The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 05/08/2018 Item #9A05/08/2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve petition PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3, a Growth Management Plan Small Scale Amendment specific to the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. (Adoption Hearing) (This is a Companion to Agenda Items 9.B and 9.C) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to approve (adopt) the proposed small- scale Growth Management Plan amendment and approve the amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject petition is submitted as a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. As such, per Florida Statutes, the request is heard once only by the Collier County Planning Commission and the BCC. If approved by the BCC, the petition is transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The process for adoption of a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) the following statutory standards be met [followed by staff analysis in bracketed text]. (1) A small-scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a 5.35-acre property.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small-scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [To date, no small scale GMP amendment has been adopted in calendar year 2018.] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly-related text changes.] (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3) and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [Internal consistency will be maintained between and among elements if the amendment is approved.] The GMP amendment requested is for approximately 5.35 acres located on the south side of Davis Boulevard (SR 84), the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), approximately 500 feet east from the intersection of those two roads, and 300 feet west of Commercial Drive, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. (East Naples Planning Community). 9.A Packet Pg. 28 05/08/2018 This petition seeks to amend the GMP, adopted by Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Series by: Adding text to establish the new Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict, within the Urban Mixed-Use District, to allow 377 multi-family residential dwelling units; 228 hotel suites/rooms; a maximum of 200,000 square feet of various commercial uses (retail, eating and drinking establishments, movie theatre (multiplex), bowling center, physical fitness facilities, yoga studio, bicycle rental, museums and art galleries), personal services, general and medical offices, indoor airconditioned passenger vehicle and/or self-storage (not to exceed 60,000 square feet), new or used car dealership (not to exceed 30,000 square feet), and any other comparable use; and, Assisted Living Facility (150 units maximum and 0.45 FAR). Also, the subdistrict requires the implementing planned unit development zoning district to include: minimum residential and commercial development thresholds, and timing thresholds, to insure mixed use development; requires a cap on the total number of vehicle trips; and, provides that the height may exceed that specified in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area zoning overlay. And, creating a new Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict map for inclusion in the FLUM series. The proposed amended Subdistrict text, as recommended by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), is depicted in Ordinance Exhibit “A.” Based on the review of this small-scale GMP amendment petition, including the supporting data and analysis, staff makes the following findings 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-related concerns; the companion PUD rezone caps the traffic impact to that allowed under the existing commercial zoning on the site. The subject site lies within the Coastal High Hazard Area as identified on the FLUM and mitigation has been provided for (in the companion PUD rezone) pursuant to Policy 12.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Several citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting voiced concern/questions about the proposed 168-foot building height. Staff notes there has been a 196-foot telecommunications tower on the site for years and a “no-hazard” letter from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is part of the petition packet. There is no maximum height specified in this petition; that detail is included in the companion PUD rezone petition. The uses are generally compatible with surrounding development. The Mini Triangle site, located at a major intersection and proximate to residential development and commercial development, has been identified and approved by the CRA as a catalyst project area which includes mixed use and high density. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the FLUE identifies a “mini triangle” area - formed by US 41, SR 84 and Commercial Drive - in which high density, mixed use development is encouraged as a catalyst project(s) to facilitate further redevelopment; the subject site is located within this “mini triangle.” The CRA Advisory Board recommended approval of this project. The CRA Board, by virtue of its contract with the petitioner, has conceptually approved of the general scope of this project. Staff accepts the petitioner’s assertion that the greater densities and intensities requested are necessary for the project to be viable. 9.A Packet Pg. 29 05/08/2018 The data and analysis provided for the amendment generally supports the proposed changes to the FLUE. The complete staff analysis of this petition is provided in the CCPC Staff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to process, review and advertise this petition was borne by the petitioner via application and advertisement fees. Therefore, there are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of the adoption of this amendment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed amendment by the Board for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) will commence the thirty-day (30) challenge period for any affected person. Provided the small-scale development amendment is not challenged, it shall become effective thirty-one (31) days after receipt by DEO. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Sta tutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Section 163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition, Section 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. And FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analysis per Section 163.3177(6)(a)8.: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires a super-majority vote for approval because this is an adoption hearing. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the CCPC forward petition PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. 9.A Packet Pg. 30 05/08/2018 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their meetings on February 15, March 1, and April 5, 2018, and voted 3-2 (Commissioners Fryer and Ebert voted in the minority) to forward the petition to the Board with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to text changes, all of which are reflected in Ordinance Exhibit A. Dissenter concerns included density, building height and traffic impacts. There were five public speakers, four of which expressed concerns; these included: building height; storm water quality and its impact on Naples Bay; traffic impacts; need for pedestrian improvements on adjacent roads to facilitate more pedestrian usage; impact upon beaches and parks in the City of Naples. RECOMMENDATION: To adopt and transmit petition PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity per the CCPC recommendation. Prepared by: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division ATTACHMENT(S) 1. Ordinance - 041018(2) (PDF) 2. [Linked] Petition_Applica_Mini Triangle SSGMPA_PL-20160003084_CPSS_16_3 (PDF) 3. CCPC Staff Rpt ADDENDUM CPSS-16-3 Mini Tri_ (PDF) 4. CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (PDF) 5. Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (PDF) 6. Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (PDF) 7. HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (PDF) 8. [Linked] No Hazard Letters from the FAA (PDF) 9. Legal Ad - Agenda ID 4684 (PDF) 10. BCC Ad Affidavit (PDF) 9.A Packet Pg. 31 05/08/2018 COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.A Doc ID: 4684 Item Summary: Recommendation to approve petition PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3, a Growth Management Plan Small Scale Amendment specific to the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subd istrict. (Adoption Hearing) (This is a Companion to Agenda Items 9.B and 9.C) Meeting Date: 05/08/2018 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 02/20/2018 9:16 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 02/20/2018 9:16 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Michael Bosi Additional Reviewer Completed 02/22/2018 3:00 PM Growth Management Department Judy Puig Level 1 Reviewer Completed 02/26/2018 11:40 AM Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 02/28/2018 11:38 AM County Attorney's Office Heidi Ashton-Cicko Level 2 Attorney of Record Review Completed 04/10/2018 9:33 AM Growth Management Department James French Deputy Department Head Review Completed 04/10/2018 11:23 AM Growth Management Department Thaddeus Cohen Department Head Review Completed 04/10/2018 1:48 PM County Attorney's Office Jeffrey A. Klatzkow Level 3 County Attorney's Office Review Completed 04/11/2018 1:21 PM Office of Management and Budget Valerie Fleming Level 3 OMB Gatekeeper Review Completed 04/19/2018 2:35 PM Budget and Management Office Mark Isackson Additional Reviewer Completed 04/20/2018 10:08 AM County Manager's Office Nick Casalanguida Level 4 County Manager Review Completed 04/29/2018 8:47 PM Board of County Commissioners MaryJo Brock Meeting Pending 05/08/2018 9:00 AM 9.A Packet Pg. 32 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: Ordinance - 041018(2) (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: April 5, 2018 (cont’d from 2/15/18 and 3/1/18) RE: PETITION PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-03, SMALL-SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20160003054) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) This ADDENDUM (to the Staff Report prepared for the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting) pertains to the petitioner’s submittal of March 16, 2018, which attempts to reflect the CCPC discussion and suggested changes from the February 15 and March 1, 2018, CCPC meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following changes to the Subdistrict text: 1. All revisions per Managing Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko’s 3/21/18 edits. 2. Paragraph c.: Add uses “yoga instruction, and bicycle rental” and “museums and art galleries” since they are listed in the MPUD - UNLESS these uses are deleted from the MPUD. 3. Paragraph c.2.: Delete “Restaurants” and replace with “Eating and drinking establishments” so as to reflect both uses (though a restaurant may serve drinks it is not a drinking establishment) and to be in concert with the PUD (this correlates to a recommended text change to the MPUD). 4. Paragraph d.: Change to a number and move under paragraph 2. so as to be subject to the 200,000 s.f. cap – to correlate with the MPUD which places this use (ALF) within that 200,000 s.f. cap. 5. Paragraph f.: Add back use minimum intensity requirements to insure a mixed-use development and remove text deferring to the PUD. Modify to read: “In order to ensure a mixed-use development, the subdistrict shall be developed with a minimum of 105 dwelling units and 37,000 s.f. of floor area of uses listed in at least two of the above paragraphs c.1. through c.4.” /s/ David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager CCPC Staff Rpt ADDENDUM CPSS-16-3 Mini Tri. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2016 Cycles & Small Scale Petitions\2016 Small Scale petitions\CPSS-16-3 Mini Triangle MU Subdist\CCPC dw/3-22-18 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: CCPC Staff Rpt ADDENDUM CPSS-16-3 Mini Tri_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 16 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: February 15, 2018 RE: PETITION PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-03, SMALL-SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20160003054) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Applicant: Jerry Starkey, Manager Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther Avenue Naples, FL 34109 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, F.A.I.C.P. Holes Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Agents: Richard C. Grant, Esquire Grant Fridkin Pearson, P.A. 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501 Naples, FL 34108 Owner: Collier County CRA 3301 Tamiami Trail East Naples, FL 34112 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, a ±5.35-acre site made up of six parcels, is located on the south side of Davis Blvd. (SR 84), the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), approximately 500 feet east from the intersection of those two roads, and 300 feet west of Commercial Drive, in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. (East Naples Planning Community). 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 16 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new Subdistrict, the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict; amend the text; and create a new map for this Subdistrict, “Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict” in the Future Land Use Map series, which will identify the newly created Subdistrict, affecting fewer than ten (10) acres, by: 1) Amending Policy 1.5 Urban – Mixed Use District to add the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict; 2) Amending Urban Designation provisions to add the new Subdistrict name where various Subdistricts that allow residential and non-residential uses are listed; 3) Amending the Urban – Mixed Use District to add the new Subdistrict provisions; 4) Amending the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay text to allow higher densities, intensities, and uses within the new Subdistrict area. 5) Adding the title of the new Subdistrict map to the itemized Future Land Use Map Series listing; and 6) Amending the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict, adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Ordinance Exhibit “A”. SUBJECT SITE 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 16 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petition is to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan to establish a new Subdistrict to allow 210 multi-family dwelling units, 152 hotel suites/rooms, in addition to a maximum of 74,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, movie theatre (multiplex), bowling center and physical fitness facilities and personal services, and 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses. Through a conversion formula, other uses allowed are Assisted Living Facility (150 units maximum), 60,000 square feet of indoor self -storage, and 30,000 square feet of new car dealership. Also, through conversion, a maximum of 400 DUs is allowed or 200,000 square feet of commercial uses. And a minimum of 50 dwelling units (DUs) and 30,000 square feet combined of retail, restaurant, office, or other allowable commercial uses are required. A companion petition [PL20160003054] will rezone this property from C-4-GTMUD-MXD to Mini Triangle MPUD-GTMUD-MXD. The zoning action will implement the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. STAFF ANALYSIS: SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The Future Land Use designation of the subject site is Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) Overlay; Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and within the “mini triangle” of that Overlay as shown on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) (the mini triangle encompasses lands bounded by Davis Blvd., Tamiami Trail East, and Commercial Drive). The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the FLUE allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses, but it is limited to C-1 through C-3, plus hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies – which include allowing development per the existing zoning. The +5.35 acre subject site is zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD (General Commercial, Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District – Mixed Use Subdistrict) allowing uses from the Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1), Commercial Convenience District (C-2), Commercial Intermediate District (C-3), and General Commercial District (C-4) zoning districts, OR the site could be developed as mixed use as provided for in GTMUD-MXD Zoning Overlay (residential uses and select commercial uses from the C-1 through C-3 Districts). The project site’s current C-4 zoning allows only for commercial uses, no residential. Surrounding Lands: North: The FLUM designates land located north of the subject property, across Davis Blvd. (SR 84), Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. This area is zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD and is developed with retail, restaurant, and hotel uses. Further to the north, lands are designated Urban Residential Subdistrict and zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family 4 dwelling units per acre. This northern area is developed with a small marina and single-family homes. Lands lying across Davis Blvd. (SR84) 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 16 to the northwest of the project site are within the City of Naples and developed with a restaurant and a hotel. South: Immediately adjacent to the south and southwest (across Tamiami Trail East (US 41), lands are within the City of Naples and developed with Naples Bay Club, a private club. To the southeast across Tamiami Trail East (US 41) lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD. To the southeast along US 41 (across from the project site), lands are mostly undeveloped. Lands further to the south are designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and zoned RSF-3, Residential Single Family 3 dwelling units per acre. This land is developed with single family homes. West: Immediately adjacent to the west, lands are mostly undeveloped and designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD. The applicant and agent currently hold a pre-approval letter for a site development plan for a hotel development. The zoned height is 112 feet (the maximum zoned height allowed in the GTMUD-MXD for the mini triangle area) with an actual height of 131 feet 6 inches. Further to the west is Tamiami Trail (US 41), and the Gordon River Bridge with commercial development along the corridor, all within the City of Naples. East: Immediately adjacent to the east, lands are designated Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, zoned C-4-GTMUD-MXD and C-5-GTMUD-MXD (Heavy Commercial), and developed with Budget Car and Truck Rentals and several unoccupied commercial businesses until east of Commercial Drive. East of Commercial Drive is a mix of retail uses. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and current zoning in the area immediately surrounding the subject property are a mix of Commercial developments with intensities as great as C-4 and C-5, as well as low density residential uses. Background and Considerations: The subject site is located within that portion of the B/GTRO designated as the “mini triangle” catalyst project site. The intent is for this mini triangle to be redeveloped – it is at the gateway (entrance) into the B/GTRO when leaving the City of Naples on Tamiami Trail East – with hopes that it will be the catalyst for further redevelopment in the Overlay. The FLUE encourages mixed use developments. FLUE Policy 7.5 states, “The County shall encourage mixed use development within the same buildings by allowing residential dwelling units over and/or abutting commercial development. This Policy shall be implemented through provisions in specific Subdistricts in this Growth Management Plan.” The FLUE goes on to say, “The Urban Mixed Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non - residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments.” Although this Subdistrict is not located within a Mixed Use Activity Center, it proposes many of the same characteristics (will allow both residential and commercial retail/office uses; is located on, and near an intersection of, two arterial roadways; and provides an interconnection with one abutting project (future hotel project to the west of the project site at the tip of the “mini triangle”). Also, this Subdistrict is located proximate to major employment centers and goods and services located along the Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail (US 41) corridors. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 16 This petition proposes the creation of the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. The project site lies within the “mini triangle” area of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states that the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The total area comprises approximately 1,800 acres currently developed with a wide range of residential and commercial uses. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. The Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the Bayshore/Gateway area was created by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners (March 2000) to address deteriorating physical and economic conditions that were prevailing within Bayshore/Gateway Triangle area at that time. The objective of the CRA is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. The applicant as contract purchaser, proposes to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow residential development in the Subdistrict in addition to the previously allowed C-4 General Commercial development. In the companion zoning petition, it states that additional potential uses could be developed only through the application of a Land Use Conversion Matrix and could include a maximum of 150 assisted living facility units, a maximum of 60,000 square feet of indoor air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self-storage, a maximum of 30,000 square feet of new car dealership, and any other comparable principal uses. The proposed companion MPUD (Mixed Use Planned Unit Development) Document, Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses, contains a table that may be used to convert from one allowable use to another so long as the uses do not exceed the maximum total daily trips of 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips. To ensure that this development remains mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi-family residential uses and a combination of 30,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, office, or other allowable commercial uses must be developed, regardless of any conversion allowances. Converted uses may result in an increase in the maximum units, square footages, and/or densities stated in the Principal Uses. Because this companion MPUD proposes allowing the conversion of one land use to another, the actual mix of uses that will be constructed in this project will be determined by the developer, subject to the limitations and restrictions included in the Subdistrict and MPUD. The MPUD will implement the Subdistrict. Submitted Documentation: Synopsis of supporting documentation submitted for the GMPA includes: Environmental Report: Prepared by Collier Environmental Consultants, Inc. (no date), included soil analysis, Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System (FLUCCS Code) map and Vegetation Inventory, and photos of the site. Conclusion of report stated, “These parcels have NO listed Species, Native Habitat or other environmental issues.” Traffic Impact Statement: Gateway Mini Triangle: Prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA., last revision was dated 3-29-17. The land uses considered in this report (for the GMPA) included only the maximum uses being requested of 210 multi-family dwelling units, 150 hotel rooms, 74,000 square feet of retail and personal services, and 60,000 square feet of office. The companion PUDZ contained the land use conversion matrix and associated traffic impacts. The traffic impact for the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of 875 two-way P.M. peak hour unadjusted trips, with or without using the conversion matrix. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 6 of 16 Ten Principles for Rebuilding Neighborhood Retail: Published by Urban Land Institute in 2003. This publication examines the impact of declining neighborhood retail within urban neighborhoods and communities and the challenges of rebuilding. It states that conveniently available goods and services is a key factor that people consider when choosing a place to live. Blending of older retail and new redevelopment that is realistically market-based to achieve long-term sustainability along with planning principles was also discussed. Smart Growth and Economic Success: Investing in Infill Development: Published by United States Environmental Protection Agency and dated February 2014. It states that infill projects are being successfully developed all over the country; the trend is more people will choose to live in infill locations, especially as they age; and, costs and time of developing can be higher, but there is an increasing demand. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact: Published by Urban Land Institute and dated 2005. It states that America’s changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices and retail outlets; and, most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. It also explains higher density facts vs. myth. Density: This petition proposes a residential component allowing 210 multi-family dwelling units or up to 400 DUs through the conversion ratio proposed in the MPUD. The Urban Residential Subdistrict allows residential uses at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A); however, the B/GTRO allows up to 12 DU/A for mixed use projects to encourage redevelopment within this overlay. The “mini triangle” is identified in the B/GTRO as a catalyst project for spurring redevelopment with greater density and intensity allowing for greater flexibility in site design and development standards. The 210 multi-family dwelling units calculates to a density of approximately 39 DU/A (210 DUs ÷ 5.35 A = 39.25 DU/A). The petitioner states that in order to have a viable redevelopment project, this greater density is needed and the CRA Advisory Board supports this request. The companion zoning petition includes a Land Use Conversion Matrix that would allow the developer land use flexibility to increase one land use while decreasing another use. The developer could apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total of 400 multi-family dwelling units; this would calculate to a density of approximately 75 DU/A (400 DUs ÷ 5.35 A = 74.77 DU/A). The 152 hotel suites translate to a density of 28 units per acre (152 Units ÷ 5.35 A = 28.41 units/acre). Should the developer apply the Land Use Conversion Matrix to develop a total of 200 hotel units, this would translate to a density of 37 units per acre (200 Units ÷ 5.35 A = 37.38 units/acre). Height: The proposed Subdistrict text includes an exception to the provisions of the Land Development Code (LDC) in regards to building height (LDC Section 4.02.16 – Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area ). The C-4-GTMUD-MXD allows for a maximum zoned height of 56 feet and 112 feet for a Mixed Use Project (MUP). A building’s actual height is often greater than its zoned height. The applicant is requesting to rezone the property, in part, to achieve taller building heights than what is currently allowed under the C-4-GTMUD-MXD. The MPUD proposes a maximum zoned height of 160 feet and an actual height of 168 feet. The MPUD’s requested zoned height is approximately 48 feet taller or 42.9 percent greater than what is allowed in the C-4-GTMUD-MXD. The proposed height is 168 feet 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 7 of 16 from Mean Sea Level, per the zoning petition. A Federal Aviation Administration letter of ‘No Hazard’ was included in the petition packet. Compatibility: There is a wide range of uses in the area surrounding the Subdistrict. They range from C-1 through C-5 uses along both Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East (US 41) to single family homes further to the north and south. The FLUE encourages development to transition from higher intensities to lower intensities. Use intensities often diminish as development moves away from arterial roadways. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed at time of zoning, and may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc., as well as use limitations and restrictions. Development Scenarios Table: Uses and Development Standards Permitted by FLUE (B/GTRO) Permitted by Existing Zoning C-4-GTMUD-MXD Petition Request Land Uses Mix of residential and commercial uses (limited to C-1 through C-3) plus hotel/motel use (0.60 FAR); theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers, with some individual uses limited in square feet; OR uses allowed by existing C-4 zoning. All permitted uses in C-4 General Commercial Zoning District OR residential and limited commercial (generally C-1 through C-3) uses per GTMUD-MXD Overlay Mixed Use with residential, retail, restaurant, office, personal service; with land use conversions would also allow Assisted Living Facility, air-conditioned passenger car and self storage, and new car dealership. General square feet limitation only (74,000 square feet for total retail or 60,000 square feet for total office) with a maximum of 200,000 square feet, via conversion, for a combination of retail, office, personal service, restaurant, or movie theater uses; Hotel at 28 units / acre (152 units) or 37units/acre (200 units, via conversion) Proposed/Permitted Height none Non Mixed Use Project: Actual – 56 feet; Mixed Use Project: Actual – 112 feet Actual - 168 feet above Mean Sea Level; Zoned – 160 feet Proposed/Permitted Residential Density 12 DU/A in mixed use development None – residential-only is not allowed by C-4 OR 12 DU/A in mixed use development per GTMUD- MXD Overlay Maximum 39 DU/A (210 DUs) unless MPUD conversion matrix is applied and then maximum is 75 DU/A (400 DUs) Traffic Impacts - Limitations none Determined at time of SDP Maximum trip generation of 875 two-way peak PM unadjusted trips 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 8 of 16 Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The petitioner states, “Over the past several years, there has been rising interest in redevelopment within the CRA and several significant improvements have already occurred or are in the planning stages. These include streetscape and pedestrian and bicycle pathway enhancements, street lighting, crime reduction, façade improvements, and of course the beautiful Botanical Gardens.” The applicant’s justification for the requested amendment is that development of a “catalyst” project that, with a mix of commercial and residential uses, will create a certain “synergy” of activity and sense of place, and that such a development will be a catalyst for future investment in the greater Triangle redevelopment area. The petitioner states that “in terms of design and development standards, including but not limited to lot coverage, building setbacks, building heights, access, frontage, density and size, floor area, site design, building orientation is absolutely necessary to address the u nique nature of redevelopment and to create an interest on the part of private investors despite the increased market risk.” The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan identified the high density/intensity mixed use “mini triangle” project as the type of project, serving as a catalyst, that would encourage additional private investments in the area. The location of the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict will produce projects with high visibility, as it serves as a gateway between Collier County and the City of Naples incorporated area and the city’s main business center. The subject site is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways, Davis Blvd. (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East (US 41). This Subdistrict location is within 5 miles of high employment centers such as NCH downtown, multiple shopping areas (including Coastland Center), Naples High School, and many other employment locations. With easy access to two arterial roadways and commuting times and distances potentially reduced, this location can be attractive to prospective residents in the Subdistrict. This project location is also well situated for a mixed use development offering new employment opportunities as well as goods and services being readily available to surrounding residential developments and the proposed residential development within the Subdistrict. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent GMPA Criteria in 2017 Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: The process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) the following statutory standards be met, [followed by staff analysis in bracketed text]. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a 5.35 acre property.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small-scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [To date, no small scale GMP amendment has been adopted in calendar year 2018] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly-related text changes.] 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 9 of 16 (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [Internal consistency will be maintained between and among elements if the amendment is approved.] In addition, Chapter 163, F.S., Section 163.3177(6)(a)3.g. requires the Future Land Use Element to include “criteria to be used to provide for the compatibility of adjacent land uses”. Such criteria are typically expressed through measures of allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a GMP amendment, then present and defend as necessary, that data and analysis. Refer to application Attachment “B”, Mini Triangle Subdistrict, Justification & Supplemental Information, Updated Version Dated September 25, 2017. Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: The Environmental Planning Section, Summer Araque, Principal Environmental Specialist, reviewed and recommended approval of the petition in February 2017. This project is urban redevelopment and the site currently does not include any Preserve. The site consists of six (6) parcels that have been previously cleared and developed. According to the Environmental Report that was submitted with this petition, the parcels consist of warehouses, office buildings, and paved parking and offer no environmental function. These parcels have no listed species, native habitat or other environmental issues. The project site is void of vegetation other than a few remnant landscaping plants and some invasive exotics. No historical or archaeological impacts were addressed in this application. This site is previously cleared. Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, completed his review and recommended approval of this petition in January 2018 with one informational comment: “Approval of this petition should not be construed as a service commitment nor as representation that capacity is or will be available in the downstream wastewater collection/transmission system without necessary improvements by the developer.” Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and recommended approval of this petition in January 2018. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 10 of 16 A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on October 18, 2017, 5:30 p.m. at The Club at Naples Bay Resort (the Cypress Ballroom), 1800 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34102. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) petition. The applicant’s team gave a PowerPoint presentation and then responded to questions. A total of approximately 20-25 members of the public, along with approximately 8 members of the applicant’s team and County staff, attended the NIM. Commissioners Penny Taylor and Donna Fiala also attended. The consultant discussed the purpose of the project and the site’s existing conditions. He explained the application was for a mixed use development on the 5.35 acre site that included: • Maximum project generated vehicle trips capped at 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips • Minimum of 50 multi-family dwelling units (DUs) with a maximum of 400 multi-family DUs; • Maximum of 200 hotel units • Minimum of 30,000 and maximum of 200,000 square feet of a combination of two or more of the following uses: retail, restaurant, office, any other allowable commercial uses. The Consultant provided a conceptual site plan as well as architectural renderings of the project site. The public asked many questions about the project details. Concerns raised included: • Height: A citizen asked what a 160-foot building looks like, how many stories? The Consultant informed him that it would be approximately 15 – 16 stories. • Height: Why doesn’t the permitted maximum height of 112 feet work for this project (given the close proximity to the Naples Airport), especially since the Trio Hotel project next to the west of the project site used the permitted maximum? The developer stated that he met with the Airport and they determined the height was acceptable. The developer mentioned that there has been an existing 196-foot tall telecommunication tower on the site for years. He also mentioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had issued a no-hazard letter rendering on the project site. • Traffic Impact: Questions about the ingresses and egresses to the project. Also questions about pedestrians, parking, impact on adjoining roads (Davis Blvd. and Tamiami Trail East), and traffic signalization for the ingress/egress for site. The meeting ended at approximately 6:10 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • Transportation-related questions/concerns were brought forward by a few citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting; however, Transportation Planning has recommended approval of this project and there will be a maximum of 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips for this project. The Consultant has stated that with current zoning built out, more than 875 PM peak trips would be generated. 