will be to propose an amendment to the commercial uses; and the Growth Man part of the Collier County Growth Management Plan known as long time, designated d tht Corn the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (the "GGAMP"). which neighborhood to he used for primarily guides future land use decisions and presently prohibits commercial uses along the Corridor. In December 2007,contemporaneous a the 1-75 interchange, the Board of ( Why should this change to the Growth Management Plan consia be resisted'? If the proponents are successful in changing the dtent with d opted anal of comm consitrdtion, aaoptea an amezrdnten^ GGAMP, it will pave the way for the Corridor to be filled with contained the following policy staterne commercial uses; very similar to what presently exists on Pine Ridge Road in the area near the 1-75 interchange. in order to "Recognizing th facilitate such development along the Corridor, significant residential nature of du changes to the roadway system in the neighborhood are being surrounding the planned 1-75 proposed. The proponents want to create a system of back Golden Gate Parkway, as roads along the full length of the rear boundaries of the lots restrictions on conditional fronting on the Parkway to facilitate access to commercial Conditional Uses Subsection establishments.They want to eliminate direct access to Golden Gate Area Master Plan, thei Gate Parkway for many of the existing streets. They want to further commercial tuning install additional traffic lights along the Parkway and funnel abutting Golden Gate Karl all neighborhood traffic into centralized intersections. The Livingston Road and S commercial establishments, including gas stations, Boulevard. No new eommes convenience stores, retail establishments and offices will be permitted on properties a attract additional traffic and congestion to the area, including accessing Golden Gate Parfet transient traffic from i-75. Significant additional roadway above-defined segment. /At improvements and utility facilities. such as sewer and water, exception for that existing , will have to be created to support the development and Golden Gate Estates Com additional traffic. These development efforts and their impacts Subdistrict, which is lot would likely span multiple decades, as has happened on Pine northwest Corner of the i Ridge Road. The adverse impacts on the Naples community, Golden Gate Parkway and , and particularly on the remainder of the surrounding Boulevard]. neighborhood. will be significant. And there is no present demand or need for additional commercial establishments in ;Also, as a result of the same the area that can justify these adverse impacts. The same Board of County Commissioners t types of' businesses and services as are being proposed are requirement regarding conditional uses already nearby. n "Recognizing tl is this a new issue for the surrounding neighborhood? No, residential nature of the it is not. The residents of the surrounding neighborhood have t,,.,.,,,,,,,r;.,,, ,h,y .,1,,4,,.4 1_14 7 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 215 of 220 281 Livingston Road and Santa Barbara of local area neighborhoods wet Boulevard, except" [there is a limited anticipated. The only changes that hay exception for David Lawrence Center, are those which were anticipated. Center Point Community Church and provisions of the GGAMP restricting i essential services]. Further no properties adopted in anticipation of such chang abutting streets accessing Golden Gate area: actually, in anticipation of the pros Parkway within the above-defined segment to bear as a result of those changes. shall be approved for conditional use except" /there is a limited exception for The proponents will also assert that the: David Lawrence Center, Center Point desirable places to live. Some prope Community Church and essential services]. Parkway, recognizing the value of then have made sizable investments in huff As mentioned above, the Growth Management Plan+GGAMP their homes to make them nice place is intended to guide future land use decision making. widening of the Parkway and increases Commercialization of the Corridor would require first convinced their property will ult. amending the above provisions of the GGAMP. Amending "Commercial" and are therefore boldo the GGAMP is an expensive and time consuming process,and their property. Some proponents might amendments must be approved by a super-majority(minimum that a certain level of blight along tl of 4 votes)of the 5 member Board of County Commissioners. favorable to their cause. A Clea signs: The goal is to keep these substantial harriers in place and to that the area will remain residential we prevent commercialization, the health and viability of the entire ne an even more desirable area for all Nap Why is this happenini now? Property values have been commute through. rising. The proponents of commercialization see an opportunity to sell or develop their lots and reap large What can von d. financial rewards. There have been changes in local government leadership; and the proponents arc hopeful that The good news is that there are signif the resolve of the community and local government leaders to and substantial hurdles that the propont resist the commercialization of the Corridor has dwindled. in order to achieve their objectives. A They believe, perhaps, the time is ripe. Those are the real why there should be any change to the F reasons. C:QAMP. On the other hand, the : However, theproponents will assert that theyarc government leadersdto maintain th unfairly appearance and utility of the Corridoi restricted by the current provisions of the GGAMP. Yet. surrounding neighborhood and protect t. while the community undertook the process of considering the residents has not been tested. It is future land uses in the Corridor and surrounding neighborhood residents of the neighborhood to speal through public hearings, the proponent.. were almost entirely influence in order to resist the pressures absent. On the other hand, those interested in avoiding the bear by the proponents of commercializi commercialization of the Corridor spoke out. And there was strong community-wide sentiment to keep the Corridor You can expect to be invited by y. uncluttered by cottunercial uses. involved. You may be asked to sign F government leaders, write letters, atter Note that the above provisions of the GGAMP apply equally voice your opinion. The extent to ►► to''properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway neighborhood participate in this process within the above-defined segment" (i.e.. the side streets). bearing upon the outcome. You are enc Unfair'? matter with people residing insid neighborhood; to encourage thee Furthermore,many of the proponents have purchased their lots commercialization of the Corridor. along the Corridor subsequent to adoption of the current provisions .of the GGAMP. knowing well that they were Traditionally, the Naples community an. purchasing a lot in a residential area - designated to remain a in favor of maintaining the predominant: residential area. of the Corridor. They have put in pl commercialization. The proponents The proponents will assert that a change to GGAMP is Golden Gate Parkway will not prevail i necessitated by significant changes to the surrounding area the surrounding neighborhood act as ill resulting from the 1-75 interchange, other roadway and it does not matter. Please take tl 8 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 216 of 220 282 From: vkeyes239@aol.com Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 6:34 PM To: VanLengenKris Subject: GGAMP I wish to make known my opposition to any changes to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. I oppose the commercialization of the parkway or apartments along the parkway. I am in favor of maintaining the "Estates" residential zoning which protects the quite, residential character of our neighborhood. 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 217 of 220 283 From: Jim Duffy<jim@jimduffyconstruction.com> Sent: Friday, October 28, 2016 10:59 AM To: GGAMPRestudy Subject: Western Golden Gate Estates Planning Study To Planning and Zoning Division, Regarding ongoing study of uses for Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara Avenue to Livingston Ave: We request, to maintain rural character of this area, that existing zoning in this area remain in place as currently in effect and no additional commercial use be permitted. Thank you, Gloria L. Cooley James P. Duffy 2760 68th ST. SW Naples FL34105 239-272-6881 Cell Jamespduffya,comcast.net This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com 1 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 218 of 220 284 CHEFFY PASSIDOMO ATTORNEYS AT LAW EDWARD K.CHEFFY 821 Fifth Avenue South ANDREW H.REISS Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer Naples,Florida 34102 Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer Board Certified Business Litigation Lawyer Telephone: (239)261-9300 WILLIAM J.DEMPSEY JOHN M.PASSIDOMOwww.napleslaw.com Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer IL BRUCE ANDERSON JOHN D.KEHOE NICHOLAS P.MIZELL Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer DEBBIE SINES CROCKETT LOUIS D.D'AGOSTINO BRIAN J.THANASIU Board Certified Appellate Practice Lawyer Board Certified Real Estate Lawyer DAVID A.ZULIAN Board Certified Construction Lawyer MARIA VIGILANTE CLAY C.BROOKER Board Certified City,County and Of Counsel: Local Government Lawyer GEORGE L.VARNADOE DIRECT DIAL: (239)659-4942 rbanderson@naplcslaw.co@ November 1, 2017 Via Email: krisvanlengen@colliergov.net Growth Management Department Attn: Kris VanLengen Collier County Planning Manager 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Golden Gate Master Plan-Transitional Conditional Uses Dear Mr.VanLengen: Wayne Arnold and I represent LDJ Associates, Ltd.,the Larry E. Brooks Trust and Larry E. and Maria R. Brooks who own 12.73 acres located on Collier Boulevard between 13t Avenue Southwest and the Florida Power and Light PUD. This property is the subject of a GMP Amendment application to be designated as a Neighborhood Center Subdistrict to allow intermediate commercial uses. That application was put on hold pending the update of the Golden Gate Master Plan. We have reviewed the draft White Paper for the Golden Gate Master Plan regarding Transitional Conditional Uses ("TCU"). We support the Staff recommendation to amend and require nonresidential uses on only one side of a property that would be eligible to apply for a TCU along the West side of busy 6-lane Collier Boulevard, as is allowed on the East side of Collier Boulevard and the rest of the Estates. We note that the "Transitional Conditional Uses" Section 3d of the Master Plan presently excludes from TCU eligibility: "Site shall not be adjacent to permitted Essential Service as identified in Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code, except for libraries and museums". Electrical transmission and distribution lines, substations, and emergency power structures are Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 219 of 220 285 Permitted Uses in most zoning districts. The FPL PUD (copy attached) allows those uses in addition to customer service and commercial buildings, open storage of materials and equipment for construction and maintenance, and truck parking and fueling facilities. Attached are four photos of some of the uses and structures that are a part of the operations on the FPL PUD property including a large new two-story operations service center building that is under construction. Also attached are the architectural plans for this new building. The FPL PUD is so much more than just a simple neighborhood electrical substation. We would request that the Transitional Conditional Uses be amended to add as an exception(along with libraries and museums) "electrical substations operated in conjunction with onsite commercial or industrial uses". The subject property is uniquely situated in that it is not adjacent to a neighborhood center, yet has a quasi-industrial land use located contiguous to it. From a planning perspective, the currently permitted use of very low density single family residential development is not compatible with the adjacent land use, and an opportunity to obtain approval for limited non-residential uses through the conditional use process would afford the property owner the ability to obtain a compatible land use. As noted in the white paper, Collier Boulevard has been 6-laned, further making the site incompatible for very low density residential development. The conditional use process requires public hearings and informational meetings,which insure that there will be public input once a specific use is proposed for the site. The conditional use process also allows the Board of County Commissioners to impose conditions of approval in order to insure the use is compatible with surrounding uses. We believe that providing the opportunity to obtain a conditional use on the property is the appropriate planning process. We respectfully request that you consider our proposed language and include this letter with its attachments in the backup materials for the Golden Gate Master Plan update that you prepare. Please feel free to contact Wayne and I if you have any questions. Sincerely, R. Bruce Anderson RBA/mmg CC: Larry Brooks Wayne Arnold Enclosures Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy White Paper 12/19/2017 Page 220 of 220 286 I \*41101.1 a ':\n,:•:r="ojecls\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG\Plonnin9\2016-06-20 GMSC-P-SASE on Survey.awn(CSP)FreO.Huo0 Jun 21,2017- 1:07pm SIDENTIAL) ESTATES ESTATES ESTATE (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (DEVELOPED WATER MANAGEMENT) (DEVELOPED WATER COLLIER BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY CANAL R. To ogm3s 7 m 4 6a $i =e �m tip . '=S o N00°19'10"E 680.00'(P) x N00°28'33'/680.00r) I � / 275 00'Pl a 75.00'(P) --/ / a,°e a^• )� , /// /'i / / 2..rs �., 75.017(S) /,27_z_7_777./___7_,)4,4</7,747,74/- / ,//./�/—�// // , /i / //v i,MA A •-J A� ///// ,/ //' I s w 0 m m I ^ grimimmiiiisiam I r Iw r� 0 O i $ 0 �t � m o m w � 0D om o w a po 0D o r .ZO] mm z z �� t m 7J D m n cn co V D D m - elF s E r Cn my "m IH Ovwim � � z0Dm D �• cna m � X m 70 om J� zi G7 C7 D �w m m —=ice . t... / o ,11: m 4> o T G 1 .- z 1 1 m C 7 € H 5 14 ///2///2/ // // // /.._,;4: n __ m _j/'�/%//////j//////////j/ /% � m p m 4 //z„/,f _ '//_,/7,/ 7 1,/ �i ` N00°28'48"/330.09•(S) i//H / V r. o i Si //,,,,,g, // os � Es -a o a r- 1- = ///m Ta m V-i -.'m A p/I!/ C)' e X r- $ 1 z o 1 � �i c7 00 m m m As,111 1 T —D1 o _ _ �� m * m Cn m 2 2 25'PRESERVE m z z m z rn y Ii) m u,m STRUCTURE SETBACK x r- mw w-oo mH N 0-' 11 � D D o D m/� o yH ��l rn 0) • m o g E r/ m y 1 ' . v Ht r m ` F Nn .moo I,, V • d/ 1 m 73 m WJiA cn cn m - o p o $m m m - z o 5. ____toi_ , j ' kiki k. . AWL : ___,_I. AgirM111.... $ 27500)5)e I 75.00(S) _ II — — m 0 275.00'(5) �'S K-6 n C N00°19'10°E 350.00'(P) /Y N00°19'10"E 330.00'(P) WEBER BLVD. S. NOD°28'd8"W 350.00'(S) ,O O 500°28'481/330.19'(5) m m RQ" RIGHT-OF-WAY A s" o Z m T: o < m m I O O m m z -o m - o 0 o z r y o-) cn 0 cmn zm z m —1 oil -oz rccn m -Di m � m � � m /� Dm Dm � n _ � _ � -<-< C - m 0-qcn cn m 0 0 -1 m m —D m • r N z z DIo x • m ▪ z CO1.•0 �1 W G m 0 rn D 'PROJECT. (CLIENT / REVISIONS l m DESIGNED BY: -• r' GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH AE.R. - Z GRACE ROMANIAN DRAWM BV OH — , CHURCH AER -r, DAVIDSON SHEET TITLE • 6017 PINE RIDGE RD.,#84 CHECKED BY: ENGINEERING NAPLES,FL 34119 - - - - - - 4365 Rade Roaa3410401 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PROJECT NO.. Napes,Florida 34104 P:239 434 6060 F 239 434 6084 16-0106 J Company Cart.elAWorealon No.00009496 ` l \. 2 l ,REV. DATE: DESCRIPTION , C Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 951\DWG\Plonning\2016-06-20 GMBC-P-BASE on Survey.owg(CSP(ZOOMOUT))Fre4.Hn0E Jun 21.2017- 1:07pm 7— I ESTATES _ ' I (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ESTATES ESTATES ESTATES I I (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (DEVELOPED WATER MANAGEMENT) (DEVELOPED WATER MANAGEMENT) 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I o COLLIER BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAY I I 1 1 1I CANAL ° n 1EW 1 'f e %i";)(51 75.71.,G f; nisi I I / // ,// /moi,///,aryKT€ ,M A /ii/ ,/_p//z/� S:op° 1 S ,E o I f m o A m �t. v' M 5 O I I o W �D co72 0 cAAoil Z 1 I I �m r. It ��� a� m _>o 051 '� �Fp my 1 m ;:c. e8 m of S k H oc0OCm d - @ T D� I 1—il —T mmrn z0 3 ,,vcE © q#. 3N I 3cmn ins 4 oo-0 70< cnxmF MU j 1 1 XI •-r-' m{O ��T��� O 1 1 T7 2 NI 91 cc wl 1 D .n s. m 1 I I 0 -nm4 o y zf ? �L 0pa51 Em H�eew D / E� O e08 1 1 a <m Fn 0 —� 88 I / "' / • c ': X I— m I m ✓i. =z 0 0 ° ' ;I'/ .r m 1 rn m0 �� 1 I� x` �� 0 1 I o m co z ( ---- A 9a55 x 1— —i n z 1 m 11# r N ma 1, s,RuerweES o m e g m . 1. 1 . mD m I ' f D N 4gbm I ` m I 3 N 8$ 3 m F N r / , 1 X 73 Ril C72 m rn 1 `n o ( 0 1 o m m z z I 1 - D D _ �1i S r .,.,r Imo. is t �� oumi .. 2smow) 1 X @ 00151 p0 51 > 539Ao1P1 WEBER BLVD.S. _ 1 2a.5�+3�;`"11s tmn2848W 330.19151 II p �. RIGHT-OF-WAY • __._. o 1 m 'yy"dyy m 0 5 I til m L l J I i` O W 1co cn O 1 m-4 ISI 1 my m� o Dm 1 ISI 1 �,� �,n 3� 1 y cn 1 73 7J a M m 1 M o o -1 m m D r 1 -1 1 z -- -- --,-- Gem -- -- -- Moi-- —-,-L —- -- -- -- -- —min— -- -- -- -- __ _e- I ��C] ^7 I,. CD I e) o crAHI �,0 II Z ,I 11 II 11 - m C m to ' --• , PROJECT: , �CLIENT: l REVISIONS l m DESIGNED BY, —• q GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH AER. Z GRACE ROMANIAN DRAWN BY: o \ i CHURCH AER. T DAVI DSONSHEET TITLE v 6017 PINE RIDGE RD.,#84 CHECKED BY: ENGINEERING NAPLES,FL 34119 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 Napes,Florida 34104 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN PROJECT NO.: P:239 434 6060 F 239.434.6084 16-0106 --- -- - `Company CAA.of AAh000e0on No.00009496 . J _-- / .REV. DATE: DESCRIPTION Z IP0 a COLLIER BOULEVARD C.R.951 200'RIGHT OF WAY 7 ll 61 N00'1910'E 680.001P) I N00'26'33'W 680.001S) �.� 275.00'(P) I 0 --J. 175.00 330.00'(') 275.00'(S) ' li178.00'(5) 330.00'(5) f/ I —I 7, §qv I 1 lm g 0 0 I " nD -I I I ti C) M m OA. I c O O* O X 10 °moxa Om a°' I 11 Z 1n�ij� O� mz m,mm CZD cc3hi I OA�o �j 0,mz_„, } a 1 mapZ c-< g I topov•Om- <=m R4 Ng : .2,84-00 mmm R no OZpm D� jny 11 li mopes m P T q m m pv 8 0 m m n� ( j D A jIIIII i � x ip 5 p O U 0 TT, O Om v O c _ O 6wCnZmmO� 1 m oo rN �m-1e S m 0• oZco 01p wCZ ` NO0'19'10E 330.001C) e S A v D O ' 5 X . NO0•26'46'W 330.09'(5) mOn DO ii C D s• 2Z 0'ZmPomz ,Opm � �I 0 CA� tDf0oW ia II il 4j= c m D s to rm 0rD 03 lm N N O � S 1 0 m Tp '<y 0 i r A 11 I - I I m 0 0- Or i D O 1 m= -. 11§s I ozo'crD f> O�O i�ND lk II m2�OmN m i wo Di !8g. DAo 18 mcD S n8 <� m y� flu in Ii 9i€ 1 m4 °fie ` 8 I//I P 278.00'(') oMOM T / 78.00'(') 275.00'(5) �•� N0028''10'E 330.00'(') N00.19'10'1 350.00'(P) N00'28'48'W 330.19'(5) WEBER BOULEVARD N00'26'46'W 350.001S) $� 60'RIGHT OF WAY 'R_ L 999�ififff L) v o 0 -I m O 00 Z Z-I m.--I 3)0'o _ O D?c V O m -I .-. m D O m ci1 T v a,' > T S[Di m ,o m rI m a n ro 4 G) OCA0y AS�m p p10rc) DO►.Z �q22 1y_y1-iV O�o9ommII Z DTC pOOy A0 y0 Am�rTy DDy�y OIyy�11y1�n1 IyItI1Tprp 1� ZUp<1n IOC�SSSyS R-40 IIP Ern%mmill n-gMCC 9i3 MI; D-1 D�my ^pCZOII m,,z<-01Z)1NDA..a- m�31Ym V010T -,OZ ENageAIOJOTyr-22 c`90 y 1um1 OZ Nm000Gz ��1p Z�rO 6,-.9, -1 -,:12, :1,02 D o 0 o D m D O o C m m O O Zy Z it 1-p m1 m Z P'0, -44B"1 Z_AZZBDZ2 yy0130 nAN yn3r1 ;y?iC11'�1g0yyy1 ��'0AMOyZ ommmTmm' m PCI PI PEI 11p�`0 1 � 2m�o .0 I� II A II II DO� u' Dlh ,y-dim PEI 159 p N �£Om Vy t Z ��nyy CO)� Im n =p2 6mZ ymm W, m D OZ mOlio Op�m(yz Z Z F m D p y O O D 9 L. g m m p nn gl a rfl0 Q m tZ I101m y <TO y OQ9O`GNq ntzsEtm- •o Z' y0y yyo C1ZT11_A m0 y4) ODy O Z mCnT 2 `doo ynfOO mmm�ynnK�^� D A TTZOGOA-�O A-E Z MnttAOO Z1n mr fi �2o'7:1' 01 �mp0 cmmymym< og iia2nyg 4 p 0py 06 00Z0Z r Zm r3 1 mp�m; z1,T y 0 510110 0 E„, D Z2 26E, C O NmD O C c'' in Z m 0 �,//�J� y 0<m444 0 1OZ 12 ZDO C O 1'I< Z ;m W UPS mm 20 by yZ p C O<D Z < > 0 O 1 Q F &p Sm 1 <C yDy y m1np01TA� CZ ZO 111 =N o gggw,8 1G) ?' dp�OOA O 1 ` , y A `/m1./ N m y C N D y u xn> Zg 1� 2 m ON D0 '� mZ 0 17, y COASTAL CIVIL ENGINEERING CLIENT: DATE: SCALE: o one FOP THE wooemcne l�1„c,rat "�.•,• PREMED SURVEY&MAPPING GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH OF NAPLES 1oro7n6 r=0'o'MOE a•�•�ERELANCE OH MS DOCUMENT•F«N=•E K NO CUD,1«NA Rw�OHMD m ENGINEERING COASTALENGINEERING DRAWN: MmwF.B. N/A "µB1ICO"S'uENRMISUOOSOARIES '' �°`�"""'p"'Un°`1"'° Z ENVIRONMENTAL TITLE: 1w�iITATI11pi n„m.rowaonln ANOCOmnT'd"B m� q'OA ITS O''m1°"""Ssl�ALL BE CONSULTANTS PLANNING SERVICES CHECKED: RJE PG. N/A /� BOUNDARY SURVEY OF ALL OF TRACT 16,AND THE p . INCSEC. 11 TWP. 49S RNG. 26E �ACECIGROUPCOMPANY PHONE:(239)643-2324 WEST HALF OF TRACT 15 OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES UNIT NO.4, SeMng Florioe Since 1877 FAX:(239)643-1143 ACCORDING TO THE MAP OR PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT ACAD NO. 16218 Ili 3106 SOUTH HORSESHOE DRIVE www.coastalengineering.com BOOK 4,PAGE 79,PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. REP.NO. °1 NAPLES,FLORIDA 34104 E-Mail:into@cecifl.com 16.218 NO. DATE BY REVISION DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT Q liTrebilcock piannine•enuineeriun Traffic Impact Statement Grace Romanian Church Conditional Use (CU) Zoning Collier County, FL 06/26/2017 Prepared for: Prepared by: Grace Romanian Church Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1090 31St Street SW 1205 Piper Boulevard,Suite 202 Naples, FL 34117 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-398-2527 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee—$500.00 Collier County Transportation Review Fee—Small Scale Study—No Fee Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. ` `,`N "r-R - . �' Q ', gy;. < • 2: No 47116 •'�� *, * .