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 11 of 16 • Several citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting voiced concern/questions about the proposed 168-foot building height; however there has been a 196-foot telecommunications tower on the site for years. A “no-hazard” letter from the FAA is part of the petition packet. There is no maximum height specified in this petition; that detail is included in the companion rezone petition. • The uses are generally compatible with surrounding development. • The Mini Triangle site, located at a major intersection and proximate to residential development and commercial development, has been identified and approved by the CRA as a catalyst project area which includes mixed use and high density. • The CRA Advisory Board recommended approval of this project. • The CRA Board, by virtue of its contract with the petitioner, has conceptually approved of the general scope of this project. • Staff accepts the petitioner’s assertion that the greater densities and intensities requested are necessary for the project to be viable. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on January 31, 2018. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve and for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to the following non-substantive edits (needed for proper format, etc.): [Single underline/strike through = Petitioner’s proposed text; Double underline/strike through = Staff’s recommended edits [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 12 of 16 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict I. Purpose and Intent: The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the 5.35 acre site specific Mixed Usethis Subdistrict, as a subset of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan1 (approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution 2000-181). In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a “Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept”. The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a Catalyst Project (or projects) that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards. In order to provide for this greater intensity, density, and flexibility, the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to MPUD. II. Allowable Uses and Restrictions: All uses allowed within the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD) shall be allowed within this Subdistrict subject to the intensity and density limitations identified in paragraphs Aa. through Ff., below. To ensure a mixed use development, a minimum of 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following commercial uses shall be developed: professional office, retail, restaurant and personal services. The PUD shall establish a date, timeframe, or condition by which the minimum 50 multi-family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development shall be constructed. This date, timeframe or condition shall not be construed to limit approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or related amendment(s) thereto, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements depicted thereon, including but not limited to site access, sewer and water lines and facilities, stromwater stormwater facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage, and fence or walls. Aa. 210 multi-family residential units are allowed by right within this Subdistrict. Bb. 152 hotel suites/rooms (or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites) are allowed by right within this Subdistrict. Cc. 74,000 square feet of the following uses, as specifically permitted by ri ght or as a by conditional uses in the C-4, General Commercial District, are allowed by right within this Subdistrict: 1. Retail; 2. Restaurant; 3. Movie Theatre (multiplex), bowling center and physical fitness facilities; and 4. Personal services. [Bullet points replaced with numerals] Dd. 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right within this Subdistrict. 1Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan, approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution 2000-181 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 13 of 16 Ee. The following additional commercial uses are allowed only if the uses listed in paragraphs Aa. through Dd. above, are converted to an additional use using a conversion formula in accordance with paragraph Ff. below. 1. Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) – not to exceed 150 units and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45; and, 2. Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self storage, not to exceed 60,000 square feet (SIC Code 42252); and, 3. New Car Dealership, not to exceed 30,000 square feet (SIC Code 55112); and, 4. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses [Bullet points replaced with numerals] Ff. The densities and intensities identified for specific uses in Paragraphs Aa. through Dd. above may be increased through application of conversion formulas to be established during the MPUD rezone, subject to the following minimum and maximum limitations listed below. Any increase in density or square footage identified in Paragraphs Aa. through Dd. above by using a conversion formula will result in a corresponding reduction of dwelling units and/or hotel suites/rooms and/or retail and/or office square footage, and additionally: 1. In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation for the project in the Subdistrict exceed 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips; 2. In no case shall the maximum number of dwelling units for the project exceed 400; 3. In no case shall the maximum number of hotel rooms for the project exceed 200; 4. In no case shall the maximum combination of retail, office, personal service, restaurant, and movie theater uses for the project in the Subdistrict exceed 200,000 square feet; 5. To ensure that the development is mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi - family residential uses and a minimum combination of 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following shall be developed: retail, restaurant, professional office, or and personal services;. [Bullet points replaced with numerals] Gg. Development within this Subdistrict shall be subject to the provisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, as applicable, except in the case of building height, which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16, as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16, as may be approved as part of the MPUD. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 2 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual, Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 14 of 16 B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the “vested” Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. 9) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map (XV) Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) (5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.14) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map (XIII) Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve – Conservation Designation Map 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 15 of 16 Lely Mitigation Park – Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Livingston Road/Veteran’s Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map (XXX) Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis ‒ Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: CCPC Staff Report CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle2-2-18 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) United StatesEnvironmental ProtectionAgency February 2014 www.epa.gov/smartgrowth SMART GROWTH AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS: INVESTING IN INFILL DEVELOPMENT Office of Sustainable Communities Smart Growth Program 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Acknowledgments This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Sustainable Communities with the assistance of Renaissance Planning Group and RCLCO under contract number EP-W-11-009/010/11. Christopher Coes (Smart Growth America); Alex Barron (EPA Office of Policy); Dennis Guignet and Robin Jenkins (EPA National Center for Environmental Economics); and Kathleen Bailey, Matt Dalbey, Megan Susman, and John Thomas (EPA Office of Sustainable Communities) provided editorial reviews. EPA Project Leads: Melissa Kramer and Lee Sobel Mention of trade names, products, or services does not convey official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation. This paper is part of a series of documents on smart growth and economic success. Other papers in the series can be found at www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/economic_success.htm. Cover photos and credits: La Valentina in Sacramento, California, courtesy of Bruce Damonte; Small-lot infill in Washington, D.C., courtesy of EPA; The Fitzgerald in Baltimore, courtesy of The Bozzuto Group; and The Maltman Bungalows in Los Angeles, courtesy of Civic Enterprise Development. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Table of Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................ i I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1 II. Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development ............................................................................ 3 A. Land Assembly .................................................................................................................................. 3 B. Environmental Contamination .......................................................................................................... 4 C. Capital Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 6 D. Financing ........................................................................................................................................... 7 E. Regulatory Approval Process ............................................................................................................ 8 III. Increasing Demand for Infill Development ..................................................................................... 11 A. Residential Development ................................................................................................................ 11 B. Office Development ........................................................................................................................ 13 IV. Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development ............................................................................ 15 A. Reduced Infrastructure Costs ......................................................................................................... 15 B. Better Economic Returns ................................................................................................................ 16 V. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................... 19 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) i Executive Summary Smart growth development projects are compact and walkable, offer a mix of uses, and create a sense of place. Such projects on infill sites have environmental benefits because they can reduce development pressure on outlying areas, helping to safeguard lands that serve important ecological functions; can reduce the amount that people drive, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and can lead to the cleanup and reuse of formerly economically viable but now abandoned sites, including those contaminated with hazardous substances. Developers of all sizes—from independent, small-scale firms to large, publicly traded companies—are building infill projects throughout the country, and are doing so profitably. Developers have sought infill projects as an opportunity to participate in flourishing downtown markets. Opportunities for infill development exist in cities and towns throughout the country—infill is now a significant and growing share of residential construction in many metropolitan regions. Nevertheless, infill development can present unique challenges, including: • Smaller parcels with fragmented ownership. • Potential for existing environmental contamination. • Higher capital costs. • More limited financing options. • A longer regulatory approval process. These barriers, real or perceived, can discourage some developers, particularly those without infill experience. However, these barriers are often surmountable and are beginning to diminish as infill development becomes more prevalent. Several trends point to a sustained increase in demand for infill development and a market opportunity for developers. Consumer preferences for the amenities that infill locations offer are likely to grow as changing demographics affect the housing market. In the next 20 years, the needs and preferences of aging baby boomers, new households, and one-person households will drive real estate market trends— and infill locations are likely to attract many of these people. As more people choose to live in infill neighborhoods, employers are following, and vice versa. Many corporations are moving to infill locations, in part because they recognize the competitive advantages of being closer to the central city. These trends in the residential and commercial sectors give developers economic incentives to find solutions to the potential barriers to infill, and local governments are helping as well. Lower infrastructure costs and higher rent and sales prices for infill projects will help make infill projects profitable for developers, supporting neighborhoods that are better for the environment and improve quality of life. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 1 I. Introduction Smart growth development follows patterns that have defined cities and towns for generations— commercial Main Streets within walking distance of homes; central business districts where offices, services, and stores cluster; and close-in residential neighborhoods on traditional street grids. Smart growth development projects are compact and walkable, offer a mix of uses, and create a sense of place (see Exhibit 1). Such projects can occur almost anywhere, but this paper focuses on smart growth development on infill sites (referred to here simply as “infill development”), which: • Occurs in already built-up areas with existing transportation and utility infrastructure. • Often repurposes or replaces existing buildings, parking lots, or other impervious areas. • Adds homes and/or businesses near the center of cities and towns. Infill development can reduce development pressure on outlying areas, helping to protect lands that serve important ecological functions. When it occurs near existing transit infrastructure, employment centers, and other destinations, it can also help reduce the amount that people drive, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The redevelopment of formerly economically viable but now under-used or abandoned sites, and those potentially contaminated with hazardous waste, is especially important. Such projects can improve the environment while providing multiple community benefits. Developers of all sizes—from independent, small-scale firms to large, publicly traded companies—are building infill projects throughout the country that achieve these environmental benefits, and they are doing so profitably. Developers have sought infill projects as an opportunity to participate in flourishing downtown markets. For example, Denver has seen downtown development grow considerably in recent years. The number of people living in downtown neighborhoods grew by 86 percent from 2000 to 2012, while the number of households in downtown neighborhoods grew by 110 percent. Between 2010 and 2011 alone, the Exhibit 1: Smart Growth Principles In 1996, the Smart Growth Network, made up of organizations representing diverse interests including real estate, environmental, development, affordable housing, government, and others, developed 10 smart growth principles based on experiences of communities around the country: • Mix land uses. • Take advantage of compact building design. • Create a range of housing opportunities and choices. • Create walkable neighborhoods. • Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place. • Preserve open space, farmland, natural beauty, and critical environmental areas. • Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities. • Provide a variety of transportation choices. • Make development decisions predictable, fair, and cost effective. • Encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. Source: Smart Growth Network. “Why Smart Growth?” www.smartgrowth.org/why.php. Accessed September 28, 2012. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Introduction 2 number of private-sector employees downtown grew by 4 percent.1 The growth in demand for new residential and office development in the urban core has pushed developers to better understand how these new urbanites want to live, work, and play. Zocalo Community Development, a Denver-based infill residential developer, has built multiple apartment buildings in downtown Denver. Early on, Zocalo learned that renters in its downtown apartments want a sense of authenticity and value connections between each other and their surrounding neighborhood. According to David Zucker, principal and director of development, Zocalo staff are “tinkerers, and are getting better and better at being able to identify the factors that allow residents to feel that connection—not connection to apartment 603, but to the community they live in.”2 They have done this by facilitating connections both internally in their apartment communities and externally with the neighborhood. They host events at local bars and restaurants to create a link to the community. By offering features and amenities attractive to their target market, Zocolo is able to earn rents 15 percent above the average market rent per square foot in the downtown area. Denver is just one of many cities where downtown development is thriving. Infill is a significant and growing share of residential construction in many metropolitan regions. Overall, infill comprises an estimated 21 percent of new home construction among the 209 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, and nearly three out of four large metropolitan regions saw an increased share of infill housing development in 2005-2009 compared to 2000-2004.3 However, even in markets where infill development is less common, developers can find opportunities to profit. This paper is intended to help developers who are considering infill development and want to understand more about the risks and rewards.4 First, it examines the real and perceived challenges of infill development and how developers are able to overcome them. It then outlines the demographic trends that are driving increasing demand for infill development. Finally, it summarizes research showing how reduced infrastructure costs and higher property values can allow infill developers to earn a good return on their investment while protecting the environment, strengthening the economy, and improving quality of life in the community. 1 Downtown Denver Partnership. State of Downtown Denver. 2012. http://www.downtowndenver.com/wp- content/uploads/2013/06/State-of-Downtown-Denver-September-2012.pdf. 2 Personal communication with David Zucker, Principal, Director of Development, Zocalo Community Development on December 12, 2012. 3 EPA. Residential Construction Trends in America’s Metropolitan Regions. 2012. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/construction_trends.htm. 4 EPA has publications on the economic advantages of smart growth for large-scale developers and production builders of master-planned communities. See EPA. Smart Growth: The Business Opportunity for Developers and Production Builders. 2008- 2009. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/sg_business.htm and EPA. Market Acceptance of Smart Growth. 2011. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/market_acceptance.htm. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 3 II. Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development Opportunities for infill development exist in cities and towns throughout the country. Nevertheless, infill development can present challenges, including: • Land assembly difficulty due to smaller parcels with fragmented ownership. • Potential for existing environmental contamination. • Higher capital costs. • More limited financing options. • A longer regulatory approval process. These barriers, real or perceived, can discourage some developers, particularly those without infill experience. This section discusses the real and perceived obstacles to infill development and how these barriers are often surmountable and are beginning to diminish as infill development becomes more prevalent. A. Land Assembly One of the first steps—and frequently one of the most challenging aspects—of infill development is land assembly.5 Developers in infill areas frequently need or want to assemble multiple parcels to create a larger developable site, but ownership is often more fragmented in cities than in undeveloped areas. Land assembly is often essential in infill locations, and the costs can be high compared to undeveloped sites. Real estate is generally more expensive in infill locations than in outlying areas because land is relatively scarce, sites are closer to services and infrastructure, and zoning and the market often support uses that have higher revenue potential.6 However, the assembly process itself involves additional costs because: • Multiple owners require additional time for negotiations and higher transaction costs. • The owner of a parcel that is critical to the success of a project has enormous advantage and can often command a premium from buyers.7 • Properties can have lengthy chains of title that must be established before ownership can be transferred.8 Developers can mitigate the challenges of land assembly for infill sites by building on smaller footprints. Even smaller sites can be redeveloped into profitable uses if assembling neighboring parcels proves infeasible. One architect commenting on the trend toward smaller infill development projects said, “It 5 Nelson, Arthur, and Robert Lang. “The Next 100 Million.” Planning. 73.1 (2007): 4-6.. 6 McConnell, Virginia, and Keith Wiley. Infill Development: Perspectives and Evidence from Economics and Planning. Resources for the Future. 2010. http://www.rff.org/News/Features/Pages/Infill-Development-Perspectives-and-Evidence-from- Economics-and-Planning.aspx. 7 Brooks, Leah, and Byron Lutz. Do We Need Eminent Domain? An Empirical Investigation of Urban Land Assembly. University of Toronto working paper. 2011. 8 Urban Land Institute. Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact. 2001. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development 4 almost seems like any infill site is a good site if it’s in a good area, no matter how small or oddly shaped.”9 In addition, many large sites are available for developers willing to address possible environmental contamination (see Section B) or to redevelop commercial or institutional buildings.10 Many older suburban areas with good transit access are also good candidates for infill development because as the region has grown around them, they are now in a relatively central location that could support more housing and greater economic activity. Many cities realize the challenges of land assembly in infill areas and are developing innovative programs to address the issue while meeting other community needs like neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing. Some cities have programs to help developers interested in creating affordable housing find infill properties already assembled for development. For example, the Fulton County/City of Atlanta Land Bank Authority helps to acquire, assemble, and prepare properties for development of affordable housing as part of a comprehensive plan for neighborhood revitalization.11 In the Cleveland area, the Cuyahoga Land Bank uses revenue from penalties and interest charged to delinquent property taxpayers to acquire contiguous properties and maintain them until redevelopment on the site can occur.12 B. Environmental Contamination Brownfields, sites with real or perceived environmental contamination, can present another barrier to infill development. Many types of uses, including gas stations, dry cleaners, and industrial facilities, can leave behind environmental contaminants after operations end. Environmental contamination might require mitigation before it would be safe for new occupants. Even the perception or possibility of contamination can discourage some developers from acquiring these properties because of unknown costs and additional time that could be required for cleanup. 9 Bady, Susan. “5 Trends in Infill Housing.” Professional Builder. February 20, 2011. http://www.housingzone.com/design/5- trends-infill-housing. 10 Urban Land Institute 2001, op. cit. 11 Fulton County/City of Atlanta Land Bank Authority. “Land Banks.” http://www.fccalandbank.org/banking.htm. Accessed July 30, 2013. 12 Cuyahoga Land Bank. “Strategic Land Assembly.” http://cuyahogalandbank.org/assembly.php. Accessed July 30, 2013. Exhibit 2. Small-lot Infill in Washington, D.C. In the 14th Street Historic District a developer purchased a one-story building that was not designated as historic. He replaced it with a three-story, mixed-use building, now housing an art gallery on the first floor. Sandwiched between historic structures, the project had limited space for construction staging and had to fit on a small footprint. Photo source: EPA 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development 5 However, the risks of contamination are often factored into sale prices, so developers willing to work on brownfields can find opportunities to acquire bargain properties. Studies have shown that potential contamination and associated liability for cleanup lowers property values.13 However, the property value discount can be much greater than the costs of remediation. A study in Cedar Falls, Iowa, found that the cumulative discount for all homes potentially affected by a leaking underground storage tank from a former gas station is 24 to 48 times the cost of remediation (depending on whether the tank is classified as having a low or high risk of leaking).14 Even factoring in cleanup costs, brownfield sites offer developers the chance to earn a profit. According to a survey of developers who had redeveloped contaminated property, 56 percent said that their rate of return for brownfield projects was higher than their average rate of return, while 25 percent indicated that their brownfield projects were exceptionally profitable.15 The risks involved with brownfields cleanup might cause some potential developers to hesitate. However, insurance products are available to protect developers from liability and limit cleanup costs. Pollution liability insurance covers claims from third parties of property damage or personal injury, property value declines due to the discovery of pollution, business interruption, and legal expenses involved in defending the insured against claims. Cost-cap insurance limits the amount that developers would have to pay for cleanup by covering costs that exceed those in a remediation plan.16 These types of insurance can provide developers greater certainty about the costs associated with potential contamination when making investment decisions.17 In addition, federal, state, and local governments provide tools and assistance for brownfields assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment, including technical assistance, low-interest loans, liability protection, tax incentives, and streamlined government oversight of cleanup.18 Many developers have used such assistance to transform former brownfields into projects that make a profit and transform neighborhood liabilities into assets, benefiting the community and the environment as well. In Baltimore, developers remediated and redeveloped a 4.6-acre brownfield site that formerly housed a coal yard and more recently was used as a parking lot (Exhibit 3). In its place, they constructed a LEED®- certified mixed-use development with 275 apartments and 14,000 square feet of retail. The project was a success for both the developer and the neighborhood. The apartments were fully leased within 11 months of construction, and two years after the project’s 2010 opening, $182 million in new 13 Howland, Marie. “Is Contamination the Barrier to Inner-City Industrial Revitalization?” In Recycling the City: The Use and Reuse of Urban Land, by Rosalind Greenstein and Yesim Sungu-Eryilmaz. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 89-109. 2004. 14 Isakson, Hans, and Mark Ecker. “The Effect of Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on the Values of Nearby Homes.” University of Northern Iowa. 2010. http://faculty.cns.uni.edu/~ecker/research.html. 15 Wernstedt, Kris, Peter B. Meyer, and Kristen R. Yount. "Insuring Redevelopment at Contaminated Urban Properties." Public Works Management & Policy 8.2 (2003): 85-98. 16 Ibid. 17 Rice, Emily. Reuse: Creating Community-Based Brownfields Redevelopment Strategies. American Planning Association. 2010. http://www.planning.org/research/brownfields. 18 For information about funding sources for brownfields assessment, cleanup, revolving loans, and environmental job training, see: EPA. “Brownfields and Land Revitalization Grants & Funding.” http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/grant_info/index.htm. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development 6 development had begun in the vicinity in an area that had seen little new construction for decades prior.19 C. Capital Costs Infill development can require a higher upfront capital investment that can be a barrier for developers. Potentially higher costs are associated with: • Demolition. Many infill projects require demolition of existing structures before new construction can occur. • Design. Infill development is built to be seen from the sidewalk, at a closer range and slower pace, so buyers and tenants often expect more expensive design, façades, and finishes than are used in projects set back from the road in areas with little pedestrian activity.20 • Construction. Infill development, frequently consisting of multistory buildings on smaller lots, is more expensive to construct than the one- or two-story wood-frame construction more typical of development in outlying areas. Buildings over four stories tall require steel or reinforced concrete construction systems, which are significantly more expensive than wood framing.21 19 Bady, Susan. “The Upside of Infill Development.” The Wall. B&A Architecture. November 11, 2012. http://baarchitecture.com/wall/?p=23. 20 Leinberger, Christopher, and Sarah Kavage. Barriers to Developing Walkable Urbanism and Possible Solutions. The Brookings Institution. 2007. http://chrisleinberger.com/docs/By_CL/Brookings_Barriers_05302007.pdf. 21 Leinberger and Kavage 2007, op. cit. Exhibit 3. The Fitzgerald in Baltimore. This $77 million infill project in midtown Baltimore was constructed under a public-private partnership that benefits the developer as well as the University of Baltimore and the city itself. The project was financially successful, catalyzed development in an area that had suffered from disinvestment, and provided much-needed building space for the university. Photo source: The Bozzuto Group 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development 7 These higher upfront costs mean that infill projects often have lower internal rates of return 22 than other types of development in the first years after construction. However, infill housing that is integrated into the existing urban fabric can command a price premium over development that involves creating a large number of units on contiguous parcels with newly designed roads, parking, and open space.23 In addition, infill projects typically achieve higher returns over longer investment periods compared to projects in previously undeveloped areas because of higher rent and sale prices.24 Developers can thus recoup their higher upfront investment by holding on to properties for a longer time before selling. In infill neighborhoods, additional development—which is often spurred by even a single successful project—contributes to the vitality of the neighborhood and adds amenities that make the area more appealing to live and work. Given the right conditions, a single catalytic project can lead to a neighborhood revitalization that raises the value of all properties in the area. Many municipalities are helping infill developers pay for infrastructure costs, recognizing that doing so can help catalyze redevelopment. Costs for necessary infrastructure upgrades, such as an expanded water main to support new residential development, might otherwise fall entirely on the first redevelopment project in an area, creating a disincentive for any developer to act first. For example, in California, with the consent of two-thirds of the district’s voters, a municipality can establish a community facilities district in which a special tax on all properties in the district can be used to finance infrastructure improvements. Developers can then keep the cost of infrastructure improvements off their balance sheet so it does not interfere with their ability to finance construction or acquire long-term debt for the project. In 1991, 1992, and 2008, Contra Costa County, California, established three separate community facilities districts to finance infrastructure around the Pleasant Hills Bay Area Rapid Transit Station, helping to launch the area’s transformation into the walkable community it is today.25 D. Financing Financing challenges are tied to the level of risk associated with infill projects. Investors can perceive mixed-use projects to be inherently risky primarily because of their complexity. This complexity means each project is unique, developers must be more skilled, and predicting demand is more challenging.26 In addition, phasing and financing need to match market cycles, but the markets for residential, commercial, and retail do not necessarily move together. Investors frequently finance one use at a time, and mixed-use projects therefore often require multiple financing sources.27 22 The internal rate of return is the interest rate at which the net present value of costs equals the net present value of revenues. Investors require a higher rate of return for projects that carry higher levels of risk. 23 Ryan, Brent D., and Rachel Weber. "Valuing New Development in Distressed Urban Neighborhoods: Does Design Matter?" Journal of the American Planning Association 73.1 (2007): 100-111. 24 Leinberger, Christopher. Back to the Future: The Need for Patient Equity in Real Estate Development Finance. The Brookings Institution. 2007. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2007/01/01cities-leinberger. 25 Schildt, Chris. Strategies for Fiscally Sustainable Infill Housing. University of California, Berkeley, Center for Community Innovation. 2011. http://communityinnovation.berkeley.edu/reports/Fiscally-Sustainable-Infill.pdf. 26 Gyourko, Joseph and Witold Rybczynski. “Financing New Urbanism Projects: Obstacles and Solutions.” Housing Policy Debate. 11.3 (2000): 733-750. 27 Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000, op. cit. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development 8 Another challenge of financing infill development is that financial models used by banks can act as a barrier to securing capital investment. Most models assume that higher-income communities can better support new development. Infill development in cities and older suburbs that have experienced neglect and disinvestment can thus be more difficult to finance.28 Such areas are often more likely to have brownfield sites, which can face additional financing challenges. For brownfield sites, lenders can have higher underwriting costs associated with evaluating site conditions,29 require higher rates of return,30 require developers to contribute more equity,31 and be reluctant to accept the underlying real estate as collateral.32 However, brownfield sites are also eligible for a host of local, state, and federal assistance programs, which can close the financing gap and make redevelopment a financially viable proposition. Despite these challenges, many developers have successfully financed infill projects on brownfields and other sites. Although investors might perceive the risk of infill development to be high, many developers with experience working on infill projects believe that no real risk premium exists relative to comparable mixed-use projects in undeveloped areas.33 As more developers and lenders become involved with infill projects, perceptions are likely to better match reality. To that end, several specialized firms have opened to serve developers that need help with financing for mixed-use developments.34 For new infill developers in particular, smaller projects valued at less than $10 million can present opportunities to enter the infill market because there is much less competition from developers funded by institutional investors.35 However, even institutional investors are entering the infill market and making it easier for developers to finance projects. For example, in late 2012, one financial services firm created a new division to provide acquisition, development, and construction loans for infill projects valued between $3 million and $35 million that are located near employment centers.36 Many real estate investment funds and trusts are also focusing on infill markets for investment of their large pools of capital.37 E. Regulatory Approval Process Infill development can be challenging in cities with regulations that separate land uses and have requirements for parking and street width that were developed for spread-out suburban areas rather 28 Burchell, Robert and David Listokin. Linking Vision with Capital: Challenges and Opportunities in Financing Smart Growth. Research Institute for Housing America. 2001. http://www.housingamerica.org/Publications/LinkingVisionWithCapital:ChallengesandOpportunitiesinFinancingSmartGrowth.htm. 29 Bartsch, Charles. "Financing Brownfield Cleanup and Redevelopment." Government Finance Review 18.1 (2002): 26-31. 30 Ibid. 31 Simons, Robert A. and Donald T. Iannone. “Brownfields Supply and Demand.” Urban Land. 56.6 (1997): 36-38. 32 Ibid. 33 Gyourko and Rybczynski 2000, op. cit. 34 Minadeo, Dominic F. Price Premiums and Mixed-Use Development. NAIOP Research Foundation. 2009. http://www.naiop.org/en/Research/Our-Research/Reports/Mixed-Use-Price-Premiums.aspx. 35 Kessler, Kristina. “Small & Smart.” Urban Land. February 2011. http://urbanland.uli.org/Articles/2011/Jan/KesslerSmall. 36 Caulfield, John. “A New Capital Source for Infill Projects Breaks onto the West Coast Scene.” Builder Magazine. September 20, 2012. http://www.builderonline.com/lenders/a-new-capital-source-for-infill-projects-breaks-onto-the-west-coast-scene.aspx. 37 Stoler, Michael. “REITs Pouring Investment Into Dense Urban Corners.” The New York Sun. May 31, 2007. http://www.nysun.com/real-estate/reits-pouring-investment-into-dense-urban-corners/55560/. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development 9 than city and town neighborhoods. Developers must get approval to deviate from zoning codes, a process that can be lengthy and add uncertainty and cost to the development process. However, while regulatory constraints once were a major impediment, many cities are changing their policies to better attract and accommodate infill development. For example, many cities have designated particular areas for higher-density, mixed-use development,38 and some have adopted form- based codes,39 which allow mixed-use development, in place of conventional zoning, which mandates the separation of land uses. In some cities, transportation policy encourages “complete streets,” street design that accommodates all users, helping to create walkable, bikeable communities where infill development can be most successful.40 Even developers working in areas that have not adapted their zoning and approval processes to support mixed-use and walkable infill development can usually find examples of successful projects in these places that can help generate community support that will ultimately ease the regulatory process. Denver is one city that has gradually modified its regulatory environment to encourage infill. Many of the challenges facing smart growth development across the country do not exist anymore in Denver—the city rewrote its zoning codes to enable mixed-use neighborhoods, local developers have the technical and managerial skills to execute complex projects, local banks have a better understanding of the product mix and potential returns, and retailers have adapted their formats to better fit the form- based code requirements.41 Exhibit 4 describes one of the first projects spurred by these kinds of changes. Other cities have undergone similar transformations. In some cases, one new mixed-use project can set precedents that permanently alter transportation agency 38 Minadeo 2009, op. cit. 39 Form-based codes use “physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code.” They “address the relationship between building façades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks.” Source: Form-Based Codes Institute. “What Are Form-Based Codes?” http://www.formbasedcodes.org/what-are-form-based-codes. Accessed October 2, 2012. 40 National Complete Streets Coalition. “Policy Atlas.” http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/complete-streets/changing- policy/complete-streets-atlas. Accessed August 1, 2013. 41 Stern, Julie. “Lowry.” ULI Development Case Studies. Urban Land Institute. 2006. Exhibit 4. Regulatory Structure Case Study Lowry, one of Denver’s first completed mixed-use, walkable planned communities, opened in 1998. The 1,866-acre site was decommissioned as an Air Force base in 1994 and was redeveloped to include over 4,500 homes, 1.8 million square feet of office space, 130,000 square feet of retail space, and over 800 acres of parks and open space. Throughout the 1990s, as the project was being planned and developed, the Lowry Redevelopment Authority encountered multiple regulatory challenges: “The underlying zoning for the base property was open space, so most of the property had to be rezoned and replatted. This resulted in complicated discussions with Denver’s public works, fire, and other departments over street and alley widths and other infrastructure requirements.” Hundreds of public meetings were held. Considerable public outreach was needed because the lack of regulatory clarity for the developers created uncertainty among residents about how the site could and would be developed. Lowry paved the way for future mixed-use projects in Denver. At least 10 large, mixed-use communities have been built in the Denver area since Lowry, all of which benefitted from the regulatory reforms spurred by the projects that proceeded. Source: Stern, Julie. “Lowry.” ULI Development Case Studies. Urban Land Institute. 2006. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Opportunities and Challenges of Infill Development 10 requirements, zoning policy, or other regulatory barriers that had stood in the way of infill development. In Los Angeles, the city enacted a Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance, which allows the construction of multiple single-family homes on just one lot zoned for multifamily use. Local developers have used the ordinance to build innovative and distinctive new communities that meet the needs and the budgets of first-time homebuyers. Financing is generally easier for both developers and buyers because each unit comes with a plot of land.42 The Maltman Bungalows, originally built in the 1920s, are one of the best examples of detached bungalow courts from that era remaining in Los Angeles (Exhibit 5). If not for the ordinance, the buildings probably would have been torn down. The developer instead transformed the 17 rental units into single-family homes for purchase, creating the city's first small-lot subdivision project to come to market.43 Small-lot projects in Los Angeles have been selling well, and developers expect to break ground on 250 additional units by the end of 2014.44 In 2010, San Antonio, Texas, adopted an Inner-City Reinvestment/Infill Policy that promotes growth and development in targeted infill areas. Among the incentives provided to developers is the establishment of a single point of contact in the city government for each new development project who can help facilitate the permitting process, property tax abatements, and city fee waivers.45 As of 2013, the city had provided almost $35 million in incentives, and almost 2,500 housing units had been created through the program. Communities are working to remove barriers to infill development and making it easier for more developers to enter the market. Communities are driven to make these changes by many factors, including environmental sustainability, fiscal prudence, and changing demographics and market preferences. These trends are also driving developers to pursue more infill opportunities to better meet demand, as discussed in Section III. 42 Khouri, Andrew. “In Urban L.A., Developers are Building Trendy Homes on Tiny Lots.” Los Angeles Times. July 13, 2013. http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-small-lot-homes-20130714,0,563473.story. 43 Hawthorne, Christopher. “Fledgling L.A. Ordinance Revives an Old Idea: The Small House in the City.” Los Angeles Times. June 5, 2008. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-hm-small5-2008jun05,0,5403750.story. 44 Khouri 2013, op. cit. 45 City of San Antonio. Inner-City Reinvestment/Infill Policy. 2010. http://www.sanantonio.gov/planning/commReinvestment/ICRIP.aspx. Exhibit 5. The Maltman Bungalows in Los Angeles. The redevelopers of the 1920s-era buildings recognized their historic value and the opportunity to fill a need for small-scale, detached, single-family homes in the city. Photo source: Civic Enterprise Development 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) III. Increasing Demand for Infill Development Demographic, social, and economic trends shape the way people live and, by extension, their demand for real estate. Several trends suggest a sustained increase in demand for infill development and an opportunity for developers in many markets. This section reviews these long-term shifts and their potential impacts on residential and office development. A. Residential Development Household preferences are changing. In 2004, 13 percent of respondents to a national survey indicated that they would like to live in a city.46 When the same survey was repeated in 2011, that figure had increased to 19 percent.47 A different 2011 survey of people who recently shopped for or bought a new home found that almost half wanted to live closer to work and a downtown area and would accept a smaller yard in exchange for parks and other public amenities, while two-thirds wanted a community with sidewalks that led to public spaces like parks and cafes.48 Consumer preferences for the amenities that infill locations offer are likely to grow as changing demographics affect the housing market. In the next 20 years, the needs and preferences of aging baby boomers, new households, and one-person households will drive real estate market trends—and infill locations are likely to attract many of these people.49 Baby Boomers’ Needs Are Changing The first wave of baby boomers reached age 65 in 2011.50 This generation makes up more than one- quarter of the U.S. population and will continue to shape both society and real estate demand in the coming decades. Baby boomers are the first suburban generation, and many desire to age in place in the suburban communities where they currently live.51 However, many of these communities were built for young families and no longer meet the needs of older people whose children are grown and who cannot or choose not to drive or maintain a large home with a yard. Market demand is expected to grow for both rental and for-purchase homes that better match the needs of empty-nesters and retirees. The president of the American Seniors Housing Association said of people between the ages of 55 and 75, “They want to stay connected to the community. They want to volunteer, and they definitely find urban settings to be appealing.”52 An analysis of 50 large cities 11 46 Belden Russonello & Stewart. “2004 National Community Preference Survey.” Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors. October 2004. http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/NAR-SGASurvey.pdf. 46 Belden Russonello & Stewart. “The 2011 Community Preference Survey: What Americans are Looking for When Deciding Where to Live.” National Association of Realtors. March 2011. http://www.realtor.org/reports/2011-community-preference- survey. 48 Warrick, Brooke. “Builder Home Buyer Study 2011.” Builder Magazine. 2011. http://www.builderonline.com/Images/Builder2011HomeBuyerStudy_tcm10-882121.pdf. 49 Doherty, Patrick C. and Christopher B. Leinberger. “The Next Real Estate Boom.” Washington Monthly. November/December 2010. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1011.doherty-leinberger.html. 50 The U.S. Census Bureau classifies the 76 million people born in the United States between 1946 and 1964 as the baby boom generation. 51 Berube, Alan et al. State of Metropolitan America: On the Front Lines of Demographic Transformation. The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program. 2010. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2010/05/09-metro-america. 52 Leiserowitz, Nila R. and Michael Hanley. “The City is the New Senior Center.” Fast Company. July 10, 2013. http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682539/the-city-is-the-new-senior-center. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Increasing Demand for Infill Development 12 showed that between 2000 and 2010, the baby boomer population in areas 40 to 80 miles from these cities declined by more than 1 million, while it increased by a similar number in areas within 5 miles of a city center.53,54 New infill projects for seniors are being built across the country for all segments of the market—from Los Angeles apartments for low-income seniors seeking to remain in their neighborhood as rents rise to luxury high-rises in Chicago for seniors who want to be close to the city’s cultural assets.55 Millennials Are Forming New Households With the turn of the century, the first millennials entered their twenties (Exhibit 6), and many sought their own home for the first time. As of 2012, this generation comprises the largest segment of the rental housing market.56 With over 80 million people born between 1978 and 1995, this age group is larger than the baby boom generation. It will continue to grow with new immigrants because most arrive as young adults, and it will eventually become the largest buying and renting cohort.57 Consumer research indicates that nearly two-thirds of millennials want to live in a walkable community.58 Data confirm that younger people are biking, walking, and taking public transit more often than in past years, even those who are relatively well off financially.59 At the same time, younger people are driving less. The average annual number of vehicle miles traveled has declined across all age groups from 2001 to 2009, and the most pronounced 53 Keates, Nancy. “Hip, Urban, Middle-Aged.” August 13, 2013. The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324136204578644080452044960.html#printMode. 54 Bahrampour, Tara. “With the Kids Gone, Aging Baby Boomers Opt for City Life.” August 5, 2013. http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/the-kids-gone-aging-baby-boomers-opt-for-city-life/2013/08/05/1a21c1b2-fba7-11e2- a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html. 55 Leiserowitz 2013, op. cit. 56 According to American Community Survey 2012 data, 36% of renters in the United States are between the ages of 15 to 34 years old, which closely correlates to the Millennial generation. No other market segment represents as large of a share of the rental market. Renters ages 35 to 44 represent 21% of total renters, renters ages 45 to 64 represent 30% of total renters, and renters ages 65 to 84 represent 10% of total renters; the remainder of the renters are over 85 years old. 57 Lachman, Leanne and Deborah L. Brett. Generation Y: America’s New Housing Wave. Urban Land Institute. 2011. http://www.prea.org/research/20110510-GenY-Report_Final.pdf. 58 Lachman and Brett 2011, op. cit. 59 Davis, Benjamin, Tony Dutzik, and Phineas Baxandall. Transportation and the New Generation: Why Young People are Driving Less and What it Means for Transportation Policy. Frontier Group and U.S. PIRG Education Fund. 2012. http://www.uspirg.org/reports/usp/transportation-and-new-generation. Exhibit 6. Population Turning 22, United States, 2000-2017. The year 2012 marks the peak year of millennials entering the real estate market, with approximately 4.5 million people turning 22, the age by which most young adults have entered the full-time workforce and begin looking for new homes. Source: U.S. Census Bureau 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Increasing Demand for Infill Development 13 decline (23 percent) was among 16- to 34-year-olds.60 These millennial preferences and habits will help drive demand in the coming decades for infill development, especially if it is transit oriented. The Number of Single-Person Households Grows Single-person households are the nation’s second most common household type, accounting for 27 percent of all households in 2010, up from 8 percent in 1940,61 and they account for about 35 percent of consumer spending in the United States.62 In cities such as Washington, D.C., and Atlanta, the percentage of single-person households is as high as 44 percent.63 People aged 65 and older are the largest share of single-person households (almost 45 percent), but more than 15 percent of all age groups live alone.64 Single people tend to prefer new homes with modern kitchens and baths when they buy (61 percent versus 51 percent of couples), and are more likely to consider a townhome (29 percent versus 12 percent of couples with children).65 Many people living alone are attracted to places with a sense of community among neighbors, that are close to city centers, and that allow walking to work, restaurants, and other destinations.66 New infill construction can offer single people the location and amenities they seek. B. Office Development As more people choose to live in infill neighborhoods, employers are following, and vice versa. Demand for infill locations among employers seeking office space is expected to increase as cities provide more transportation options and continue adding amenities to downtown while improving schools and housing options.67 The move of Class A 68 tenants from suburban office parks to central neighborhoods is playing out across the country in all industries and is driving up the values of downtown office markets nationally. A 2012 study of Class A office markets in central business districts of 26 cities found that demand in the central business district is growing at a faster rate than the overall Class A market.69 In Chicago, office vacancy 60 Ibid. 61 Lofquist, Daphne, Terry Lugaila, Martin O’Connell, and Sarah Feliz. “Households and Families: 2010.” 2010 Census Briefs. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-14.pdf. 62 Allyn, Bobby. “More Singles Living Alone and Loving it, Despite the Economy.” USA Today. May 2, 2012. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-05-02/living-alone/54585114/1. 63 Wile, Rob. “This Southern City has the Most Single-Person Households in America.” Business Insider. April 26, 2012. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-26/markets/31407686_1_new-era-cities-households. 64 U.S. Census Bureau. “Percentage Single-Person Households by Age of Householder: 2010.” Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplements. 2010. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/pdf/cah_slides_p7.pdf. 65 Thompson, Boyce. “Survey Illuminates Preference of Single Buyers of New Homes.” Builder Magazine. November 22, 2010. http://www.builderonline.com/demographics/survey-illuminates-single-buyer-preferences.aspx. 66 Ibid. 67 Livingston, George and Christie Alexander. “Trends Affecting Business Parks Today.” Site Selection. November 2010. http://www.siteselection.com/issues/2010/nov/SAS-Top-Locations.cfm. 68 The Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) International defines Class A office space as the “most prestigious buildings competing for premier office users with rents above average for the area. Buildings have high quality standard finishes, state of the art systems, exceptional accessibility and a definite market presence.” Source: Boma International. “Building Class Definitions.” http://www.boma.org/research/Pages/building-class-definitions.aspx. Accessed August 21, 2013. 69 Jones Lang LaSalle. North America Skyline Review. 2012. http://www.joneslanglasalle.eu/EMEA/EN- GB/Pages/ResearchDetails.aspx?ItemID=7960. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Increasing Demand for Infill Development 14 rates in July 2012 were 15 percent downtown compared to 24 percent in the suburbs.70 Tenant demand for infill locations drove investors and developers to core infill markets as the economy started improving after the low point of 2007-2008, and infill remains a top choice for investors, even as markets outside of downtown areas start to improve as well.71 Many corporations are moving to infill locations in part because they recognize the competitive advantages of being closer to the central city where people and businesses are most concentrated.72 Examples of companies choosing to move from suburban office parks to more walkable downtown sites are numerous. Sears Holding Corporation moved its headquarters 20 years ago from the downtown Chicago tower bearing its name to a suburb 30 miles northwest of the city. In 2008, the company moved its e-commerce division back to downtown and now has over 500 employees inside Chicago’s Loop.73 Accenture PLC moved its headquarters from Reston Town Center in Virginia to a transit-accessible office in Arlington, Virginia, much closer to downtown Washington, D.C.74 Technology companies of all sizes are moving into cities. San Francisco has become a hub for small, young internet companies, including Trulia, Twitter, Yelp, Zynga, Craigslist, Airbnb, Dropbox, and more.75 When Google opened its New York office in 2006, it did so in Manhattan’s Chelsea neighborhood. Amazon.com, Inc., purchased its 11- building South Lake Union headquarters complex in downtown Seattle in 2012.76 Office space developed on infill sites is typically smaller than suburban office space due to site constraints and smaller land parcels. These smaller office spaces can be better suited to contemporary office needs, as companies expand hoteling 77 and telecommuting and switch to an open office layout, allowing companies to lease fewer square feet per employee. Companies that are leading the trend of reduced space per employee include LivingSocial, which has minimized overhead costs by limiting space per employee to as little as 80 to 100 square feet.78 Panasonic’s U.S. headquarters is reducing its facility size by 50 percent without losing any employees, and the U.S. General Services Administration is reducing the square footage per employee for federal buildings.79 70 Ori, Ryan. “Vacancy Dips in Suburban Offices.” ChicagoRealEstateDaily.com July 9, 2012. http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120709/CRED02/120709877/vacancy-dips-in-suburban-offices. 71 Wolff Sorter, Amy. “Is Infill Tapped Out?” Real Estate Forum. May 2013. http://www.reforum- digital.com/reforum/201305#pg70. 72 For a discussion of the economic advantages for business of choosing to locate in central business districts, see EPA. Smart Growth and Economic Success: The Business Case. 2013. http://www.epa.gov/dced/economic_success.htm. 73 Ori, Ryan. “Sears Boosts Office Space on State Street.” Chicago Real Estate Daily. Crain’s Chicago Business. June 27, 2012. http://www.chicagorealestatedaily.com/article/20120627/CRED03/120629823/sears-boosts-office-space-on-state-street. 74 “Accenture Signs Ballston Lease with JBG.” Washington Business Journal. September 13, 2011. http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2011/09/13/accenture-signs-ballston-lease-with-jbg.html. 75 “Something in the Air: Why Birds of a Tech Feather Flock Together.” The Economist. October 27, 2012. http://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21565001-why-birds-tech-feather-flock-together-something-air?fsrc=rss|spr. 76 Pryne, Eric and Amy Martinez. “Amazon Gobbles up Campus for $1 Billion.” The Seattle Times. October 5, 2012. http://seattletimes.com/html/businesstechnology/2019355557_amazonvulcan06.html. 77 Hoteling refers to employers providing temporary office space to employees as needed rather than having a dedicated spot for each individual. 78 Yoder, Steve. “Office Space: The Incredible Shrinking Workplace.” The Fiscal Times. April 11, 2012. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/11/Office-Space-The-Incredible-Shrinking-Workplace.aspx#page1. 79 Medici, Andy. “Individual Work Spaces Shrink 20% or More.” Federal Times. October 2, 2011. http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20111002/FACILITIES02/110020307/Individual-work-spaces-shrink-20-more. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 15 IV. Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development The trends described in Section III, including demographic shifts and growing preference for walkable locations, give developers economic incentives to find solutions to the potential barriers to infill mentioned in Section II. This section discusses how the benefits of reduced infrastructure costs and better economic returns associated with infill development are motivating developers to overcome the barriers that have stymied infill projects in the past. A. Reduced Infrastructure Costs Development often requires access to public sewerage and water systems, as well as other utilities, streets and other transportation facilities, schools, and parks. Developers often must pay for the infrastructure that will serve their development projects, either directly or in the form of impact fees to the local government that will provide services.80 Since infill locations already have much of the needed infrastructure, unless extraordinary capital improvements are required, infrastructure costs can be substantially lower for infill development relative to a similar project in an undeveloped area. One analysis of potential cost savings from smart growth development estimated that developers and new building occupants could save close to $200 billion over 25 years (2000-2025) due to the need for less infrastructure if the projected 25 million new housing units built during this time followed smart growth principles.81 Many cities reflect these cost differences in the impact fees they charge new development. The city of Sacramento, California, analyzed impact fees for identical development projects in infill and undeveloped areas. Impact fees for residential development on undeveloped sites were twice as high as for infill, and for commercial development, impact fees on undeveloped sites were 10 times those for infill.82 Since 2002, the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District in California has charged lower conveyance fees for projects in areas that are at least 70 percent built-out.83 Atlanta has reduced road impact fees by 50 percent for projects located within half a mile of a transit station, while Loveland, Colorado, reduced these fees by 25 percent for projects meeting mixed-use criteria.84 Another source of potential cost savings for infill developments located near transit is the reduced need for parking because residents and employees can get around without a car. One study found that the number of car trips taken by residents of transit-oriented development projects was almost half that predicted by the Institute of Traffic Engineers manual, leading to creation of unneeded parking spaces in 80 As of January 21, 2012, the following 28 states have adopted legislation that allows local governments to assess impact fees: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 81 Burchell and Listokin 2001, op. cit. 82 Parrington, Desmond. “Impact Fees and Smart Growth in Sacramento.” 2007 Presentation at National Impact Fee Roundtable. October 11, 2007. http://growthandinfrastructure.org/proceedings/2007_proceedings/parrington_smartgrowth.pdf. 83 Mullen, Clancy. “Impact Fees and Growth Management.” Presented at the National Conference of the American Planning Association in Chicago, IL, April 14, 2002. http://www.impactfees.com/publications%20pdf/growth_management.pdf. 84 Ibid. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development 16 these projects. In a case study of a mid-rise project, a 50 percent reduction in parking would reduce capital costs for parking by 25 percent and allow 20 percent more residential units on the site.85 Many developers can thus recoup some of the additional capital costs required for infill development due to lower infrastructure costs. Also contributing to developers’ ability to earn a profit from infill development in spite of potentially higher capital costs is the ability to charge higher rent or sale prices and to retain value better during economic downturns, as discussed in the next section. B. Better Economic Returns In the economic downturn that began in 2007, infill development retained its value better than development in outlying areas in many regions. An analysis of home price values for over 30,000 zip codes across 269 metropolitan regions found that for communities within 75 miles of a central business district, the greater the distance from that central business district, the greater the decline in home values during the housing market collapse and the less home values had recovered as of summer 2011.86 An analysis of home prices in the Washington, D.C., region showed similar results.87 Likewise, in California, those zip codes where home prices declined the least between 2007 and 2010 were on average 74 percent closer to a major city than those that fared the worst.88 An analysis of home price changes between May 2012 and May 2013 found that urban neighborhoods outperformed suburban neighborhoods in 16 out of 20 metropolitan areas. Overall, the price per square foot in neighborhoods dominated by townhouses and multi-unit buildings increased 11.3 percent versus 10.2 percent in neighborhoods dominated by single-family detached houses. The largest differences 85 Arrington, G. B., and Robert Cervero. "TCRP Report 128: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel." Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 2008. http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=870956. 86 Sexton, Steven E., JunJie Wu, and David Zilberman. "How High Gas Prices Triggered the Housing Crisis: Theory and Empirical Evidence." The Selected Works of Steven E. Sexton. 2012. http://works.bepress.com/sexton/29. 87 Benfield, Kaid. “New DC Data Confirm Real Estate Recovery Strongest in Central & Transit-Served Locations.” Switchboard: National Resources Defense Council Staff Blog. March 26, 2013. http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/new_dc_data_confirm_real_estat.html. 88 Sexton, Wu, and Zilberman 2012, op. cit. Exhibit 7. La Valentina in Sacramento, California. This infill development along a light-rail line transformed a contaminated lot that had sat vacant for 20 years into a mixed-use, affordable housing project. The developer’s long entitlement process for this project prompted the city to initiate an update of its zoning code in 2013. Photo source: Bruce Damonte 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development 17 were found in Detroit (28.8 percent versus 22 percent), Phoenix (27.2 percent versus 22.1 percent), and Miami (18.1 percent versus 13.1 percent).89 Office values are showing the same trends. As recovery from the 2007 economic downturn continues, vacancy rates are starting to fall in cities while staying flat in suburbs. Office values in central business districts have risen about 65 percent from their 2009 low, whereas suburban office values have stayed relatively flat after falling more than 42 percent from their peak.90,91 Office space in mixed-use, infill developments can command rent premiums in a variety of markets. For example, in Nashville, Tennessee, office space in mixed-use developments earns 5 to 10 percent more per square foot than in single-use developments.92 Infill sites are usually more walkable than other areas because many older parts of cities were built when most people moved around by foot, and many destinations are within easy reach. Research has shown that higher levels of walkability are correlated with better real estate performance for both commercial and residential properties. One scientifically validated measure of a location’s walkability is Walk Score®, which measures the number of amenities within walking distance of an address, with scores ranging from 0 (car dependent) to 100 (most walkable).93,94 An analysis of more than 4,200 properties across the United States found that for office, retail, and apartment properties, higher Walk Scores are associated with higher property values.95 An office or retail property with a Walk Score of 80 has a market value 54 percent more per square foot than a comparable property with a Walk Score of 20, while an apartment property is worth 6 percent more. A coarse analysis covering 259 cities that considered city-level Walk Scores and regional information on median household income, unemployment, and cost of living found that a 10-point increase in Walk Score is associated with a 5 percent increase in housing prices.96 Research within particular regions has replicated these results. For example, a study of six communities in the Rocky Mountain West that represent the diversity of communities in the region found that before the economic downturn that began in 2007, home buyers paid 18.5 percent more per square foot to live in a compact, walkable community. Between 2007 and 2011, as the housing market declined and then began to recover, compact, walkable communities retained a price premium of 12.5 percent even as 89 Kolko, Jed. “Home Prices Rising Faster in Cities than in the Suburbs – Most of All in Gayborhoods.” trulia trends. June 25, 2013. http://trends.truliablog.com/2013/06/home-prices-rising-faster-in-cities/. The 20 metropolitan areas studied are those for which there is an S&P/Case-Schiller Home Price Index that tracks changes in the value of residential real estate. 90 Brown, Eliot. “Pain Prolonged in Suburban Office Market.” Wall Street Journal. July 13, 2011. 91 Philipp, Tad, Kevin Fagan, and Nick Levidy. Boston, New York Top Major Metros Over Last 12 Months. Moody’s Investors Service. 2012. 92 Minadeo 2009, op. cit. 93 Duncan, Dustin T., Jared Aldstadt, John Whalen, Steven J. Melly, and Steven L. Gortmaker. "Validation of Walk Score® for Estimating Neighborhood Walkability: An analysis of Four U.S. Metropolitan areas." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8.11 (2011): 4160-4179. 94 Carr, Lucas J., Shira I. Dunsiger, and Bess H. Marcus. "Validation of Walk Score for Estimating Access to Walkable Amenities." British Journal of Sports Medicine 45.14 (2011): 1144-1148. 95 Pivo, Gary and Jeffrey D. Fischer. “The Walkability Premium in Commercial Real Estate Investments.” Real Estate Economics. 99.2 (2010): 195-219. 96 Washington, Emily. "Role of Walkability in Driving Home Values." Leadership and Management in Engineering 13.3 (2013): 123-130. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Economic Incentives Driving Infill Development 18 housing prices declined overall.97 A study of 94,000 home sales across the United States found that in 13 of the 15 markets examined, increased walkability was associated with higher home values. On average, every one-point increase in Walk Score was associated with a $700 to $3,000 higher sales price.98 Similarly, a study of residential land values in Jefferson County, Alabama, found that land values and sales prices increase with walkability and declining car dependence, and the price premium holds over time.99 Many infill sites also have good access to transit, which also often increases land values. A study of land values in Santa Clara County, California, found that retail and office properties within a quarter-mile of a light-rail station were about 23 percent higher than comparable properties farther away. For retail and office properties in commercial business districts, the price premium for being within a quarter-mile of a station was even greater—more than 120 percent.100 Residential properties showed similar results.101 For land zoned for multi-unit buildings, the value of properties within a quarter-mile of a light-rail station was 45 percent higher than the mean property value in the county and 28 percent higher than the value of all properties within 4 miles of a station. Proximity to a commuter rail station created price premiums of around 20 percent for all types of residential properties. Properties with a balance of jobs and employed residents and a mix of uses also showed price premiums over properties in single-use neighborhoods. A similar study in the San Diego region found that overall, both residential and commercial properties had higher values near rail transit stations.102 For example, the greatest price premiums of 91 percent were found for commercial properties near downtown stations. However, for certain property types in certain locations, properties near transit were discounted as much as 10 percent. Condominiums showed price premiums when near transit in all locations, while single-family housing varied, and commercial property showed premiums in major retail areas but discounts outside of these locations. The development context and development type is thus important to consider, but available research suggests that the hallmark features of many infill sites—walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods close to transit stations—are ripe for developments that can benefit from and will ultimately enhance these attributes. 97 Sonoran Institute. Reset: Assessing Future Housing Markets in the Rocky Mountain West. 2013. http://www.sonoraninstitute.org/component/docman/doc_details/1451-reset-assessing-future-housing-markets-in-the-rocky- mountain-west-3132013.html?Itemid=3. 98 Cortright, Joe. Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Home Values in U.S. Cities. CEOs for Cities. 2009. http://www.ceosforcities.org/research/walking-the-walk/. 99 Rauterkus, Stephanie Yates, and Norman G. Miller. "Residential land values and walkability." The Journal of Sustainable Real Estate 3.1 (2011): 23-43. 100 Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. "Transit's Value-Added Effects: Light and Commuter Rail Services and Commercial Land Values." Transportation Research Record. 1805.1 (2002): 8-15. 101 Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. "Benefits of Proximity to Rail on Housing Markets: Experiences in Santa Clara County." Journal of Public Transportation 5.1 (2002): 1-18. 