* :13.• STATE OF 41: ��SiS��NA�E?s`�� Norman J.Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 This item has been electronically signed and Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA sealed by Norman J.Trebilcock,PE using a SHA-1 authentication code. 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Printed copies of this document are not considered Naples, FL 34110 signed and sealed,and the SHA-1 authentication code must be verified on any electronic copies. Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 12 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—lune 2017 Table of Contents Project Description 4 Trip Generation 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment 6 Background Traffic 9 Existing and Future Roadway Network 9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis 10 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis 11 Improvement Analysis 13 Mitigation of Impact 13 APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan 14 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) 16 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition 23 Appendix D: Turning Movement Exhibits 26 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 13 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Project Description The subject project is a proposed institutional facility located in the southeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) intersection.The subject parcel has a total area of approximately 6.25 acres and lies within Section 11,Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This parcel is partially vacant land with one single-family residential structure (ref. Fig. 1—Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan). Fig. 1— Project Location Map 1 r 1 } #w a a . • i •l '- i 5. - PROJECT 1,,,....,t, c , to : x ;1 y` .,arta. '^ to An Sr /.. H #{ „J — iV Its%N.,r E +. R , n V3Nd Ye.vi 1 N. i 5i _, Go !+e 'A. As illustrated in the Master Site Plan, the conditional use zoning application proposes to allow development for a multi-purpose church related building and accessory recreational area. For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2022 planning horizon. The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 1 4 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 The associated church multi-use amenities are considered passive incidental to the sanctuary use and are not included in the trip generation analysis. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Development Program Development ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Total Size Code Proposed Conditions Church 560 15,000 sf(300 seats)* Note(s): *Size and seating capacity for sanctuary;sf—square feet. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on April 26, 2017, via email (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist). Connections to the subject site are proposed to be provided as follows: one existing to remain right-in/right-out access on eastbound Golden Gate Boulevard; and one full movement access on southbound Weber Boulevard. Trip Generation The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most current version is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates are used for the trip generation calculations. The ITE — OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition. Based on ITE recommendations and consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture and pass-by trips are not considered for this project. The estimated project weekday trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 1 5 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Table 2A Trip Generation (Proposed Conditions)—Average Weekday 24 Hour Two- Proposed Development AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Way Volume ITE Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Church 15,000 sfl�1 137 5 3 8 4 4 8 Note(s): (1)Sanctuary;sf—square feet. In agreement with the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for adjacent roadway network is PM. For the purpose of this analysis, the surrounding roadway network concurrency analysis is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour traffic as illustrated in Table 2A. The site access turn lane analysis is based on the projected higher traffic generator for LUC 560 - Church: AM and PM peak hour average weekday compared to Sunday peak hour of generator. In addition, a Sunday peak hour of generator trip generation comparison is provided between two variables: sanctuary Gross Floor Area (GFA) and the number of seats. For the LUC 560 — Sunday peak hour of generator, the number of seats variable is the conservative estimate of the two trip generations and it is used for the purposes of this report. As illustrated in the ITE LUC 560 — Additional Data, the Sunday peak hour varies between 9.00AM and 1.00 PM. The estimated Sunday peak hour trip generation is illustrated in Table 2B. Table 2B Trip Generation (Sunday Operational Conditions) Proposed Development Sunday Peak Hour of Generator ITE Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Church 300 seatsm 92 91 183 Note(s): (1)Sanctuary. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 16 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the development was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning staff. The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour and is graphically depicted in Fig. 2— Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour Distribution PM Peak Hour Project Collier of Project Traffic Volume(1) Roadway Link County Roadway Link Location Traffic Link No. Enter Exit Collier Blvd. 30.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd.to 35% SB—1 NB—1 Golden Gate Blvd. Collier Blvd. 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd.to 35% NB—2 SB—2 Pine Ridge Rd. Collier Blvd.to Wilson Golden Gate Blvd. 17.0 30% WB—1 EB—1 Blvd. Note(s): (,)Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 17 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Fig. 2—Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE i i ¢ s - .,, ., ., .5 Peak A 35°/° Peak Direction SB Direction EB , Nt ✓ _"› h 30% I *--;4.,...,,„ Peak Direction NB 350/0 r . Go :.gle _ � 1! PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY N ,ti PM PEAK HOUR rel,. R NB 1; SB 1 .A Peak 1 A Peak .v Direction SB Direction EB 3 * 'gyp V —> , a 4 .4* I, < > " ° WB 1; EB1 9 4 x " Peak A £, Direction NB 3 NB 2; SB 2 4 II L ih 0 . Goggle Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 18 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual peak hour, peak direction traffic volume (estimated from 2008 through 2016), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2016 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project, illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the future horizon year 2022. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project(2016-2022) 2022 Projected I 2022 2016 AUIR Projected Pk Hr,Peak Dir Projected Pk CC Pk Hr,Pk Dir Traffic Background Hr,Peak Dir AUIR Roadway Link Background Annual Growth Traffic Volume Trip Background Roadway Link Link ID Location Traffic Growth Factor w/out Project Bank Traffic Volume Volume Rate (trips/hr) w/out Project (trips/hr) (%/yr)* Growth (trips/hr)Trip Factor** Bank*** Vanderbilt Collier Blvd. 30.2 Beach Rd.to 1,200 2.00% 1.1262 1,352 166 1,366 Golden Gate Blvd. Golden Gate Collier Blvd. 31.1 Blvd.to Pine 1,867 2.00% 1.1262 2,103 40 1,907 Ridge Rd. Golden17 0 Collier Blvd.to 1,660 2.00% 1.1262 1,870 0 1,660 Gate Blvd. Wilson Blvd. Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate-from 2016 AUIR,2%minimum. **Growth Factor=(1+Annual Growth Rate)6.2022 Projected Volume=2016 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2022 Projected Volume=2016 AUIR Volume+Trip Bank.The projected 2022 Peak Hour—Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation,which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5- Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. Collier Boulevard improvements are currently underway and are adequately reflected in the 2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 19 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 AUIR. As no future improvements were identified in the Collier County 2016 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Min. Exist Peak Dir, Future Roadway Link CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist Standard Peak Hr Project Build Link ID# Location Roadway LOS Capacity out Roadway Volume Vanderbilt Collier Blvd. I 30.2 Beach Rd.to 6D E 3,000(SB) 6D Golden Gate Blvd. Golden Gate Collier Blvd. 31.1 Blvd.to Pine 6D D 3,000(NB) 6D Ridge Rd. Golden Gate Collier Blvd.to Blvd. 17.0 Wilson Blvd. 4D D 2,300(EB) 4D Note(s): 2U=2-lane undivided roadway;4D,6D,8D=4-lane,6-lane,8-lane divided roadway,respectively;LOS=Level of Service Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2022 future build-out conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 110 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—lune 2017 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS)—With Project in the Year 2022 CC 2016 Peak Roadway 2022 Peak %Vol Min LOS Min LOS AUIR Roadway Link Dir,Peak Link,Peak Dir,Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway Link Dir,Peak Hr Hr Volume Impact without with Link Location Hr Capacity ID# Volume (Project Vol w/Project By Project? Project? Added)* ** Project Yes/No Yes/No Vanderbilt Collier Blvd. 30.2 Beach Rd.to 3,000(SB) SB—1 1,367 0.03% No No Golden Gate Blvd. Golden Gate Collier Blvd. 31.1 Blvd.to Pine 3,000(NB) NB-2 2,105 0.07% No No Ridge Rd. Golden Gate Collier Blvd.to Blvd. 17.0 Wilson Blvd. 2,300(EB) EB—1 1,871 0.04% No No Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report;**2022 Projected Volume=2022 background(refer to Table 4)+Project Volume added. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Connections to the subject site are proposed to be provided as follows: one existing to remain right-in/right-out access on eastbound Golden Gate Boulevard; and one full movement access on southbound Weber Boulevard. For details see Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Collier Boulevard (CR 951) is a 6-lane urban divided arterial under Collier County jurisdiction, and has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on FDOT Index 301, design speed of 45 mph — urban conditions —the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) is a 4-lane urban divided arterial under Collier County jurisdiction, and has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on FDOT Index 301, design speed of 45 mph — urban conditions—the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Weber Blvd is a 2-lane undivided local street under Collier County jurisdiction, and has a posted legal speed of 30 mph in the vicinity of the project. Project access is typically evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Right-of- way Manual: (a) two-lane roadways—40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; and (b) multi-lane divided roadways — right turn lanes shall always be provided: and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 111 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two-minute period for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. The estimated project trips at driveway locations are illustrated in Appendix D: Project Turning Movements Exhibits. Site Access— Eastbound Golden Gate Boulevard A dedicated eastbound right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria and volume threshold. There is an existing right-turn lane approximately 260 feet long. The proposed project is expected to generate 64 vph right-turning movements during the Sunday peak hour of the generator. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 235 feet long (which includes a minimum of 50 feet of storage). As such, the existing right-turn lane is adequate to accommodate projected traffic at this location. Site Access—Southbound Weber Boulevard The proposed project is expected to generate 28 vph left-turning movements during the Sunday peak hour of the generator. It is noted that the Collier County roadway network peaks during a typical work week day. As such, the estimated project's peak hour traffic occurs on an off peak day. In addition, Weber Blvd. is a low volume roadway serving surrounding residential properties. Based on the fact that the generated traffic is not a high warranting volume and occurs on an off peak day, it is our recommendation not to provide a left-turn lane at this project access. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points —turn lane requirements will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available. As part of the Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) intersection improvements, the Weber Blvd. connection onto Golden Gate Blvd. will be reconfigured into a right-in/right-out access. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 12 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2022 future build-out conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. Based upon the results of turn lane analysis performed within this report, no turn lane improvements are recommended at the project accesses on Golden Gate Boulevard and Weber Boulevard. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points — turn lane requirements will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 13 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan (1 Sheet) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 114 Grace Romanian Church-CU Zoning-TIS-June 2017 z z a F c W w i z re WJ cc> J_ 1 td O W co r LL r< i a QW WO W(9 I W Z Z W 0 y N El O 2 W 0 a. w o I' z x g w W .. o °{ W e AVM do 1HOIa { i . r` 'S 0A18a383M m`u:M fa fi !: I ) i° W 1i. up[11 , N I w r W ii 2 m Q I1 I li �- s..a"s.."k`�" --' I N N 0 .w 69 id 44-1' l o I w W E2 {' ik ''�c.ask- R 0 W -'Oct VIII �' / t Y u,Y. o 6. D �.� �' 11 --- 0 ��y� o g I(1 I I ,CD ^y n t rI 3i' .- �I ._. FL1!'I_ - ','-?!.,V.,,"„!"; ,- �,�_.!ift.1 O iii ea a, 7 d 0 y>'W f.i I CD Y HW y�tl JO� � aj d V?aKi7� Ww w Z it 9. +'�1� i dr S a� o�� i � w o �; �i I. I I a , ` f t.... I I Pi, DO 3i R 7 1VNVO AVM-A0-1H9Ia 0aVA3lnO8 a3I11O0 2:131VM 03d013A30) aN110130,iNVINI 2131VM o3d013A30) (1VIIN30IS3a A11WVd 310NIS 03d011A30) 31V1S3 S31VJS3 331V1S3 (1VI1N30•`.. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 115 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 — Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) (6 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 116 Grace Romanian Church-CU Zoning-TIS-June 2017 INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply,or N/A(not applicable). Date: April 26,2017 Time: N/A • Location:N/A-Via Email People Attending: Name,Organization,and Telephone Numbers 1) Michael Sawyer,Collier County Growth Management Division 2) Norman Trebilcock,TCS 3) Ciprian Malaescu,TCS Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title:Norman Trebilcock,AICP,PE Organization:Trebilcock Consulting Solutions.PA Address& Telephone Number: 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202, Naples, Fl. 34110:ph 239-566-9551 Reviewer(s): ,••••-••\ Reviewer's Name&Title:Michael Sawyer,Project Manager Organization&Telephone Number:Collier County Transportation Planning Department Ph:239-252-2926 ( Applicant: Applicant's Name:Davidson Engineering,Inc. Address:4365 Radio Road,Suite 201,Naples,FL 34104 Telephone Number:239-434-6060 Proposed Development: Name:Grace Romanian Baptist Church-Rezone Location: On the east side of Collier Boulevard(CR 951)_south of Golden Gate Boulevard and west of Weber Boulevard.(Refer to Fig.l) Land Use Type:Church ITE Code 4: LUC 560 Description:Proposed 15,000 sf building with 300 seats. Parcel has an existing residential structure that will be demolished to allow for the new development. Zoning Existing:E Estates Zoning District Comprehensive plan recommendation:No change Requested:Rezone-Conditional Use(CU) IE Page 1 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 117 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Fig.1–Project Location Map c 1 t Findings of the Preliminary Study: Study type. The Golden Gate Boulevard existing full-movement opening at Weber Boulevard South is scheduled to be reconfigured into aright-in/right-out connection. Since estimated project net new traffic volume i s less than 50 AM or PM 2-way peak hour trips, this study qualifies for a Small Scale TIS –no significant operational or roadway impacts or work within the county right-of-way. The TIS will include AM-PM peak hour trip generation, traffic distribution and assignments, significance test and roadway link analysis. Site access points turn lane analysis will use, conservatively.the higher of seats vs. square footage for the independent variable for trip generation. Roadway concurrency analysis–PM peak hour weekday traffic Site Access Analysis–Sunday Peak Hour of Generator traffic. Internal capture and pass-by reductions are not considered for this study. Study Type: (if not net increase,operational study) Small Scale TIS ® Minor TIS ❑ Mai or TIS, ❑ Study Area: Boundaries west – Collier Boulevard, north – Golden Gate Boulevard, east –Weber Boulevard Additional intersections to be analyzed:N/A Build Out Year: 2022 I — Page 2 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 118 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Planning Horizon Year: 2022 Analysis Time Period(s): Concurrency—Weekday PM Peak Hour; Operational—Sunday Peak Hour of Generator. Future Off-Site Developments:N/A Source of'Trip Generation Rates: 1TE 9a'Edition Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None:N/A Pass-by trips: NIA Internal trips: NIA Transit use:N/A Other: N/A Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: 2022 Methodoloev&Assumptions: Non-site traffic estimates: Collier County traffic counts and 2016 AMR Site-trip generation: OTISS—ITE 9t Edition Trip distribution method Empirical Engineer's Estimate—refer to Fin.2 Traffic assignment method: proi ect trip generation with background growth Traffic growth rate:historical growth rate or 2%minimum Turning movement assignment: Estimate—site access—refer to Fie.3. Fig.2—Project Trip Distribution by Percentage /\ PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE PROJECT • 30% 4e Go4e Page 3 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 119 Grace Romanian Church-CU Zoning-TIS-June 2017 Fig.3—Project Turning Movements by Percentage a•�. C0.11”.GFT[6Y_. (SO/V) __...... DIRECTIONAL LEFT/U- I �h `� t` '1«-_• jJ TURN APPROXIMATELY' ' I • ' #6v dT � ' ) 0-3 MILES EAST OF T= — ' WEBER BLVD S I I I Gtr I - 4` T fYfA•NWY' { .ti�,rt eiaceOrnw•cLo fr 16%) ( ymwxwx 1 5440: .1 PROJECT TURNING MOVEMENTS BY n�,� i ° I PERCENTAGE RED 1 as .NailL,.1 �4 �-: _415114 [,a2 Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations:NIA Sight distance. N/A Queuing N/A Access location&configuration:N/A Traffic control:MUTCD Signal system location&progression needs: Na On-site parking needs: NIA Data Sources: CC 2016 AUIR:CC Traffic Counts Base maps: JA Prior study reports: N/A Access policy and jurisdiction. N/A Review process:N/A Requirements:NIA Miscellaneous: NIA Page 4 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 120 Grace Romanian Church–CU Zoning–TIS–June 2017 41 I i Small Scale Study_No Fee X Minor Study-$750.00 Major Study-$1500.00 Methodology Fee$500 X Includes 0 intersections Additional Intersections-$500.00 each All fees will be agreed to during the Methodology meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign-off on the application. SIGNATURES Norvu,aw Trebilcocl, Study Preparer—Nonnan Trebilcock Reviewer(s) P"-" Applicant Page 5 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 121 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review Fee Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: Methodology Review,Analysis Review,and Sufficiency Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional services are also provided below. MethodoloQv Review-$500 Fee Methodology Review includes review of a submitted methodology statement,including review of submitted trip generation estimate(s),distribution,assignment,and review of a"Small Scale Study" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement, and written confirmation of a re-submitted, amended methodology statement, and one meeting in Collier County,if needed. "Small Scale Study"Review-No Additional Fee(Includes one sufficiency review? Upon approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concurrency determination, site access inspection and confirmation of the study compliance with trip generation,distribution and maximum threshold compliance. "Minor Study Review"-$750 Fee(Includes one sufficiency review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes:optional field visit to site,confirmation of trip generation.distribution,and assignment,concurrency determination,confirmation of committed improvements,review of traffic volume data collected/assembled,review of off-site improvements within the right-of-way, review