102 Cervero, Robert, and Michael Duncan. Land Value Impacts of Rail Transit Services in San Diego County. Report prepared for National Association of Realtors Urban Land Institute. 2002. http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/bestpractice039.pdf. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 19 V. Conclusion The real and perceived challenges of infill development are diminishing. Although land assembly can involve additional costs relative to development on undeveloped land, developers are building on smaller lots or acquiring large brownfield properties that they can profitably clean up and redevelop, and cities are developing innovative programs to address the issue. The risks involved in brownfields redevelopment are often factored into sales prices and can be mitigated with insurance products, allowing developers to reliably predict their costs. Higher upfront capital costs can be offset by higher sales and rental prices, and developers willing to hold properties for longer periods can take advantage of rising property values spurred by successful redevelopment projects. As infill becomes more prevalent, more lenders are developing products and services to help overcome financing challenges associated with mixed-use projects. Finally, cities eager to reap the environmental, economic, and social benefits of infill development are changing regulations and policies to encourage and facilitate it. Overall, developers are learning how to create profitable projects that meet a growing demand for housing and offices in walkable neighborhoods near transit, cultural attractions, restaurants, and other amenities. Demographic changes on the horizon—more seniors looking for homes that better meet their needs, more millennials setting up new households, and more singles in all age categories—are likely to drive demand for infill development. The coming years and decades will create opportunities for developers able to meet this demand. Lower infrastructure costs and higher rent and sales prices for infill projects will help make infill projects profitable for developers, supporting neighborhoods that are better for the environment and improve quality of life. 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.5 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Smart Growth & Economic Success - Invessting in Infill Development (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Urban Land Institute$ TTeenn PPrriinncciipplleess ffoorr RReebbuuiillddiinngg NNeeiigghhbboorrhhoooodd RReettaaiill 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Ten Principles for Rebuilding Neighborhood Retail Michael D. Beyard Michael Pawlukiewicz Alex Bond The Urban Land Institute gratefully acknowledges the financial support of Bank of America in underwriting this project. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) ABOUT ULI–THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a non- profit education and research institute that is supported by its members. Its mis- sion is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land in order to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors education programs and forums to encourage an open international exchange of ideas and sharing of experi- ences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and proposes creative solutions based on that research; provides advisory services; and publishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land use and development. Established in 1936, the Institute today has more than 20,000 members and associates from some 70 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and develop- ment disciplines. Richard M. Rosan President Recommended bibliographic listing: Beyard, Michael D., Michael Pawlukiewicz, and Alex Bond. Ten Principles for Rebuilding Neigh- borhood Retail. Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2003. ULI Catalog Number: T21 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-922-6 Copyright 2003 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, elec- tronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permis- sion of the publisher. ULI PROJECT STAFF Rachelle L. Levitt Executive Vice President, Policy and Practice Publisher Marta V. Goldsmith Senior Vice President, Land Use Policy Michael D. Beyard Senior Resident Fellow ULI/Martin Bucksbaum Chair for Retail and Entertainment Michael Pawlukiewicz Director, Environment and Policy Education Alex Bond Project Intern, Land Use Policy Nancy H. Stewart Director, Book Program Managing Editor Carol A. Bell Manuscript Editor Betsy VanBuskirk Art Director Book/Cover Design, Layout Diann Stanley-Austin Director, Publishing Operations Cover photograph:Wisconsin Avenue, Georgetown, Washington, D.C./©B.R. Wilson. ii 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) iii Participants CHAIR Smedes York President York Properties, Inc. Raleigh, North Carolina DEVELOPERS Richard Lake Managing Principal Madison Retail Group/Roadside Development Washington, D.C. Margaret (Midge) McCauley Director Downtown Works Kravco King of Prussia, Pennsylvania PLANNERS/DESIGNERS/ ARCHITECTS H. Cales Givens Principal/Vice President EDAW, Inc. Denver, Colorado Bruce Leonard StreetSense Bethesda, Maryland William B. Renner Associate Principal EDSA/Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates Fort Lauderdale, Florida MARKET ANALYSTS Thomas Moriarity Principal Economics Research Associates Washington, D.C. Leah D. Thayer,Principal LDT Advisors Middleburg, Virginia PUBLIC SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES Ceil Cirillo Executive Director City of Santa Cruz–Redevelopment Agency Santa Cruz, California Barbara Kaiser Redevelopment Bureau Manager City of Long Beach Redevelopment Agency Long Beach, California Roderick S. Woolard Director of Development City of Norfolk Norfolk, Virginia INNER-CITY NONPROFIT SPECIALISTS Kenneth T. Bacchus President/CEO Housing and Economic Development Financial Corporation (HEDFC) Kansas City, Missouri Hipolito Roldan President Hispanic Housing Development Corporation Tropic Construction Corporation Chicago, Illinois PUBLIC/PRIVATE FINANCIAL SPECIALISTS Michael Banner President/CEO Los Angeles LDC, Inc. Los Angeles, California J. Michael Pitchford Senior Vice President Bank of America Charlotte, North Carolina ULI SENIOR RESIDENT FELLOWS Maureen McAvey Senior Resident Fellow for Urban Development ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Michael D. Beyard Senior Resident Fellow for Retail ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Over the past five decades, retailing in urban neighborhoods has hollowed out, leaving most cities and inner-ring suburbs with too little to support healthy neighborhoods and strong communities. The results are apparent to anyone living in or visiting a 21st century city: commercial streets with deteri- orating buildings, empty storefronts or marginal month-to-month tenants, an undersupply of essential goods and services, social problems, poor pedestrian environments and amenities, and untended streets and sidewalks. The decline of neighborhood retailing has had a profound effect on the desirabil- ity of many urban neighborhoods and communities. The convenient availability of goods and services is a key factor that people consider when choosing a place to live, and neighborhoods without suitable retailing are dramatically weakened. Residents who can afford it, leave, and potential new residents choose to live somewhere else. In this type of environment, communities cannot be sustained over the long term. The challenges of rebuilding persist not only in low-income neighborhoods, but also in many other urban locations where retailing never recovered from the shift of buying habits that led people to suburban shopping centers. Even in some of the most affluent communities—where first-generation, auto- oriented shopping streets have begun to urbanize and take on characteristics of urban shopping districts—redevelopment efforts are often stymied by NIMBYists Introduction iv Orenco Station, Hillsboro, Oregon. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) who object to the transition as well as to the changes in character, diversity, and density that the transition brings. In all cases, rebuilding neighborhood retail streets is a difficult, lengthy, and complicated process. It differs significantly from developing a suburban shop- ping center or reestablishing downtown shopping districts, so innovative strate- gies must be employed to restore the neighborhood’s vitality and competitive- ness. Neighborhood retail streets are betwixt and between most communities’ established retail locations, and they have been largely forgotten or purposely avoided for years by retailers, developers, and shoppers. The reasons are clear: misperceptions about the extent of urban buying power are widespread, retail opportunities are perceived to be greater elsewhere, and the many social prob- lems faced by urban neighborhoods have proved difficult to solve. As a result, even those who live near neighborhood shopping streets are often forced to travel outside their own neighborhoods to shop for goods and services that most others take for granted in their everyday lives. Opportunities to reestablish retailing along neighborhood commercial streets are great. Through careful planning, new roles can be found for these streets to fill in today’s marketplace to better serve neighborhood residents. But a word of v The Village at Shirlington in Arlington, Virginia, is a mix of 1940s neighborhood retail buildings and new retail and residential developments. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) caution: Attempts to re-create past glories—a commonly voiced goal—rarely succeed because most urban neighborhoods have changed dramatically over the past few decades, and their position in the regional hierarchy of retail destina- tions has been marginalized by newer concentrations of retailing in wealthier neighborhoods with better access, visibility, parking, security, and retailing environments. The large trade areas that many neighborhood streets once enjoyed have been cut off by newer centers, changes in retail merchandising have rendered obsolete much of the retail space along neighborhood streets, demographic shifts have reduced population densities and buying power, and a critical mass of retailers no longer exists along many of these streets. The result has been lower demand, high vacancies, a poor retail environment, and a failure to adapt to changed competitive circumstances. To achieve long-term sustainability, plans for rebuild- ing neighborhood shopping streets must recognize these changes and embrace solutions that are realistically market-based. It is not enough to base them solely on enlightened public policy goals or the community’s wish list, no matter how well intentioned. In spite of the challenges faced by neighborhood retail streets, their future is turning much brighter, and the Urban Land Institute believes that the timing is vi Bloor West Village in Toronto, Ontario. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) right to rebuild them. Numerous metro- politan trends are redirecting growth back into existing communities, which has positive implications for the rebirth of neighborhood retailing. Urban lifestyles are becoming more popular among empty nesters, singles, the elderly, and nontraditional households; immigrants are flocking to many neigh- borhood streets as low-cost places to open small businesses, stores, and restaurants; retailers are again inter- ested in urban locations because their traditional suburban markets are satu- rated; states are increasingly concerned about the effects of sprawl and are instituting smart growth policies; pedestrian-oriented, streetfront retail environments are gaining favor with today’s consumers; inner-city crime has declined dramatically in the past ten years; and local governments are using increasingly sophisticated plan- ning, regulatory, and financial in- centives to encourage market-based real estate investments in distressed urban neighborhoods. But these positive trends alone are not enough to ensure that rebuilding will occur—even in affluent locations—since it takes far more time and effort to rebuild neighborhood retailing than it took to destroy it. The challenge for the public and private sectors is to work together aggressively to create the environ- ment in which retailing can thrive. If this doesn’t happen, retailing will continue to shun neighborhood streetfront locations and choose more competitive sites. Gaining the public sector’s commitment is a difficult challenge because cities and states are faced with increasingly limited resources and many new and com- peting obligations. Nevertheless, ULI believes that ways must be found, as part of a long-term strategy, to get started today on the task of rebuilding retail services because the future prosperity of our metropolitan areas depends on it. vii The revitalization of Old Pasadena, California, incorporated new retail trends for shopping and entertainment in a historic main street environment. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Part of ULI’s mission is to examine cutting-edge issues and propose creative solutions for improv- ing the quality of land use and development. To that end, ULI sponsored a charrette on smart growth solutions to devise strategies to realisti- cally restore the vitality of neighborhood shopping streets to create more livable environments and sustainable communities. In June 2003, during three days of intensive study of three neighbor- hood shopping streets in the greater Washington, D.C., area, teams of planning and development experts from around the country toured and stud- ied three very different types of neighborhood streets. The teams were made up of leading commercial developers, public planners, nonprofit developers, archi- tects, economic consultants, and property advisers. The three streets were chosen as representative of different types of urban neighborhood environments. H Street N.E., at the edge of a gentrifying neigh- borhood, is an elongated and dilapidated commercial arterial that until the 1960s was one of Washington’s major shopping streets; upper Wisconsin Avenue N.W. is a discontinuous, poorly merchandised, and unsightly commercial street in the midst of one of Washington’s wealthiest uptown neighborhoods; and the devastated commercial district surrounding the intersection of Charles Street and North Avenue in Baltimore is in one of the poorest and most crime-ridden neigh- borhoods in the city. ULI teams were assigned to each strip and given the following tasks: to deter- mine the critical issues and challenges that neighborhood streets face; to deter- mine the most effective ways to rebuild neighborhood streets to ensure their long-term competitive position; and to set strategic principles to guide commu- nity residents, public planners, and developers in this effort. These principles were consolidated and refined by the three teams so that they could be applied universally to all types of neighborhood streets around the world. ULI had the support and participation of the two cities—Washington, D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland—in whose jurisdictions the streets are located. Each provided detailed background information, briefings, and tours for the ULI teams. After much deliberation, the teams adopted the following ten strategic principles to guide communities, developers, retailers, and residents in rebuilding their neighbor- hood retail streets. viii New Haven, Connecticut. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Ten Principles for Rebuilding Neighborhood Retail Great Streets Need Great Champions It Takes a Vision Think Residential Honor the Pedestrian Parking Is Power Merchandise and Lease Proactively Make It Happen Be Clean, Safe, and Friendly Extend Day into Night Manage for Change 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Every revitalization project needs a champion—someone to initiate the process, fight to ensure it is done right, and follow through to completion. This is particularly true for rebuilding neighborhood retailing because of the length and complexity of the undertaking. In most situations, the champion will be a person (or a group of people) who is a committed, responsible stakeholder who recognizes the problem, has dreams of something better, and has the pas- sion to overcome obstacles to achieve results. Without a champion, retail revi- talization efforts will most likely get lost among competing needs in a commu- nity when it comes time to fight for attention and limited resources. In some quarters, neighborhood revitalization efforts are seen as inherently public responsibilities that should be led exclusively by public representatives, because the private sector is often seen as unwilling, uninterested, or unable to do the job itself. Others believe that if a market exists, the private sector will find it and, without government help, lead the way through its own entrepre- neurial efforts. ULI believes that, in most cases, neither extreme is an effective approach. 11Great Streets Need Great Champions King Street, Alexandria, Virginia. 2 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Long-term success will come only when public/private part- nerships are created that marry the public’s planning, coor- dination, infrastructure, and public financing tools with the private sector’s entrepreneurial savvy, development expert- ise, retailing know-how, and private capital. When new retail markets are just being formed, neither sector can achieve its goals without aggressive assistance from the other. It doesn’t matter whether the champion is from the public or private sector, but he or she must make sure that all the other stakeholders are included in the redevelopment effort. ■The champion can be a group or an individual. Possible group champions include a business improvement district (BID), corporation or partnership of businesses, community development group, financial institution, or neighborhood anchor such as a hospital or university. ■An individual champion can be a resident, a business or community group leader, an elected official such as a mayor or councilperson, a property owner, a retailer, or a city staff person. ■The champion should pull together a core group of involved stakeholders to form a public/private partnership entity to guide the rebuilding effort. ■The stakeholders are the people and groups who will be directly affected by the redevelopment and the decisions made by the public/private partnership. Ideally, they will transcend political turnover because the redevelopment effort will last through several election cycles. Politicians may be involved, of course, but they should be willing to remain involved if they lose future elections or choose not to run. Staying power is essential to long-term success. ■The champion should lead efforts to develop a process or mechanism to resolve conflicts among the stakeholders and reach consensus. Conflict is healthy, and the champion is ideally positioned to help resolve conflicts and make sure that potential problems and issues are debated and not avoided. 3 By building interest and commitment among diverse stakeholders, a champion can foster the development of a consensus vision for the street. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Retailing has changed forever. Big-box stores and category killers; fortress malls; outlet, lifestyle, and power centers; catalogs; and the Internet are where today’s consumers shop. The competition is fierce, and consumers want it all: low prices, endless variety, the latest designs, parking at the door, and an environment so entertaining that they go there even when they don’t need to shop! How can neighborhood streets hope to compete? By providing goods and services tailored to the specific needs of each neighborhood in an environment that is convenient, service-oriented, pedestrian-scaled, and connected to the urban lifestyles of the neighborhood’s residents. The successful rebuilding of a neigh- borhood shopping street will be in- cremental, so it must be based on a shared vision that provides a strategic framework for imagining, analyzing, judging, and implementing each step along the way. The champion of a rebuilding effort is the one best posi- tioned to pull together the diverse partnership of stakeholders to create the long-term vision for the street. Although the champion should make sure that no interests are left behind, the community’s vision must be rooted in market realities. Too often, commu- nities have followed the loudest voices and pursued plans that cannot be sus- tained economically, which inevitably leads to disappointment and failure. Rec- ognize that there is often a great difference between what one group of stake- holders may want and what the market will support. Reaching a shared vision requires facing the tough questions upfront, making sure everyone understands the realities of the situation, and setting short-, medium-, and long-range goals that are realistically attainable. There is no cookie-cutter solu- tion that will be effective long term, and pie-in-the-sky doesn’t qualify as vision, so it is essential to understand the reality of the street and what is possible before asking what it can become. There is a general rule: Strive to be what you really can be. Most urban streets cannot successfully become like a suburban mall, and it’s doubtful that this would be a good idea even if it were possible. Each retail street needs to be individually crafted to reflect the community, people, lifestyle, and aspirations of its neighborhood because one-size visions do not fit all. 22It Takes a Vision 4 The visioning process can identify streetscape improvements that are needed, how tenants will be recruited, and other action items. A thorough visioning process will help ensure retailers that the city and property owners are committed to redeveloping a vibrant urban retail street. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 5 The first task of the public/private partnership is to make sure that the vision is shared. Property own- ers, residents, and nontraditional neighborhood anchors, such as churches, colleges, and hospitals, must buy in because they have the most at stake. These players have a strong vested interest in the neighborhood environment because their success depends in part on desirability of their surroundings. Large employers should be actively recruited because they have important resources that can be brought to bear. ■Do not allow the rebuilding process to be “hijacked” by any one group or individual—even the residents. It is only natural that stakeholders have agen- das; bringing these agendas into the open and aligning them are critical. ■Create momentum for the vision by assigning specific roles to each stakeholder and getting them to buy in to the plan. Getting stakeholders monetarily involved in the process may help to ensure their continued involvement and support. ■Identify negative influences that are hindering the redevelopment effort and neutralize or eliminate them as soon as possible; they could be a person, a building, or a neighborhood condition. ■Create an identity for the street that is inventive and reflects the neighborhood. Some neighborhood streets are already place-specific and have identities that can be reinforced or enhanced. In other cases, the identity is either nonexistent or negative—in which case, changing the perceived identity (or overcoming the nonidentity) will be one of the biggest challenges. ■Adapt the retail environment to serve and enhance the surrounding neighbor- hood. Serving a broader trade area may be important, but will usually be a sec- ondary goal. ■Recognize that nearby competition not only will dramatically affect the mar- ket for your street, but will also affect the vision you have for its future. ■Hire a leasing professional from day one to coordinate management and recruitment of retail tenants. Recognize that retailers will “vote” on the sound- ness of the redevelopment’s vision by deciding whether to rent or not. Visioning will help create and enhance an identity for the street that reflects the neighborhood. M Street, Washington, D.C. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 6 Successful retail depends on successful residential neighborhoods. Retailing cannot survive in an environ- ment of deteriorating neighborhood housing, declining pop- ulation and homeownership rates, disinvestment, crime, and neglect. Most important, successful retail needs a growing number of high-quality residents because this is what retailers look for. High-quality residents are found in high-, medium-, and low-income brackets so, individually and as a group, residents need to take ownership of their streets and start changing the negatives in their neighborhoods so the environment is right to attract retailers. Great streets are always surrounded by dense residential development. Where residential growth and revitalization is occurring, retail is primed to follow; it simply will not occur the other way around. Retailers will not be attracted to a neighborhood street, regardless of how much public money they get, unless they see the cash registers ringing, and this depends on the strength of the surrounding residential market. Streets evolve over time, and the quality and amount of the residential development will dictate what type of retail tenant will be interested in leasing space. The typical pat- tern is for home-grown, startup businesses and creative enterprises looking for low-cost locations to move in first, followed by mass-market national stores and, if the neigh- borhood is very successful, by specialized higher-end retailers. The community should not expect the best stores to move in immediately, but to the extent that higher-quality residential development occurs, retailing will continue to improve. ■Increase homeownership (including condominium ownership) to stabilize the neighborhood and create more stakeholders and customers. ■Residential development creates a customer base for neighborhood-serving retail, especially grocery store and pharmacy anchors. It is important for such stores—which commonly are national chains and require the most parking—to conform to the urban character of the community. 33Think Residential High-density single-family homes accommodate families and make neighborhoods more walkable. EDAW9.A.6 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 7 ■Encourage mixed-use develop- ments. A mix of housing and offices supports retail by creating more customers, supporting longer business hours, and bring- ing in rents up to 20 percent higher than would be likely in the same place without the mix of housing and office space. Office components provide daytime retail and restaurant demand, while res- idents add customers in the evening. ■It isn’t necessary to attract national retailers to be a success. Successful streets often have a mix of locally owned and operated vendors, especially specialty food stores (sell- ing baked goods, ethnic foods, coffee, and wine), ethnic restaurants, pharma- cies, art shops, antique stores, hardware stores, and service providers (laundry, video rental, garden). If you sit around waiting for Pottery Barn, nothing else is going to happen. ■Recognize that although neighborhood residential development provides a strong shot in the arm for retailing, it does not provide the only source of demand. ■Encourage mixed-income housing. A big challenge of retail is the recruitment of retail workers, and they need a convenient place to live. A stock of potential workers living close by enhances the attractiveness of the site for retailers. ■Ground floor space does not need to be all retail. If the neighborhood street is too long for shopping the entire length, retailing should be concentrated in designated blocks. Shoppers typically will walk for only three or four city blocks. Residential or office uses should predominate beyond a core walking area. ■Don’t underestimate the value of anchors on the street. They help the smaller, independent tenants succeed by drawing customers to the area. Residential units above retail keep the street active around the clock, providing convenience for residents and sales volume for retailers. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 8 The era when anything developed in an urban neighbor- hood was considered to be better than nothing is over. Desperation has driven many communities to accept devel- opments that are inappropriate for an urban street and antithetical to an enjoyable pedestrian experience. Sub- urban-style, pedestrian-deficient retailing with blank walls facing the sidewalk, parking lots that disrupt retail continu- ity, throw-away architectural quality, inappropriate building design and scale, and lack of pedestrian amenities are some of the most egregious mistakes that made many urban streets mean and decidedly unfriendly to shoppers. Neighborhood retailing that is rebuilt in these ways has proved unsustainable, failed to generate ongoing improve- ments in retail quality or spin-off activity, and fallen short of attracting the level of customer loyalty from the neigh- borhood or beyond that is necessary for long-term growth. When pedestrians are not honored with a pleasant and enjoyable shopping experience, they usually choose com- peting locations that do a better job of creating such an environment. The first goal for a neighborhood shopping street should be to satisfy the aspirations and enhance the lifestyles of a neighborhood’s residents. Neighborhood retail should not be structured in a way that encourages commuters to move quickly through the neighborhood to reach other neighbor- hoods. Too often, neighborhood streets have evolved in ways that make it easier and more enjoyable for shoppers and commuters to travel to other neighborhoods than to stay and conveniently shop nearby. ■Don’t let traffic engineers rule the streets. Accommodating traffic is only one of many goals for successful shopping streets. Retail streets must balance the needs of the pedestrian and the needs of the automobile. Traffic must be calmed, and pedestrian amenities must be added for successful shopping streets to be rebuilt. ■Street width is an important determinant of retail success. In neighborhood locations, wide streets form a great barrier to success since they make it difficult to establish either an intimate neighborhood feel or a community connection. 44Honor the Pedestrian Pedestrian amenities entice shoppers to linger. BARRY ELBASANI/ELS ARCHITECTURE 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Successful single-loaded retail streets are rare, so to improve chances for suc- cess, narrow the street or introduce a landscaped median that will tie the two sides of the street together into one retail experience and make it easier for cus- tomers to shop both sides of the street. ■Recognize that street patterns also affect the pedestrian experience. In most cases, one-way streets should be converted to two-way streets to eliminate the raceway effect of one-way arterials and give the streets more of a neighborhood character. ■Convenient parking must be designed to enhance the pedestrian experience and not detract from it. Traffic can be slowed by providing on-street parking— this type of configuration protects shoppers from speeding traffic, allows shoppers to park in front of the store, and creates a stronger connection to the street. ■Encourage multiple entrances to shops so they are accessible from the front sidewalk as well as from off-street parking areas. 9 Landscaping and brick sidewalks— often on a modest scale—add significantly to a neighborhood’s ambiance for pedestrians and shoppers as in West Chester, Pennsylvania. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) ■Pedestrian amenities should be added first along the blocks with the greatest concentration of retailing or those with the greatest potential. In some cases, neighborhood shopping streets are too long and some blocks may no longer be suited for retail. In such cases, clearly designate the blocks that are targeted for retailing and concentrate pedestrian amenities there first. ■Sidewalks should be wide enough to accommodate outdoor dining while pro- viding enough room to allow an unimpeded pedestrian flow; tables should be permitted at the curb line to allow window shoppers to stroll next to the shop windows. Rebuilding sidewalks with brick or patterned concrete also can have a positive effect. ■Greening the street is necessary to make it more comfortable for pedestrians. Improvements should include tree canopies that provide shade from day one, green spaces where shoppers can linger and relax, and flowers and shrubs that enliven store fronts, tree boxes, light standards, and parking lots. 10 VISIBILITY Transparency is critical. Buyers want to see inside the store— they want it to look safe, they want to see that it offers the goods or services they are interested in, and they want to feel comfortable that a salesperson is not hovering to accost them when they walk in the door. The best design provides visibility into the store and not just into a window display. ARCHITECTURE Buildings must look as though they belong in the neighbor- hood, especially in terms of scale, height, and character. Retail is most successful when it is on a single level, but offices and apartments work very well in levels over retail. The neighborhood vernacular should be expressed in the design of buildings. Good archi- tecture improves the quality of the neighborhood. In revitaliza- tion, it can serve as a model of good design. Flexible guide- lines that allow variation within acceptable ranges may be best. Even convenience stores can be accommodated with good design standards. The standard retail bay in the United States is 30 feet wide by 60 to 90 feet deep. Multiples of this module can accommodate larger users, such as restaurants. Neighbor- hood retail often has regular turnover, and adherence to these standards can help find new users. Windows that offer visibility into the store are good advertising and con- tribute to comfort on entry. Awnings or recessed entries provide comfortable shelter from rain and sun. LANDSCAPING Designs for visibility and land- scaping often conflict. Here again, the need for trans- parency and visibility of retail takes precedence. However, in addition to meeting a commu- nity’s consumer needs, a retail street can be a place to social- ize or to relax and linger, es- pecially when the hard urban edge is softened and enhanced with high-quality plant mate- rial. Outdoor dining is an instant indicator of safety and congeniality, but it needs a minimum sidewalk depth of ten to 12 feet for convenient pedestrian flow. SIGNAGE, LIGHTING, AND STREET FURNITURE As in other design media, qual- ity sells—particularly over the long term. Signs, lighting, and street furniture (seating) are low-cost and highly visible ways of projecting a quality image. To ensure consistency and quality, adopt design guide- lines that regulate the scale, typeface, materials, and other design elements of signage, while at the same time encour- aging flexibility and creativity. A critical consideration is whether to allow freestanding or hanging signs on buildings. Flush mounting is desirable because it doesn’t intrude into the pedestrian zone, but the need for signage to be visible to motorists and pedestrians should contribute to decisions about sign guidelines. Differen- tiation in retail graphics is both an indicator of unique offerings and a brand identifier. A graph- ics scheme should not prohibit free expression, but should set standards to ensure long-term quality. Lighting and street fur- niture in complementary design families add character and safety—lighting for visibility and seating to attract people to the street. William B. Renner, EDSA / Edward D. Stone, Jr. and Associates 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) ■Landscaping, street furniture, and other pedestrian amenities should be sensi- tively designed so as not to block retail sight lines for motorists or shoppers. ■High visibility for potential customers who are driving or walking by the stores is as important for retail success as easy accessibility and parking. ■Lighting should be bright enough to ensure security in the evening, but sodium vapor—often referred to as “slum lighting”—should be avoided in favor of white lighting, which renders more realistic colors, less sinister appearances, and a more inviting, comfortable, and reassuring feeling for shoppers. ■Set design standards and work with retailers regarding facade improvements, appropriate historic preservation measures, store signage, awnings, window dis- plays, and advertising. These details indelibly frame the pedestrian experience. 11 The city of San Rafael, California, encourages the development of housing as a way of bringing life— including evening activity and customers for merchants—to its commercial streets. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Easy accessibility, high visibility, a sense of personal security, and adequate, convenient parking are all preconditions for successful retailing, and with- out them retail likely will fail, regardless of the sophistication of the shopping environment or the quality of the tenants. Parking is arguably the most important of these requirements because today’s consumers, condi- tioned by their suburban shopping center experi- ences, expect nothing less than a guaranteed space close to their shopping destination every time they shop. Neighborhood streets that repli- cate the convenience and abundance of suburban parking—albeit in quite different configurations— will have solved one of the great dilemmas that urban shopping locations face. These are the chal- lenges: How can communities squeeze enough convenient parking into a pedestrian environment where it is not desirable to have large parking lots facing the street in front of the stores? How can commu- nities configure parking in ways that are clearly organized so that shoppers can find spaces in multiple locations from block to block? ■Size the street’s parking requirements realistically. Recognize that parking needs will usually be less along neighborhood shopping streets than in suburban shopping centers because some urban shoppers will arrive on foot or by transit, shuttle, or bicycle. ■Recognize that parking needs often change over time. If a neighborhood gets improved transit service, parking needs may decline. Conversely, the introduction of additional anchors, changes in tenant types, or a denser concentration of retailers as the street’s popularity grows can increase the number of parking spaces needed. ■Provide spaces in a clear, evenly distributed supply of parking that includes on-street and off-street options. Encourage store employees to park away from store entrances. ■On-street parking is critical for some retailers’ success because it is the most convenient type of parking and cre- ates the steady turnover of shoppers needed by stop-and-go retailers like coffee shops, dry cleaners, and specialty food stores. 