of site access and circulation, and preparation and review of "sufficiency"comments/questions. "Major Study Review"-$1,500 Fee(Includes two intersection analysis and two sufficiency reviews) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes:field visit to site,confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation and/or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collected/assembled,review of traffic growth analysis,review of off-site roadway operations and capacity analysis,review of site access and circulation,neighborhood traffic intrusion issues,any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates,and preparation and review of up to two rounds of"sufficiency"comments:questions and/or reconunended conditions of approval. } "Additional intersection Review"-$500 Fee The review of additional intersections shall include the same parameters as outlined in the"Major Study Review"and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the "Major Study Review" "Additional Sufficiency Reviews"-$500 Fee Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Fee prior to the completion of the review. Page 6 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 122 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition (2 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 23 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Project Name: Grace Romanian Baptist Church No: Date: 4/162017 City. StateHer aance: ZiplPoatal Code: Country: Client Name: Analytt'e Nine. Edition: ITE-TGM 9th Edition WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR LAND USE SIZE Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 560-Church 15'9 69 69 5 3 4 4 Redudim 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pam-by 0 0 0 0 0 0 }. Non-pass-by 69 69 5 3 4 4 Total 69 66 5 3 4 4 Total Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Internal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Pass-by 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Non-pass-by as 66 5 3 4 4 It) WOO S7 Feet Gross FWer.Ann PROJECT NAME: GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH } ANALYSIS NAME: (Weekday LAND USE INVARIAB ENJT SIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL • VARIABLE A 560-Church 1000 Sq.Feet Gros- 15 Weekday st Average v❑ • ss 68 137 9.11 PROJECT NAME: GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH ANALYSIS NAME: (AM Peak Hour INDEPENDENT LAND USE SIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL I VARIABLE { 1 A 560-Church 1000 Sq.Feet Gross 15 Weekday,Peak HO4 1 Average Q 0 5 3 8 i T 0.56 I. PROJECT NAME' GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH ANALYSIS NAME PM Peak Hour LAND USE INDEPENDENT SIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE A560-Churah 1000 Sq.Feet Gros v]J 15 Weekday,Peek Hat I AverageEll4 8 P 0.55 /—\ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 124 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Project Nene: Gran Romanian Baptist Church-Sunday No: Date: 4268017 Oty: StteA4ovInce: apiPostalCode: Canby: Client Name: Analyst's Nana: Etltjen ITE-TGM SM Edam SUNDAY-GENERATOR LAND USE SIZE Entry MO 599-CM9'eb 90010 92 91 Reduction 0 0 Internal 0 0 Passby 0 0 Non•pest-by 92 91 590-Church-1 15 W 99 92 Reduction 0 0 kismet 0 0 Pass-by 0 0 Non-pest-by 09 92 PROJECT NAME: GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH-SUNDAY ANALYSIS NAME: [ unday-Generator LAND INDEPENDENT LASIZE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL • VARIABLE ilk 560—Church Seats 0 300 Sunday,Peak Hour Q Average E 92 91 183 i� 1 0.61 560-Church-1 1000 a 6q.Feet GrY 15 Sunday,Peak Hour EI Average 12.04 ® e 89 92 181 ,---1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 125 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 Appendix D: Turning Movement Exhibits (2 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 126 Grace Romanian Church-CU Zoning-TIS-June 2017 3 t .„ >-- a-. ! .. --- LLI I-1- 0 V NLLJ j 2 u I ) M ..c.... I ,._1 -I U) 0 ! Z 0.) i: L._ 7H O C2- ILI U..I 1 11.11 1 i (-) ...., o._ 0 -, ."--- u j co H o 0 0 CL co ce 2 . .. •-1"' .“4 a..........,. -S'CIA18?A --''' ti r. - k ,7:, 11 \ :Ntil ',,i?,,-- t \\,`, . _ i 2 ,___ \ \ \ \ \ _ ..,..1 ,..,, ,.; , g glIt 9, 'id taillk ‘16111.111,11, NIMILIKIL. 1101011 1 0 ' 1 0 IN 11; 1 if 1 , 11 _ 5'11PCIO i .1 , 5L15kCit ; /..""...\ 1 ' "4' ' UHF ' E 11 — - — - 11 _ __ 3 i . ii tli 1 r.i. ) —— 1--•,- 1 , ,_) (- .5. ' I 1 61.1.slinne •< ti ...... .1 11;11 .tin I ,e0 35 • L I 1 . ! ... ...5 I... 0 11 C41 0 . ,o).-LLw ii 9 N- S 4 • 4-- -- ----I 6 u i,,c'8 (±2 >2 LLI LL COO'Flidv- Zpii...EKZROw -.11 I i 11 - - I. 0 o "..) '" 41 i cr. c-- i 11 I i' I i I I ri I 1 I 2 1-'' ..., 1 . i T. 1 47,7 4 7 , T - '1 /1", / ariPe.'11 ''lai,=422211MAMIT 1AMM i , I 7,1 -.1--0-1 .,4.9: , ' ArAidl"r "FAF IMO 1 ) i C,:ao,et.at'61 CON 6L poi , — ------------------------------------------- ---------- _ Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page I 27 Grace Romanian Church—CU Zoning—TIS—June 2017 lieu' WF 0 2 0 2 Z aZ tt m D O = Cr) 2' 0 m F— 1— 2 CO j UWP Z p i ..r O > N f1 2 : - -- ' - - 1 v. ...•5i18WM S 13A19 ite �r. r t 1 40 -��` i N _t_ fig[t II `,\. L W113I,. \ "01141:\s 'I _ ��_\ w� gt h. d 1 Rohr I AcK-1 I # 1R Ail 5 TYPE° I- - � I I I —'-57111% 114 'k'W - 11'1 I .5..5, 1— TE B'Piit , /� o , 1 f - : tft 2?; _ gt Y / v ( ) ' 7:/ \//,'/// //i,///////////1,//,////// /'./,.////v/ 2 1--„'w:n + I W ;i 1 I- p r ._ Fp Yw W app - e,t- Z w 5 1n p�j w W w d (I � li 11 1 +.\ 1 u a~ j Y F �' S W Z Ny_.I- i € 9 -.01°-.-10_0 K� It I l ,, a ZdJ j 3i 6' —° µ1 au4ir�Nwv)NN Oct li i - 9 — >l,IY?f0'Qo I 10 bbL---I -+ QOLL ,„,..e 09 ac-- _-__--i e - - _.F I --- ,.,, .. I i // U 141: iU i ' i1' iU7 'ii iI HU ii . I � i1( J I /,F s T j 41 I k I ._ 1 It _•! /7'2//.may•/1;r ,7„�:. , _ ynr/'/772/7,2/7;27/ /, t 1 � _ v -I I ”,+ 4uo ew nu�.wn $0 , :.=L1R1AM ii ii E5 e-3 Mil at' Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 128 DE DAVIDSON NEE*ING EXHIBIT"R" COMPARATIVE LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS The proposed development known as Grace Romanian Baptist Church is a ±6.25-acre property located in Section 11, Township 49 South, and Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. The property is bound by Collier Boulevard (C.R. 951) to the south, 1st Avenue Southwest to the west, Weber Boulevard South to the north, and Golden Gate Boulevard to the east. The subject property is currently zoned as Estates.The subject development consists of two properties to be combined with access points on Weber Boulevard South, Golden Gate Boulevard, and 15t Avenue South. For this analysis, the site will be conceptually developed to the maximum standards using the current project zoning and the proposed zoning amendment. The currently zoned lots consist of the following residential uses at build-out: Single Family Residence (1,201—2,250 sf) 2,250 sf Single Family Residence(1,201—2,250 sf) 2,250 sf Total: 4,500 sf The newly proposed Development (proposed zoning amendment) consists of the following at build-out: Church 300 seats Total: 300 seats The Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan establishes Levels of Service for the following: Arterial and Collector Roads Surface Water Management Systems Potable Water Systems Sanitary Sewer Systems Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Parks and Recreation Facilities Public School Facilities Each of the areas will be examined for the proposed developments in this summary report. Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis www.davidsonengineering.com July,2017 DE DAVIDp,ON ENGINEERING Arterial and Collector Roads Significantly impacted roadways are identified by the proposed highest peak hour trip generation (net new traffic) and is compared with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2016 Annual Update Inventory Report,the peak hour for the project's adjacent roadway network is PM. Therefore,the PM Peak Hour Trips were calculated using gross square footage for the proposed GPMA (Church at 15,000sf) and dwelling unit for the current zoning (Single Family Residential at 2 units) as this represents highest and best use scenario. Table 1-Project Trip Generation (Net New)—Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Development Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA 4 4 8 (Total non-Pass-By Trips) Current Zoning 1 1 2 (Total Non-Pass-By Trips) Proposed Net New Traffic (Total Non-Pass-By Trips) 3 3 6 Net Increase/(Net Decrease) Based on the roadway network link analysis result, the proposed development at build-out is not a significant or adverse traffic generator for the existing roadway traffic at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development generated trips without adversely affecting the adjacent roadway network level of service. Surface Water Management Systems Currently,the neighboring sites are developed with single family homes and not permitted with an agency for storm water management. General development will warrant an environmental resource permit (ERP) through South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). The District's requirement for development is to attenuate 1.5 inches over the entire site during a 25-year, 3-day storm event prior to discharging offsite. The post-development discharge rate for this project allows 0.15 cfs/acre. These are minimum requirements despite the type of development proposed; therefore, neither project will pose a significant or adverse effect on the overall storm water management system. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Systems Currently, the site contains a vacated house with all utilities privately owned and maintained. The proposed non-residential site will connect to the existing 36-inch Collier County watermain within Weber Boulevard to provide fire and potable water utilities to the site. The property will provide privately owned and maintained sanitary sewer. Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis www.davidsonengineering.com July,2017 DIE PAYRPPAI Per Policy 1.5 of the Capital Improvement Element section of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the potable water system level-of-service is based on population growth. The proposed non-residential development does not facilitate population growth;therefore,the proposed use will have no impact on the potable water facility's capacity. Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Solid waste is provided by Waste Management, a private contract provider. Commercial accounts are charged by the service provider directly with rates set by the Board of County Commissioners through contract negotiation with the provider. Parks and Recreation Facilities The proposed build-out will not create a negative impact on Parks and Recreation Facilities. The level of service is not significantly or adversely impacted by the proposed build-out. Public School Facilities The proposed build-out will not create a negative impact on Public School Facilities. The use will not impact school attendance. The level of service is not significantly or adversely impacted by either of the proposed build-outs. Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis www.davidsonengineering.com July,2017 DC DAVIDSOND Fire and EMS Facilities The proposed build-out will have no measurable impact on Fire and EMS Facilities. It should be assumed that newer buildings will be constructed to current NFPA and building code standards which may reduce the likelihood of related calls. The level of service is not significantly or adversely impacted by the proposed build-out conditions. Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict Exhibit"R"-Comparative Level of Service(LOS)Analysis www.davidsonengineering.com July,2017 EXHIBIT S Cotter County Public Utilities Department Engineering & Project Management Division June 16, 2017 VIA: E-MAIL Jessica Harrelson Jessica@davidsonengineering.com Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Subject: Water and Wastewater Service Availability Project: Grace Romanian Church Parcel #: 36760800006, 36760720005 Dear Jessica: The subject project is within the Collier County Water-Sewer District's (CCWSD) water and wastewater service area, but wastewater service is not readily available to the project. Water service is readily available to the project via an existing 36" RCP water main along the east side of Weber Blvd S. Potable water is available for domestic use,fire protection, and irrigation, subject to the provisions of LDC 4.03.08 C,the Collier County Irrigation Ordinance (2015-27), and other applicable rules and regulations. Connection to the CCWSD's water distribution system will be permitted only after the GMD Development Review Division's approval of hydraulic calculations prepared by the Developer's Engineer of Record in accordance with the Design Criteria found in Section 1 of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Utilities Standards Manual. Source pressure assumptions for water distribution system design are prescribed in the Design Criteria. If you have any questions, you may contact me at (239) 252-1037 or EricFey@colliergov.net. Respecylly, 'c Fey, P.E., Sen r Project Manager CC: Steve Messner, Division Director—Water, PUD/WD; Beth Johnssen, Division Director— Wastewater, PUD/WWD; Brett Rosenblum, Principal Project Manager, GMD/DRD ��f\1 Public Unities Engineering&Project Management Division•3339 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 303•Naples,Florida 34112-5361•239-252-4285•FAX 239-252-5378 DE DAVIDZSt�N ENGINE R NG _ EXHIBIT "S" UTILITY STATEMENT The proposed site will connect to the existing 36-inch Collier County watermain within Weber Boulevard to provide fire and potable water utilities to the site. The property will provide privately owned and maintained sanitary sewer. �M1J cow.nc�es�vow Sa o". .. 1 11 r • ',r .I w - 1 {it it � r 'w I .:.i-t:'".'.. ..I ..* ', , x f • ' "fit rr ` 4 ' `� as fig.'' t'' -''' I 'g x f a �' :Ailt .1:11.1r,-,:,--' "� • x ` aMt d gg a k A : ,.,‘ _ , , t, 44 .. t ' s '�` i ,Y ¥. ',:t.,,,k A !„ ,,, , 4 {{ n. iz _ d,A `� Tx 6 If ! _ a re I+cay�b k 1atAVE SW , ' A?a t 9atAVE SWj � COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES—GIS EXHIBIT Grace Romanian Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict May,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DA' 9N .�_ EN INEEE MG Narrative &Justification of the Proposed GMPA Amendment EXHIBIT "T" The intent of this request is to provide the applicant with the ability to entitle and construct a church, religious facility, or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates Zoning District. The subject property consists of± 6.25 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevards. 163.3187 Process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer and: Response: The property for the proposed amendment is±6.25 acres in size. (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. Response: The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small-scale amendments adopted by Collier County does not exceed 120 acres. (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However,text changes that relate directly to,and are adopted simultaneously with,the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. Response: The proposed amendment involves a text change that is directly related to a request for the adoption of a small scale future land use map amendment. (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). Response: The subject property is not in an area of critical state concern. (2) Small-scale development amendments adopted pursuant to this section require only one public hearing before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.3184(11). Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict July,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DE DAVIDEBPN ENGINE (1NG Response: Acknowledged. (3) If the small-scale development amendment involves a site within a rural area of opportunity as defined under s. 288.0656(2)(d) for the duration of such designation, the 10-acre limit listed in subsection (1) shall be increased by 100 percent to 20 acres. The local government approving the small scale plan amendment shall certify to the state land planning agency that the plan amendment furthers the economic objectives set forth in the executive order issued under s. 288.0656(7), and the property subject to the plan amendment shall undergo public review to ensure that all concurrency requirements and federal,state,and local environmental permit requirements are met. Response: The proposed small scale development does not involve a site within a rural area of opportunity. (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. Response: Acknowledged. (5)(a) Any affected person may file a petition with the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57 to request a hearing to challenge the compliance of a small scale development amendment with this act within 30 days following the local government's adoption of the amendment and shall serve a copy of the petition on the local government. An administrative law judge shall hold a hearing in the affected jurisdiction not less than 30 days nor more than 60 days following the filing of a petition and the assignment of an administrative law judge.The parties to a hearing held pursuant to this subsection shall be the petitioner,the local government, and any intervenor. In the proceeding,the plan amendment shall be determined to be in compliance if the local government's determination that the small scale development amendment is in compliance is fairly debatable.The state land planning agency may not intervene in any proceeding initiated pursuant to this section. Response: Acknowledged. (b)1. If the administrative law judge recommends that the small scale development amendment be found not in compliance, the administrative law judge shall submit the recommended order to the Administration Commission for final agency action. If the administrative law judge recommends that the small scale development amendment be found in compliance,the administrative law judge shall submit the recommended order to the state land planning agency. Response: Acknowledged. 2. If the state land planning agency determines that the plan amendment is not in compliance, the agency shall submit, within 30 days following its receipt, the recommended order to the Administration Commission for final agency action. If the state land planning agency determines that the plan amendment is in compliance, the agency shall enter a final order within 30 days following its receipt of the recommended order. Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict July,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DIE DAYID�St9IN ENGINE R NC Response: Acknowledged. (c) Small scale development amendments may not become effective until 31 days after adoption. If challenged within 30 days after adoption, small scale development amendments may not become effective until the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission, respectively, issues a final order determining that the adopted small scale development amendment is in compliance. Response: Acknowledged. (d) In all challenges under this subsection, when a determination of compliance as defined in s. 163.3184(1)(b) is made, consideration shall be given to the plan amendment as a whole and whether the plan amendment furthers the intent of this part Response: Acknowledged. Policy 5.3: Discourage unacceptable levels of urban sprawl in order to minimize the cost of community facilities by: confining urban intensity development to areas designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Map; requiring that any changes to the Urban Designated Areas be contiguous to an existing Urban Area boundary; and, encouraging the use of creative land use planning techniques and innovative approaches to development in the County's Agricultural/Rural designated area, which will better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain the economic viability of agriculture and other predominantly rural land uses, and provide for cost efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Response:The proposed SSGMPA does not contribute to urban sprawl. The subject property is within the existing urban service area and will not require any special or additional costs to provide necessary services. The property has been contemplated for residential and limited non-residential conditional uses per the existing zoning and future land use. The proposed addition of a religious facility land use(through addition to the Conditional Use Subdistrict) will place no greater burden on community facilities than did prior uses of the property. Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code(Ordinance 91-102, adopted October 30, 1991, as amended. Response:The subject property,and its potential land use,shall be compatible with and complimentary to its surrounding land uses. The proposed Conditional Use Subdistrict is bordered to the north, east south and west by residential land uses and zoning opposite existing right-of-ways. Collier Boulevard, Golden Gate Boulevard, Weber Road and 1st Avenue SW all directly border the subject property. Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict July,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com DE PAYRAPJ1 Policy 7.3 All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Response:The proposed SSGMPA will be a companion petition to a conditional use application that will continue to provide appropriate connections and interconnections. Grace Romanian Baptist Church SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict July,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 9511DWG\Planning\GIS\2017-04-24 GR SSGMPA-ATTACHMENT H(HALF-MILE PLANNING COMM.).mxd LEGEND N L (DATA&ANALYSIS ,.,,zee*' W-.��-- E O GRPR(F..k) ROMANIANPERTY'6.25ACRES SSGMPA SUBJECT __ S f . MI Urban Estates Rural Estates 9 Cjorkscrew ICIIIME 111111111111111111111 H I Elia IMMOKALEE RD/CR 846 • OAL E RDIC 4 - . IMM -" I r13 rth Naples 5 m., : � ' I ® a 12 Urban Estates No1 I O 'I VANDERBILT BEACH RD. I®y 1' -J �� I z GOLDENATE BL D i I , I 0 $11Rura1 states 1 1 an I w 1 w PINE RIDGE RD - WHITE BLVD I th U) Z j' O I w ' 16TH AVE. SW w GREEN, ; Inc Z p . .1111 n .:.- _.i Ilk :', i.,„Hirtr, ,,,4 m 1 A-.um" ((re" • a.tt rar)1 ri tiii 0 2 Centr. I Naples .0 -1 ii -- del R 86 G• '.+N GATE �� ,;r -I _ ., % ~ z )' iid � �� , m 1-1 y 0 0250.5 -•MILES SOURCES:COLLIER COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS(2016) ---r 1 I I I I v,`--:--- I DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH DE4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES,FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USE SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 ATTACHMENT U: PLANNING COMMUNITIES ENGINEER 1 N G Z:\Active Projects\G\GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 9511DWG\Planning\GIS\2017-04-24 GR SSGMPA-XHIBITU(PLANNING COMM.).mxd N LEGEND a W —dd� E L 1 DATA&ANALYSISAREA S =SUBJECT PROPERTY 6.25 ACRES ' -North Naples -Urban Estates _Central Naples r -Golden Gate 1 IM Rural Estates -Corkscrew 9 Co1ks --:ix , .,. -. N IMMOKALEE RD/GR 846 N IMMOKALEE RD/CR 846 N. I .. _.. 4 I orth Naplets > 1 03 02 % 0 12 Urban Estates % 1 I 1 rj !Q VANDERBILT BEACH RD. my CO pk- � 8 Rural Estates . . , . , , . . ......___ __ GOLDEN GATIBLVD I r. I rti W r MI tcc 4 0 ~ 01, 1 PINE RIDGE RD Q WHITE BLVD = -. . > I— ti t W co D CO / 0 o CC 0 Ir LU 001 F I 0 GREEN BLVD p (..4 16TH AVE.SW 0) > U 0 P m - „+7 1 t JT(T' I S! fi wr— �� l `1�i 11 = Cr m 3 Golden Gate l 1 0 1 2 1- MILES SOURCES:C ° ljl� °c i o- o A —t 4 tt--11 I DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH DE4365 RADIO ROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES, FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE: 239434-6060 EXHIBIT U: PLANNING COMMUNITIES LEGEND r--,DATA&ANALYSIS AREA -GRACE ROMANIAN SSGMPA SUBJECT PROPERTY:6.25 ACRES FLUE DISTRICTSISUBDISTRICTS , w MI AG-AGRICULTURAL -C-CONSERVATION =CD-COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ES-ESTATES k -MUA-MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTERS „* =RFN-RURAL FRINGE(NEUTRAL),,.,, -RFR-RURAL FRINGE(RECEIVING) a ®RFS-RURAL FRINGE(SENDING) UR-URBAN RESIDENTIAL ®VANDERBILT/951 COMMERCIAL r IMMOKALEE RDICR�846 O �-� i ,,., ,...,n_.._11%601,01,4,,a,. NI # rte. -- CO e 1 WA6.6.66,66A-66666.6666 ( ' Q i I VANDERBILT BEACH RD:, NM —\ . I 11 GOLDEN GATE BLVD d . O' z" r. i.._ �x LLI Qo2 i r..., , 1 O4 ILIIIQ a bPINE'RIDGE'RD 1:Ua,�1ud I y ! el D O ��. ti 0 -.., Q CL I 1 e .,, Z — I GREEN BLVD ""w 1I 16TH AVE SW O i j CA IICD 9� , SII %; '�.� V N r s (52886/GOLDEN ;Q ��I;�i - i 11 1 �,..- W_��_ R .1 oil /1 JS 0 1 2 -�. SHn,��/O p 1 I MILES SOURCES:COLILIE COUNTY GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION'SY STEM, 200177 y Nag 4. DEDAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH 4365 RADIOROAD,SUITE 201 NAPLES,FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE:239-434-6060 EXHIBIT V: FUTURE LAND USE —'SUBJECT SITE' ZONING MAP: GGE22 ) WED EXHIBIT W — x n",�,,...v _ 11�1Y r N 04,2 00 LcvAxo 1! w „,.. Ir ' 15,AVENUE SW ,. « 0 ,, n 45E . m m m m « . . « 51, ,x ' P ,. « . . . ,. ,,. 12 117 12 12 a 44 Si A a roe 15 a « ra. 110 1 24 41 i SS 73 6 go i if . 121 30 37 44 05 nnnnn /01 105 117 124 25 40 E SN AMRAIE S. + . a . n u ,y ,a • 23 a 31 42 S5 26 71 a a 10 1011 NO 50 122 Y TH MO.SA , a a u n . w ,. 127 121 1,L . . w n r . n n . . i. ,. ,20 .1 Iii_ ML ' a 33 04 os ' n 50121 r UNITS 1.27 4 5 p fi R m MO 4.004150 KM..04,50 BKM..BY OimxAva 04 x0.0.-.1 01 -04 itii'8Eg 7i¢ M 0342174 04 C.2av,Rada.AMMO AxA:212004. 9RMNSpI B.ex _ xBB..Bxxa 411 MIIE1 w,. , a 110. """ ''` °` 11.8 ala aaas2vega r .....,, IA COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA V$#�=j! qa I1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Ci AG°fib'-'' 1?� � III\ TAP 495 NNG 26E SECO)11&12 111 _eS MAP NUMBER: "... .R- , Bro GGE22 ZONING MAP: GGE20 GGE19 GGE19 © Mlle MI III ill,I. : I. • . • u •�•.x.orrx ! i:. : IIII MI U32 iiiiiimilii IAIIIIIIIIINII1 n ,.AVENUE..r m :.'AMORE RIVE . 1 9 10 9 GGE2B 03E26 4 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A PAGE OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING ATLAS REFERRED TO AND ADOPTED SUBDIVISON INDEX $_ BY REFERENCE BY ORDINANCE NO.04-41 OF THE DSB Ra COUNTY OF COLDER,FLORIDA,ADOPTED JUNE 22,2004, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA im Psx B AS AMENDED BY THE ZONING NOTES AND SUBDIVISION •••:= 1 ami INDEX REFERENCED HEREON. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION M.wwe y####z- ,+ eBaad"$� BY CHAIRMAN TVLP 49S RNG 26E SEC(S)9810 '7944 §F `a_M1 _gs MAP NUMBER •"•"°°•MY°•^"• a •• ATTEST CLERK N 1 1� 1 I GGE20 4/2412017 8635S 8688S ZONING MAP: GGE21 J �. ` s VANDFNSLT BEACH ROAD (ANA NINGSw r AD) 1 40 20 r TTN AVENUE 1• , El 72 0 112 22 01 112 :11 - j ss 17 42I » IN Biwa` \J srj zz' "AlmA-=`�, " r «ID 0 I . „ r sl as as » IN « qs--_A. r ---12 NI N0 », ,r » r r a . D r r N6 .6 ,. 9 Al •\. RT wd _ A « r r r ,� „ 5 „ „ . . » 610 AVENUE OW I _. . il ra n is ass s w< ' BRD AVENUE NW , 5. r 32 r 71 p w ,a • ° D n « r 511 » » r « s 1r „» 1D r R, r r r M. 1 ” at ,ST AVENUE NM- - % . . r n r r »° " T% r .1 r r n » . r ». »° 1. ,m 2I T ,J UNITS Gama 103E erNs,,.a ODLDEN GATE BOULEVARD 3 L J 6 06E22 1105 16 TO CONY 1145T 1155 15 A WOOF)TO MO ADOPTED BY 25010122CE BY 0201.c 10 «R• INDICATES SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY TIE COMM Of GRIDL 11.0101 ADOVDD.NIB 7.2001 AR SBDI"SON RIDER .17 IA WM PAL '+ 10 NNE R. RR :ICOLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA NUM 012 MATES 2141 ria :11 ° . e EU.2511E0516 LW 3 - e ATMac 12201(AAA 05207 RA BE . . A„ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION TVR 49S RIG 26E SECS)1&2 MAP NUMBER: » . u ` 111 sn GGE21 DC DAncipRQN EXHIBIT "X" DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST PROPERTY OWNER: "Grace" Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. PERCENTAGE OF OWNERSHIP: 100% REGISTERED AGENTS: • Adrian Roman—President/Secretary • Adrian Ungureanu—Director • Gheorghe Lup—Director • Mihai Simut—Director • Daniel Pop—Director • Vasile Valean—Director • Vasile Brisc—Treasurer/Director Grace Romanian Church-SSGMPA Conditional Uses Subdistrict May,2017 www.davidsonengineering.com ❑❑ECIA❑ E❑CE❑❑ION❑ ❑O CON❑I❑IONA❑ UDE ❑OCA❑ION CRI❑ERIA ❑ L GRACE ROMANIAN CADDIED CHURCH COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA - GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD ct UJ O W O LEGEND / CONDITIONAL USES PREPARED BY:GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION 0 250 500 1000 SUBDISTRICT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE:4/17 FILE: SCALE IN FEET ADOPTED:XX,XX,2017 BY ORDINANCE NO.2017-XX(CP-2017-I1 NIM INFORMATION AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE I 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 Conditional Use and Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment, 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) State of Florida County of Collier The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this `Vi day of lkx .1 2017 by cCQci , who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. OW/NMI (Signature of totary Public) (Notary Seal) SC\ a•- lO Lc\ Printed Name of Nota ry �.��N�;•.,,, JESSICA HARRELSON .�,,`�����,rrrr,,,, Notary Public-State o1 Florida _ •1 Commission N FF 954332 ( My Comm,Expires May 18,2020 ` •;: '' Bonded through National Notary Assn 0 CU - PL20160002577 SSGMPA- PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 Nhapirs aiLij rw 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.# DAVIDSON ENGINEERING,INC 1764054 MEETING OCT 11 MEETING OCT 11 Pub Dates September 26,2017 • aziabt /if/ (Sig ture of affiant) Th Sworn tobeto and04 ,b201bed before me ` • •F Commission.GG 126041 My Com EopINNJuI29I021 1 N eankto q wmw«ambw aiumworiew \- sa„,f f \e4kPlan • (Signature of affiant) ACOSTA, ROMO CARLOS ALBERTO AJITHKUMAR, ELEZABETH S AMBROSE,GAYLE L DORIS A ACOSTA 510 13TH ST NW 3815 GOLDEN GATE BLVD W '-585 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34120---5027 NAPLES, FL 34120---3040 'LES, FL 34119---2929 BAZHAW, BRENDA K BORRELLI,JOHN R BROUILLARD,JOHN J&ERIN L 3830 1ST AVE NW 201 WEBER BLVD S 13535 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34120---2714 NAPLES, FL 34117---3033 NAPLES, FL 34119---2929 BUKOWSKI,THADDEUS A BUKOWSKI,WANDA CLEM,ANDREW&SHAWN 71 WEBER BLVD N VINCENTA BUKOWSKI EST 4110 1ST AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 8380 WHISPER TRACE LN#1105 NAPLES, FL 34119---2635 NAPLES, FL 34114---0000 COLLIER CNTY CORDER, MICHAEL A&LAUREN K D'AGOSTINI, DOMINICK J C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3821 3RD AVE SW MARTHA L D'AGOSTINI 3335 TAMIAMI TR E,STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34117---3027 220 PARK AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0000 SOUTH PLAINFIELD, NJ 07080---0000 DORTA,CHARLES MANUEL FERREIRA,OSCAR F&ADELA GARGIULO SR,JEFFREY DEWEY JENNIFER DORTA OSCAR C FERREIRA VALERIE BOYD 81 WEBER BLVD S 6000 COLLINS AVE#527 4055 3RD AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34117---3037 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33140---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---2935 ADEN SR, BILLY M&TERESA W GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH HA,CUC 4040 1ST AVE SW OF NAPLES INC 20 WEBER BLVD S NAPLES, FL 34119---2600 6017 PINE RIDGE ROAD#84 NAPLES, FL 34117---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 HALLOCK,SUSAN C HENRY,JEFF HICKEY, BRENDAN F 3960 1ST AVE NW 161 WEBER BLVD S 3870 1ST AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---2612 NAPLES, FL 34117---0000 NAPLES, FL 34120---2714 J D&R L EDIE JOINT REV TRUST JORDAN,WILLIAM S JOSE,ANU 13555 COLLIER BLVD 4111 1ST AVE SW JULIA JOY NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---2640 100 TRAPHILL DR MORRISVILLE, NC 27560---0000 KEEFER, DAVID KELLY TR, RENATE S KENNEY,JOHN&STEPHANIE DEEATRA MARTIN-KEEFER RENATE S KELLY REV TRUST 4110 1ST AVE SW 3898 1ST AVE SW UTD 8/06 NAPLES, FL 34119---2641 NAPLES, FL 34117---3000 291 WEBER BLVD S NAPLES, FL 34117---3033 KLEIN, RICHARD KYLE LONG, MARIA E LOUISE V TAYLOR REV TRUST -MARY MARTICA KLEIN 3835 1ST AVE SW 627 GORDONIA RD 1 1ST AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34117---3013 NAPLES, FL 34108---0000 rvNPLES, FL 34117---3013 MARZUCCO, MERISHCA MASSARD, RENE J MCCANN,JAMES&BEVERLEY 3791 1ST AVE SW 1460 GOLDEN GATE PKWY STE 103 4111 3RD AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34117---3011 NAPLES, FL 34105---3128 NAPLES, FL 34119---2935 MILLER TR, PATRICK K MILLER, ROBERT C MOUNTAIN, BRIAN J TERRY B MILLER TR 40 WEBER BLVD N 21 WEBER BLVD N UTD 2/2/99-UTD 2/2/99 NAPLES, FL 34120---3054 NAPLES, FL 34120---3039 210 WEBER BLVD S NAPLES, FL 34117---3034 ONDERKO, RONALD A&DEBORAH 1 PAULICH IV,JOHN &DANIELLE PEREZ, HECTOR&JOHANNA 4075 1ST AVE SW 260 WEBER BLVD S 3980 1ST AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---2611 NAPLES, FL 34120---0000 NAPLES, FL 34119---2612 PIDGEON,STEPHEN ROTH,STANLEY F&RUBY J SEARS,WILLIAM M 3961 1ST AVE NW 190 WEBER BLVD S SONIA E MOLINA NAPLES, FL 34119---0000 NAPLES, FL 34117---3036 2 PRESTON ST NORTH BILLERICA, MA 01862---2428 SPILKER,CHRISTIAN&KELLI THOMAS, KEVIN J TOBIAS, DAVID 4035 3RD AVE SW JENNIFER E HITE PO BOX 1236 NAPLES, FL 34119---2935 3830 1ST AVE SW ISLAMORADA, FL 33036---0000 NAPLES, FL 34117---0000 VAN DE WERKEN,GARY Golden Gate Estates 181 WEBER BLVD S Area Civic Association NAPLES, FL 34117---3035 PO Box 990596 Naples, FL 34116 DE Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting DAVIDSON ENGINEERING www.davidsonengineering.com September 25, 2017 Dear Property Owner, Please be advised that the Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. has filed formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment [PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1] and a Conditional Use [PL20160002577], for a ±6.25-acre property, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevards. The intent of the Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment and Conditional Use applications is to add the subject property within the Estates Mixed Use District -Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and permit the required zoning for the ability to entitle and construct a church, religious facility, or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates Zoning District. PROJECT LOCATION Golden Gate BLVD W 0 m a) d Q a 1st AVE SW v > J m In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, we are holding a Neighborhood Information Meeting to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of the request. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 11th, 2017 at the Collier County - Estates Branch Library, located at 1266 Golden Gate Blvd W., Naples, Florida, 34120. Please contact me at (239) 434-6060 ext. 2961, or via e-mail at fred@davidsonengineering.com, if you have any questions regarding the meeting or the proposed project. Sincerely, Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 •Naples,FL 34104 P:(239)434.6060 • F:(239)434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 • Sarasota,FL 34236 • P:(941)309-5180 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Please be advised that formal applications have been submitted to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment [PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1] and a Conditional Use [PL20160002577], for a ±6.25-acre property, located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevards. The intent of the Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment and Conditional Use applications is to add the subject property within the Estates Mixed Use District - Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and permit the required zoning for the ability to entitle and construct a church, religious facility,or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates Zoning District. PROJECT LOCATION Golden Gate BLVD W m L a) Cl) 1st AVE SW U 0 m L CD 43) ti WE VALUE YOUR INPUT The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting, held by Frederick E. Hood, AICP, of Davidson Engineering, Inc., representing Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. on Wednesday, October 11th, 2017. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m., at the Collier County-Estates Branch Library, located at 1266 Golden Gate Blvd W., Naples, Florida, 34120. If you are unable to attend this meeting but have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone or e-mail to the individuals listed below: Frederick E. Hood,AICP Fred Reischl,AICP Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Davidson Engineering, Inc. Collier County Growth Management Collier County Growth Management 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Naples, FL 34104 Naples, FL 34104 Phone:239.434.6060 Phone: 239.252.4211 Phone: 239-252-5715 Email: Fred@davidsonengineering.com Email: Fredreischl@colliergov.net Email: Suefaulkner@colliergov.net DE Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting DAVIDSON ENGINEERING www.davidsonengineering.com MEMORANDUM October 23, 2017 TO: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Fred Reischl, Principal Planner FROM: Jessica Harrelson,Senior Project Coordinator RE: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples SSGMPA-PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 and CU -PL20160002577 NIM Meeting Minutes A Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on Wednesday, October 11, 2017, at the Collier County - Estates Branch Library, located at 1266 Golden Gate Blvd W., Naples, Florida,34120. The following individuals,associated with the review and presentation of the project,were present. • Frederick Hood, Davidson Engineering • Jessica Harrelson, Davidson Engineering • Sue Faulkner,Collier County • Fred Reischl,Collier County Frederick Hood started the meeting by marking a presentation, reading the following: • Introduction: o Good evening. My name is Frederick Hood with Davidson Engineering and I am the land development consultant representing the applicant, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, o The applicant is seeking both a Conditional Use and Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment application to be reviewed by Collier County for the development of a church. o Here with me tonight is Jessica Harrelson,the Project Coordinator with Davidson Engineering,and Adrian Roman,the President&Secretary for the Grace Romanian Church. o Fred Reischl and Sue Faulkner, with the Collier County, are also in attendance tonight. They are the reviewing planners for Collier County Growth Management. o Per the land development code,tonight's meeting will be recorded.At the end of my presentation I will be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding the proposed development. 4365 Radio Road Suite 201 Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 • F:(239)434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 Sarasota,FL 34236 • P:(941)309-5180 DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING • Size and Location: o The subject parcel is approximately 6.25 acres and is located at the Southeast corner of Golden Gate and Collier Boulevards. • Purpose of the Applications: o Two separate applications I mentioned earlier have been filed with Collier County and are being reviewed by several County departments at the same time. o First, is the application to amend the County's Growth Management Plan. The County's Growth Management Plan describes the vision for the future of the County and helps to regulate where particular land uses are developed, and to ensure that those land uses are consistent with the goals and objectives that the County has in place. As the County grows and continues to develop, the Growth Management Plan gets amended from time to time. o Based on the size of the subject property, we have filed a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment, or SSGMPA. The SSGMPA will amend the future land use zoning of the subject property from Estates Mixed Use District- Residential Estates Subdistrict,to the Conditional Use Subdistrict, per the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. o The Estates Zoning District permits churches as a Conditional Use,therefore a second application, identifying all the required elements for a conditional use request, per the County's Land Development Code, has been filed. This application will also provide more specific details and conditions of approval for the subject property. Examples of conditions can be handled with the Conditional Use request are specific to setbacks, building height limitations, landscape buffers, etc. o The approval of both applications will allow the proposed church to be consistent with both the Collier County's Land Development Code and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan's vision for the future. • Details of the MCP o As you can see from the proposed master plan, the applicant is seeking to locate a sanctuary as the only principal building on the property with an accessory recreation field to the south. o The proposed sanctuary and accessory field have been designed and placed as close to the Collier Boulevard right-of-way to provide the most distance from adjacent homes to the east and south. o The building pad is bordered by parking and a circulation drive. o Additionally,to provide the most amount of screening from the adjacent homes,we have placed the property's proposed water management and preserve areas along the eastern portion of the property. DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING o The remaining property boundaries will be subject to the County's landscape buffer screening requirements between residential and non-residential land uses. o The means of ingress and egress to the property will be along Golden Gate Boulevard and Weber Boulevard South. o Per coordination with County transportation staff, these are the two access locations that have been requested. o We held an informal NIM about a year ago to gauge the community's feelings about the proposed project. o At that time,the concept plan was slightly different with one more access point to the south along 1st Avenue SW. o Since then,the applications have been reviewed by Collier County and we were asked to remove that access point. o While the application is still in review,additional changes can be made based on the feedback we receive from you all and from Collier County staff. o Although this layout looks official,this is not an approved plan yet.We still must finish our review with Collier County before moving forward. The following concerns were stated and questions were asked: 1. Concerns with the additional traffic along Weber Blvd, with also making the point that there is a nearby park, two existing churches and elementary school in the area. 2. County not willing to install traffic calming devices along Weber Blvd. 3. Why can't a bridge be constructed off CR 951(Collier Blvd)to the site, instead of accessing the property off the residential streets? - Fred Hood replied that this was something that could be considered, but the direction of County Transportation, regarding access points to the site, was followed. 4. What are the trip counts, hours of operation? How many accessory uses/buildings? - Fred Hood replied the design of the site is for a maximum 300-seat sanctuary to house the applicant's congregation only, with no plans for additional services or to lease out the church to other congregations. Fred noted that the recreational field could be open for the enjoyment of the public's use and was something that the church was considering offering the community. He also stated that there were no additional accessory uses being considered and the Conditional Use application was to allow for the church-use only. DE DAVIDSON '' ENGINEERING 5. Concerns of outside services, such as child care and alcoholic counseling services. - Fred stated the outside services brought up were not being considered, and would require a separate application to be filed. 6. The applicant then spoke about the congregation, and why they chose the Estates location. 7. An attendee then spoke in support of the church. 8. Is a PUD being sought? - Fred replied that no, a PUD was not being considered and explained the Conditional Use. 9. When are the services? - Fred and the applicant replied with the services days/times. 10. What is the traffic count? - Fred replied that the Sunday peak-hour was 183 trips. 11. Discussions of traffic, ingress &egress are held. 12. Building heights? - Fred stated the site would conform to the current development standards& went over height and setbacks. 13. Are dark skies proposed? - Fred replied that was something the church would look into and take into consideration. 14. Is there the possibility for the church to expand on this parcel? - Fred went over the required open space,storm water,parking areas, etc.for the site. 15. More discussions regarding traffic, ingress &egress continued. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:13p.m. End of memo. 12D Tuesday,September 26,2017 Naples Daily News Boats/Motors/Marine Vehicles Wanted Legal Notices Public Notices Tax Deed Application Tax Deed Application WE BUY CARS,TRUCKS,Guys, Location:866 Neapolitan Way disability requiring auxiliary Unless the property described OF N 148.5FT OF E 135FT OF W Etc.Anything from$1,000 Agent: Natascha Bonder- aids and services for this In said certificate shall be 330FT OF SW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF VFORMULA thru 1100.000. Please call Estrella meting may call the City redeemed according to law• SW1/4.37 AC OR 764 PG 658, Sam(239)595-4021 Clerk's Office at 213.1015 with the property will be sold to said property being In Collier VARIANCE PETITION 17-V7 requests at least two business the highest bidder at the County,Florida. 2018 OUTBOARD MODELS / Consider a Resolution days before the meeting date. Collier County Administration 310,330,CBR,350&430 1 determining Variance Petition Building 7th Floor Room 711 at Name in which assessed: . . I 17-V7 for approval of a Publish: Tuesday.September 1:00 P.M.on Monday,October BARBARA LEE-THOMAS �� .II variance from Section 56-124 26,2017 16,2017. wiew.rormulaboatsseuih.com _.._...__.._W to allow more than 50%of the NO 1765855 Unless the property described 909 loin St.S.Ste 102 gross floor area to a service Dated this 21st day of August, In said certificate shall be Ql9)2212:ea personals station to be devoted to sales Tax Deed A 2017. redeemeaccordingto law, BOAT AND YACHT DETAIL of cold drinks,package foods, Application DWIGHT E.BROCK the property will bsold to SeaDiY DE PERSON IN GRAY CAR tobacco and similar grocery NOTICE OFAPPLICATION FOR CLERK OF THE CIRCUR COURT the highest bidder at the SeaS de Lladne Involved in accident on 9/21/17 Nems where less than 50%is TAX DEED Collier County Administration (239)SeaSMeLta 641-7104a.tem at 41 near NCH,please call Permitted,on property owned BY:/s/Donna Rutherford Building 7th Floor.Room 7111 (239)774-0081 by 7-Eleven, Inc., a Texas NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Deputy Clerk 1:00 P.M.on Monday,October CAPTAIN'S LICENSE corporation and lotted t 697 that LOURDES M OR CHARLES Donna Rutherford 16,2017. Naples OUPV-6-oak 7 �\ 9thStreetNorth&860 7th Ave 1 ALAIMO holder of the (Seal) Oct.9th 877-435-3187 KKR flied sal tax certificate has September 5,12,19,26,2017 Dated this 8th day of August, Petitioner: 7-Eleven, Inc. a ffled said certificate for tax No.1732049 2017. THE MARINA AT Lec68atlon:r69oratth Street North deetl to be issued thereon. NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR &860 Rh Ave North on Certificate number,year of TAT(DEED DWIGHT E.BROCK FACTORY BAY Legal Notices AgentilohnN.Pazsitlomo Issuance,description of CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT property,and name in which NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that assessed is as follows: TAX EASE FUNDING 2016-1 BV:/s/Donna RutherfordRutherfordMarco Island LEGAL NOTICE TEXT AMENDMENT 17.73 Deputy Clerk LLC holder to has following Slip'LOA 19' Consider an Ordinance Certificate Number:10-5586 ter certificate for has filed sDonna Rutherford 4eepW 19'Wide• Notice le hereby given that amending Chapter 58 governing Property rty certificatefprtax deed to be (Seal) Direct Access ater Marina. Gulf... Board the apwill Pholdlna meeting airsace Division protection gandr I. Description:#-GOLDENN GATE issued umber,[yearn of C issuancee, September 5,12,19H261731982 No Bridge Issue; beginning at 8:30 a.m. compatibility. EST UNIT 77,TR 136 LESS THE description of property,and Concrete Floating Docks; Wednyesday,October 11,2017 Petitioner.Staff E 200E7 OF THE N 200F7 AND name description assessed is as WaterClubhouse;Pump Out In Eighth Streetl South.Naples, Location:trICtAirport Overlay LESS05FT.,said property being in follows: VT There's Reduced for Quick Sale Florida,34102. Collier County,Florida. Certificate Number.15-5209 $56,004. TEXT AMENDMENT 17-74 Call Paul: (239)253-4755 The public hearings to be Consider an Ordinance Name in which assessed: Property 100:81326760407 considered at that meeting amendingChapter 2.Division FIFTH THIRD MORTGAGE Description: WELLS BLK B Campers&RV's are: a4n d Designs Review Se and COMPANY LOTS 1-3,said property being n COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 16-116 and Section 16-321Florida.InCnlCounty, no WANTED ALL MOTOR HOMES Unless the property described a. AND CAMPERS.Any-7 30 AMENDMENT In Or re the Code of standards Ordinances in said certificate shall be Cash Paid. (954)789-7530. adopting aOrdinance review cf r and c redeemed propertywill according to law, NameinCAMPhassessed: place adopting Comprehensive rpureer processifor historic the highesIII eber soldhe DANNY CAMPOS Recreational Storage 17aCPAAmntmenamendRiothe Petitioner:Staff the highest bidder at the DANNY CAMPOS Comprehensive Plan in Location:Citywide BuilCollier Count Administration 711 rs property OWN BOATYOARKING SPA EI accordance with Florida 00dP.M Ton Month day,October[ Innl saidess h ee lflt tdescribed bbd ' www. ea PARKING SPACEI Statute Section 163-3191. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ARE e j hid dos 16,2017. redeemed according to Lew, J1JJi..11l/i/��1�` Petitioner.City of Naples INVITED TO APPEAR AND BE property will be sold to MIKE PRICE 239-340-0665 Citywidethe Germain Properties of Naples Agent:City of Naples Planning 2017HEARD. Dated this Bob8th day of August, the Collier l Countybi Administration here STORAGE: MOTORHOMES Department Any person who decides to Building 7th Floor Room 711 at her e RVs, boat, auto. Covered appeal any dsedsion made by DWIGHT E.BROCK 1:00 P.M.on Monday.October va v available. (239)643-0447 CONDITIONAL USE PETITION this Board its respect to CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT 16,2017. 17-CU4 any matter considered at this ✓�"—` Consider a Resolution hearing will need am mrd UY:/s/Donna Rutherford Dated this 14th day of August, determining Conditional Use of the proceedings y Deputy Clerk 2017. �'',, Petition 17-CU4, pursuant peed to ensure that a verbatim Donna Rutherford Real Estate to Section 58-933(7) of c d is made,which record ($ell) DWIGHT E.BROCK --- the Code of Ordinances,to udes the testimony and September 5,12.19,26,2017 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT Sports and Imports allow outdoorrstorage of evidence upon which the No.1732011 p automobile inventory with appeal Is to be heard. Any BY:/s/Donna Rutherford 2614 BMW 320 Black;w/new screening as an accessory person with a disability NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR Deputy Clerk use to the permitted use of requiring auxiliary aids and TAX DEED Donna Rutherford sports package; indoor storage of automobile services for this meting may $19,500.(239)919-4230 or inventory,on property owned call the City Clerk's office at NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN that (Seal) n (239)298-1656 by TT of Naples,Inc.,a Florida 213-1015 with requests at least FNA FLORIDA LLC ideer ofthe September 5,12,19,26,2017 ® :a, 2017 BMW 604 M sport Pkg Corporation and located at two business days before the folnwinp tax certificate has No.1731998 5K miles;White&black 2725 and 2745 Corporate Flight meting date. filed Sad certificate fpr tax NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR convertible top.$81,040. Drive. deed fi be Issued thereon. TAX DEED (239)919-4230; or 298-1656 Petitioner:TT of Naples,Inc..a lames Krell,Chairman Certificate number, year Florida Corporation NAPLES PLANNING ADVISORY of Issuance, description of NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Lo.tSport Utility Vehicles Corporateon:FlightFl ghat D25 rive 2745 BOARD Pub:September 26,2017 property,sssseisnd as follows:e which TAX LLC holder of theG follo016-1 wing 2B17INFlNITI Q1r80 Rear wheel Agent:John M.Pa551tlomo, 0401765842 tax Certificate Number:15-4688 certificate for tax decate has ed to beled ' drive,loaded;only 800 mL Ch ffy Passidomo Legal Notice Issued thereon. Certificate blue ext/tan Int,DVD,$70K VARIANCE PETITION 17-Y6 Notice of Intent to Designate Property ILII:68941840002 number, year of Issuance, Fye ,,L bo.(Pd$83K)(239)222-9081 Consider a Resolution Executive Director a5 Senior Description: QUAIL ROOST description of property,and FHtdyours at determining Variance Petition Management Service Class UNIT 11 A CONDOMINIUM UNIT name P which assessed 15 as Vans 17-V6, pursuant to Section Designated Position with the 246 said property being M follows: -F 'J 56-93(c)(1) of the Code of Florida Retirement System: Collier County,Fnrida. {,OCG�lfLe6M1� DODGE GRAND CARAVAN Ordinancesh ,to allow for a Certificate Numbers 15-171 1o141oweredl oral roman&t,e dock and boat lift to extend Notice Is hereby given that Name in which assessed: beyond the maximum shore Me North Collier Fire Control RICHARD E GILL EST PropertyY ID#:00117400001 downs.(239)194-826 normal dimension of 25 feet and Rescue District Intends Descri0tion:3472951185FT for a combined pier and bot to designate the management Vehicles Wanted lift in the Aqualane Shores position of Executive Director NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING ubdivision, for property as Senior Management AA+TOP DOLLAR PAID[for located at 221 Aqua Court. Service Class Designated ClasslES Cars,Ltuscle Cars, Petitioner:Jeff Hewitt Position with the Florida &sports Cars.(239)221.3000 Location:221 Aqua CourtRetirement system, to be Please be advised that formal applications have been submitted to Collier ABSOLUTELY AU.AUTOS- Agent:Kelvin&Calvin Marine effective upon approval of the County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Wanted!Dead or Alive Top$ Construction,Inc. Florida Division of Retirement. FREE PICK UP 239-265-6140 Comments or questions Amendment [PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1] and a Conditional Use CARS,TRUCKS, CONDITIONAL USE PETITION Should be addressed to MOTORCYCLES,TRAILERS. 17-CU6 Chief Financial Officer Becky [P12016000257 7],for a*6.25-acre property,located at the southeast corner TOP PRICE.(239)682-8687 Consider a resolution Bronsdon at(239)-552-3322. of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevards. det ermi 1 lgg Petition COn 7-Cue, October 3,2017her 26 and CORVETTES WANTED Use Top dollar.Cash today.Call pursuant to Section 58-503 NO1763491 941-809-3660 or 941-923-3421 of the Code of Ordinances, The intent of the Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment and to allow the retail sale of - Real Estate STEARNS MOTORS secondhand merchandise of Conditional Use applications is to add the subject property within the Estates MOST TRUSTED the HC-Highway Commercial Mixed Use District-Conditional Uses Subdistrict,and permit the required BUYER Bence 1977. Zoning District located at 866 T(ews/1,l milike_here Rod or Jim les wanted 0 N�potitan Way. zoning for the ability to entitle and construct a church,religious facility,or Pett loner:Paul Scrogham place of worship,as provided for in the Estates Zoning District. tocalfieds Miscellaneous Notice TARPON BAY REALTY NOTICE OF INTENT TO • REGISTER NOTICE OF ACTIONPROJEOUS CTPROJECT C • NNtDtgthe fictitious name of TARPON de. B�/ 3in Bonita Springs, Florida 34133,Intends to register the •g 40 tat AVE SW �� said nae of m�e with the Division L3 C O\■• Tallahasorations of the Florida see,Florida.Dament of ted State. $0 4 e< Naples.Florida,September 18, t 2017. TARPON BAY REALTY Pub:September 26,2017 ' No.1763111 • Manage your subscription Public Notices • Find a newsstand to Notice of WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Naples Planning Advisory buy a paper Board i The mdet ng listed will be held in the City Council The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting,held by • Place an obituar ,classified Chamber,735 Eighth Street Frederick E.Hood,AICP,of Davidson Engineering,Inc.,representing Grace Y south.Naples,Florida. Romanian Baptist Church of Naples,Inc.on Wednesday,Meeting-wed.. aP October 11th,2017. ad or press release 18111/17-8a0a.m. The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m.,at the Collier County-Estates Branch Agenda available meeting Library,located at 1266 Golden Gate Blvd W.,Naples,Florida,34120. • Submit news City Cleric''s Office,City Hall, 239-213-1015 ---•. City website.http//www. If you are unable to attend this meeting but have questions or comments,they • Submit a letter to the editor naple5gov.Com NOTICE can be directed by mail,phone or e-mail to the individuals listed below: Formal action maybe taken on • Report aproblem any item discussed oradded to p his agenda.Any person who Frederick E.Hood,MCP Fred Reischl,AICP Sue Faulkner,Print al Planner decides to appeal any decision P made by the City Council Davidson Engineering,Inc. Collier County Growth Management Collier County Growth Management withrespect to any matter www.naplesnews.com/customerservice considered athis meeting(or 4365 Radio Road,Suite 201 2800 N.Horseshoe Drive 2600 N.Horseshoe Drive earing)will need a record Naples,FL 34104 Naples,FL 34104 Naples,FL 34104 f the proceedings aney need to ensure that a verbatim Phone:239.494.6060 Phone:239252.4211 Phase:239-252-5715 Naples lin1ij News record tproceeding roceed she whl 1deEmail:FNdOdandsa Qi Beringcom Email:F edreiscbi000ho gov.et Email:Suefaulkne®toll a gov.net t testimony and evidence rvirwmruurow.«nxau upon which the appeal is to Se[ember 26,2017 ND-1764054 be heard. Any person with a P O l0 J Cr) U'i A W N N O LO 03 J Q, Ut A W N) ,-' l-,, a ri (/f +G '' -' . 9. -'-- 4t ;CI 6 'D ' 6./ > ' Z) Ft, 71i y o Z tri F N O iS N Ilh r- (jam .} N lz, ° E tJ ' it, r r as A U, m ar ', 1 a Da r a 1 1. Q 0-i- mr,aoe A thN 1 Z:\Active Projects\GIGRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH-CR 9511DWG1PIanning\GIS12017-04-24 GR SSGMPA-EXHIBITE(AERIAL EXHIBIT).mxd F. , ` ?' - . f. t'e . x.. iN � r W _dd- E 1 .T "` ' all -ift r, , i 44 • ,,:,, : t ' opr,v,.....f 'c' _ : : : ' :":. L • • is - w a GOLDEN GATE BLVD 4- 1, .. III j1, m CO1 LEGEND r •r..� ,,. ..., ..... , , .... ., . � .,,..„ . .. -41'*1.-' i 1114°' r......: . S GRACE ROMANIAN SSGMPASUBJECT ) PROPERTY:6.25 ACRE th; 0 600 *, i -43 u lyuF91 071 DAVIDSON ENGINEERING, INC. GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH DENAPLES341, FL 34104 CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA DAVIDSON PHONE: 239-434-6060 EXHIBIT F.1: AERIAL EXHIBIT Note: 2017 Aerial obtained from Collier County Property Appraiser. ESTATES ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (DEVELOPED (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ESTATES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ''')) 1 i 0 s 1 GOLDEN GATE BLVD. I RIGHT-OF-WAY 11 ---- -- c a w 0 .. 1 < i 0 1 \ V 11 1 C , kg it i5pi il „ s, • DEVELOPMENT NI Oa ' i , _. FOR BUILDING - j . i-7* 1 .`1 4 _ - , 300 SEATS MAX \\.,7\ ESTATES ‘.,..7 IR...,,.- ,..,.7,,,,,a ,,, 4 (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) I \\i -::: al \ t 0 f ,\\0\ P \ c'iw ri>- Lo i 3 1 - \\,k -....--,......- ., 1.- 1 w \\N 0 \\ ''? et 4 a 0 ! ,!- . • ACCESSORY 66 \‘‘,.\\ 5 ! z \\,' mi. RECREATION AREA ' " ,7 I' N \,,, -g ESTATES ESTATES re -6 I. S! (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) 11 (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) g 11 - \ s's-i 0 ; 2`;" 0.30 ACRE SEPTIC \ „,`\' DRAINFIELD(L' \\ (RESERVED) \,,,,.1 .1....... i § ,\ I j): 1 I j , i t 1 fo,T2 1= 1 1ST AVE SW --- - r:=1:g, 0 1 - RIGHT-OF-WAY , ',,'1 '! ESTATES ESTATES ! i scr .FEET ! :6: (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIARRO,i tkRiLT-NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION -- ) 1 OF 1 , (”' SIGN 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 NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER ^ BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY,PERSONALLY APPEARED Frederick E.Hood,AICP,Senior Planner WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DE ELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER CU-PL2016000 77 and S MPA P.L20160002584/CPSS-2017-I 4365 Radio Rd, Suite 201 SIGNATURE OF APPL N OR AGENT STREET OR P.O.BOX Frederick E.Hood,AICP,Senior Planner Naples,FL 34104 NAME(TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY,STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 6th day of April , 2018 , by Frederick E.Hood,AICP personally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. 111N1/I � ` •,.,,,1 4. JESSICA HARRELSON ature of Nota 'u 1 i Notary Public-Stab of Florida •trt'lP • Commission FF 054332 ;loftMy Comm.Expires May 18,2020 I Bonded through National Notary Assn rinted Name of Notary Pu is My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) GRACE ROMANIAN CHURCH CU-PL20160002577 SSGMPA-PL20160002584/CPSS-2017- ._ '� - `''S � � + ,SYR : + A, I' Z • PUBLIC NEARING IGQUESTM6 A SMA SCALE GROWTH E1• PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTING A SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PIAN ANNTIYAENTAND CONOITIONAI USE 4 .MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE I PI IMO, 00111,011IB.IGAKP\0.Jn>.141lit"PL100001Nt)Ta Rr MAXIM r10 R IYI\rW,4PA 1ky1W7lRI}�1Ek']LMRI•r11RIWLr7I11R1'lIf1R11{1 TIIh t1IJJIRIULTY PLN\IV:EUNYhlgl\IETPCI.\D&IARDUI'(IK.aIII WV[V14111811 1 a �kµ'RXlul`+1M1.+"11f kV1YBUR 1LlT(�'t'�R�k�Or '�+QNUISMN\kA51�+! r 1 rDti NIMH 1 1 l Ani''. M Y, R11RtDE N R flWO Alt Uf D \D.v v N .i•Wv-.. Rlt X vn 0.1 ny1RY .ABNDLD CDLLER vor GRO TII W ^ReK'ORNlufen RRpw LNt.Rt u"'It "AIB VA'n, t-r ME�M�tlll ti ICI �M 1 "INKI k4nAD 4+ T IO F CO HOO RACE OF WORM*NN XI roi 0.0.1E RO• nufWA • 1 '''''' 4EnwON PDREIVS; PRD MK{RQkli. KM AC EMMY W e DlnaeAt LSE TO L 1 tlY. ��MdRRD� L iRR 0011.01 a0 11 t PIRE COLLIER mum 4U r' r�yt A[MX151..0E THE pD1RFA5 PDR ER 01 1,n'vr1 s� olTo,,,=T: Lt `�utiroRU. Xlwonignn r ee.. . R wwEv?tU�Y.p�H II.IOERyIb.4 S'H{1N,RM1Y4£]A k1Fi. ` x .. 0.0.0FxJ. M** ` ;r V:9 �"+%*=•:w"".., Iw k14a ireUu. H I., 1 �.L. o.. "i+ ..ruxinnunnrL.grc ' .�. ".. r„ - ISA' • • _ y_. - • • • l 6 f o . rP -1;:f.;'', S a. r J ; ) 4'tG.•-' ,=:"i',•_•:''' • 1 K� w LIC NEARING REQUESTIIIG A SMALL SCALE GROWTH • /y ( k..,,,.. " NAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE F.tt r AIBIEI\ M'1II 13113JiY(7'.Si11 5 ii l-n.eIMXDti))IU lil Ilk 1RN N1 Iln j .(( ! Rew\TnasSINC euuvt8ln+(CAC1.wo10(53 UrlwlllIDhI,IPYII\r�IRl11 1 F •••,,,'4.. ` ;4:' trey. • �N c.I eitRmaeurtn r ,.xi aro t . ` 1. YI1T KLbXRAME.DED - LLIKMe � DMENIRU. VL �L,� ... nwn . y MefeRn?P1 N t 14f U tom RLY RKWM .a 1Fi .r1. .a p.w ,....3 4. ,' tT T �vnr n Y~frE' � _ E �. ' . i v 1 ...,.mu we lee - R� 'r._; ,�' ' '` P�' i u ENr"7'=.n nn xelEr rRrr m om ' oeK '"4":"EvneaA.Da 1.3.1n NseCn1 I,u web....N*N.R`'.',.,,P.n,r.. ft^ L z e`'` r' awxuXp� "'1 1' _ b 1 , �„ n. Rn' n A .,rt+. .,1,11.. �" .,t. Y xt�'?°' "i ;', \ ,T ' ''.:::;0",."...., ..I 1. a i a �f j _r. • y^ •r •- . ...:_-„,,,,„.-....... ...•,:„.,,,.'r 'Kr F �Y 4.:'.k.,. . ,:.,-.•_t. , r'R�a �s �� � a''�I.a�,l$�.. .'aT'k ki1 1 - • 1 ''''.::i.'. . cw _• .X: =t ' -,...-7;:.!,..(1,... 4 .T. S A 4r``vC `, .b € r.C�r ,. 4 .tk .. t 4 -t v0.' °:',';''''Y. ' :i !ti' t +,. ., )*,4z :. l , ... /a\ DE Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting DAVIDSON ENGINEERING www.davidsonengineering.com May 10, 2017 Mr. David Weeks,AICP Planning Manager Collier County Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application to the Estates Mixed Use District-Conditional Use Subdistrict Dear Mr. Weeks, Attached, is an application for a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) and the required submittal information, for the request of an amendment to the Estates Mixed Use District - Conditional Use Subdistrict. The intent of this request is to provide the applicant with the ability to entitle and construct a church, religious facility, or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates Zoning District.The subject property consists of ± 6.25 acres located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevards. If you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 239.434.6060 or via email at fred@davidsonengineering.com. Sincerely, Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 •Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 • F:(239)434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 • Sarasota,FL 34236 • P:(941)309-5180 DE Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting - NDAVIDSONGI www.davidsonengineering.com ENGINEERING E N G N E E R I N GG July 6, 2017 Mr. David Weeks, AICP Planning Manager Collier County Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment-PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 Application to the Estates Mixed Use District-Conditional Uses Subdistrict 2' Review Dear Mr.Weeks, We have provided the following updated documents for review and approval: 1. Response Letter 2. SSGMPA Application 3. Text Amendment Language, as Exhibit"C" 4. Aerial, FLUCCS and Soil Maps, as Exhibit "F" 5. Zoning Maps,as Exhibit "H" 6. Surrounding Future Land Use Exhibit, as Exhibit "I" 7. Public Services Map, as Exhibit "K" 8. Conceptual Site Plan, as Exhibit"0" 9. Boundary Survey, as Exhibit "P" 10. Level of Service Analysis, as Exhibit"R" 11. Project Narrative, Evaluation and Justification Criteria,as Exhibit "T" 12. Planning Communities Map,as Exhibit"U" 13. Future Land Use Map,as Exhibit "V" 14. Future Land Use Inset Map,as Exhibit"Y" Comprehensive Planning's Comments related to the Application Form: 1. Page 3 III. Description of Property: G. Surrounding Land Use Pattern — Reference is incorrect — not Exhibit '0', but Exhibit 'I'. Exhibit '0' is a site plan. Response: The surrounding land use patterns are shown on Exhibit "0" with a 300 foot radius of the subject property. 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 • F:(239)434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 • Sarasota,FL 34236 P:(941)309-5180 DE DAVIDSON ENGI NEERING 2. Page 4 IV. Type of Request: C. Amend Future Land Use Map(s) ...TO Estates Mixed Use District —Conditional Uses Subdistrict... -Add the"s"to Uses. Response: The application has been updated to add the "s"after Conditional Uses Subdistrict. 3. V. Required Information:A. Land Use—Reference is questionable for"Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined - Exhibit 'V' is a good map for showing surrounding land use, but Exhibit'D' is listed in the"List of Exhibits" as the'Location Map'. Response: The application has been updated to reference Exhibits "D"and "H"for the general location map showing the surrounding developments(PUD, DRI's and existing zoning). 4. V. Required Information: B. Future Land Use and Designation — Exhibit 'I' and 'V' were referenced for providing a map of existing Future Land Use Designation for subject property and surrounding area with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property, however neither exhibit shows an acreage total. Response: Exhibits "I"and"V"have been updated to include the subject site's total acreage. 5. Page 5 V. Required Information: E. Public Facilities — Arterial and Collector Roads — Reference is incorrect — not Exhibit 'R', but Exhibit'Q,'the Traffic Impact Statement. Response: The Application has been updated to reference Exhibits "R"and "Q", as both exhibits outline information related to the LOS. Comprehensive Planning's Comments on Application Backup Documents: 6. Exhibit 'C' Proposed GMPA Amendment Language — Add "A. Estates — Mixed Use District" underneath the first "***TEXT BREAK***" and then add another "***TEXT BREAK***" underneath the "A. Estates — Mixed Use District". Capitalize "Use" in # 5, first line. Add a parenthetical reference to the map exhibit at end of sentence,e.g. "...Golden Gate Estates, Unit 4(See map titled )." Response: The proposed GMPA Amendment Language, as Exhibit"C",has been updated as requested. 7. Exhibit 'F-2' NRCS Soils Mapping—Please add the total acreage of the soil#14. Response: The Soils Mapping,as Exhibit F.2,has been updated to include the total acreage of soil#14. 8. Exhibit 'H' Surrounding Zoning Districts - There is no marking on the map to indicate the 300 feet radius from the subject property's boundaries (similar to Exhibit K), please add. Please add a 's' on the title for the map to"Grace Romanian Baptist Church Conditional Uses Subdistrict SSGMPA..." DC DAVIDSON E N G I N E E R I N Response: Exhibit "H"has been updated to include the 300 ft radius from the subject site. Additionally, the title has been updated as requested. 9. Exhibit 'I' Surrounding Future Land Designations - There is no marking on the map to indicate the 300 feet radius from the subject property's boundaries (similar to Exhibit K), please add. Please add a 's' on the title for the map to be "Grace Romanian Baptist Church Conditional Uses Subdistrict SSGMPA..." Please modify the legend to show the Estates Designation as 'Estates-Mixed Use District'. Response: Exhibit "I"has been updated to include the 300 ft radius from the subject site and the legend has been updated to indicate'Estates-Mixed Use District'. 10. Exhibit 'K' Proximity to Public Services - Please add a 's' on the title for the map to be "Grace Romanian Baptist Church Conditional Uses Subdistrict SSGMPA...". The word 'Sheriff' is misspelled (just one 'r') in the legend, please correct. Response: Exhibit "K"has been updated to include the additional "s"and the misspelling of sheriff has also been corrected. 11. Exhibit 'N'Alternative Site Data &Analysis (Justification for the Location of the Proposed Amendment) Two additional sites were reviewed for this analysis: Addie's Corner Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) and Sungate Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). The Sungate CPUD site can accommodate the church and is approved for this use without further planning action, however,the analysis stated that the proposed location provided more viable accessibility. The analysis also stated that Sungate -� CPUD lacked immediate accessibility. The Addie's Corner MPUD site, although it can accommodate the church use,the analysis stated that the intensity is currently limited, and therefore,the MPUD might require an amendment to the existing zoning (to guarantee the intended commercial square footage). The conclusion of the analysis was that the access to both alternative sites does not provide viable accessibility, and therefore, the proposed location best meets the needs of the Church. Staff would like to see further elaboration of the conclusions in this analysis including a provision of a definition of'viable accessibility' and 'immediate accessibility'. Response:After further review of the subject properties it was determined that access was not a limiting factor for either alternative sites. However, further research identified developer commitment requirements within the Sungate PUD and we have provided additional supporting documentation to ensure the selected site at C.R. 951 and Golden Gate Boulevard is a superior site for the development. These additional items include the limited square footage for commercial use and requirements to provide water management for adjacent properties within the PUD and C.R. 951 right-of-way. Additionally, the Addie's Corner PUD was eliminated from the analysis due to the recently amended PUD that would limit the commercial space to 4.32 acres, which is less than stated key criteria for the property. The minimum 5.0 acres was selected as a key criterion to ensure the future development would be able to construct a mixture of permitted land uses within the property;for example, accessory uses to the church, and multi- purpose fields. Please refer to the updated Data Analysis Report identifying Sungate as the only alternative site to the C.R. 951 and Golden Gate Blvd property with supporting documentation identifying our selected site as the best choice. DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING. There are a few spelling errors in this exhibit and some questionable wording, please correct or reword: • In "Contents"—Add an 'a' - Data &Analysis • In "Purpose and Focus," paragraph 1, line 3—Capitalize and add a 's'—Conditional Us es Subdistrict • In "Purpose and Focus," paragraph 1, line 6 — "...provide due process ..." consider a different word choice. • In "Purpose and Focus," paragraph 2, line 4—add 'dwelling unit' • In "Purpose and Focus," paragraph 3, lines 1& 2—Reword—the proposed location is not currently within the Conditional Uses Subdistrict • In "Alternative Site Analysis." Paragraph 2, Line 3—Change"permittable"to "permitted" • On Attachment 'D' Existing Congregation Location—Since you are proposing to build a 300-seat church, where do the rest of the parishioners live? Response: The referenced spelling errors have been corrected throughout the document. 12. Exhibit 'T'—Narrative and Justification of the Proposed GMP Amendment 1.c. —In response to Ch. 163.3187 (1)(c), Please revise your response to indicate the amendment does include text change that is directly related to a map change. Though the statutory provision reads, "goals, policies, and objectives", it is applied as any change to the text of a comprehensive plan. Response: Exhibit "T"has been updated to indicate that the amendment does include a text change that is directly related to a map change. 13. Exhibit 'U' Planning Communities —This was incorrectly labeled as Exhibit 'V', however the List of Exhibits identified it as Exhibit'U'. Please correct the label/title. Response: The Planning Communities Exhibit has been properly labeled has Exhibit"U". 14. Exhibit 'V' Future Land Use—The label/title is missing the 'V'. Please correct the label. Although there is only one existing future land use on the subject site (Estates), please incorporate a summary table showing the acreage of the Estates within the subject site (see the application V.B.). Response: Exhibit "V"has been updated to be correctly labeled and the summary table also shows the acreage of the subject site. 15. Exhibit 'Y' Conditional Uses Subdistrict inset map—Please add a 's' on the end of Uses in the map title. Staff believes the map title ending with "Special Provisions" is incorrect and should be removed from the title. This application is to amend "3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict, e. Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria"—not"3.b. Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions." Response: The title of the inset map, labeled as Exhibit "Y", has been updated per the email correspondence with Sue Faulkner on June 28th,2017. DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING 16. General Comments: • When uploading documents for submittal in the future, please include each of the Exhibit labels. Staff had to go back and rename each of the documents by adding the Exhibit labels. Response: All Exhibits labels have again been provided for each document being submitted. • Please submit all maps in color for future hard copy submissions. Response: Acknowledged. 17. Environmental Planning Sufficiency Comments : The subject property is 6.25 acres. Vegetation in the canopy consists of a mix of slash pine, cypress and cabbage palm. The acreage of native vegetation on site will be field verified by staff during review of the Conditional Use(CU)for the project. A listed species survey was conducted in March 23, 2017. No listed species or signs of listed species were observed on the property. Several wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata) were observed in trees on the parcel and will be retained or relocated on site in accordance with the requirements of section 3.04.03 of the LDC. The general provision for protection of listed plants is included in CCME Policy 7.1.6. Letters from the Florida Master Site File dated March 8, 2017, list no previously recorded cultural resources on the subject property.The site will be subject to the requirement of accidental discovery of archaeological or historical sites as required by CCME Policy 11.1.3.The provision is also included in LDC section 2.03.07 E. The subject property is not located in any County well field protection zones. The proposed GMP amendment will have no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Response: Acknowledged. 18. Transportation Planning Sufficiency Comments: Please note: This petition request is sufficient for review; however, transportation planning staff is requesting changes to the master plan and CU (Conditional Use) language (the CU language is provided for information not as part of changes for the GMPA). The petition is sufficient for review; however,the number and location of the proposed third access onto 1st Avenue SW needs to be removed. Access onto local roads is limited by Access Management, plus the location at the extreme southwest corner increases the amount of traffic and length on the local road. Please remove this access from your request and the TIS. Informational comment: Provide as part of your CU request (not this GMPA)the following commitment: For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at location(s) as directed by the Collier County Division Director,Transportation Engineering or his designee. Response: The third access off 15t Ave SW has been eliminated, and the Conceptual Site Plan and TIS have been updated accordingly. Additionally, the language referenced above will be requested as a Zoning Condition of Approval, within the proposed Conditional Use Resolution. 19. Public Utilities Planning and Project Management Sufficiency Comments: Per GMP/CIE Policy 1.5, the potable water system LOSS is based on population. Non-residential development does not facilitate population growth. So, the proposed use will have no impact on potable water facility capacity. Please revise Exhibit"R" accordingly. Response: Exhibit"R"has been updated to state that the proposed non-residential development does not facilitate population growth. 20. Collier County Attorney's Office Sufficiency Comments: Please provide Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map, with subject site shown. This will be an attachment to the ordinance in addition to the text and Conditional use map. If you already provided it, please email it to me. Response: Per correspondence with Sue Faulkner, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map, showing the subject property, will be updated and provided by County Staff. The acreage you provided is 6.25.The acreage according to the property appraiser is 6.64 acres. What is the correct number since the survey does not have the acreage on it? Response: The correct site acreage is 6.25 as shown on the survey. If you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 239.434.6060 or via email at fred@davidsonengineering.com. Sincerely, Frederick E. Hood, AICP Senior Planner DE Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting DAV I D S O N ENGINEERING www.davidsonengineering.com October 23, 2017 Mr. David Weeks,AICP Planning Manager Collier County Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment-PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 Application to the Estates Mixed Use District-Conditional Uses Subdistrict 3rd Review Dear Mr. Weeks, We have provided the following updated documents for review and approval: 1. Response Letter 2. Data &Analysis (Exhibit N) We offer the following responses to comments issued August 18, 2017: Exhibit 'N' Alternative Site Data & Analysis (Justification for the Location of the Proposed Amendment) — One alternative site was reviewed for this analysis: Sungate Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD). Sungate CPUD's Ordinance 1#09-06 does not list churches as a permitted or accessory use, nor are there any conditional uses associated with this CPUD; therefore, the CPUD would need to be amended to permit a church use. There may be other locations that might be able to accommodate a church 'by right'. Staff feels additional work is still needed with this Exhibit 'N'. Upon review of your criteria that are being used for the analysis,we have the following comments: • Please consider using additional criteria (such as 'property must be undeveloped', specific site dimensions are needed, not just property size in acres, price of the property,etc.) • Since the actual proposed site is not zoned commercial, nor is it proposed, the criterion "Eligible for C-2 or higher zoning" doesn't seem appropriate • Please consider including non-commercial zoning that might allow a church by right, or with a Conditional Use (properties that would not require a GMPA), such as non-residential uses in an Urban Designated area allows for churches. Also, Agricultural/Rural Designation or Mixed-Use Activity Centers allows community facilities such as churches. • Please explain your reasoning for locating with frontage on an arterial or collector roadway — is visibility important for this church? Response: The Data&Analysis(Exhibit N)has been updated to address the above comments. 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 •Naples,FL 34104 P:(239)434.6060 • F:(239)434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 Sarasota,FL 34236 P:(941)309-5180 DE DAVIDSON ENGINEERING There are a few spelling errors in this exhibit and some questionable wording, please correct or reword: • In "Contents"—Add an 'a'—'Data &Analysis and Trade Area Analysis' • In "Purpose and Focus," paragraph 1, line 6—"...provide due process..." consider a different word choice. • In "Purpose and Focus," paragraph 2, line 4—add 'dwelling unit' • In "Purpose and Focus," paragraph 3, lines 1 & 2 — Reword —the proposed location is not currently within the Conditional Uses Subdistrict • In "Alternative Site Analysis." Paragraph 2, Line 3—Change "permittable"to"permitted" Response: Spelling errors have been corrected throughout the Data&Analysis(Exhibit N). If you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 239.434.6060 or via email at fred@davidsonengineering.com. Sincerely, Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner DE Civil Engineering • Planning • Permitting DAVIDSON ENGINEERING www.davidsonengineering.com March 1, 2018 Mr. David Weeks,AICP Planning Manager Collier County Development Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment-PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 Application to the Estates Mixed Use District-Conditional Uses Subdistrict Dear Mr. Weeks, We have provided the following updated documents for review and approval: 1. Response Letter 2. Data &Analysis (Exhibit N) We offer the following responses to the sufficiency letter issued December 4, 2017: • Please consider creating a map to show the three site locations discussed in Exhibit 'N'. Response: Please refer to Attachment "F" within the Data & Analysis for the aforementioned site location map. • Please consider creating a table to quickly compare the criteria of the three sites for inclusion in Exhibit 'N'. Response: A table has been added to the Data&Analysis. Please refer • Please consider elaborating on the sentence in paragraph 4 on page 4 of Exhibit 'N'to clarify for readers the "ongoing Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy". Response: The Data&Analysis has been updated as requested. If you have any questions regarding this application, please do not hesitate to contact me at 239.434.6060 or via email at fred@davidsonengineering.com. Sincerely, Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner 4365 Radio Road • Suite 201 •Naples,FL 34104 • P:(239)434.6060 • F:(239)434-6084 1990 Main Street • Suite 750 • Sarasota,FL 34236 P:(941)309-5180 Jessica Harrelson From: Fred Hood Sent: Tuesday,April 10, 2018 12:32 PM To: ScottTrinity;Jessica Harrelson Cc: KhawajaAnthony; SawyerMichael;AshtonHeidi Subject: RE: Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber Trinity, Understood. I know this is an important issue for the neighbors in the area.We have provided them with this reasoning that Weber has not been looked at in the past for traffic calming.We will speak to this again in our presentation at the CCPC and BCC hearing in the future, but I also wanted to make sure you all were aware that this issue will likely be discussed by the local residents at the time of hearing. If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to set up a quick call (when you have some time)just to go over some specifics that they (the neighbors)asked us about. Thanks, Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner PAYLWRIJ Main: 239.434.6060 freddavidsonengineerinci.com www.davidsonengineerinq.com Naples, FL I Sarasota,FL Disclaimer:This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it,is for the sole use of the intended receipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use,retention,disclosure,dissemination,forwarding,printing or copying of this e-mail or attachments is prohibited. From:ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent:Tuesday,April 10, 2018 10:49 AM To:Jessica Harrelson<Jessica@davidsonengineering.com> Cc: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com>; KhawajaAnthony<Anthony.Khawaja@colliercountyfl.gov>; SawyerMichael<Michael.Sawyer@colliercountyfl.gov>;AshtonHeidi<Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE:Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) Manual that is utilized by County staff includes a list of roadways in Collier County not eligible for traffic calming. Weber Boulevard is included on that list. Therefore, Weber Boulevard is not eligible for traffic calming initiatives. https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/home/showdocument?id=75968 Please see Exhibit A of the attached document. 1 Respectfully, Trinity Scott Transportation Planning Manager Co I ear Coitnty Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees& Program Management Division NOTE: Email Address Has Changed 2685 South Horseshoe Drive, Suite 103 Naples, Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.5832 Trinity.Scott(c,colliercountyfl.gov From:Jessica Harrelson [mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com] Sent: Monday,April 9, 2018 12:32 PM To: KhawajaAnthony<Anthony.Khawaja@colliercountyfl.gov>;ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com> Subject: RE:Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber Thank you,Anthony. Trinity, Please let Fred and I know if you would like to set up a call to discuss. Jessica Harrelson Senior Planning Technician Original Message From: KhawajaAnthony<Anthony.Khawaia@colliercountvfl.gov> Sent:Sunday,April 08, 2018 8:00 AM To:Jessica Harrelson<Jessica@davidsonengineering.com>;ScottTrinity<Trinity.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com> Subject: Re: Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber The Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) program is managed by our planning section I copied Trinity Scott on this email to provide you with a response. Anthony N. Khawaja P.E. Chief Engineer of Traffic Operations Growth Management Division 2 2885 South Horseshoe Drive<x-apple-data-detectors://0/0> Naples, FL 34104<x-apple-data-detectors://0/0> AnthonyKhawaja@CollierGov.Net<mailto:AnthonyKhawaja@CollierGov.Net> Tel: (239) 252-8260<tel:(239)%20252-8260> On Apr 6, 2018,at 3:21 PM,Jessica Harrelson <Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com»wrote: Good afternoon Anthony, Per the email chain below, can you please confirm if there are any traffic calming options for Weber Blvd? Thank you. Jessica Harrelson Senior Planning Technician <image001.jpg> Main: 239.434.6060 jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:jessica@davidsonengineering.com> www.davidsonengineering.com<http://www.davidsonengineering.com/> Naples, FL I Sarasota, FL From:AshtonHeidi [mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net] Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 3:22 PM To: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com» Cc: KlatzkowJeff<JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net<mailto:JeffKlatzkow@colliergov.net»; KhawajaAnthony <AnthonyKhawaja@colliergov.net<mailto:AnthonyKhawaja@colliergov.net»; SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net>> Subject: FW:Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber Fred, See Mike Sawyer's email below. I recommend that you contact Anthony Khawaja in Traffic Operations. He can tell you whether there are any options for traffic calming on Weber. Heidi Ashton-Cicko Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8400 From:SawyerMichael Sent:Tuesday, November 7, 2017 3:13 PM To:AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net» 3 Cc:ScottTrinity<TrinityScott@colliergov.net<mailto:TrinityScott@colliergov.net» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber Heidi, Weber does not qualify for our Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) because it currently has a rural cross section instead of the required urban cross-section. Additionally there are no sidewalks on Weber which to a degree is another consideration in the NTMP program. Also,there are is no budget/funding for traffic calming in Collier County. There are road segments-streets in the estates which have traffic calming devises however my understanding is that these were special BCC directed efforts or improvements associated with other roadway improvements projects such as new bridge construction. In this case it is possible the Planning Commission could recommend a traffic study be performed by our Transportation Operations staff regarding excessive speed and trip counts and evaluate any potential improvements. This study and improvement evaluation could then be considered by the BCC in their review of this petition with fact/study based information. Let me know of follow-up questions and/or concerns. Thanks, Michael Sawyer Transportation Planning, Principal Planner Collier County Capital Projects, Planning, Impact Fees& Program Management 2685 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 (239) 252-2926 From:AshtonHeidi Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 2:37 PM To: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com» Cc: ReischlFred<FredReischl@colliergov.net<mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net»;SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net»; MessamMarlene <MarleneMessam@colliergov.net<mailto:MarleneMessam@colliergov.net»;Jessica Harrelson <Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber Fred, I did not speak to Fred Reischl. Traffic calming on public streets is handled by traffic operations, outside of the PUD. I will see if I can find out who you should contact. Heidi Ashton-Cicko Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 4 (239) 252-8400 From: Fred Hood [mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 7, 2017 2:16 PM To:AshtonHeidi<HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net» Cc: ReischlFred<FredReischl@colliergov.net<mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net»;SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net»; MessamMarlene <MarleneMessam@colliergov.net<mailto:MarleneMessam@colliergov.net»;Jessica Harrelson <Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber Heidi, This was an issue that was brought up at the NIM. As I recall, Fred R. and myself fielded questions about what could be done to calm the traffic along Weber Blvd. Members of the public had stated that they weren't getting anywhere with the County to install traffic calming measures to curb the speeding up and down the road that they were seeing and experiencing. In an email from Fred R.on October 13th, he mentioned that any calming measures on specific streets may be looked and at discussed at the BCC level and that he had spoken with you about researching whether these were items that we could add to the CU application; maybe as zoning conditions of approval to be voted on by the CCPC and the BCC.The thought was to identify some measures that would make the adjacent neighbors feel better about the proposed non- residential use being permitted along the Weber Blvd right-of-way.This would obviously need to be voted on, but I think his intent was to see how you felt about this or any other measure being added to the ordinance or the new proposed subdistrict. Thanks, Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner <image002.j pg> Main:239.434.6060 fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:fred@davidsonengineering.com> www.davidsonengineering.com<http://www.davidsonengineering.com/> Naples, FL I Sarasota, FL Disclaimer:This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended receipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or attachments is prohibited. From:AshtonHeidi [mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, November 03, 2017 11:05 AM To:Jessica Harrelson<Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com»; ReischlFred <FredReischl@colliergov.net<mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net>> Cc: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com»;SawyerMichael <MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net<mailto:MichaelSawyer@colliergov.net»; MessamMarlene <MarleneMessam@colliergov.net<mailto:MarleneMessam@colliergov.net>> 5 Subject: RE: Grace Romanian CU-Traffic calming on Weber Jessica, I have been copied on some emails but I am not working on this issue. Who wants to place traffic calming?What type of traffic calming? Has anyone approached Transportation Operations to discuss this? Heidi Ashton-Cicko Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Suite 301 Naples, FL 34104 (239) 252-8400 From:Jessica Harrelson [mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com] Sent: Friday, November 3, 2017 10:01 AM To: ReischlFred<FredReischl@colliergov.net<mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net»;AshtonHeidi <HeidiAshton@colliergov.net<mailto:HeidiAshton@colliergov.net» Cc: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Fred and Heidi, Have you had the opportunity to research the possibility of adding traffic calming devices, along Weber, in conjunction with the Conditional Use? Thank you. Jessica Harrelson Senior Project Coordinator <image002.jpg> Main: 239.434.6060 jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:jessica@davidsonengineering.com> www.davidsonengineering.com<http://www.davidsonengineering.com/> Naples, FL I Sarasota, FL From: ReischlFred [mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net] Sent:Wednesday,October 18, 2017 8:41 AM To:Jessica Harrelson<Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com»; Fred Hood <Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Not yet... Heidi is out. Fred Reischl,AICP Principal Planner 6 239-252-4211 2800 North Horseshoe Drive — Naples, FL 34104 www.colliergov.net<http://www.colliergov.net> <image004.jpg> From:Jessica Harrelson [mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com] Sent:Wednesday, October 18,2017 7:17 AM To: ReischlFred<FredReischl@colliergov.net<mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net»; Fred Hood <Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Fred, Do you have an update on the research being conducted on the traffic calming? Thank you. Jessica Harrelson Senior Project Coordinator <image002.jpg> Main:239.434.6060 jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:jessica@davidsonengineering.com> www.davidsonengineering.com<http://www.davidsonengineering.com/> Naples, FL I Sarasota, FL From: ReischlFred [mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:10 PM To: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com» Cc:Jessica Harrelson<Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Mike said his preference would be a single access along Weber. He said chicanes or other horizontal traffic calming would be OK, but they must be authorized by the BCC. Heidi is researching to see if this can be done in conjunction with the CU. Fred Reischl,AICP Principal Planner 239-252-4211 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 www.colliergov.net<http://www.colliergov.net> <i m age004.j pg> From: Fred Hood [mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 2:04 PM To: ReischlFred<FredReischl@colliergov.net<mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net» 7 Cc:Jessica Harrelson<Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com>> Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Fred, I spoke with our client earlier. It's their preference that we retain two access points.Their reasoning lies in the concern that we would be creating a bottleneck at the ingress/egress point along Golden Gate Boulevard, and that that may cause even more of a headache for the traffic flow along the Boulevard. It's not a hard no, but it is a concern that they and I share with causing a bigger problem to the Boulevard. Does Mike S. share any of that concern? I'm sure we can come to some agreement that would be a combination of calming and access that would make the neighbors happy. I think we should keep the dialogue open about this issue. Thanks! Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner <image002.jpg> Main: 239.434.6060 fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:fred@davidsonengineering.com> www.davidsonengineering.com<http://www.davidsonengineering.com/> Naples, FL I Sarasota, FL Disclaimer:This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended receipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or attachments is prohibited. From: Fred Hood Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 12:44 PM To: 'ReischlFred' <FredReischl@colliergov.net<mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net» Cc:Jessica Harrelson <Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: RE: Grace Romanian Fred, We'll reach out to the client and get their feelings on this. It may not be an issue for them, but let us confirm. Thanks, Frederick E. Hood,AICP Senior Planner <i mage002.j pg> Main: 239.434.6060 8 fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:fred@davidsonengineering.com> www.davidsonengineering.com<http://www.davidsonengineering.com/> Naples, FL I Sarasota, FL Disclaimer:This e-mail,along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended receipient(s). Any unauthorized review, use, retention, disclosure, dissemination,forwarding, printing or copying of this e-mail or attachments is prohibited. From: ReischlFred [mailto:FredReischl@colliergov.net] Sent:Thursday, October 12, 2017 12:35 PM To: Fred Hood<Fred@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Fred@davidsonengineering.com»;Jessica Harrelson <Jessica@davidsonengineering.com<mailto:Jessica@davidsonengineering.com» Subject: Grace Romanian Hi Fred &Jessica- Is one access point (GG Blvd)acceptable to the church? -Fred Fred Reischl,AICP Principal Planner 239-252-4211 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 www.colliergov.net<http://www.colliergov.net> <image004.j pg> 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. 9 ? apLri B3aiL rw!i NaptesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 1981104 PL20160002584/CPSS-2 4500182060 Pub Dates April 13,2018 • / Ct6L&L ' (Sig ture of affiant) :...;��.....,.., KAROLEKANGAS I Sworn to and subscribed before me , :a� cNal= nerPudic-Ri°`,G1 This April 13,2018 °' NYCOMO:Vire Ai 294021 cud f (Signature of affiant) ISA t FRIDAY,APRIL 13,2018 I NAPLES DAILY NEWS Study spreads alarmNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public heanng will be held by the Collier Casty Pleas* Commidoa(CCPC)at WO A.M.,May 3.2018,,n the Board of County Commissioner, _, at officer suicides Feeling ids Third Floor,Collier Government Center,3280 East Tamiami Trail,Napier FL.,to considers A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION More first responders press but suicides are not,and It's be- FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE NO 200806, As cause of the level of secrecy around AMENDED.THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD.TO ADD TWO DEVIATIONS kill themselves than these deaths,which really shows the RELATING TO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND FENCEAVALL HEIGHT To stigmas."Heyman said. DELETE ONE DEVIATION RELATING TO CCL DE SAC LENGTH. TO die in line of duty She said departments don't release MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO MINIMUM information about suicides,and less PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS TO ADD A NEW Christie'Mayes than 5 percent have suicide-prevention CROSS SECTION EXHIBIT, AND TO REVISE THE MASTER PLAN TO USA TODAY programs.It's something first respond- RECONFIGURE THE SITE LAYOUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS em are ashamed to talk about and ad- LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD.APPROXIMATELY Suicides left more officers and lire- dress,which is having a deadly result, ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD. IN fighters dead last year than all line-of- she said. SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH.RANGE 25 EAST.COLLIER COUNTY duty deaths combined-a jarringutatis- `There is not enough conversation FLORIDA.CONSISTING OF±17.52 ACRES jPL201600034A21. tic that continues to plague first re- about mental health within police and sponders but garners little attention. fire departments'the study says."Si- A new study by the Ruderman Family fence can be deadly,because It is inter- PROJECT Foundation,a nonprofit that works for preted as a lack of acceptance and thus Lee County the rights of people with disabilities, morphs into a barrier that prevents first Cutler County. LOCATION looked at depression, post-traumatic responders from accessing potentially ,p^ stress disorder and other issues affect- life-saving mental health services." or Ing first responders and the rates of sui- The stigma isn't just in silence,the tide in departments nationwide. study outlines.Families want to hide ,-, The group found that white suicide the reasoning behind the death of a has been an issue for years,little has loved one.Officers feel they'll be looked1. \ been done to address it even though first down on or taken off the job if they responders have PTSD and depression speak up about depression.Dying by p C ,2, at a level five times that of civilians. suicide means they aren't buried with Z Last year,103 firefighters and 140 po- honor. lice officers committed suicide,whereas There have been some discussions 93 firefighters and 129 officers died in and pushes for mental health programs 1111h AVFrI In N mokal. RD the line of duty,which includes every- In departments,but the process is slow. 1 I I 1 O thing from being shot,stabbed,drown- The report highlights programs to Ing or dying In a car accident while on push the issue,such as peer-to-peer as- the job. sistance.mental health check-ups,time All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed Miriam Heyman,one of the co-au- off after responding to a critical incident RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's office. thorn of the study,said the numbers of and family training programs to identify fourth floor.Collier County Government Center,3299 Eur Tennant Train state 401, suicide are under-reported,while other the wanting signs of depression and Naples.FL,one work poor to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be Bled with more high-profile deaths make head- PTSD. the Zoning Division,Zoning Service Section.poor to May 3,2016. lines.There were 46 officers who died A project published this year by the If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the CoWm Comfy PlanalegCommleskie after being shot on the job in 2017,nearly International Association of Chiefs of with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of 67 percent fewer than the number of su- Police detailed the issues around sui- that proceeding.and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim sword of the icides. tide and highlighted many of the same proceedings a made,which record includes the testimony and cadence upon which the The number of firefighter suicides programs.It noted that first responder appeal is to he based• . may only represent about 40 percent of suicide Is nearly Impossible to track be- if you area person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate the deaths, she said, meaning the cause it's often not reported. in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance deaths cosldtotal more than 250-more "It is a departmental issue that Please contact the CoWcr County Faciiioea Management Dinsion.located at 3135Tamiami than double the amount of all line-of- should be addressed globally,"the re- Trail East.Suite On.Naples,FL 34112-3350.1239)2524380,at last two days prior to the duty deaths. port notes.-Departments must break meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of it's really shocking, and part of the silence on law enforcement suicides County Commissioners Office what's interesting is that Zine-of-duty by building up effective and continuing deaths are covered so widely by the suicide-prevention programs" collier county Planning commission Mark Strain,Chairman i....„ April 13,2019 ND•1982842 NOTICE OF INTENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT Nolte i hey given that the CM.County ala ed Commission wg hold a public,,wenn on May 03,2018 commenced at BOO AM,n me Board of County Commissioners Chia/liter Third CODECHANGE Fes.County Government center 3299 Taman,Trail Eat.Naples.FL None ns herder sows that on.5.ri138,2018.in the Board et County Commnnomn?Avenue Room.Int floor. TM purpose of the Faring n 10 consider Building'I""Collier Cowry GoviAnnient Center.3209 l.mam'1'm,l East Napl s.Ronda Sat 12.Mr Cart. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER Corner Mee*Ceaudr.lm will retarder an amendment to the Collier County Land Development Code The COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO,88-05.AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER meeting willavmmevae at S:OSpn The tale.r the pmpo,d ordinance is as follows- COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF ANORDINANCEORTHEBOARDOF(DC^T5'MMMFS510\Ta50FCOLUERCO1:hT', COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA FITRIM,AMENDING ORDINANCE.NI MRER M-41.AS AMENDED,THE COLLIERMASTER PIAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY REVISING COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INClADEN THE COMPREHENSIVE THE CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER(SPUNKY, CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE FLORIDA,TO ALLOW MEDICAL MARID ANA DISPENSARIES IN THE SAME ZONING SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COWER BOULEVARD IN DISTRICTS AS PHARMACIES minim;CERTAIN PLANNED 5201 URYRWPMENT SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 28 EAST,CONSISTING OF 875 ACRES;AND DISTRICTS,THE COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE DISTRICT(GS),COMMERCIAL FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT IC-1),GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT(C.I),HEAVY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY:PROVIDING FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IC-Q.BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT(BIT,RESEARCII.AND SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE,(PL201800025841 TECHNOLOGY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT m.4TRICT', SANTA BARBARA COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT(WO),AND GOLDEN GATE DOWNTOWN a CENTER CONLMFRCIAI.OVERLAY instRICT(G(:ilt'(0),AND TO CODIFY STATUARY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COWER COUNTY.FLORIDA, REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY MEASURES AND DESIGN AND SIGNAGE ID PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USETO ALLOW A CHURCH PROVIDING FOIL SECTION ONE,RECITALS:SECTION TWO,FINDINGS OF FACT; WITHIN AN ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 203.01.B,Lc1 OF SECTION THREE.ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO Tt1E LAND DEVELOPMENT THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON (OLE MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING'IHF.FOLt.UWINU:CRANIA ONE- THESOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARDANOCOLLIER BOULEVARD GENERAL PROVISIONS,INCLUDING SECTION 1.08.02 OF.FpATTIO!WS;CHAPTERTWO_ IN SECTIONI1,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 28 EAST,COWER COUNTY,FLORIDA ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES.INCLUDING SECTION 2.03,03 COMMERCIAL ZONING iPL201800025771 DISTRICTS,SECTION 203.04 INDUSTRIAL.ZONING DISTRICTS,SECTION 2A3.14 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS SECTION 253.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,CHAPTER FIVE-SUPPLEMENTAL iTANDAaE.S,ADDING.NEW SECTION ll 5.03.36 MEDICAL ALOUD ANA DIRPFNSARIFF:CHAPTER TEN-APPLICATION. REVIEW,AND DENTSION-UTAEING PROCEDURES.1RES.INDLIDING SECTION 18.03.06 PUBLIC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGS FOR LAND LSE PETITIONS SECTION' xarroa neer FOUR,CONFLICT AND SIN ERABILITY.SECTION FIVE INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER Wk.cap OW In COL'NIV LAND DEVELOPMEYI WIFE:AND SI,AlluN SIX,EFFECTIVE DATE, g teen.et a.edmeu.in slued mess I P� l 4 a MAK.w vai ll � ) Al mtamsrrd pall.ere invited 1111 to appear and be heard.Copier(dale proposed ORDINANCE and 1 ai11- RESOLUTION wet be made available for inspects at the 005)Zoning Division.Cortpnhenarve 11I Planning Section,2000 N.Horseshoe Cc.Naplesbetween the tours of 8'OC AM.and 5:00 RM.. N 4� through ough Friday,Furthermore,the ,lab 'ii be made available for inspection at the 1Coll.County Clerk's Office.Fourth Hoot Collie,Co y Government Cart 3299 T iami Trail East,Suite 401 Naples,one week pr to the hes led hear ng.A Y tions pertamep to the 714141141, I documents should be directed to the GSA)Zoning Division.Comprehensive Planning Section. '''''Th.NVIMIIIIIIMIN Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office odor to May 03,2010 will be mad and Considered a the public hearing. AU inrenaM pemm are nee.re anions and ha hard Creno,of the ptnpo.,a ame.,hne0rs arc e.sdaMe 5o, It a person decides to appeal any decision Made by Me 2,oRer County nla-. p na Comm,.son ite N Horseshoe inspection aand land between w R Let Growth M,agent Dehrough i MO emc respect arty mann rposeconsideredm at such SOWS1 or hearing.verb he rtc rded a prop of that F.thermOn Naples.a made available he h It o' er'00 PM..Monday through Friday S wade.nh,and do such purpose t may ney aid eviden e u a verba oro o'li0,0 as basgs ed Furthermore. tau ill ee made a Cemee 1 1. rhoCollie C ilk k'Mar.Lura F1.•or. i made,which record inehsdea the testimony and evidence upon which me appeal.to❑e based. Soil,401.Collin County(:uvemmnLL Curter.la..Nally.one week pour in the scheduled to si If you arta disability any accommodation rn order to It you arca h a J,aalslity vets,motets nartwrpie m thi, 1 person with a tl who need! a Pi..a C a t Pals t am J ,n„Neth pue..N'g.", Collier you are roiled,at no cost to you,to the provision of 335 a 1 e.P me en❑tled t y the Pow...f q .Hca k Cam C maY had.. the Coles Cou^ Facilities M Na1a contact 101. Mananrmm Di 3335"'amnion Trail Le 8 I I apt FL 4112 5..6.t2 YI 25241.0 St lean y2528380,blast t ocays Prim in the 'em.rail East.Amsted Selite rsee w.diets pe.r o Ito mining 9,00,4 hacnm.de,ros toe tis,tw rind impar d an.alta,,n tM Burd er hlepls,b,FL v.34hoaring i(lair d ass 000,a+seat two day!f C r uo yCom los.rero011ANNEX? County Commusmmr3 Nike. devices rot tYe hearing impaired are available n me Board of County Cpmm,ssoners Office. Other County Manning Commun. Mak P.Strep,Cneyrtan Mark Stay.Cluuman Cour Cony Planning CosrsnlrsOn Apel 13.:018 ND-1902.24 Apt 19,2018 ND-1881104 fi.._.... ?'ap1ci B3aiLurWS NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 1981104 PL20160002584/CPSS-2 4500182060 r Pub Dates April 13,2018 /tL C4 /0-41a"1 (Sig ture of affiant) I . ;:: .... KANOIEKANGAS I orida Sworn to and subscribed before me g�r`� iia o This April 13,2018 4 `' '� •` M Alms Tamzi 0 4 '•.i..,'" landedttoorplaftedlistirykia I areiTirowmpftpmpwmpqmpospoom ........ \- c„,,,,i it q CVArri3 (Signature of affiant) ISA I FRIDAY,APRIL 13,2018 I NAPLES DAILY NEWS Study spreads alarmNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier Comity Planakg Cowwiaioe(CCPC)r 900 A.M..Mew 3.2015.In the Board of County CommiMroncr �\ at officer suicides Meeting Room,Third Floor.Collier Government Center,3299 Fast Tamiami Trad,Naples FL..to consider: A RESOLUTION OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION More first responders press but suicides are not,and it's be- FOR AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO ORDINANCE NO 2008-06, AS cause of the level of secrecy around AMENDED-THE PEZZETTINO DI CIELO RPUD.TO ADD TWO DEVIATIONS kill themselves than these deaths,which really shows the RELATING TO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND FENCEJWALL HEIGHT. TO die in line of du stigmas,'Heyman said. DELETE ONE DEVIATION RELATING TO CUL DE SAC LENGTH. To `' She said departments don't release MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATING TO MINIMUM information about suicides,and less PRINCIPAL AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACKS TO ADD A NEW Chri$M Hay.e than 5 percent have suicide-prevention CROSS SECTION EXHIBIT, AND TO REVISE THE MASTER PLAN TO 050/0000 programs.It's something first respond- RECONFIGURE THE SITE LAYOUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ars are ashamed to talk about and ad- LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LIVINGSTON ROAD APPROXIMATELY Suicides left more officers and lire- dress,which is having a deadly result, ONE-HALE MILE NORTH OF VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD IN fighters dead last year than all line-of- she said. SECTION 12,TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH.RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY duty deaths combined-a.jarringstatls- "There is not enough conversation FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF±1752 ACRES 1PL201600034821 tic that continues to plague first re- about mental health within police and spenders but garners little attention. fire departments;the study says.'Si- / Anew study by the Ructerman Family lance can be deadly,because It is inter- PROJECT Foundation,a nonprofit that works for preted as a lack of acceptance and thus the rights of people with disabilities, morphs Into a barrier that prevents first .lee Cnunly LOCATION looked at depression, CoMrer cOunry p post-traumatic responders from accessing potentially a 1 stress disorder and other Issues affect- life-savIng mental health services." da a. Ing firat responders and the rates of aul- The stigma Isn't just in silence,the cede In departments nationwide. study outlines.Families want to hide 4 The group found that while suicide the reasoning behind the death of a has been an issue for years,little has loved one.Officers feel they'll be looked been done to address R even though first down on or taken off the job if they responders have PTSD and depression speak up about depression.Dying by A 17. i ata level five times that of civilians. suicide means they aren't buried with Z Last year,1113 firefighters and 140 po- honor. lice officers committed suicide,whereas There have been some discussions g 93 firefighters and 129 officers died 1n and pushes for mental health programs 111th AVP N Emmokalee r the line of duty,which Includes every- In departments,but the process Is slow. If thing from being shot,stabbed,drown- The report highlights programs to .4. Ing or dying In a car accident while on push the issue,such as peer-to-peer as- the Job. slatance,mental health check-ups,time All mlmested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection 01 the Collier County Clerk's office. Miriam Heyman,one of the co-au- off after responding to a CritIcal incident [hors of the study,said the numbers of and family training programs to identity fourth floor.Collier Coonry Government Center.3299 East Tennant]Trail,suite 401, suicide are under-reported,while other the warning signs of depression and Naples,FL,oar week Poor to the scheduled hearing.Wnrron comments mast hr filed with more high-profile deaths make head- PTSD. the Zoning Division,Zoning Services Section,prior to May 3,2019. lines,There were 46 officers who died A project published this year by the If a person decides to appeal any dersion made by the Collier Calmly Planning Ceawisiea after being shot on the job in 2017,nearly International Association of Chiefs of with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing,he will need a record of 67 percent fewer than the number ofsu- Police detailed the Issues around sal- that proceeding.and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the icicles. Bide and highlighted many of the same proceedings Is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the The number of firefighter suicides programs.It noted that first responder appeal is to be based. may only represent about 40 percent of suicide Is nearly impossible to track be- If you area person with a aaabduy who needs any accommodation in order to participate the deaths, she said, meaning the cause it's often not reported. in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. deaths could total more than 250-more "It is a departmental issue that Pleasenmtect the Collier County Facilities Management Division.located at 3335 Tamiotnl than double the amount of all line-of- should be addressed globally,'the re- Trail East.Suite 1111.Naples.FL 34112-5350,123'n 2524380.at least two days poor to the duty deaths. port notes.'Departments must break meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of "It's really shocking, and part of the silence on law enforcement suicides Couaty.Commissioners Office what's Interesting is that line-of-duty by building up effective and continuing deaths are covered so widely by the suicide-prevention programs" Colder County Planning L alcoa ion Mark Strain,Chairman „oetees, April 13,2018 ND-19828422 NOTICE OF INTENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NOTICE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT Notice m nereby given that the Cofer County Planning Commission MI hod a public meeting on May 03,2018 mammon('at 9'00 A.M.n the Board of County Commissioners Chamber.Third CODECHANGE Floor.County Government Center,3299 Tarnerni hail East.Naples,FL. Nrnue it hereby sow that,tel April 30,3015.m the Board cit County Cumrmegnnoom rs Merm,g R .ani Fluor The PApele of the hearing is to considY: Balding-r"Culls County Cern mmmt Came,32299 lamem,Intl East iNaplus.[lends 34112.the Caller AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COWER Caere Psed.0 CraWrs well consider an amendment to Ibr Coater County land Development Cole the COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-06,AS AMENDED,THE COWER meeting will moments at liSFr,The rick of the promised ordwm<is Ie fn0owr. COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF ANORDINANCEOFTHEBfaARDOFCOUNIT'CONMISSIONERSOFCOLLIERCOLTTY. COLLIER COVNTY,FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA FI.OR/IM.AMENDING ORDINANCE NI MAIM 0441.AS AMENDED,THE COLUERMASTER PIAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY REVISING COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE THE CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY. CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE FLORIDA,TO ALLOW MEDICAL MARIJUANA DLNPENSARtES IN THE SAME ZONLN: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD IN DISTRICTS AS PHARMACIES minus,:CERtAtN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE26 EAST,CONSISTING OF 6.26 ACRES;AND DISTRICTS,THE COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE DI0TRRT IC-1),COMMERCIAL FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT LNTERMEDIATE DISTRICT(C-p,GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ICA),HEAVY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROVIDING FOR COMMFJICI.AL DISTRICT IGN,BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT(BP).RFS.EARC11 AND SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE IPL2O1600025841 TECIINOLAIGY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. SANTA BARBARA COMMERCIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT(SDO),AND GOLDEN GAIT DOWNTOWN d CENTER COALMEN1AI.OVERI.AY DISTRICT(ric:DCCte),ANn TO CODIFY STATUTORY A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLUER COUNTY.FLORIDA, REQUIREMENTS FOR SECURITY MEASURES AND DESIGN AND SIGNM:E,BY PROVIOING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USETO ALLOW ACHURCH PROVIDING FOR SECTION ONE.RECITALS;SECTION TWD.FINDLNGS OF FACT: WITHIN AN ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.0301.13.1,e.1 OF SECTION THREE.ADOPTION OF AMEND.MENIS 10 THE LAND DEVELOPMENT THE COLUER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON CODE,MORE.SPECIFICALLY AMENDING 111E FOLLOWING CHAPTER ONE.- THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD GENERAL PROVISIONS,INCLUDING SECTION I.NLa2 DEFINTTIM4G CHAPTER IWO- IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COWER COUNTY.FLORIDA ZONING DISTRICTS AND USES.INCLUDING.SECTION 2.03.93 COMMERCIAL ZONING (P12018000uT� DISTRICTS,SECTION 3.03,04 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS,SECTION 2D3.116 PLANNED USTI DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS SECTION I.03.81 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,CHAPTER FIVE-SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS,ADDING NEW SECTION RDZIE MEDICAL.MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES;CHAPTER TEN-APON rO,mN, REVIEW,AND DECISION'-MAKING PROCEDURES,INCLE DING SECTION 10.03.06 PA9J[R PUBLIC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGS FOR LAND USE PETITIONS;SECTION Veeat3oN FOUR,CONFUCT AND SEVERABILITY:SECTION FIVE,INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER oaten op W Mee COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SECTION SIX.EFFECTIVE DATE. 4 Leader w.wedmua wdew larc: Eg et = weeva MN "1. PewFCa. la lines=11 AI interestedappearand be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE and .i JJJ :ql- - parties are invited to RESOLUTION BION coil be made available 1 .s3olei between a:the GMO Zorurg Division,. 5 hen 00.. MPlYvwg thoughn.r,du. rthermore A..Napes.ktori Me m 00 it b'leC A.M.andec ion t the Monday Brough Friday.ue.Fourth F the mater:C will be nark available for 209 10tion at the Soler County CMk's Off..Fowm Floor.Goner County Govan-mem Center,3299 Tamiami Trait East,State 401 Naples,ore week m the s:'eduled heating.A y ouestrons pertaining to the 4IW Prior f documents shrukt be directed to the GMD Lonny Dioann,Comprenensere Planning Sector. • _ Written comments flied wait the Clerk to the Board's Office Prior to May D3.2018 win be mad and considered at the Public Warm. All mrerested Notes are mencu h.,mre,rr:end"0,std Cups.cit the prnpn t am,ndmams arc rrd.Slc Ox If a person dnoWes to appeal any decision made by W.rose'Lounty 4Verner9 Commoa,ae I...inspection In the Zoning and Card Development Room Sedum Growth Management Department.?q00 Weth respect to any matter considered at such meows;or hewn g,rte wie need a record of that N.Horseshoe Dirft.Naples Honda,between tth hours of 8:03 AN.and 0,00 PM..Monday through Fridayproceedeg,and for such ournose he may need to ensure that a ve'balm record o'the poceednga Furthermore ate will he mettle seaiMNe htt arlytealettrthe Other fatuity Clerk)0113.c.W.urth Floor. IS made,wfmti'word includes the testimery end eedeene upon which rte appeal s ter be based. Suite 401.Collier Chew C,ov mmrnt C ether.Core Naples urr w t truer to rhe atodukd hnhng 11 5vn arcamenw,pen...a.hrahlily Wal r,eealsam d tion J. If you Yea person it diaabillfy who needs any mOdatbn in order to parlitipate ire ms pannipaCe m the,pn y Feoi ta a pmceednp.you ate ±Ned at no coat to you,to the:treason lien of sena.assistance Please contact tanned q 1 you.to the provision Ll 1 q Fie 1 et he Collies County Fiefdoms to Collar County 5356,ies Management Division located at 3335 Tenths,Treed East.Sone 101, Management D .335 Tamara,Toil Le S I I Naples_FL 34112-535S 2. 212400.atleast Naples,FL 34112-5356.12391252-8380,al Isar'two days oror to the meet Asssled est tcon data Pn v rn She...rte.A...4 l'..ng f.l..x to.tit..hearing impar d"....is'w r'''Board e,' devices Sres erwQ County Commissioner-,Orli e. itaYk191rVaVatl am ave0ebk n the Board of Cou"y^.ommessrorwrs Office. COW Cathay Nanning Cmomlla,ov Mirk P.Strap,Cliental Mark Surto.Charman Cellan Corny Planning GPfrrr e,.nn Apel 13.:018 00-1982324 A7813,2018 ND-1981104 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on May 03.2018 commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY REVISING THE CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,CONSISTING OF 6.25 ACRES;AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160002584] A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OFA CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A CHURCH WITHIN AN ESTATES ZONING DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [P1201600025771 PROJECT LOCATION 1 Golden Gate BLVD W O m t stAVE SW U 0 a)p All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE and RESOLUTION will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office;Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 401 Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to May 03,2018 will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record of that proceeding,and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101, Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission April 13,2018 ND-1981104 18A it FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 2018 Ii NAPLES DAILY NEWS The Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association, Inc. , P.O.Box 990596,Naples,FL 34116-6002w. www.estates-civic.org 05 June 2017 Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Rd, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 RE: GGEACA Declines Request for Community Meeting regarding proposed Project: PL20160002584, Grace Community Church at 3899 1st Ave. SW; PID 36760720005 & PID 36760800006; and companion PL20160002577. Dear Sir/Madam Golden Gate Estates Area Civic Association (GGEACA) has received your request to hold a community meeting with regarding the proposed project of Grace Romanian Church. GGEACA understands this project to be applying for a Zoning Change, Growth Management Plan Amendment and a Golden Gate Master Plan Amendment. We appreciate being included in the proposed changes that may affect the Estates community. We have taken the information you have provided and evaluated it with our group. Concerns for traffic and the need for comprehensive planning in the community are the purpose for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy. Amending the Growth Management Plan through amendments like this is counter to the comprehensive planning being undertaken. As well, there are serious concerns with this project's traffic circulation, traffic impacts to the area, and the impacts to the gateway to Golden gate Estates At this time we have come to the conclusion that it is inappropriate to meet with your group concerning this project. The reason we have come to this conclusion is that the Golden Gate Master Plan is currently undergoing a comprehensive update and we feel it is inappropriate for this project to be considered during the update process. Furthermore, it is GGEACA's position that no applications of this type shoul be considered until after completion of the Golden Gate Master Plan Update. Sincerely, Michael R. Ramsey PresidentGolden Gate Estates Area Civic Association http://www.estates-civic.org Michael.R.Ramsey@embarqmail.com c: Board of County Commissioners, Collier Co.