55Parking Is Power 12 At Bethesda Row in the Maryland suburbs of Washington, D.C., designers placed parking behind and to the side of buildings. This fosters a pedestrian-friendly environment and allows stores to utilize most of the road frontage. FEDERAL REALTY INVESTMENT TRUST A mix of parking accommodates different users. Short-term customers can park on the street, while shoppers planning a longer stay can park in the garage. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) ■Metered parking—whether on- or off-street—should be designed to encourage people to use it. The time limits should be fairly enforced so that the needed turnover actually occurs, but don’t go overboard. Customers will shop elsewhere if they are turned off by unreasonable and inflexible adher- ence to the rules. ■Off-street parking needs to be highly visible from the street, but it should not dominate the landscape, break up the retail district into disjointed parts, or be located farther than one block from storefronts. ■Parking should be user-friendly, starting with clear signage directing cus- tomers to individual lots and lighting that is configured to ensure their personal safety and provide a sophisticated ambiance that makes them feel comfortable at night. ■Innovative parking designs—such as parking behind, above, or below the stores—should be considered in dense, high-value urban locations. If these configurations are used, parking must be seen as nonthreatening, as visible as possible, and easily accessible, or motorists will avoid it. ■Shared parking should be planned to accommodate the parking needs of different groups of shoppers as they appear at different times of day. This will eliminate unnec- essary spaces that otherwise would sit unused during periods of inactivity. ■Transit (retailer-sponsored shuttles, bus, light rail, and subway) should be actively promoted by developers, retailers, and employers because it reduces parking needs, extends the street’s trade area, and brings a greater diversity of demand. ■Don’t forget about bicycle parking. Bicycles are a growing part of the urban lifestyle and parking for them is cheap to build. The need for bicycle parking is especially important in college communities and in neighborhoods with young, highly educated, and sophisticated residents. 13 The parking garage at Seventh and Collins, Miami Beach, Florida. On-street parking along Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 14 Retailers are the soul of the neighborhood commercial street, so getting the right tenant mix and quality will give the street its unique character as well as the diversity of product offerings it needs to compete successfully with more established retail destinations. To achieve this mix, a neighborhood com- mercial street must be managed and operated like a shopping center—but rec- ognize that having multiple landowners and operating in the public realm enor- mously complicate these tasks. Finding tenants that meet all of these criteria is tough, especially in the early years of rebuilding when a critical mass of retailers is often absent and the en- vironmental and social conditions along the street may not yet be optimal to achieve high sales levels. Complicating this task is the fact that the city cannot rely individually on landlords along neighborhood shopping streets to recruit appropriate high-quality tenants, since they are inclined—understandably—to lease their spaces to whomever is willing to pay the rent. It’s not easy for a landlord to turn down a tenant because it does not fit within a street’s overall leasing plan or add to its optimal tenant mix. Retailers also do not like to take risks, but if you have a coordinated merchandising plan and strive for a good tenant mix, the risk to retailers will be reduced. To achieve higher sales, rents, and land values, landlords along the street need to band together and work proactively with the public sector to merchandise and lease their street in a coor- dinated and mutually sup- portive way. ■Establish a quasi-public retail leasing and manage- ment agency to plan and coordinate the street’s leasing strategy, actively recruit tenants, and direct them to appropriate land- lords and property owners so that leasing deals can be made privately. Recog- nize that the tighter the leasing control this agency has, the more quickly the street will evolve into a thriving retail destination. 66Merchandise and Lease Proactively Bellevue, Washington. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 15 ■As the first priority, hire a leasing and management professional to set up the leasing agency and direct its activities. This needs to be someone who can dynamically “sell” your street and neighborhood, and has a sophisticated under- standing not only of retail leasing but also of shopping center management and public/private partnerships. The leasing professional should be part of the street’s planning and design team, so she/he not only understands the long- term vision of the project but also helps to shape it. ■Develop a comprehensive leasing plan that is flexible and builds on the strengths and competitive advantages that the street and neighborhood already have. Recognize that the plan will need to be adjusted constantly to reflect changing market conditions. ■Context matters. Tailor the leasing strategy to your community and its posi- tion in the regional retail hierarchy. Understand the characteristics of your mar- ket and location, know your customer and competition, and evaluate nearby retail streets and tenants to guide tenant recruitment. ■Recognize what your street is now and what it can become, and market the space realistically with an eye to the future. Cookie-cutter stores are not attrac- tions in and of themselves, but they do lend legitimacy to the location in the eyes of other retailers, and they have advertising clout that helps one-of-a-kind stores. ■Lead the leasing effort with destination- and neighborhood-appropriate retailers. This will lay the foundation for more intense commercial activity as the street matures. ■Initiate the leasing program along one or two blocks that have the greatest potential. Creating a successful retail nucleus to build around will give momen- tum to the project, stimulate the interest of other retailers, and form a critical mass that becomes a recognizable retail destination for neighborhood shoppers. ■Besides coordinating the leasing program, the leasing and management pro- fessional should provide technical assistance to existing and prospective retail- ers. Financial assistance may also be desirable for facade improvement, building improvements to achieve code compliance, new signage, and the like. She or he should also coordinate maintaining the streetscape and making needed repairs if there is no business improvement district in place. Shopping centers carefully choose ten- ants based on many factors, and neigh- borhood streets must do the same. Tenants should: ■Fit into the street’s agreed-upon vision and leasing strategy; ■Fill gaps in the street’s retail mix or reinforce specialized tenant concentra- tions; ■Sell merchandise aimed at the street’s targeted customer markets; ■Project the right image, aesthetic, and lifestyle orientation; ■Fit within the physical limitations of the available space; ■Be well managed and creditworthy; and ■Be able to afford the rent! 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 16 Neighborhood retailing will not spontaneously regenerate. Miracles happen in the movies, but they rarely happen in real life. In many communities, market conditions that caused neighborhood commercial streets to decline are still in place, and it takes an aggressive commitment by the public sector in partnership with the private stakeholders to address negative influences before sustainable retail revitalization will occur. Communities have powerful financial and regulatory tools to attract desired pri- vate investment capital if used judiciously. Some of these tools are “carrots” that create a positive investment climate, improve infrastructure, or reward investors who further community goals. Others are “sticks,” which may need to be used if carrots are not sufficiently convincing. Communities should be willing to use both to convince landowners, developers, and retailers that the revitaliza- tion efforts are in their interests. Willingness to exercise regulatory powers to achieve the stakeholders’ vision and protect it from negative influences projects a sense of momentum to the stakeholders and potential tenants and enhances the street’s appeal as a place to do business. ■Research carefully what public regu- latory and financial tools are available to achieve your goals and what is required to qualify for them, then determine how you can use them as catalysts to make things happen when and where you want them to happen. Direct public resources to generate the maximum bang for the buck in terms of generating and leveraging private investment money. ■Develop a strong relationship with local financial institutions and non- profit organizations, and partner with them to achieve your goals. These organizations are likely to be more willing than national institutions to lend money to developers of nontraditional urban real estate projects and to neighborhood retailers. They are also likely to be more flexible in terms of what you can do with the money. 77Make It Happen Produce markets, often sponsored by BIDs, add a lifestyle-oriented dimension to neigh- borhood shopping streets. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) ■Set up design guidelines and development stan- dards to make sure that new developments as well as facade and other improvements are compatible with the planned character of the street. These standards can control not only aesthetics, but also such con- cerns as the types of stores that are acceptable, store operating hours, building scale and materials, build- ing setbacks, and number of parking spaces required. ■Business improvement districts are quite effective at enhancing both the business and physical environ- ment for retailing and for engaging business owners in the revitalization process. Retailers, however, can- not fund BIDs alone; offices are needed to help pay for BID operations. BIDs or special taxing or assess- ment districts should be set up in the more estab- lished commercial streets where landowners and ten- ants can afford the incremental tax increase. These types of districts should be viewed more as revitaliza- tion tools than redevelopment tools. ■Tax increment financing is best used in districts where major land holdings need to be rebuilt and where infrastructure is substandard or lacking. ■“Demolition by neglect” statutes should be added to zoning and land development codes to deter landowners from letting their properties deteriorate to the point that they have to be torn down. Don’t be afraid to use eminent domain powers to take control of properties that are aban- doned or neglected. These properties are a cancer, and cannot be allowed to spread blight throughout the neighborhood. However, before proceeding, have a full understanding of applicable laws in your state, and give the property owner adequate opportunity to correct the problem. ■So-called friendly eminent domain can be useful with some property owners who may be willing to sell a deteriorated property to rid themselves of a prob- lem. This can be an effective tool to assemble property required for a large-scale redevelopment project. ■Use targeted requests for proposals or requests for qualifications to solicit interest in redeveloping key properties. 17 New Haven, Connecticut. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 18 If a neighborhood shopping street is clean, safe, and friendly, customers will be drawn to their favorite shops even though the street as a whole may still be in transition from failure to success. If even one of these characteristics is absent, some neighborhood residents will continue to shop elsewhere, and few commuters are likely to stop as they drive through. Achieving an acceptable comfort level for neighborhood shoppers, however, won’t happen without a coordinated, holistic approach to addressing the street’s underlying problems and deficiencies. To solve these problems, an ongoing management entity for the street should be created to perform many of the tasks that a shopping center manager performs. This organization will need to manage the street in perpetuity, operate it like a shopping center, protect its competitive position against more established retail locations, and ensure that it does not slip back into its old dysfunctional ways. A BID is an effective vehicle to act as the management entity because it has the sup- port of the property owners and has a dedicated income stream to support its activi- ties. If a BID is not available to fill the management role, it may fall to a group of business leaders, retailers, or city government representatives. ■Think of the street holistically. Work with the city to stringently enforce building health and safety codes to maintain the street’s quality, appear- ance, and safety. But make sure the codes are flexible and suitable for older/historic buildings, and don’t stymie undercapitalized but legitimate improvement efforts. ■Be the advocate for the neighbor- hood—lobby for scarce resources and ensure that commitments are fulfilled. ■Regularly check the pulse of prop- erty owners and retailers to keep on top of issues, concerns, and problems before they spin out of control. 88Be Clean, Safe, and Friendly Successful BIDs keep standards for mainte- nance, cleanliness, and security high. They also organize activities and events that draw customers to the shopping street, as in Cleveland, Ohio’s Playhouse Square. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) ■Enact extra levies and assessments on property owners who neglect their property. This will encourage them to adhere to the neighborhood’s standards. ■Provide an extra layer of security along the street. Crime prevention and customer security are keys to bringing the shoppers back, so security guards need to be visible but benign, helpful, and unobtrusive. ■Added police patrols also lend peace of mind for potential retailers and customers, particularly if the area had a bad reputation before redevelopment. But public resources are often stretched thin, and the police alone probably won’t be able to solve the problem. ■If homelessness and drug abuse are problems along the street, work closely with city agencies and neighborhood nonprofit organizations to address them. Social services, how- ever, should not be clustered nearby. ■Work with the city to make sure that street people don’t overwhelm the street—although when street people begin moving to the area, it is an indica- tion of success! ■Security devices such as roll-down metal doors and window grilles should be eliminated or altered so they are see-through and provide visibility to the shop windows. ■Plan holiday and other special events to give people an extra reason to visit and bond with the shopping district. 19 University City, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. BID staff stand ready to offer assistance to stranded motorists in Birmingham, Alabama. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Longer hours equal stronger sales, and strong sales define a successful shop- ping street. It’s as simple as that! As revitalization accelerates and rents rise, retailers will be unable to survive unless business hours can be extended to capture more business. The way to do this is to identify, plan for, and tap multi- ple markets to keep the cash register jingling throughout the day and after the sun goes down. The evening is the hardest time to keep businesses open even though that’s when people have time to shop, and it will take a healthy dose of imagination and hard work to achieve the mix of stores, coordinated hours, and sense of security to create an environ- ment where people are comfortable going out after dark. Different customers can be drawn to the street during different periods of the day, but the revitalization team must implement a comprehensive strat- egy to make it happen. Only in the strongest locations will vital retail streets evolve on their own. In the best of these locations, commuters, residents, and nearby workers can be drawn to the street in the morning for coffee or breakfast, to use neighbor- hood services, and to visit the gym. At midday, office and retail workers will eat lunch, run errands, and leisure shop. In the afternoon, residents and workers will go food shopping, stop at pubs and outdoor cafés, and use neighborhood services. As the evening progresses, neighborhood residents and visitors from other neighborhoods can be drawn out of the house to leisure shop, visit the gym, have dinner, go to the movies and theaters, and take advantage of the nightlife. This is the ideal that neighborhood commercial streets should strive for. To achieve it requires that multiple 99Extend Day into Night 20 An artistic facade creates an inviting destination at night in the Manayunk district of Philadelphia. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 21 sources of demand be brought to the street to broaden the support for retailing. ■Day and night, it’s the density and mix of uses that extends the shopping day and creates an exciting urban feel to the street. ■Day and night, it’s the proximity and continuity of diverse retailers that cre- ates the opportunities for cross-shopping that makes the street a compelling retail destination. ■Office uses should be recruited because they are “demand anchors” for retail- ing along the street, especially in the morning and at noontime, if they are inte- grated with other activities along the street. If they are self-enclosed fortresses or if they disrupt the retail continuity, they will detract from rather than add to the street. ■Professional tenants such as doctors and lawyers are very desirable because they steadily attract visitors, employ office staff, and serve neighborhood residents—all of whom are potential shoppers. ■Civic, cultural, and entertainment anchors attract a high number of visitors and create the possibility for trip chain- ing and multiple purchases along the street. Nighttime uses such as restaurants, theaters, and cinemas can help com- pensate for smaller daytime populations such as office workers. ■Civic uses should be encouraged because they can be attuned to the neighborhood’s demographics. A social security office, community center, youth activity center, or department of motor vehicles branch office serves the neighborhood while adding a steady stream of customers to the street. ■Educational facilities, such as university satellite cam- puses, should also be encouraged because they bring teach- ers, students, and educational workers to the neighborhood. A bonus is that they fill off-peak parking spaces. Signpost decorations, tree lights, and a han- som cab set the scene for an exciting evening during the winter holiday season. Holiday decorations and festivals are a great way to attract families to a shopping area during the evening hours. DEVELOPMENT DESIGN GROUP As the sun sets, Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, California, lights up. The well-lit pedestrian street remains active long after dark. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Plan for the long term, but manage for constant change in the short term. Rebuilding a neighborhood retail street is a long reinvestment process, and market realities will undoubtedly continue to change throughout the ongoing life of the street. If the champion, the city, or the property owners are not pre- pared to support this dynamic in perpetuity—with both their efforts and their money—the revitalization project should not be undertaken. One-shot projects will fail, following a formula will fail, operating on autopilot will fail, and lock- ing a street into an unchanging reality will fail as well. These truisms need to be recognized up front. Rebuilding neighborhood retail should be planned comprehensively as an inte- gral piece of the larger community that surrounds it, and it should be tailored to the realities of the area. Communities should focus their initial efforts on care- fully chosen development nodes to maximize the impact of their efforts, create momentum, and foster faith in the project. As more resources become available, the focus should expand to neighboring blocks and streets. Individual strategies will vary widely because every street is different—each has its own set of prob- lems and opportunities, each has a unique identity that can be capitalized on, and each will evolve over time as entrepreneurship grows. What usually begins 1100Manage for Change Clematis Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. 22 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) as a street with local retailers will likely attract regional and national stores as its success builds and its market is reestablished. And even after a critical mass of retailing is achieved, the street still must be constantly managed and nurtured, like a shopping center, to meet fickle consumer demands. ■Treat emerging retail districts as liv- ing, breathing entities. Build momen- tum by continuously putting energy into them, and they will create energy on their own. ■Like children, retail streets could grow and change without guidance, but we wouldn’t like the results. If you doubt this conclusion, simply visit most of our cities’ neighborhood shopping streets. ■Keep close tabs on the markets that you serve, and lease proactively to match the changing demands of these markets. ■Sometimes there is a need to “prune the deadwood” when leases run out. Even when a retailer may be willing to renew its lease, it may no longer fit into the vision or image of the area. In these cases, the space should be leased to a more suitable tenant. It is not unusual for a shopping center to remove 5 to 10 percent of its tenants every year to remain at the cutting edge of what its cus- tomers want. Neighborhood shopping streets need to be willing to do the same. ■Monitor emerging trends, problems, and conflicts closely so that they can be dealt with quickly. An ongoing conflict resolution process should be established to resolve conflicts among stakeholders. ■An ongoing central point of reference and clearinghouse for information should be operated to serve existing and potential customers, tenants, and investors. ■Representatives of the business community and citizen leaders should develop and nurture long-term relationships with public sector representatives who have responsibilities for the district to get an appropriate share of attention and funding. Public officials should likewise reach out to the business and citizen leaders. Strong two-way working relationships will help to achieve both public and private goals over the long term. 23 At Ohio State University, High Street, in Columbus, Ohio, is undergoing a revitalization that will include 250,000 square feet of retail, restaurant, and entertainment space. 9.A.6 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Ten Principles of NeighborhoodRetail.ashx (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Higher-Density Development MYTH AND FACT $Urban Land Institute Urban Land Institute$ 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 3 Higher-Density Development MYTH AND FACT $Urban Land Institute Urban Land Institute$ 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) About NMHC–the National Multi Housing Council NMHC is a national association representing the interests of the nation’s larger and most prominent apartment firms. NMHC advocates on behalf of rental hous- ing, conducts apartment-related research, encourages the exchange of strategic business information, and promotes the desirability of apartment living. One-third of Americans rent their housing, and 15 percent of all U.S. households live in an apartment home. Doug Bibby, President About Sierra Club The Sierra Club’s members are 700,000 of your friends and neighbors. Inspired by nature, we work together to protect our communities and the planet. The Club is America’s oldest, largest, and most influential grass-roots environmental organization. Larry Fahn, President About AIA–the American Institute of Architects Since 1857, the AIA has represented the professional interests of America’s archi- tects. As AIA members, more than 75,000 licensed architects, emerging profession- als, and allied partners express their commitment to excellence in design and livabil- ity in our nation’s buildings and communities. Members adhere to a code of ethics and professional conduct that assures the client, the public, and colleagues of an AIA-member architect’s dedication to the highest standards in professional practice. Douglas L. Steidl, President About ULI–the Urban Land Institute ULI–the Urban Land Institute is a nonprofit educational and research institute supported by its members. Its mission is to provide responsible leadership in the use of land to enhance the total environment. ULI sponsors educational programs and forums to encourage an open exchange of ideas and sharing of experiences; initiates research that anticipates emerging land use trends and issues and propos- es creative solutions based on that research; provides advisor y services; and pub- lishes a wide variety of materials to disseminate information on land use and devel- opment. Established in 1936, the Institute has more than 24,000 members and associates from more than 80 countries representing the entire spectrum of the land use and development disciplines. Richard M. Rosan, President 2 Higher-Density Development 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 3 ULI Project Staff ULI Project Staff Rachelle L. Levitt Senior Vice President, Policy and Practice Publisher Gayle Berens Vice President, Real Estate Development and Practice Richard M. Haughey Director, Multifamily Development Project Director Principal Author Elam Thomas Sprenkle Alexa Bach Contributing Authors Nancy H. Stewart Director, Book Program Managing Editor Barbara M. Fishel/Editech Manuscript Editor Betsy Van Buskirk Art Director Anne Morgan Graphic Design Diann Stanley-Austin Director, Publishing Operations Recommended bibliographic listing: Haughey, Richard M. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact. Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2005. ULI Catalog Number: N27 International Standard Book Number: 0-87420-941-2 ©2005 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 Printed in the United States of America. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or in any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, or by an information storage and retrieval system without written permission of the publisher. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 4 Higher-Density Development Representatives of the partners who directed this work: NMHC Doug Bibby,President Kimberly D. Duty, Vice President of Communications Michael H. Tucker, Director of Communications Sierra Club Neha Bhatt, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign Eric Olson, Associate Washington Representative Challenge to Sprawl Campaign AIA David T. Downey, Managing Director AIA Center for Communities by Design ULI Richard M. Haughey,Director,Multifamily Development ULI Review Committee Elinor R. Bacon President ER Bacon Development, LLC Washington, D.C. Maureen McAvey Senior Resident Fellow, Urban Development ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Edward T. McMahon Senior Resident Fellow, Sustainable Development ULI–the Urban Land Institute Washington, D.C. Debra Stein President GCA Strategies San Francisco, California 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 5 s this country continues to grow and change, communities are left to figure out where all these new people will live, work, and shop. New markets are emerging for real estate that offers a more convenient lifestyle than is offered by many low-density sprawling communities. New compact developments with a mix of uses and housing types throughout the country are being embraced as a popular alternative to sprawl. At the core of the success of these developments is density, which is the key to making these communities walkable and vibrant. Unfortunately, in too many communities higher-density mixed-use development is difficult to construct because of zoning and building codes that favor low-density development with segregated uses and because of opposition from the commu- nity. This publication looks at several myths surrounding higher-density develop- ment and attempts to dispel them with facts to help dismantle the many barriers such developments face. ULI is proud to have partnered with NMHC–the National Multi Housing Council, Sierra Club, and AIA–the American Institute of Architects on this publication. This convergence of interests highlights the importance each organization has placed on finding a new development pattern that better fits the needs of a growing and changing country. ULI will continue to provide forums in which all stakeholders can explore and debate issues about growth and development patterns and how properly designed and incorporated density can be used to accommodate new growth. ULI will conduct research, produce well-balanced information, and identify best practices on issues relevant to growth and density.Through these efforts, ULI and its partners hope to play a role in planning a better development pattern for the future. Harry H. Frampton III Chair 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) HHiigghheerr--DDeennssiittyy DDeevveellooppmmeenntt:: Myth and Fact merica’s changing population is creating demand for new types of homes, offices, and retail outlets. Better solutions are needed to the challenges created by changing demographics, dwindling natural areas, smog and public health issues, shrinking municipal budgets, and traffic congestion. Commu- nities that answer these challenges will develop into great places to live. America will add roughly 43 million new residents—that’s 2.7 million new residents per year—between now and 2020.1 America is not only growing but also under- going dramatic demographic changes. The traditional two-parent household with children is now less than a quarter of the population and getting proportionally smaller. Single-parent households, single-person households, empty nesters, and couples without children make up the new majority of American households, and they have quite different real estate needs.2 These groups are more likely to choose higher-density housing in mixed-density communities that offer vibrant neighbor- hoods over single-family houses far from the community core. The fact is that continuing the sprawling, low-density haphazard development pat- tern of the past 40 years is unsustainable, financially and otherwise. It will exacer- bate many of the problems sprawl has already created—dwindling natural areas and working farms, increasingly longer commutes, debilitating traffic congestion, and harmful smog and water pollution. Local officials now realize that paying for basic infrastructure—roadways and schools, libraries, fire, police, and sewer services —spread over large and sprawling distances is inefficient and expensive. Most public leaders want to create vibrant, economically strong communities where citizens can enjoy a high quality of life in a fiscally and environmentally responsible manner, but many are not sure how to achieve it. Planning for growth is a compre- hensive and complicated process that requires leaders to employ a variety of tools to balance diverse community interests. Arguably, no tool is more important than increasing the density of existing and new communities, which includes support for infill development, the rehabilitation and reuse of existing structures, and denser new development. Indeed, well-designed and well-integrated higher-density devel- opment makes successful planning for growth possible. Density refers not only to high-rise buildings. The definition of density depends on the context in which it is used. In this publication, higher density simply means new residential and commercial development at a density that is higher than what is typically found in the existing community. Thus, in a sprawling area with single-family detached houses on one-acre lots, single-family houses on one-fourth or one-eighth acre are considered higher density. In more densely populated areas with single-family houses on small lots, townhouses and apartments are con- sidered higher-density development. For many suburban communities, the popu- lar mixed-use town centers being developed around the country are considered higher-density development. 6 Higher-Density Development 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 7 Most land use professionals and community leaders now agree that creating com- munities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses could be the antidote to sprawl when implemented regionally. And across the country, the general public is becoming more informed and engaged in making the tough land use choices that need to be made while understanding the consequences of continuing to grow as we have in the past. Many have also come to appreciate the “place-making” bene- fits of density and the relationship between higher-density development and land preservation. Media coverage of the topic of growth and development has also evolved. Past media coverage of growth and development issues was often limited to the heated conflicts between developers and community residents. Many in the media are now presenting more thoughtful and balanced coverage, and several editorial boards support higher-density developments in their communities as an antidote to regional sprawl. Yet despite the growing awareness of the complexity of the issue and growing sup- port for higher-density development as an answer to sprawl, many still have ques- tions and fears related to higher-density development. How will it change the neigh- borhood? Will it make traffic worse? What will happen to property values? And what about crime? Ample evidence—documented throughout this publication—suggests that well-designed higher-density development, properly integrated into an existing community, can become a significant community asset that adds to the quality of life and property values for existing residents while addressing the needs of a growing and changing population. Many people’s perception of higher-density development does not mesh with the reality. Studies show that when surveyed about higher-density development, those inter viewed hold a negative view. But when shown images of higher-density versus lower-density development, people often change their perceptions and prefer higher density.3 In a recent study by the National Association of Realtors®and Smart Growth America, six in ten prospective homebuyers, when asked to choose between two communities, chose the neighborhood that offered a shorter com- mute, sidewalks, and amenities like shops, restaurants, libraries, schools, and pub- lic transportation within walking distance. They preferred this option over the one with longer commutes and larger lots but limited options for walking.4 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.5 Such contra- dictions point to widespread misconceptions about the nature of higher-density development and sprawl. Several of these misconceptions are so prevalent as to be considered myths. To some degree, these myths are the result of memories people have of the very- high-density urban public housing projects of the 1960s and 1970s that have been subsequently deemed a failure. Somehow, the concept of density became associated with the negative imagery and social problems of depressed urban areas. The reality 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 8 Higher-Density Development is that complex interrelated factors such as the high concentration of poverty and poor educational and employment opportunities combined to doom the public housing projects. Even very-high-density housing can be practical, safe, and desir- able. For example, the mixed-income apartments and condominiums or luxury high rises in New York and Chicago—some of the safest and most expensive housing in the country—prove that density does not equal an unsafe environment. The purpose of this publication is to dispel the many myths surrounding higher- density development and to create a new understanding of density that goes beyond simplistic negative connotations that overestimate its impact and under- estimate its value. Elected officials, concerned citizens, and community leaders can use this publication to support well-designed and well-planned density that creates great places and great communities that people love. With the anticipated popula- tion growth and continuing demographic and lifestyle changes, consensus is build- ing that creating communities with a mix of densities, housing types, and uses will be both necessary and desirable. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact is the sixth in a series of Urban Land Institute myth and fact booklets. The series is intended to clarify misconceptions surrounding growth and development. Other topics covered have included trans- portation, smart growth, urban infill housing, environment and development, and mixed-income housing. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact examines widespread misconceptions related to higher-density development and seeks to dispel them with relevant facts and information. Although the benefits of higher-density development are often understated, so are the detrimental effects of low-density development. The advan- tages and drawbacks of higher-density development are compared throughout this publication with the alternative of low-density development. In the process, mis- conceptions regarding low-density development are also addressed. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 1MYTH FACT The nature of who lives in higher-density housing—fewer families with children—puts less demand on schools and other public services than low-density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it. Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems. P ublic officials across the country struggle to afford the infrastructure need- ed to support sprawling development. A recent study analyzing the costs of sprawl estimated that more than $100 billion in infrastructure costs could be saved over 25 years by pursuing better planned and more com- pact forms of development.6 The issue has transcended political parties and ideolo- gies and has become an issue of basic fiscal responsibility. California’s Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has criticized “fiscally unsustainable sprawl,”7 while Michigan’s Democratic Governor Jennifer Granholm has noted that sprawl “is hampering the ability of this state and its local governments to finance public facilities and service improvements.”8 Myth and Fact 9 NUMBER OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN PER 100 UNITS OF NEW HOUSING NUMBER OF CHILDRENTYPE OF HOUSING 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Mid- to High-Rise Apartments 19 Garden Apartments 21 Owner- Occupied Single-Family Homes 64 Source: 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999). 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 10 Higher-Density Development MYTH ONE FACT ONE Progressive and conservative groups have identified sprawl as a real problem. Charter of the New Urbanism states that “placeless sprawl” is an “interrelated com- munity building challenge.”9 Conservative groups have concluded that “sprawl is in fact a conservative issue” with “conservative solutions” and that “sprawl was in large part created through government intervention in the economy.”10 Indeed, numerous government policies over the last half century have led to and supported sprawl. Historically, federal spending for transportation has subsidized large-scale highway construction over other modes of transportation. Financing policies from the Federal Housing Administration have promoted suburban sub- divisions across the nation. Large lot exclusionary zoning has forced the artificial separation of land uses, leading to large distances between employment centers, housing, and retail. But many government agencies now realize they cannot afford to continue providing the infrastructure and public services that sprawl demands. Not only do local governments absorb much of the cost of more and more road- ways, profoundly longer water and electrical lines, and much larger sewer systems to support sprawling development, they must also fund public services to the new resi- dents who live farther and farther from the core community. These new residents need police and fire protection, schools, libraries, trash removal, and other services. Stretching all these basic services over ever-growing geographic areas places a great burden on local governments. For example, the Minneapolis/St. Paul region built 78 new schools in the suburbs between 1970 and 1990 while simultaneously closing 162 schools in good condition located within city limits.11 Albuquerque, New Mexico, faces a school budget crisis as a result of the need to build expensive new schools in outlying areas while enrollment in existing close-in schools declines. The Market Common Clarendon Located on the site of a former parking lot and occupying roughly ten acres of land, the Market Common in Clarendon, Virginia, just outside Washington, D.C., provides 300 Class A apartments, 87 townhouses, 100,000 square feet of office space, and 240,000 square feet of prime retail space. Located within walking distance of the Orange Line of Washington’s extensive subway system, residents can leave their cars parked while they take public transit to work. They can also walk to a Whole Foods grocery store adjacent to the highly successful develop- ment. Prominent national retailers occupy the ground level of the building, and structured parking is provided. The compact develop- ment form of the Market Common promotes walking, biking, and using public transit over autos. The apartments are attractive to young pro- fessionals without children, lessening the impact on the county’s school system. The project is the result of a successful collaboration of McCaffery Interests, Arlington County officials, and citizens of the Clarendon neighborhood; it has spurred new retail, office, and residential construction on neighboring sites. PROFILE Located within walking distance of a Washington, D.C., Metro stop, the Market Common provides housing, offices, retail, and restaurants on a ten- acre site that was formerly a parking lot.MCCAFFERYINTERESTS9.A.7 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 11 MYTH ONE FACT ONE Unfortunately for local governments, a growing body of evidence shows that sprawling development often does not pay enough property tax to cover the serv- ices it requires. A study conducted for a suburban community outside Milwaukee found that public services for an average-price single-family house in that commu- nity cost more than twice as much as the property taxes paid by the homeowner.12 One reason for the disparity between property tax revenue and the cost of public services is expenditures for public schools. Low-density suburbs and exurban areas generally attract families with more school-age children. In fact, single-family developments average 64 children for every 100 units, compared with only 21 chil- dren for every 100 units of garden apartments and 19 children for every 100 units of mid- to high-rise apartments.13 The reason is that multifamily housing attracts predominantly childless couples, singles, and empty nesters. And although apartment renters do not pay property tax directly, apartment owners do. Apartments are also usually taxed at a higher commercial real estate tax rate,14 so a typical mixed-use development with retail, office, and apartments may subsidize the schools and other public services required by residents of low-density housing in the same community. This phenomenon is further exacerbated because many multi- family developments and retail and office establishments pay for their own trash dis- posal, shuttle buses, and security. Reducing the distance between homes, shops, and offices also reduces the cost of public infrastructure. According to one of many studies, “The public capital and operating costs for close-in, compact development [are] much lower than they [are] for fringe, scattered, linear, and satellite development.”15 And many of these studies do not take into account the advantages created by making public transit 20 15 10 5 0 –5 PROJECTED HOUSEHOLD GROWTH: 2000–2010 Families with No Children 16.0% Nonfamily Households 14.0% Families with Children Under 18 –3.0%PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATETYPE OF HOUSEHOLD Source:Projections of Number of Households and Families in the United States: 1995–2010 (Washington, D.C.:U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1996). 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 12 Higher-Density Development MYTH ONE FACT ONE more feasible as well as making delivery of basic services like mail delivery, trash collection, and police and fire protec- tion more efficient. Another emerging body of research suggests that higher- density development is an important component of eco- nomic development initiatives and helps attract new employers. “Information economy” is a term used to define the growing industries based on the economics of the Internet, information goods, and intellectual property. Workers in this field are known as “knowledge workers,” and many believe they are the future of the American econ- omy. These workers are comfortable with the latest technol- ogy and, because their skills are transferable, choose their jobs based on the attributes of the town or city where they are located. They seek out vibrant, diverse urban centers that offer access to technology, other knowledge workers, and lifestyle.16 The economic development game has changed. Employers now follow the workers rather than the other way around. Therefore, communities that focus on providing a high quality of life with the energy and vitality created by urban centers will be much more likely to attract these highly prized, talented, and productive workers than communi- ties of faceless sprawl. Companies that understand the appeal of these communities are making relocation deci- sions with these workers in mind. Studies have shown that increasing employment density increases labor productivity, generally by reducing commuting times.17 Thus, introducing higher-density projects into a community will actually increase that community’s revenue without significantly increasing the infrastructure and public service burdens. Blending apartments into low-density communities can help pay for schools without drastic increases in the num- ber of students. Diversifying housing options and adding amenities like shops and offices close by will improve the quality of life and attract businesses and people that will strengthen the community’s economic stability. Increasing density provides a real economic boost to the community and helps pay for the infrastructure and public services that everybody needs. Highlands’ Garden Village Built on the site of the Elitch Gardens amusement park in Denver, Highlands’ Garden Village is a walk- able, transit-linked community and a financially viable model for environmentally responsible infill development. New York–based developer Jonathan Rose & Companies developed single-family homes, townhouses, seniors’ and multifamily apartments, cohousing, offices, and retail space on the site. At the center, a historic theater and carousel from the original amusement park are being transformed into a community performing arts center and a walking labyrinth. Berkeley, California–based Calthorpe Associates designed a plan that put new homes on three sides of a square-shaped village and a commercial “main street” on the fourth. Restaurants, studios, and shops line the street with live/work townhouses and offices above, giving residents the opportunity to live, work, and shop in the same community. The proximity of amenities, location near downtown, and convenience of public bus lines encourage people to walk and reduce travel costs. PROFILE Highlands’ Garden Village reuses some structures from the amusement park previously located on the site. The compact development, combined with a variety of uses and housing types, uses public infrastructure more efficiently than low- density sprawling development.JONATHANROSE&COMPANIES9.A.7 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 2FACT Myth and Fact 13 MYTH No discernible difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher-density development can increase property values. Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas. T he precise value of real estate is determined by many factors, and isolating the impact of one factor can be difficult. Although location and school district are the two most obvious determining factors of value, location within a community and size and condition of the house also affect value. Several studies have examined whether multifamily housing has any impact on the value of nearby single-family detached houses. These studies have shown either no impact or even a slightly positive impact on appreciation rates. Haile Plantation Haile Plantation is a Gainesville, Florida, icon. Although it is denser than surrounding communities, the values of homes in Haile Plantation are often higher than the values of houses in neighboring lower-density communities, because the traditional neighborhood design employed there makes Haile Plantation more desirable and valuable. Beginning with the master plan in 1979, Haile Plantation has been called one of the first new urban- ist communities in the country. Developers Bob Rowe and Bob Kramer in conjunction with the Haile Plantation Corporation developed the 1,700-acre site to include more than 2,700 units, ranging from single-family homes to townhouses and garden apartments. The sense of community has only grown with the expansion of the development to include a town center, a village green, trails, civic uses, and offices. Indeed, it is density and diver- sity that together add value to this popular Florida community. PROFILE Homes in Haile Plantation sell for more than neighboring homes because prospective buyers view the traditional neighborhood design as a valuable and desirable amenity.HAILEPLANTATIONCORPORATION9.A.7 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 14 Higher-Density Development MYTH TWO FFACT TWO For instance, one study by the National Association of Home Builders looked at data from the American Housing Survey, which is conducted every two years by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It found that between 1997 and 1999, the value of single-family houses within 300 feet of an apartment or condo- minium building went up 2.9 percent a year, slightly higher than the 2.7 percent rate for single-family homes without multifamily properties nearby.18 Another study, commissioned by the Family Housing Fund in Minnesota, studied affordable apartments in 12 Twin Cities neighborhoods and found “little or no evidence to support the claim that tax-credit family rental developments in [the] study eroded surrounding home values.”19 And a long-term study by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies published in 2003 also confirms that apartments pose no threat to nearby single-family house values, based on U.S. Census data from 1970 to 2000.20 Not only is there compelling evidence that increased density does not hurt property values of nearby neighbors: researchers at Virginia Tech University have concluded that over the long run, well-placed market-rate apartments with attractive design and landscaping actually increases the overall value of detached houses nearby.21 They cite three possible reasons. First, the new apartments could themselves be an indicator that an area’s econ- omy is vibrant and growing. Second, multifamily housing may increase the pool of potential future homebuyers, creating more possible buyers for exist- ing owners when they decide to sell their houses. Third, new multifamily housing, particularly as part of mixed-use development, often makes an area more attractive than nearby communities that have fewer housing and retail choices.22 Echelon at Lakeside Echelon at Lakeside is the only multifamily development in an upscale, master-planned single-family suburban neighborhood of Lakeside on Preston in Plano, Texas a suburb of Dallas. Florida-based developers Echelon Communities, LLC, overcame initial community opposi- tion from area residents through high-quality innovative design. The award-winning architecture blends seam- lessly with the surrounding neighborhood’s traditional style. Larger-than-normal floor plans, individual entries, and attached garages combine to mirror the grand estates in the surrounding communities. Although street elevations make the buildings appear to be one single- family home, they actually house several multifamily units. Memphis-based architects Looney Ricks Kiss used five building types and three building styles. All units include high-quality interior finishes; community amenities include a resort-style pool, fitness facility, clubroom, business and conference center, and full-time concierge. PROFILE The award-winning apartments at Echelon at Lakeside were designed to blend with the neighboring luxury homes.COURTESYOFECHELONCOMMUNITIES,LLC,PHOTOGRAPH©STEVEHINDS9.A.7 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 15 MYTH TWO FFACT TWO Concerned citizens should use the entitlement process to demand high-quality development in their communities while understanding that density and adjacent property values are not inversely related. Higher-density real estate developers and investors in higher-density real estate need to appreciate the fact that most Americans’ wealth is held in their home equity. Therefore, changes in property values can have very real consequences to existing property owners. Likewise, homeowners would benefit from knowing that developers make a substantial financial commitment when investing in new higher-density projects. This invest- ment is an incentive to make the project successful, which can give the commu- nity leverage in working with the developer. Such interrelated and overlapping economic interests among these stakeholders make it all the more likely that a mutually beneficial agreement can be reached. Such an agreement can result in a project that enhances the existing community, ensures the appreciation of resi- dents’, developers’, and the local government’s financial interests, and addresses the needs of current and future residents of the community and region. 3.0% 2.5% 2.0% 1.5% 1.0% 0.5% 0% AVERAGE ANNUAL APPRECIATION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES BY NEARNESS TO MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS Not Near Multifamily 2.66% Near Multifamily 2.90% Near Low-Rise Multifamily 2.91% Near Mid- or High-Rise Multifamily 2.79%AVERAGE ANNUAL APPRECIATION RATEPROXIMITY TO MULTIFAMILY Source:NAHB computations based on data in the American Housing Sur vey: 1997 and 1999 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1997 and 1999). 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 3 MYTH FACT Higher-density development generates less traffic than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking. Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development. 16 Higher-Density Development Most people assume that higher-density development generates more traffic than low- density development and that regional traffic will get worse with more compact devel- opment. In fact, the opposite is true. Although residents of low-density single-family communities tend to have two or more cars per household, residents of high-density apartments and condominiums tend to have only one car per household.23 And according to one study using data from the National Personal Transportation Survey, doubling density decreases the vehicle miles traveled by 38 percent.24 Mockingbird Station The residents of Mockingbird Station in Dallas, Texas, are far less dependent on their cars, because they have a whole host of amenities at their doorstep. Dallas developer Ken Hughes partnered with Denver-based Simpson Housing Group to create the ten-acre pedestrian-oriented urban village, which includes 216 loft apartments, an eight-screen film center and café, more than 90 shops and restaurants, offices, an enclosed public plaza, and parking, all directly linked to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) light-rail system. Mockingbird Station provides direct platform access to DART trains, which offer residents an eight-minute commute to Dallas’s central business district and a single train connection to the Dallas Convention Center, Reunion Arena, and other downtown entertainment. The new village is also immediately adjacent to the campus of Southern Methodist University and within walking distance of the university’s new stadium and sports center. RTKL created architecture reminiscent of historic train stations but with a modern twist to the materials and detailing. Although only limited driving is necessary, a parking garage is provided but placed out of sight and underground. The myriad materials, architectural styles, and amenities create a vibrant transit-oriented community. PROFILE Residents of Mockingbird Station can leave their cars in the garage and take an eight-minute train ride to downtown Dallas; they can also walk to shops, offices, and a movie theater.UCURBAN9.A.7 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 17 The reason is that higher-density developments make for more walkable neighbor- hoods and bring together the concentration of population required to support pub- lic transportation. The result is that residents in higher-density housing make fewer and shorter auto trips than those living in low-density housing.25 Condominium and townhouse residents average 5.6 trips per day and apartment dwellers 6.3 car trips per day, compared with the ten trips a day averaged by residents of low-density com- munities. (A trip is defined as any time a car leaves or returns to a home.) Increasing density can significantly reduce dependency on cars, but those benefits are even greater when jobs and retail are incorporated with the housing. Such mixed-use neighborhoods make it easier for people to park their car in one place and accomplish several tasks, which not only reduces the number of car trips required but also reduces overall parking needs for the community. But if retail uses are to survive, they must be near households with disposable income. Having those households within walking distance of the shops builds in a market for the stores. One study indicates that in some markets, 25 to 35 percent of retail sales must come from housing close to shops for the shops to be successful.26 MYTH THREEEFACT THREE Southwest Station The Southwest Metro Transit Commission is a small suburban bus system near Minneapolis that serves downtown Minneapolis and numerous other employment and recreation centers, including Minnesota Twins baseball games. The American Public Transportation Association calls it the “best small system in the country.” In an effort to capital- ize and expand on the success of the system, the commission has encouraged transit-oriented devel- opment at its bus stops. In Eden Prairie, Minnesota, the commission completed a bus depot and five- story parking garage on 22 acres of excess right-of- way. In 2001, it started selling land around the tran- sit complex for retail and residential development. Restaurants, shops, and more than 250 apartments, condominiums, and townhouses soon followed. The new development generated revenue for the com- mission, new public transit riders, affordable con- venient housing, and a suburban lifestyle with the amenities usually afforded only to city dwellers. PROFILE The Southwest Metro Transit Commission in suburban Minneapolis runs an award-winning bus system and has encouraged higher-density development around transit stops, like this one at Southwest Station in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.SOUTHWESTMETROTRANSITCOMMISSION9.A.7 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 18 Higher-Density Development MYTH THREE FACT THREE With a typical family now making more car trips for family, personal, social, and recreational reasons than for commuting to work,27 reducing the number of noncommuting trips takes on greater importance in the battle to reduce traffic congestion and parking problems. A case study in Washington, D.C., found that workers in dense downtown Washington made 80 percent of their mid-day trips by foot while suburban workers made 67 percent of their mid-day trips by car.28 Although a suburban office park would never reach the density levels of a down- town area, planners can still reduce the auto dependency of suburban office work- ers by using some of the same design techniques. Concentrating density around suburban offices, allowing and encouraging retail and restaurants in and near the offices, and planning for pedestrian and bike access can all reduce the number of lunchtime car trips required by office workers. Higher-density mixed-used developments also create efficiencies through shared parking. For example, office and residential uses require parking at almost exact opposite times. As residents leave for work, office workers return, and vice versa. In addition, structured parking becomes feasible only with higher-density developments. Higher-density development also makes public transit more feasible. When a com- munity that includes residences, shops, and offices reaches a certain threshold of density, public transit-shuttles, bus service, trams, or light rail becomes an option for residents. It is estimated that a minimum density of seven dwelling units per acre is needed to make local bus service feasible with an intermediate level of service.29 Light rail needs a minimum density of nine dwelling units per acre to be feasible.30 When a community can take advantage of these options and increase the transportation choices for residents, relief is greater as total car dependency is further broken. Such choices are impossible for low-density developments. AVERAGE DAILY CAR TRIPS NUMBER OF TRIPS DAILY10 8 6 4 2 0 Apartment 6.3 Single-Family Detached 10.0 TYPE OF HOUSING Source: Institute of Traffic Engineers,Trip Generation,6th Edition, vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 4MYTH FACT The crime rates at higher-density developments are not significantly different from those at lower-density developments. Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates. Myth and Fact 19Myth and Fact 19 P eople sometimes associate density with crime, even though numerous studies show that no relationship exists between the two. A study in Ir ving, Texas, using geographic information systems and crime statistics, found no link between crime and density. In fact, it found that single-family neigh- borhoods are “not all associated with lower crime rates.”31 Another study conducted by the University of Alaska found no relationship between housing density and crime in Anchorage.32 Westminster Place Although today Westminster Place is a thriving, safe community in midtown St. Louis, it was not always the case. The area, approxi- mately 90 acres, was well known by the St. Louis police department for its high rate of violent crime, which led to the area’s becoming blighted. McCormack Baron Salazar, a St. Louis–based developer, brought the community back through the addition of higher-density mixed-income housing comprising affordable and market-rate units. The master plan included for-sale and rental housing, garden apart- ments, townhouses, single-family homes, and even an assisted liv- ing facility for seniors. A new community pool, a bustling retail cen- ter, and a magnet school are included as well. The new plan slowed traffic through the community, added landscaping and street and parking lot lighting, and new “eyes on the street,” making it more difficult for criminals to go unnoticed. The area blossomed into a place where people once again feel safe walking. The success of the community spurred the revitalization of surrounding areas. PROFILE Increasing the housing density, adding some market-rate housing, and developing a design that slowed traffic and added additional lighting changed Westminster Place from a crime-ridden neighbor- hood to a thriving, safe community.MCCORMACKBARONSALAZAR9.A.7 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 20 Higher-Density Development MYTH FOUR FACT FOUR East Village East Village is a small urban revitalization project on the edge of downtown Minneapolis. Before the project was built, the neglected 2.9-acre site contained several deteriorating rental homes, old commer- cial buildings, and abandoned surface parking lots. The neighborhood wanted to improve the area and the image of one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods, Elliot Park. The developers of the project, Central Community Housing Trust and East Village Housing Corporation, developed the new mixed-income housing and commercial community to encourage a sense of community and ownership. East Village now features community green space, pedestrian paths, and neighborhood businesses. Buildings sur- round the greenway that leads to Elliot Park, a city park with year-round activities and a community center. Brick, bay windows, and French balconies complement historic buildings in the area. In addition, all buildings have multiple entrances to encourage interaction among neighbors. An underground 350- space parking garage frees up space for landscaped areas. This once neglected area has won two awards for innovation and design and become an exceedingly successful vibrant and safe community. The additional “eyes on the street” created by the development of East Village in Minneapolis has led to a safer vibrant community. PROFILE CENTRALCOMMUNITYHOUSINGTRUST9.A.7 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 21 MYTH FOUR FACT FOUR Arizona researchers found that when police data are analyzed per unit, apartments actually create less demand for police services than a comparable number of single- family houses. In Tempe, Arizona, a random sample of 1,000 calls for service showed that 35 percent originated from single-family houses and just 21 percent came from apartments. Similarly, a random sample of 600 calls for service in Phoenix, Arizona, found that an apartment unit’s demand for police services was less than half of the demand created by a single-family house.33 One reason for the misperception that crime and density are related could be that crime reports tend to characterize multifamily properties as a single “house” and may record every visit to an apartment community as happening at a single house. But a multifamily property with 250 units is more accurately defined as 250 houses. To truly compare crime rates between multifamily properties and single-family houses, the officer would have to count each household in the multifamily commu- nity as the equivalent of a separate single-family household. When they do so, many find what the previous studies prove: that crime rates between different housing types are comparable. Higher-density developments can actually help reduce crime by increasing pedestrian activity and fostering a 24-hour community that puts more “eyes on the street”34 at all times. Many residents say they chose higher-density housing specifically because they felt more secure there; they feel safer because there are more people coming and going, making it more difficult for criminals to act without being discovered. This factor could explain why a ULI study of different housing types in Greenwich, Connecticut, shows that higher-density housing is significantly less likely to be bur- glarized than single-family houses.35 The relationships among design, management, and security became better understood in the past few decades with the publication of several seminal works, including Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design by Oscar Newman36 and Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities by George Kelling and Catherine Coles.37 Many new higher- density developments include better lighting plans and careful placement of buildings and landscaping to reduce opportunities for crime, contributing to a safer community. With the emergence of better-quality designs, higher-density mixed-use develop- ment is an attractive and safe addition to a community, one that is increasingly attracting a professional constituency seeking safety features. In fact, the luxur y segment is one of the fastest-growing components of the multifamily industry.38 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 5 MYTH FACT Low-density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land. Higher-density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development. L ow-density sprawl takes an enormous toll on our air, water, and land. The United States is now losing a staggering 2 million acres of land a year to haphazard, sprawling development.39 More than 50 percent of Americans live in places where the air is unhealthy to breathe,40 and childhood asthma and other respiratory diseases are on the rise.41 Almost half the damage to our streams, lakes, and rivers is the result of polluted runoff from paved surfaces.42 It is inefficient land use, not economic growth, that accounts for the rapid loss of open space and farms. Since 1994, housing lots larger than ten acres have account- ed for 55 percent of the land developed.43 This loss of land often causes unexpect- ed economic challenges for rural communities, where farmland, forests, ranchland, and open space tend to be the economic drivers that attract businesses, residents, and tourists. Low-density sprawl compromises the resources that are the core of the community’s economy and character. The majority of American homeowners think it is important to stop these trends. In fact, 76 percent of local ballot initiatives related to land conservation passed in November 2004, making $2.4 billion in fund- ing available for protection of parks and open space.44 But purchasing land is only part of the solution and not always an option for financially strapped governments. Higher-density development offers the best solution to managing growth and pro- tecting clean air and clean water. Placing new development into already urbanized areas that are equipped with all the basic infrastructure like utility lines, police and fire protection, schools, and shops eliminates the financial and environmental costs of stretching those services farther and farther out from the core community. Com- pact urban design reduces driving and smog and preserves the natural areas that are assets of the community: watersheds, wetlands, working farms, open space, and wildlife corridors. It further minimizes impervious surface area, which causes ero- sion and polluted stormwater runoff. Two studies completed for the state of New Jersey confirm that compact development can achieve a 30 percent reduction in runoff and an 83 percent reduction in water consumption compared with conven- tional suburban development.45 22 Higher-Density Development 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) MYTH FIVE FACT FIVE Prairie Crossing The developers of Prairie Crossing, George and Vicky Ranney, saved $1 million in infrastructure costs through environmentally sensitive design. The 677-acre conservation community is located in Grayslake, Illinois, 40 miles northwest of Chicago and one hour south of Milwaukee. The community features 350 acres of open space, including 160 acres of restored prairie, 158 acres of active farmland, 13 acres of wetlands, a 22-acre lake, a village green, and several neighborhood parks. Houses are sited to protect natural features such as hedge- rows, native habitat, and wetlands. Designed with colors and architecture inspired by the landscape, every home has a view of open space and direct access to ten miles of on-site walk- ing and biking trails. Wide sidewalks, deep front porches, and rear garages encourage neighbors to meet. The homes were built with U.S. Department of Energy–approved green building techniques. As a result, they are 50 percent more energy efficient than other homes in the Chicago area, and they sell for a 33 percent sales premium. Station Village is the last phase of Prairie Crossing. When complete, it will include residential, retail, and office space, all within walking distance of two commuter train stations. Residents can ride Metra’s North Line to Chicago’s Union Station or the Central Line to downtown Chicago and O’Hare Airport. PROFILE More than half the land at Prairie Crossing was preserved as open space, and homes were built with approved green building techniques. Myth and Fact 23PRAIRIECROSSING 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 24 Higher-Density Development The Preserve USS Real Estate originally held a 550-acre tract of land in Hoover, Alabama, but sold 250 acres to the city, intending to create the Moss Rock Nature Preserve. The 680 single-family homes, 50,000 square feet of retail, and 50,000 square feet of office space are concentrated on the remaining 311-acre site. Before development of the Preserve, Hoover was characterized by sprawling conven- tional development and lacked a town center. The Preserve’s future town center is planned to include 34 live/work units, 14 retail units, and two restaurants: at the heart of the community is the village green, an impressive eight-acre park with a town hall, a fitness center, a junior olympic swimming pool, and a kiddie pool. Residents have access to 15 acres of parks and seven miles of trails that connect to award-winning Hoover schools and the newly created Moss Rock preserve. PROFILE Clustering development at the Preserve in Hoover Alabama, enabled the creation of the 250-acre Moss Rock Nature Preserve. MYTH FIVE FACT FIVE USSREALESTATE9.A.7 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 25 MYTH FIVE FACT FIVE Many communities employ techniques such as infill and brownfield development to transform unused, abandoned lots into vibrant, revenue-generating components of the community. Some create direct incentives for higher-density development. The city of Austin, Texas, for example, created a program that rewards developers for locating projects in the city’s existing neighborhoods and downtown. Others award points for a variety of attributes, such as transit access, the redevelopment of empty lots, and an increase in pedestrian facilities. By employing standards for fac- tors like open space, dense development, and impact on water quality, communi- ties can facilitate good urban design that preserves natural resources. Although a well-designed higher-density community offers residents a higher- quality environment, poorly planned sprawl does the opposite. Because low-density sprawl gobbles up so much land through large-lot zoning, it ends up destroying the very thing most people moved there for in the first place—the natural areas and farmland. It forces people to drive longer distances, increasing regional air quality problems. The average American man spends 81 minutes behind the wheel every day, while women average 63 minutes. And surveys show that the time spent driving has been consistently increasing every year.46 The national road network, currently at 4 million miles according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, is still grow- ing at an alarming rate, mainly for the purpose of connecting new low-density sub- urbs back to core communities. Along with the water and air pollution, construc- tion of these highways perpetuates the cycle of sprawl, fragments wildlife habitats, and dries up a community’s financial coffers. Increasing density not only improves air and water quality and protects open space but also redirects investments to our existing towns and cities. It can revitalize existing communities and create more walkable neighborhoods with access to public transit and hiking and biking trails. Pedestrian-friendly higher- density developments offer general health benefits as well. Mixed land uses give people the option to walk and bike to work, shops, restaurants, and entertain- ment. The convenience of compact communities may help fight diseases related to obesity.47 Higher-density communities are vital to preserving a healthy environ- ment and fostering healthy lifestyles. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 6 MYTH FACT 26 Higher-Density Development Attractive, well-designed, and well-maintained higher-density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities. Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community. Higher-density development comes in many forms. Some of the most attrac- tive well-planned modern development is built at a high density. Across America, appealing higher-density mixed-use town centers have been wildly popular with the public. Lushly landscaped boulevards, fountains, and showcase architecture have created a sense of place in areas previously known only for faceless, uninteresting low-density development. The enduring appeal Post Riverside Atlanta is often called the poster child for suburban sprawl. However, it is also the home of Post Riverside, a revolutionary new mixed-use pedestri- an-oriented community developed by Atlanta-based Post Properties, Inc., and located on the banks of the Chattahoochee River between Atlanta’s bustling Buckhead and Vinings communities. As is the trend nationally, 65 percent of all vehicle trips in Atlanta are to run errands, not to commute to work. With offices, shops, and restaurants within walking dis- tance of the apartments, Post Riverside residents depend on autos much less than their neighbors in lower-density areas. In addition, the community is connected to Atlanta’s MARTA subway system and the Cobb County transit system. This award- winning 85-acre mixed-use development includes 25,000 square feet of retail space, 225,000 square feet of office space, and 535 apartments, all designed around a gracious town square. For many people, this amenity-rich, low-maintenance lifestyle better suits their needs than a traditional single-family home in a low-density neighborhood. PROFILE Post Riverside in Atlanta demonstrates that higher-density development can be attractive and successful in a commu- nity known for lower-density development.POSTPROPERTIES,INC.,PHOTOGRAPH©STEVEHINDS9.A.7 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) and desirability of older and more gracious higher-density neigh- borhoods—Georgetown in Washington, D.C., Beacon Hill and Back Bay in Boston, and Lincoln Park in Chicago—attest to the fact that some of the more desirable neighborhoods in America historically have been of higher density than that found in typical outer suburbs. This return to the design principles of the past is at the core of the new urbanist movement that took hold in the 1990s. The move- ment grew as many people came to miss the sense of community that was created by the mixed-density and mixed-use communities of the past. They realized that low-density subdivisions isolated their owners not only from pedestrian access to shops and offices but also from their neighbors. The growing sense of social alien- ation, highlighted in books like Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone,48 has led many back to the comfort of communities that are a reminder of the places where many of us grew up. These new communities combine the best design ideas of the past with the modern conveniences of today to provide residents with what has been missing from many sprawling areas—a sense of community. Today’s developers, architects, and planners know that to attract customers and to secure zoning approvals and community acceptance, they must produce attractive and innovative properties that complement their surroundings. Design profession- als are driven to produce projects that meet users’ demands, understand and respond to the context of a site, enhance its neighborhood, and are built to last.49 In fact, attendance at a recent American Institute of Architects–sponsored conference on density far surpassed expectations, speaking to the interest among land use professionals in addressing the design issues associated with density.50 It is plausible that the high level of citizens’ opposition to density may be based on an outdated notion of what higher-density development looks like. A University of North Carolina study revealed that when given a choice between two attractively designed communities, one higher density and the other low density; the majority preferred the higher-density option.51 Other visual preference surveys con- firm that there is an almost universal negative reaction to the visual appearance of commercial strip sprawl and an almost universal posi- tive reaction to traditional town-like communities of the past, com- munities that almost invariably included a mix of densities and uses.52 Myth and Fact 27 MYTH SIX FACT SIX The Plaza at the Arboretum This award-winning mixed-use project in Santa Monica, California, developed by California-based Legacy Partners, achieves a density of 97.5 dwelling units per acre. The attractive seven-story building includes 10,000 square feet of retail space and 350 apartment units ranging from 612 to 1,555 square feet. The architecture firm Meeks and Partners used strong geometric forms to create a playful architectural character that fits nicely in the avant-garde Hollywood studio section of Santa Monica. The devel- opment includes a swimming pool, spa, fit- ness center, and clubhouse. PROFILE Higher-density developments like the Plaza at the Arboretum present opportunities to create outstanding award-winning architecture.MEEKSANDPARTNERS,PHOTOGRAPH©STEVEHINDS9.A.7 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 7 MYTH FACT Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher-density housing, even in suburban locations. No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development. W hen many of us think of the American Dream, we envision married couples with children living in single-family detached houses in the suburbs. The notion is that the only people who want to live in higher-density areas are those who cannot afford a traditional house with a back yard or who want to live in the middle of the city. Both percep- tions are flawed. This country’s population is changing, and so are its real estate preferences. These lifestyle changes have significant implications for suburban development. For the first time, there are more single-person households (26.4 percent) than married- 28 Higher-Density Development HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE: 2003 (PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL) 5.6 15.2 11.2 16.4 28.2 23.3 Married couples with children (23.3) Married couples without children (28.2) Other family households (16.4) Men living alone (11.2) Women living alone (15.2) Other nonfamily households (5.6) Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey, March; and Annual Social and Economic Supplement: 2003. 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 29 couple-with-children households (23.3 percent).53 The groups growing the fastest, people in their mid-20s and empty nesters in their 50s, are the groups most likely to look for an alternative to low-density, single-family housing.54 A growing number of Americans are redefining their American Dream. They are seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle. And while some seek this lifestyle in cities, many others seek the same lifestyle in the suburbs. According to a 2002 study by the National Association of Home Builders, more than half the renters questioned said they wanted to live in the suburbs.55 Moreover, a national survey of homebuyers’ community preferences found that nearly three-quarters of all MYTH SEVEN FACT SEVEN King Farm This 430-acre community is characterized by the historic architecture of the region but offers an assortment of modern conveniences as well. Developed by King Farm Associates, LLC, King Farm is located in Rockville, Maryland, five miles from the Washington, D.C., beltway, 15 miles from downtown D.C., and walking distance from the Shady Grove Metro station. The neighborhood was designed for pedestrians, but the King Farm shuttle makes getting around even easier. The shuttle runs a complimentary route between the King Farm Village Center, the Metro station, and the Irvington Center, a 90-acre commercial com- plex next to the Metro. In addition, two types of public bus service are available at King Farm. At the Village Center, 120,000 square feet of retail space is within walking distance from both resi- dential and commercial development. The center also includes 47 loft apartments and a one-acre village green. Watkins Pond and Baileys Common are King Farm’s two residential villages. They offer single-family homes, townhouses, condominiums, and luxury apartments intertwined with natural areas. The center of Watkins Pond is a 12-acre city park with tennis and basketball courts, a soc- cer and softball field, two playgrounds, several picnic areas, benches, and paths. King Farm is a successful higher-density suburban community that integrates housing, retail shops, offices, and public transit. PROFILE TORTIGALLASANDPARTNERS9.A.7 Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 30 Higher-Density Development MYTH SEVEN FACT SEVEN Victoria Gardens The city of Rancho Cucamonga, located roughly 60 miles east of Los Angeles in California’s Inland Empire, has a rich agricultural history and, more recently, a history of low-density sprawl with no real city center. This situation is changing, however, with the opening of the first phases of a huge new mixed-use development known as Victoria Gardens. The development, designed by L.A.–based architects, Altoon + Porter, and being developed jointly by California-based developers Forest City California and the Lewis Investment Company, will create a vibrant higher-density downtown where none previously existed. Rapidly growing Rancho Cucamonga has been traditionally underserved by restaurants and entertainment options. The long-awaited addition of a “place” in the city has been well received by residents. The 147-acre development will eventually contain 1.3 million square feet of commer- cial and community space, including retail, entertainment, office, and civic uses with a cultural center and a library. Twenty acres of housing on site will allow people to live within walking distance of all the amenities of Rancho Cucamonga’s new downtown. PROFILE A higher-density downtown is emerging in sprawling Rancho Cucamonga at Victoria Gardens. Long-underserved residents now have a “place” to go for restaurants, retail, offices, and housing.ALTOON+PORTERARCHITECTS9.A.7 Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 31 buyers prefer to live in a community where they can walk or bike to some desti- nations.56 The 2001 American Housing Survey further reveals that respondents cited proximity to work more often than unit type as the leading factor in housing choice.57 These surveys confirm that many people prefer the suburbs but want the amenities traditionally associated with cities, including living close to work. With the continuing decentralization of cities and the rise of suburban communi- ties with urban-like amenities, many people find that they can live and work in the suburbs with all the attributes of suburbia they desire without giving up walkability and convenience. A recent study confirms that in many regions, more office space is located in suburban locations than downtowns,58 providing an opportunity for people to live near their jobs. Communities and developers that have recognized and responded to the dual trends of decentralized offices and a growing desire for a more convenient lifestyle have been rewarded. Well-placed mixed-use, higher- density developments in the suburbs are increasingly popular, creating a new sense of place. Communities are being developed using the best concepts of traditional commu- nities—smaller lots, a variety of housing types, front porches and sidewalks, shops and offices within walking distance, and public transit nearby. Communities like Celebration in Florida and King Farm in Maryland have been so popular with the homebuying public that past worries over whether the demand exists for them have been replaced by concerns about their rapid price appreciation, putting them out of the reach of all but the highest-income households. Today’s real demographic and lifestyle changes are inspiring a return to traditional development styles that offer walkable, bikeable, and more dynamic communities that put residents closer to shops, offices, and parks. MYTH SEVEN FACT SEVEN 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 8 MYTH FACT People of all income groups choose higher-density housing. Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households. Multifamily housing is not the housing of last resort for households un- able to afford a single-family house. Condominiums, for instance, are often the most sought after and highly appreciating real estate in many urban markets. The luxury segment of the apartment market is also rapidly expanding. Most people are surprised to learn that 41 percent of renters say they rent by choice and not out of necessity, and households making more than $50,000 a year have been the fastest-growing segment of the rental market for the past three years.59 Multifamily housing throughout the world has historically been the housing of choice by the wealthiest individuals because of the access and con- venience it provides. From Manhattan to Miami to San Francisco, higher-density housing has been prized for the amenity-rich lifestyle it can provide. Higher-density development can be a viable housing choice for all income groups and people in all phases of their lives. Many financially secure baby boomers, who have seen their children leave the nest, have chosen to leave behind the yard maintenance and repairs required of a single-family house for the more carefree and convenient lifestyle multifamily housing provides. Interestingly, their children, the echo boomers, are entering the age where many will likely live in multifamily housing. Just starting careers, many are looking for the flexibility of apartment liv- ing to follow job opportunities. Their grandparents, likely on a fixed income, may also prefer or need to live in multifamily housing as physical limitations may have made living in a single-family house too challenging. Providing balanced housing options to people of all income groups is important to a region’s economic vitality. The availability of affordable multifamily housing helps attract and retain the workers needed to keep any economy thriving. In many American towns and cities, rapidly rising house prices are forcing working families to live farther away from their jobs. In fact, the lack of affordable housing is mentioned as the number one problem facing working families today.60 32 Higher-Density Development32Higher-Density Development32Higher Density Development 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 33 MYTH EIGHT FACT EIGHT Rollins Square Rollins Square, a mixed-use development in Boston’s South End, is a truly mixed-income community that provides housing for a wide spectrum of people in all income brackets. Twenty percent of the overall units are reserved for people whose income is 30 to 60 percent of the Boston area median income (AMI), 40 percent are for-sale condominiums reserved for working households with incomes 80 to 120 percent of the AMI, and the remaining 40 percent are market-rate units sell- ing for up to $750,000. The residences occupy two city blocks and integrate seamlessly into the existing neighborhood. The varying heights and diverse exterior materials give the appearance that the development was constructed over time. Rollins Square was developed by the Planning Office for Urban Affairs, Inc., a nonprofit developer associated with the Archdiocese of Boston. PROFILE Rollins Square effectively provides housing for low-, moderate-, and high-income households in one attractive development that is well integrated into the existing community.CBT/CHILDSBERTMANTSECKARESARCHITECTS9.A.7 Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 34 Higher-Density Development MYTH EIGHT FACT EIGHT I’On I’On is a 244-acre master-planned community along the deep-water marshes of Hobcraw Creek in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Just six miles east of Charleston, the com- munity features 700 single-family homes, community facili- ties, and a small-scale commercial area. Vince Graham, principal with the I’On Company, is developing six residential neighborhoods connected by narrow streets, pedestrian corridors, and community spaces. An I’On Guild member, one of 18 builders selected for experience, talent, and finan- cial strength, builds each individual home. The architecture is inspired by classic Lowcountry style with large balconies, deep front porches, and tall windows on even taller homes. Homes now sell for $685,000 to $1.7 million. Community facil- ities include I’On Square, I’On Club, the Creek Club, and the Mount Pleasant Amphitheater. Residents also enjoy easy access to the Cooper and Wando rivers, the Charleston har- bor, and the Atlantic Ocean. One neighborhood boat ramp and four community docks are available for crabbing and fishing. Two miles of walking trails are available for resi- dents; a five-acre pond, the Rookery, is a protected nesting site for wading birds. In addition, the public and private schools in Mount Pleasant are some of the best in the area. Some home prices in the well-planned higher-density community of I’On are approaching $2 million. The traditional neighborhood design combined with the community amenities made possible by higher densities have made the community one of the most desirable in the Charleston area. PROFILE As the problem of affordability worsens, workers on the lower end of the salary scale may move to more affordable cities, leaving a labor shortage in their wake. Such shortages make a region less desirable as an employment center. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, access to a large and diverse labor pool is the most important factor in making corporate decisions on locations.61 Communities that do not provide housing for all income groups become less desirable corporate locations.I’ONCOMPANY9.A.7 Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Myth and Fact 35 NOTES 1. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj/natprojtab01a.pdf. 2. http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=D&-qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&- ds_name=D&-_lang=en. 3. Emil Malizia and Jack Goodman, Mixed Picture: Are Higher-Density Developments Being Shortchanged by Opinion Surveys?(Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, July 2000), p. 12. 4. Smart Growth America and National Association of Realtors®, 2004 American Community Survey: National Survey on Communities (Washington, D.C.: Author, October 2004). 5. Robert W. Burchell et al., The Costs of Sprawl, 2000 (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002). 6. Sam Newberg and Tom O’Neil, “Making the Case,”Multifamily Trends,vol. 6, no. 3, Summer 2003, p. 47. 7. “Schwarzenegger Embraces ‘Smart Growth’ Ideas to Curb Sprawl,” CNN.com, Inside Politics, November 21, 2003. 8. Mark Muro and Rob Puentes, Investing in a Better Future: A Review of the Fiscal and Competitive Advantages of Smarter Growth Development Patterns (Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, 2004). 9. Kathleen McCormick and Michael Leccese, eds., Charter of the New Urbanism (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999), p. v. 10. Michael E. Lewyn, “Why Sprawl Is a Conservative Issue. Part 1,” The Green Elephant, Summer 2002,p. 1. 11. Brett Hulsey, Sprawl Costs Us All (Madison, Wisconsin: Sierra Club Midwest Office, 1996). 12. Ibid., p. 8. 13. U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1999 American Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2000). 14. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?isPrinterFriendly= 1&IssueID=215&contentID=827. 15. Muro and Puentes, Investing in a Better Future,p. 15. 16. Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (New York: Basic Books, 2002). 17. Timothy F. Harris and Yannis M. Ioannides, Productivity and Metropolitan Density (Boston: Tufts University Department of Economics, 2000), p. 6. 18. National Association of Home Builders, “Market Outlook: Confronting the Myths about Apartments with Facts” (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2001), p. 4. 19. Maxfield Research, A Study in the Relationship between Affordable Family Rental Housing and Home Values in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis: Author, November 2000). 20. Alexander Hoffman, The Vitality of America’s Working Communities (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies, 2003). 21. Arthur C. Nelson and Mitch Moody, “Price Effects of Apartments on Nearby Single-Family Detached Residential Homes,” Working Draft (Blacksburg, Virginia: Virginia Tech University, 2003). 22. Arthur C. Nelson, “Top Ten State and Local Strategies to Increase Affordable Housing Supply,” Housing Facts & Findings, vol. 5, no. 1. 23. National Multi Housing Council, “Tabulations of 1999 American Housing Survey” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,1999). 24. Robert Dunphy and Kimberly Fisher, “Transportation, Congestion, and Density: New Insights,” Transportation Research Record,1996. 25. Institute of Traffic Engineers, Trip Generation,6th ed., vol. 1 (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997). 26. “How to Calculate Demand for Retail,” New Urban News, March 2004, pp.10–11. 27. U.S. Department of Transportation,Our Nation’s Travel:1995, NPTS Early Results Report (Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, 1997), p. 11. 28. G. Bruce Douglas III, et al., Urban Design, Urban Forms, and Employee Travel Behavior, TRB Transportation Planning Applications Conference Papers (Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board,1997). 29. Robert Dunphy, Deborah Myerson, and Michael Pawlukiewicz, Ten Principles for Successful Development Around Transit (Washington, D.C.: ULI–the Urban Land Institute, 2003). 30. Ibid. 31. Jianling Li and Jack Rainwater, “The Real Picture of Land-Use Density and Crime: A GIS Application,” http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP508/p508.htm. 32. University of Alaska Justice Center, “The Strength of Association: Housing Density and Delinquency,” Anchorage Community Indicators, series 3A, no. 1, http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/indicators/series03/ aci03a1.housing.pdf. 33. Elliott D. Pollack and Company, Economic and Fiscal Impact of Multi-Family Housing (Phoenix: Arizona Multihousing Association, 1996). 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 36 Higher-Density Development NOTES (continued) 34. 1000 Friends of Oregon, Do Four-Plexes Cause Cannibalism?Winter 1999, pp. 2–3. 35. Marcus Felson and Richard B. Peiser, Reducing Crime through Real Estate Development and Management (Washington, D.C.: ULI-the Urban Land Institute, 1997). 36. Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design (New York: Macmillan, 1972). 37. George Kelling and Catherine Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in our Communities (New York: Touchstone, 1997). 38. Gary Kachadurian, Debunking the Homeownership Myth (Washington, D.C.: National Multi Housing Council, 1998). 39. American Farmland Trust, Farmland Information Center, National Statistics Sheet, http://www.farmlandinfo.org/ agricultural_statistics/. 40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “EPA Issues Designations on Ozone Health Standards,” News Release, April 15, 2004. 41. American Lung Association, “State of the Air: 2004,” April 29, 2004, http://lungaction.org/reports/sota04_full.html. 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “National Water Quality Inventory: 1996 Report to Congress,” http://www.epa.gov/305b/. 43. Smart Growth America, http://smartgrowthamerica.org/openspace.html#and. 44. National Association of Realtors®, “On Common Ground: Realtors and Smart Growth, Winter 2005; and Trust for Public Land, “Voters Approve $2.4 Billion in Open Space Funding,” press release (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2004). 45. Robert W. Burchell et al., Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Report II: Research Findings (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research, 1992); and Center for Urban Policy Research, The Costs and Benefits of Alternative Growth Patterns: The Impact Assessment of the New Jersey State Plan (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Author, 2000). 46. U.S. Department of Transportation, Our Nation’s Travel (Washington, D.C.: Author, 1995), pp.13, 22. 47. H. Frumkin, “Urban Sprawl and Public Health,” Public Health Reports, vol. 117, May/June 2002, pp. 201–217. 48. Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000). 49. www.designadvisor.org. 50. David Dixon, personal interview, American Institute of Architects,December 9, 2004. 51. http://www.nmhc.org/Content/ServeFile.cfm?FileID=182. 52. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm. 53. http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-553.pdf. 54. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issueID=215&contentitemID=1828. 55. National Association of Home Builders, “What Renters Want” (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002). 56. http://www.nelessen.org/NAR_web_files/frame.htm#slide1263.htm. 57. Newberg and O’Neil, “Making the Case,” p. 47. 58. Robert E. Lang and Jennifer LeFurgy, “Edgeless Cities: Examining the Noncentered Metropolis,” Housing Policy Debate, vol. 14, no. 3. 59. http://www.nmhc.org/content/servecontent.cfm?issueID=10&contentitemID=1007. 60. Fannie Mae Foundation, Results of the Fannie Mae Foundation Affordable Housing Survey (Washington, D.C.: Author, 2002), p. 2. 61. PricewaterhouseCoopers, Trendsetter Barometer (New York: Author, 2002). 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Order #N27 (Packet of 10 Booklets) Order #N28 (Single Copy) ISBN 0-87420-941-2 $ ULI–the Urban Land Institute 1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W. Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20007-5201 http://www.uli.org Higher-Density Development Myth and Fact Richard Haughey No one likes sprawl and the traffic conges- tion it creates, yet proposals for increasing density in new and existing neighborhoods often are squashed by community fears of public housing, crime, and ugly high rises. Higher-Density Development: Myth and Fact dispels these negative connotations, by comparing the advantages and drawbacks of higher- and low-density development. The definition of higher-density development is relative to the community the development is in—it could be single-family homes on smaller lots, or townhouses and apartments in more populated areas. Eight widespread misconceptions about higher-density devel- opment are examined and dispelled with well-researched facts and examples of high- quality, compact developments. Debunk these common myths about density: • Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems. • Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas. • Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development. • Higher-density development leads to higher crime rates. • Higher-density development is environ- mentally more destructive than lower- density development. • Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community. • No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development. • Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households. FREE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION! Ideal to present to planning officials and civic and neigh- borhood groups, this presentation will provide a better understanding of density and the value it provides. Download free from www.uli.org/policypapers, www.nmhc.org, or www.sierraclub.org, or request a CD-ROM. Give a copy of this publication to others. Buy a packet of ten booklets for just $19.95! CALL 800-321-5011 OR ORDER ONLINE AT WWW.BOOKSTORE.ULI.ORG. More Myth and Fact Titles from the Urban Land Institute Environment and Development: Myth and Fact 2002/Order #E14 Mixed-Income Housing: Myth and Fact 2003/Order #M60 Urban Infill Housing: Myth and Fact 2001/Order #U22 9.A.7 Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: HigherDensity Development Myth and Fact.ashx_ (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 9.A.9 Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Legal Ad - Agenda ID 4684 (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 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 1983933 CPSS-2016-3 PL201600 4500182060 Pub Dates April 18,2018 6. c rtC /2'1 Sign ture of affiant) KAROIE¢ANGAS a a I Ixx NmaryPudk-Rateofflaida Sworn to and subscribed before me caan on Gc1xo4I April 18ThisA Myconm.EapnisJth*2O21 P 2018 w ry yv, aamlhz*wmwxa.yMa larta,f f omerSignatureofaffiant) 9.A.10 Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: BCC Ad Affidavit (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) 20A 1 WEDNESDAY,APRIL 18,2018 1 NAPLES DAILY NEWS A Senate candidate with a Q A H e 7 -- v TECHNOLOGY different type of conviction Best Pricing In Tow '' West Virginia coal r United Mine Workers of Americas FREE Hearing Tes baron sees time behind political action committee."But if e you've got enough money,you can Ot1Cen ypp> bars as an asset do anything.He ought to be in jail." While at Taft Correctional Insti-T r Nicole Gaudiano j' A tution in California, Blankenship I. 15 BR118118 •I' f i.. USA TODAY 8/described himself as a"political -< ' =m--.-,— - ,w prisoner,"and he continues to fault WASHINGTON-In West Vir- the government for the 2010 explo- date Don Senate primary,condi- tsionhat at the Upper Big Branch mine SALEdateDonBlankenshipisrunningthatkilled29men.The Mine Safety on a different kind of record. and Health Administration blamed The former CEO ofMassey Ener- Don Blankenship,former CEO of the company for safety violations gy served a one-year sentence, Massey Energy,is a candidate In and assessed$10.8 million in pen- ending in May 2017,for conspiring West Virginia's Republkan alties. But Blankenship says a BOB BAKER SHOEStoviolateminehealthandsafetyprimaryforU.S.Senate. change in airflow, required by standards in connection with the Blankenship served time for MSHA,caused the explosion. Beautiful,Comfortable Shoes for Women nation's deadliest coal mining ex- conspiring to violate mine health He says the Department of Jus- plosion in decades.Blankenship's and safety standards in tice Office of Professional Respon- ! Special HALF PRICEperiodofsupervisedreleaseconnectionwiththenation's sibility is reviewing his prosecu- I Selection at doesn't end until May 9,the day af- deadliest coal mining explosion in tion.A DOJ spokesman declined to I ter the primary,according to court decades.STEVE HELBER/Apr comment. 720 515 Ave.S.,Naples,FL•Hrs:Man-Sat 10-5.282-8358 records.Blankenship's candidacy is bol- But Blankenship said he was stered by an"anti-establishment falsely imprisoned"by the Obama ship's primary opponents-Rep. vibe"In West Virginia,particularly I LawnReplacement 1 administration,and he doesn't see Evan Jenkins and the state's attor- from those in the southern part of that as a political liability-not to ney general, Patrick Morrisey - the state,who don't trust that the ' MALONEY'SWestVirginianswhoaccusetheshowBlankenship, 68,is within government was fair to him,said former president of waging a war striking distance of the lead.He is a Patrick Hickey,an assistant profes- on coal and their livelihoods.To self-funded candidate who can sor at West Virginia University. I/him,such an"improper"convic- laugh when he says,"I don't need National Republicans aren't tion can be a political asset, any money"and blankets the air- sure whether Blankenship can win It was, he noted, for former waves with his message.the primary,but they're concerned South African President Nelson His spin on his conviction could that if he does,hell lose the general NOaOb7 too Big or too Small"Mandela,who spent 27 years in help him with hard-core Repubil- election against his likely oppo- prison for fighting an apartheid cans looking for the most anti-es- nent,Democratic Sen.Joe Man- Naples&Bonita•239-775.9339 government."There are situations tablishment candidate In the race, chin.Trump hasn't weighed in on WWW IfffltO f6 fiOlt>1.CORlinhistorywherebeinginprisonsaidLarrySabato,director of the the race,but he notably sat be- y was an advantage,"he said."I think University of Virginia's Center for tween Jenkins and Morrlsey re- that's the case in West Virginia." Politics, cently at a tax reform roundtable viscount to:op„ I 05H2OI00nRW Blankenship is not the only 2018 "It's a good strategy," Sabato with elected officials in West Vir- Mod'D•C'BCl samrdars cenn.e FRFR Q..candidate who is still considered said."Take a negative and make it a ginia.Blankenship was not invited GNP lz000NF,nam Mailable viable despite legal baggage.Mi- positive.That's one of the cardinal to the event,held on the eighth an- Call now&save up to 80%on your pnesc l pti on chael Grimm,a GOP candidate for rules of politics." niversary of the mine explosion. Cinis 2emg it pills....._....... .........$278.57 his former New York House seat, But Mark Dorsey,a retired coal "It's delusional to think that Domperidone lOmg......._.........300 pins.................._.......,...$704.79 pleaded guilty in 2014 to tax fraud, miner from R+vesville,said the coal spending a year in a California pris- tura 100 mg.... 48 pins.................................$u215 and former Maricopa CountySher- miners he knows are"flabbergast- on+s an asset,"said Nachama Solo-P B tliquiasm¢...............................teaGhins..........................f8or.ee I iff Joe Arpa+o,an Arizona Senate ed" by Blankenship's re-emer- velchlk,a Morrisey spokeswoman. candidate,was pardoned by Presi- gence.Theythink hegot off easy "I'm not sure whatplanet Don is COIl,Ots°me&......................2a tablets............................$ 70479 nralle Bot 9.lmt.....................24 patches...........................f709.1J dent Donald Trump last year for a with a misdemeanor. running on,but It's not Earth,and Prices shown are for the.,>--is-'uivalent contempt of court conviction in a "The audacity for him to run for it's sure as heck not West Virginia.211-1 13,113311 111,11 I NI I racial profiling case. a public office I think is terrible," Joe Manchin would crush Don I•„le r Ill 101 f r 1 I 1 II Polls commissioned by Blanken- said Dorsey,a representative of the Blankenship in the fall." 941-421-7155 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES Notwe is ham.given that the Cofer C...and.Caw.*:R.,wEheHapublic hearing onlaw a,2010, ACCESS EVERYTHING YOU NEED,commencing ea PROS ,N der Board of County Commission.Chamber,Third Floor,Coles County Government Center,3299 E.T"nami Tr.,Nage,FL Ther purpose of the hewmya to con.. AN 0.INANCE OF oreses OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO -05. ROACOUNT, TIM COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PL.FOR THE I O/AOAI/. YOU/i• IAMENDED, UN.CORPORATED AREA OF LLER cOUMFY FLORIDA,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND mss'`e'er%' U.ELEMENT AND FUTUI.LAND IRF.MAP Acte MAP SERIES DV ADDING.THF.MIM-TRIANGLE.MIXED USE S.DISTRICT MALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO377 NG UNITS,00 HOTEL SUITES,IM AMSTED LIVING umirs,AND 100,030 SQUARE MT FCOMMERCIAL.ES INSYUSIVe OF FANO SQUARE FEET F0SUAREFEETOFC.DEALERSHIP.T.SMIJECTPROPERTYLSLOCATEDNEAR Enjoy more access to your kitchen with customT SOF R.ROFT INTERSECTONOFDAVISRDL,LEYA..13TafmAAT,LMLEASTINMATION pull-out shelves for your existing cabinets.ruTOWNSHIPeranrEL oTHEADOPTED AME25 EDMENT TO FLORIDA DER.TENTO rorM'IC`o:os; : PROVIDING FOR...R.1LITV AND PROVIDING FORAM EFFECTIVE DATE.1.016000306e) a C 0.1NANCE OP THE BO.D OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA LADING ORDINANCE No.2.41,.AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELIIPMENT CODE,WHICE1 EST.LISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS POR T.UNINCORPOR.ED AREA OF C.LIER CLASSIFICATION OF THE CTR THE MO.USE SUUI.STRICtCT THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS EY C.NGINGTHEZONING IOPTHEGATEWAYTRIANGLEMI...DIST.,OVERLAY tC4.GEM1.MXq A nTEEWYTIANGIDAMIXESu3ETRICT OVN1PERLAYENI IN ZONING DISTRICT FORAIPRO3e: pk liatiSidi+ AY TRIANGLE 3HxsD u.DISTa16T MAXA ITTHE311 11.130LE MPIFFICaTO A...ONSTRUCTION OF UP TO,WITH A MIX TO RE DETERMINER n r' 300 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL 19ES,AND WINO SQUARE FEET OF GENERAL AND MEDICA30 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS,. L OFFICE a n t w ASSISTED LIVING CYOVIS 60000 SQUARE FEET OP SELFSTORAGE AND MOW SQUARE FEET OF CAR DEALERSHIUSES, 1. CO.FROr THE INTERGFORMAX ON OF us .ULEV. IGHT OP IMFEETO. TRPROARTVI r A011,10...0WsSmeo.SOUTHERN 1 AltSOUTH.RANGE 25E.T,ECOLLIER COCVMY.FLORIDA.CONSISTIINGOF.535a TRAIL INSECTION FORREPEALOF l _ CONDITIONAL USE RESOLITIONSt AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.111.201600100311= I PROJECT I LOCATNIN WINo p 9'V S DAVIBBIVD E 9 IrZ rtedP.M imvtedmeppeereno Mheard.Copes of Reproves.ORDINA.ES.be made available formpaction at toComprehensive Planning Section,HON Horseshoe Ds.Naples,FL.between We hours of BOO AM and 500 P.M Monday thhFnday Furthermore Me materials WIll be made spection at the Cotler County ClaMb Office Fourth Floor,Suite API.Collier County Government Center,East Naples.one week prior to...Wiled hearing.Arty que.one perm Span.,sho.Mtlrected to the GMO Zoning DolmaCmp.enew Planning Section Watt COM..filed er.h the C.to the BaWS Office prior to WES,2013 MI be read and considered at the ouble bean.. II a shel r j considered 0 S,CTtoeppng or heOcCI00 e by, 50 ne colic watryToawdCoil,tyc 0h purporewimmpect0 any omsurea a d.1 AAH erati,, reouchmeetingceManna., 0, nerdarecord iof 1fisancludes for 000purposen may Heal to assure mu EVERYTHING WITHIN REACH' a verbatim recon of the proceedings remade wnkM1 record Incluoee Me testimony and nNenro upon M.0e ypW ie to M 5 you am a person with a daWNry Mo needs any accommodation In order to pert.to in this proceeding,you are walled,at no byoa.toNeprSuite 11 Naples FL34112-owe.ronWpt...County ayspnor Mn.gameng. Asian, lmM.dM OFF INSTALLATION33 cost to ns oTrillheprovisionof artan FL3ance. Plememoonta2te le,Nleattwo dM Pr Managemeng. Aision. atenim tl«.c for the hearing imposed are ave.le in Sw Bawd of County COmovesai ise Office. 50% BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY.FLORIO* ANDY SOLIS,CHASM. Schedule your free design consultation DWIGHT E.BROCX,CLERK 888)886-6133 • shelfgenie.com By:T.m..cnnon Deputy C.(SEAL) limit one H.Appler0,whamy d6w .e Gras.wpa9"s GldsOn'sneba. Mil 111.2018 N0.1933933 Espies 0312018.UNtimwenaMy voH forCACMuawRsgnw Solutions 9.A.10 Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: BCC Ad Affidavit (4684 : Mini-Triangle Mixed-Use Subdistrict) Mr. David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Collier County Growth Management Division Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Re: Mini Triangle Subdistrict Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application SIM File No.: 2016.052 Dear Mr. Weeks: Enclosed please find our Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application with supporting documents for the above -referenced project. The Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) were established in March of 2002. The Bayshore/Gateway area comprises approximately 1,800 acres. The CRA was established in order to breathe new economic life, in the form of private investment, into an area that was experiencing declining property values, and was suffering from inadequate infrastructure (such as, but not limited to stormwater facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and connectivity, landscaping and street lighting, and so forth). The CRA funding comes primarily from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). In establishing this CRA, the Board of County Commissioners intention was and is to utilize TIF funds to reinvest in the CRA, in the form of infrastructure improvements and in supporting private investment in the area. The objective is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. When this revitalization of the CRA as a desirable place to visit, live and work occurs, the taxpayer's investment is recouped through rising property values and increased ad valorem tax dollar revenues. Often it takes years to accomplish these objectives. A strong economy can accelerate redevelopment and on the opposite end of the spectrum, an economic turndown or other factors (such as stringent inflexible development standards), singularly or in combination, can stymie a redevelopment initiative or bring it to a screeching halt. In December of 2015, Collier County issued a Request for Proposal with the intent of obtaining proposals from interested and qualified buyers for the County owned 5.35 acre "mini triangle" property. At a regularly schedule advertised public hearing, the CRA Board considered the qualified proposals and selected RE Partners International, LLC. Subsequently, a contract was formalized and executed. The contract was amended several times. The contract includes specific timelines and performance standards for both parties, and identifies allowable intensity and density. Both the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA Board (County Commission sitting as the CRA Board) approved the conceptual development plan. The contract provides for 210 HA2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\DW 161221 ltr tr initial SSGMPA.docx Naples Fort Myers Mr. David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Re: Mini -Triangle Subdistrict Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application HM File No.: 2016.052 December 21, 2016 Page 2 multi -family residential units, 152 hotel units, 74,000 square feet or retail and personal service uses, and 60,000 square feet of office use. The next step is the entitlement process, which includes three companion petitions, an LDC amendment, an MPUD rezone petition, and the attached small scale GMPA application. In support of this application, we enclose the following: ® Six (6) copies of the cover letter (this is the cover letter); ® One fee check in the amount of $8,500; ® One (1) original and five (5) copies of the Growth Management Plan Amendment Application along with the following: o Attachment "A" — Warranty Deed o Attachment "B" — Justification and Supplemental Information o Exhibit "A" — Proposed GMPA Amendment Language o Exhibit "A-1" — Generalized Location Map o Exhibit "A-2" — Aerial Overlay o Exhibit "A-3" — Zoning Map o Exhibit "B-1" — Future Land Use Map o Exhibit "C-1" — Environmental Report o Exhibit "E-1" — Public Service Facilities Map o Exhibit "E-2" — Public Facilities Report o Exhibit "E-3" — Traffic Impact Statement o Exhibit "F-1 " — Firm Data Map ® One (1) CD with documents and plans in pdf format. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, • Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning and Business Development RJM/sek Enclosures as noted. cc: Jerry Starkey w/enclosures Fred Pezeshkan w/enclosures Richard Grant, Esq. w/enclosures HA2016\20l6052\WP\GMPA\DW 161221 ltr tr initial SSGMPA.docx Ccilx�c?r' Cau�x� GMPA-Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20160002084) pre -app meeting [& companion PUD Rezone (PL20160003054)] ---11/9/16, 1:30/2:30PM, Conf Rm C • 6 parcels abutting Davis Blvd. (SR 84) & Tamiami Trail East (US 41), in 11-50-25; +5.35 acres. • FLUM: Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; CHHA Overlay; B/GTRO and within the "mini triangle" identified therein • Zoning: C-4-GTMUD-MXD • Attendance is reflected on pre -app notes for companion PUD rezone. • Property is owned by CRA - under contract to applicant. Contract contains milestones timeline, including submittal by a date in late Dec. 2016. Propose to establish a subdistrict within the B/GTRO to allow mixed use development including 210 DUs; 152 hotel/motel units; 73,000 s.f. of retail, restaurant, personal service, etc., uses — possibly including a boutique auto dealership; 60,000 s.f. of office uses; theater; parking garages. Commercial uses mostly C-1— C-4 but may propose some C-5. Maximum building height of 160 feet. (Petitioner has coordinated with NAA and FAA regarding max. height and anticipates a letter of no objection from FAA.) It is possible an LDCA may also be required to the airport zoning regs. Staff Comments This project should qualify as a Small Scale GMPA. Both petitions (GMPA & PUDZ) can be processed and scheduled concurrently for NIM, CCPC & BCC public hearings. Also, NIM may be held jointly with a CRAAB meeting. Typically takes about 9 months from submittal deadline to BCC adoption hearing; two factors in particular that may affect the timeline are sufficiency (or not) of the submittal, and BCC meeting availability. GMPA pre -app fee ($500.00) was paid at meeting. Per County Fee Resolution, if petition is submitted within 9 months of pre -app meeting date, the $500.00 fee is credited towards the Small Scale GMPA $9,000.00 petition fee (thus $8,500.00 due at time of submittal). Include in the subdistrict a statement that the site is within the B/GTRO and helps to fulfill its vision but is not subject to the requirements and limitations of that Overlay. In the B/GTRO, reference this subdistrict noting it is within the Overlay but that development is regulated by that subdistrict not the Overlay. Revise other portions of the FLUE to reflect this subdistrict, including Pol. 1.1, list of maps at end of FLUE text, list of subdistricts allowing commercial development, exceptions to the density rating system. In the petition package submittal, need to address statutory requirements for GMPAs, specifically Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, F.S. D&A needs to address: residential density and non-residential uses beyond those allowed by existing FLUM designation and zoning; density increase within CHHA. For commercial needs, the County's perspective is one of inventory control. Staff acknowledges other factors may be considered for a GMPA besides strictly the needs analysis. A comparison of uses and densities allowed in the B/GTRO vs. what is proposed could be useful to demonstrate how much the subdistrict is consistent with the Overlay, as could an explanation of how/in what ways the subdistrict helps to fulfill the vision of the Overlay — especially how this subdistrict is intended to allow and make viable a catalyst project. Staff offered to meet subsequently to further discuss data and analysis requirements. Notes by: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division, Growth Management Dept. 11-9-16 GMPA pre -app notes _DW dwe11-10-16 G:�CDES Planning Services�Cojuprehensive�Comp Planning GMP DATA�Cmnp Plan Amendments�2016 Cycles & Small Scale Petitions pre -app meetings in 2016 11-9-1611010 mini triangle APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER PRE -APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT DATE RECEIVED 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 1. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant Jerry Starkey, Manager Company Real Estate Partners International, LLC Address 1415 Panther Lane City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34109 Phone Number 239-514-4001 Fax Number 239-514-4005 B. Name of Agent * Robert J Mulhere, FAICP, VP, Planning & Business Development • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Hole Montes Inc. Address 950 Encore Way City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number 239-254-2000 Fax Number 239-254-2099 Name of Agent * Richard C Grant, Esquire Company Grant Fridkin Pearson, P.A. Address 5551 Ridgewood Drive, Suite 501 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34108 Phone Number 239- 514-1000 Fax Number 239-514-0377 C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Collier County CRA Address 3301 Tamiami Trail East City Naples State FL Zip Code 34112 Phone Number 239-643-1115 Fax Number N/A D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. 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 If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Jerry Starkey, Manager Real Estate Partners International, LLC 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Date of Contract: Please Note: Real Estate Partners International, LLC as agent on behalf of Project Principal Jerry Starkey (50%) and Project Principal Fred Pezeshkan (507). 2 F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. NOT APPLICABLE Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ():-Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to fhe date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of fhe applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 111111. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION See Attachment "A" Warranty Deed B. GENERAL LOCATION Intersection of Tamiami Trail East and Davis Blvd, west of Commercial Drive C. PLANNING COMMUNITY East NaplesD. TAZ 270 E. SIZE IN ACRES 5.35 F. ZONING C-4 GTMUD-MXD G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN See Exhibits "A-3" Zoninq Map and "B-1" Future Land Use Map H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Bays hore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Traffic Circulation Sub -Element Aviation Sub -Element Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Solid Waste Sub -Element Capital Improvement Element X Future Land Use Element Immokalee Master Plan Recreation/Open Space Mass Transit Sub -Element Potable Water Sub -Element NGWAR Sub -Element Drainage Sub -Element CCME Element Golden Gate Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) I OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use StFike threugh to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: See Exhibit "A" C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay to establish the Mini Triangle Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) FLUM, Mini Triangle Subdistrict Maw E. DESCRIBE ADDITIONAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Other revisions and nomenclature to referenced Mini Triangle Subdistrict V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN 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. 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 4 Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1) (a)7.a, F.A.C.) Y Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1) (c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-1 1.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) N Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County -wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. N Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Exhibit E-2 Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exhibit E-2 Potable Water Exhibit E-2 Sanitary Sewer Exhibit E-3 Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS See TIS Exhibit E-2 Drainage Exhibit E-2 Solid Waste Exhibit E-2 Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. Exhibit E-1 Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public. facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. Exhibit E-2 Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: Exh. F-1 Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable Y Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable (Coastal High Hazard Area) High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N/A $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) Yes $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the* Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) Yes Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Yes Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Yes 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1 "=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre -application meeting. LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN hereby authorize Robert J Mulhere, FAICP, Vice President, Hole Montes, Inc. and Richard C. Grant,. Esquire, Grant Frldkin Pearson, P.A. to serve as my Agents in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in thls .Application. Signed; Real Estate Partners International, LLC Date;_ f �'�' (Contract Purchaser) I hereby certify that i have the authority to make theZnpdof p cation, and that the application Is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowle Appli crit Jerty Starkey, Manager Name - Typed or Printed STATE OF (FLORIDA) COUNTY OF (COLLIER) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of2016 IT4 E by MY COMMISSION EXPIRES; Notary ublic i L CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING; who Is personally known to me,. who has produced as identification and HENRY:.FOttNY�IN s•;F� .. �'�ti., Notary 0i' Sols of Florida Comml.Rsion N FF 968179 My Comm, EXPOS Mar 6-.2020 Through National Notary Asm, _wrw . `11- did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE M Be AWARE THAT; Florida Statute Section 837,06 - False Official Low 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 4369675 OR 45.5 PG 2040 RECORDED 12/4/2009 2:25 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT Doc@.70 $0.70 REC $35.50 CONS $0.00 This Instrument Prepared by: George P. Langfotd 3357 Tamiami Trail North Naples, Florida 34103 (239) 262-2011 CORRECTIVE WARRANTY DERD TISS INDEN71'URE made this of November, 2009, between CC&E INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Florida 't�,I�i, ompany, whose post office address is 380 101 Street South, Suite.#1 e , GRANTOR, and COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY LOPMENT A , whose post office address is 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Na lesrida-44112, G That said GRANT r n go sM on i e i ($10.00),•and other good a le 1 ra on Grantee, the receipt whereo reby acknowledg h said Grantee, and Grantee's ssors and assign or v situate, lying and being in Col ' nty, Florida, to -w SEE A11PD "A" Df Ten and No/100 Dollars ntor in hand paid .by said , bargained and sold to the following described land, Subject to ad valorem taxes for the current year, zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority, current leases, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any, and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision, Property I.D. Numbers: 00388480009; ffliMft 7751028.0000; and* 77510320009. . 7751020006 and said GRANTOR. does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever: The Purpose of this deed is to correct the Property Y.D. Numbers contained in Deed recorded as Instrument No. 4342480 in O.R. Book 4492 at Page 1550. Through a scrivener's error the deed improperly referenced Property I.D. No. 7751036001 which property was not transferred: IN WTIMSS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. ATTACHMENT A OR 4515 PG 2041 Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: WITNESS: Print Name of Witness WITNE Print Wine Witness WITNESS: art___u�'p1 e -� Print Name of Moi ss Print Name of STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrume MICHAEL K. CORRADI, INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Fl Ell CC&E INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., �► Florida Limifed Liabilify Company I—Leatl My:MICHAEL K. CORRADI Its: Presiding Manager and a Member ��. LEO E. COR I�T ember E-� acknowledged bA'eL4ayofNovember;2009 byi g Manager and of and on behalf of CC&1✓ lllCflmmission��ires: r ISE 1I0TAftFV 00 Nancy P. Castellano NPT LIC Commission # 00573035 ` Expires July 27, 2010 N�ne of Notary Public rk, 011m. -O VOIFOIA-Mala'lm 10,A7011 STATE OF MICHIGAN COUNTY" OF OAKLAND The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day ofNovember, 2009 by LEO E. CORRADI, a Member of and on behalf of CC&E INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Florida Limited Liability Company, !iyCommission Epires: NOINtIWPUB14= (SEAL) 14�Sor4 �Se^mr-tj Print Name of Notary Public JASON GIRARD SEAMAN Notary Publio, State of Mfohlgan County of Oakland My Commisslon Expires Mar. 20, 2014 Acting In the Gountj of _c}l!`V4�i2 OR 4515 PG 2042 { � • 5 EXHIBIT "A" CME EMSTMENTS Parcel Al. and A2:C 0 Al: Folio ID 0003884800097 1 Physical address Tamiami Trail East A lot or parcel of land in the ..as aewe uarter f Northwest quarter, lying North of Tamiami T ail, o do h 0 uth of Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, lie' g s cIe a cr o From the point of interseed es b 00 f of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest q lying North of the ami (formerly know as Dixie Highway), of Section - ownship -50 Sou a ast, Collier County, Florida, with the Northeaste t of way line, of miami Trail run in a Southeasterly direction for 298, i, 1 ng the said lie' t rly night 'o way line, to establish the point of beginning, th e y f ginning deflect 90 degrees from Southeasterly. to • Northeasterlyft, thence deflect 113 degrees 30'10" from Northeasterly to Northwesterly and run 107,18 feet thence deflect 66 degrees 29'50" from Northwesterly to Southwesterly and run 295.46 feet to the said Northeasterly- right of way line of said Tamiami Trail, thence in a Southeasterly direction run 98,29 feet along the said Northeasterly right of way line to the point of beginning, The above described property containing 0.71 acres, more of less, A2: %1) #7751020006, having R physical address of 1933 Tamiami Trail East And, Lot 4, Triangle Lake Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 38. * OR 4515 Pc 2043* Y Parcels Al and A2 Less and Except: That portion of Lot 4, Triangle Lake, a subdivision, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, Public Records. of Collier County, Florida, and that portion of the northwest 1/4, all being in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. Being described as :follows: Commence at the northwest corner of lot 6 of said Triangle Lake, thence along the west line and the southerly extension of said Lot 6, South 00 degrees 33146" East,•307.41 feet to the survey base line of State Road 90 (US aad to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly; thence along said sli e e of said curve to the right, having a radius of 11,459.16 feet le dr 31143", an arc length of 105.72 feet, the cord of which outh 53 degrees 1 " ast to the end of said curve, thence North 36 degree 29' " 0.00 feet to the ters etion of the southerly extension of the west line of aid of the no y exist n rig t of way line of said State Road 90 (US 41) (per Sec ' �Q3 1 6 o e ..ng; thence along said southerly extension an s � es in o d e 11" East, 20.01 feet to the beginning of a curve co s u e to y, a al• g e c f said curve to the right, having a radius of 1 et, e 0 e 44'11.6", an arc length of 148.21 feet, the ch r which beSout 3 d e s` ars 09" East to the end of said curve; thence South es 59111" Wes, f e id northerly existing right of way line and the beg i ' ' f a curve concaves vis ly; thence along said northerly existing right of way 1 c of said c left, having a radius of 11,509.16 feet; a central angle of 0e� 4 c length of 148.21 feet, the chord for which bears North 53 degrees �fo the end of said curve and the Point of beginning. Parcel B: Folio ID #77510280000 having a physical address of 2000 Davis Boulevard and Folio 077510320009, having a physical address of 2054 Davis Boulevard, Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15, Triangle Lake Subdivision, as platted and recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. INSTR 4342479 OR 4492 PG 1546 RECORDED 9/17/2009 1:21 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $44,702.00 REC $35.50 CONS $6,386,000.00 0 This Instrument Prepared by: George P. Langford 3357 Tamiami Trail North Naples, Florida 34103 (239) 262-2011 E_ �,i, - ggln. M 1 � cJ'1,�vm,J�, +.►;• 1� � t'? �� . �W DEED THIS INDENTURE, made this M'00'day of September, 2009, between CORRADI COOPER STREET, INC., a Flo ida Corporation, whose post office address is 380 101 Street South, Suite #103, Naples, Florida 34103, GRANTOR, and COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, whose post office address is That said GRAN'1 Dollars ($10.00), and oth( paid by said Grantee, th bargained and sold to the the following described 1i wit: SEE ATTACHED 1 X& N SSE��H�� tion pt ituate, lying an bein C� f t e sum of Ten and No/100 'on o said Grantors in hand a kn wledg ed, has granted, su 0 ors and assigns forever, i Tier County, Florida, to - Subject to ad valorem taxes for the curren year, zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority) current leases, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any, and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. Property I.D. Numbers: 00388440007; and 77510240008. and said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN V TNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. OR 4492 PG 1547 Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence: CORRADI COOPER STREET, INC., a eorge p L commission # Langford ��; � y .• DDS08437 expires Februa �0"�a tro Imuri Y ,d 2010 fin • nc� i" 80 3$5.7019 OR 4492 PG 1548 . EXHIBIT "A" Corradi Cooper Street Parcel A: Property ID #77510240008, having a physical address of 1936 Davis Boulevard Lots 5 through 11, inclusive, of Triangle Lake, according to the map or plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 3 8, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, Less and excepting therefrom that portion thereof previously conveyed to the State of Road Department of the State of Florida b Ae+e onveyance recorded in Deed Book 16, Pages 163 and 164, of the Public Rei it i nty, Florida. Less the following describ Those portions of Lots 5 nd , Tnan L� a s divisio in ection 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, p i t B A4, Page 38, Public Records of Collier Coun Fl ri a, b i es s 1 w C� Commence at the northw mer of said Lot 6; - nce alo a west line and southerly extension of said Lot 6, 00 degrees 33' E st .26 feet to the northerly existing right of way line o t oad 90 (US 41) ' n 03010-2116) for a Point of Beginning; thence along i erly extend west line North 00 degrees 33'46" West, 24.82 feet to the bei ---c ave southwesterly; thence along the arc of said curve the right, havia�d�f I1,529.16 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 47'18.3", an arc length of 158.65 feet, the chord for which bears South 53 degrees 53'54" East to the east line of said Lot 5 and the end of said curve; thence along said east line and southerly extension South 37 degrees 59'11 " West 20.01 feet to said northerly existing right of way line and the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly; thence along said northerly ,existing right of way line, the are of said curve to the left, having a radius of 11,509.16 feet, a central angle of 00 degree 42'45.9", an arc length of 143.17 feet, the chord for which bears North 53 degree 51'48": West to the end of said curve and the Point of beginning. ' Parcel B: Folio ID #0038840007, having a physical address of 1991 Tamiami Trail East A lot or parcel of land in the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, lying North of the Tamiami Trail, of Section 11 in Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida being specifically described as follows: *** OR 4492 PG 1549 *** From the point of intersection of the West boundary line of the East half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter, lying North of the Tamiami Trail (formerly known as Dixie Highway), of Section 1 I in Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, with the Northeasterly right of way line of the said Tamiami Trail run in a Southeasterly direction for 396.58 feet along said Northeasterly right of way line, to establish the Point of Beginning; thence from the Point of Beginning deflect 90 degrees from the Southeasterly to the Northeasterly and run 322.02 feet; thence deflect 43 degrees 39 minute 10 seconds, from the Northeasterly to the Northerly and run 57.48 feet; thence deflect. 69 degrees 51 minutes 00 seconds from Northerly to Northwesterly and run 63.91 feet; thence deflect 66 degrees; 29 minutes 50 seconds form Northwesterly to Southwesterly and run 338.2 feet to the said Northeasterly right of way line of said Tamiami Trail; thence in a southeasterly direction run 98.29 feet along said Northeasterly right of way line the Point Beginning. The above described property contains .073 acres more or less. AND LESS AND EXCEPT That portion of the Nc Collier County, Florida, Commence at the northw st line and the southerly ex en to the survey base of St 1e southwesterly; thence al having a radius of 11,459. 25129 feet the chord for v CO of section 11, To South, Range 25 East, 6r o e L e; thence along the west of i L t ut a ees 33'46" East 307.41 feet I to b ing of a curve concave d survey base li th ar I. said curve to the right, a central angle b 1 e 15'59.2", an are length of ears South 53 degr4' 8" East to the end of said curve; thence North 37 degree ast, 50.0 e northerly existing right of way line of said State Road 9 -)e 'on 03010-2116) for a Point of Beginning; thence North 37 degrees 5 �'z-Eas0�.00 feet to the beginning of a durve concave southwesterly; thence along the arc of said curve to the right, having a radius of 11,529.16 feet, a central angle of 00 degrees 29117.3"s an arc length of 98.22 feet, the chord for which bears south 52 degrees 31' 25" East to the end of said curve; thence south 37 degrees 59'11 " West, 20.00 feet to said Northerly existing right of way line and the beginning of the curve concave southwesterly; thence along said northerly existing right of way line, the arc of said curve to the left, having a radius of 11,509.16 feet, a central angle of 00 degree 29'20.3", an arc length of 98.22 feet, the cord which bears north 52 degrees 31'28" west to the end of said curve and the point of beginning. Containing 1,964 square feet. INSTR 4342480 OR 4492 PG 1550 RECORDED 9/17/2009 1:30 PM PAGES 4 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $35.50 CONS $0.00 WARRANW DEED THIS INDENTURE, made thio.... of September, 2009, between CC&E INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Florid �a ompany, whose post office address is 380 10' Street South, Suite # aTs,lori a G�OR, and COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY � ELENT AG C whose post office address is That said G� Dollars ($10.00), and othe el - paid by said Grantee, the bargained and sold to the sail the following described land, Wit; nn�)I)ra o sum of Ten and No/100 and valuable c si er to said Grantor in hand A whereof is ' owledged, has granted, ee, and Gran s ccessors and assigns forever, te'?� ud clii3i in Collier County, Florida, to - SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Subject to ad valorem taxes for the current year, zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority, current leases, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any, and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. Proper%y I.D. Numbers: 00388480009; 77510200006; 77510280000; 77510320009; and 77510360001. and said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Documentary Stamps due this transaction werepaid y9a he time of 5 B recording that Warranty Deed recorded in OR 7 �r Pa9 ,��o Public Records of Collier County, Florida. This Instrument Prepared by: George P. Langford 3357 Tamiami Trail North z Naples, Florida 34103 m (23 9) 262-2011 NJ 0 CV U- N _ F- th ' WARRANW DEED THIS INDENTURE, made thio.... of September, 2009, between CC&E INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., a Florid �a ompany, whose post office address is 380 10' Street South, Suite # aTs,lori a G�OR, and COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY � ELENT AG C whose post office address is That said G� Dollars ($10.00), and othe el - paid by said Grantee, the bargained and sold to the sail the following described land, Wit; nn�)I)ra o sum of Ten and No/100 and valuable c si er to said Grantor in hand A whereof is ' owledged, has granted, ee, and Gran s ccessors and assigns forever, te'?� ud clii3i in Collier County, Florida, to - SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A" Subject to ad valorem taxes for the current year, zoning, building code and other use restrictions imposed by governmental authority, current leases, outstanding oil, gas and mineral interests of record, if any, and restrictions, reservations and easements common to the subdivision. Proper%y I.D. Numbers: 00388480009; 77510200006; 77510280000; 77510320009; and 77510360001. and said GRANTOR does hereby fully warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GRANTOR has hereunto set Grantor's hand and seal the day and year first above written. Documentary Stamps due this transaction werepaid y9a he time of 5 B recording that Warranty Deed recorded in OR 7 �r Pa9 ,��o Public Records of Collier County, Florida. QR 4492 PG 1551 Signed, sealed and delivered in our presence; GRANTOR% CC&E INV]E, STMENTS, L.L.C., Florida Limited Liability Company AS TO ALL l wrrNE : ancy P a8 llano $y: CSL K CORRADI lie, Presiding Manager and a Member : rge . Langford LEO E. CORRADI "R C6` Member 0 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIE The foregoing instru a - cL01 de, 17D efor t day of September, bIa 0 by MICHAEL R. CO esiding Manager d e and a Florida invited Liabiity Member of and on behalf o E INVESTME , Company .) Hr ce"Will RGE P. LrtNGFORD (SEAL) k• George P. Langford Commission # DD508437 ,� ,�• �-, Ex ires February10, 2010 ;��liyL� BenmTroyFIA -IntuanCt,lnt E00.7S5-7019 OR 4492 PG 1552 Parcel Al and A2: Al: Folio ID #003884800 A lot or parcel of land in lying North of Tamiami Collier County, Florida,l EXIIIBIT "A" CC&E INVESTMENTS 0$ ��R co sic al al hi 1965 Tamiami Trail East of the Northwest quarter, Quth of Range 25 East, From the point of interse trio "K'U4vVelAduAd li aft t half of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest er, lying North o e T mi rail (formerly know as Dixie Highway), of Secti Township 501 K 5 East, Collier County, Florida, with the Northeas ht of way line o� d Tamiami Trail run in a Southeasterly direction for 29 , long the jai. p -easterly right of way line, to establish the point of beginning, of .pr t�oi - of beginning deflect 90 degrees from Southeasterly to Northeasterly.2 feet, thence deflect M degrees 30'10" from Northeasterly to Northwesterly and run 107.18 feet thence deflect 66 degrees 29'50" from Northwesterly to Southwesterly and run 295.46 feet to the said Northeasterly right of way line of said Tamiami Trail, thence in a Southeasterly direction run 98.29 feet along the said Northeasterly right of way line to the point of beginning. The above described property containing 0.71 acres, more of less. A2: ID #7751020006, having a physical address of 1933 Tamiami Trail East And, Lot 4, Triangle Lake Subdivision as platted and recorded in the Public Records of Collier County Florida, in Plat Book 4, Page 38. *** OR 4492 PG 1553 *** Parcels Al and A2 Less and Except: That portion of Lot 4, Triangle Lake, a subdivision, as per plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, Public Records. of Collier County, Florida, and that portion of the northwest 1/4, all being in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. Being described as follows: Commence at the northwest corner of lot 6 of said Triangle Lake, thence along the west line and the southerly extension of said Lot 6, South 00 degrees 33'46" East, 307.41 feet to the survey base line of State Road 90 (US 41) and to the beginning of a curve concave southwesterly; thence along said sure --base--linc. the arc of said curve to the right, having a radius of 11,459.16 feet ea egrees 31'43", an arc length of 105.72 feet, the cord of whic outh 53 e '16" East to the end of said curve, thence North 36 degr s 5" East, 50.00 feet t lie ' tersection of the southerly extension of the west line sa' an -thin erly a 'sti right of way line of said State Road 90 S 41 r S ction 0 2-V6) fo a Poi t o beginning; thence along said southerly extension d i ti i e d e 5'l V East, 20.01 feet to the beginning of a curve on v so th a to 1 ; nc a n h are of said curve to the right, having a radius o 'lam c 1 an f { egree 44'11.6", an are length of 148.21 feet, the for which bears , th 5 d s 08'09" East to the end of said curve; thence Sou degrees 59'11" 0 o said northerly existing t right of way line and the be i of a curve conca obit esterly; thence along said northerly existing right of wa of s ' fo the left, having a radius of � arc , ��' 11,509.16 feet, a central angle o ', an arc length of 148.21 feet, the chord for which bears North 53 de ees'est to the end of said curve and the Point of beginning. Parcel B: Folio ZD #77510280000 having a physical address of 2000 Davis Boulevard and Folio #77510320009, having a physical address of 2054 Davis Boulevard. Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15, Triangle Lake Subdivision, as platted and recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, Public Records of Collier County, Florida. Attachment "B" Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information Updated Version Dated September 25, 2017 Background: The Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Area and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) were established in March of 2000. The Bayshore/Gateway area comprises approximately 1,800 acres. The CRA was established in order to breathe new economic life, in the form of private investment, in an area that was experiencing declining property values, and was suffering from inadequate infrastructure (such as, but not limited to stormwater facilities, pedestrian and bicycle paths and connectivity, landscaping and street lighting, and so forth), The CRA funding comes primarily from Tax Increment Financing (TIF). In establishing this CRA, the Board of County Commissioners intention was and is to utilize TIF funds to reinvest in the CRA, in the form of infrastructure improvements and in supporting private investment in the area. The objective is to foster redevelopment and create a sense of place, primarily through private investment. When this revitalization of the CRA as a desirable place to visit, live and work occurs, the taxpayer's investment is recouped through rising property values and increased ad Valorem tax dollar revenues. Often it takes years to accomplish these objectives. A strong economy can accelerate redevelopment and on the opposite end of the spectrum, an economic turndown or other factors (such as stringent inflexible development standards), singularly or in combination, can stymie a redevelopment initiative or bring it to a screeching halt. Over the past several years, there has been rising interest in redevelopment within the CRA and several significant improvements have already occurred or are in the planning stages. These include streetscape and pedestrian and bicycle pathway enhancements, street lighting, crime reduction, fagade improvements, and of course the beautiful Botanical Gardens. Even with these successes, in the area identified as the Triangle (and in particular the Mini Triangle targeted for a "catalyst" project) there has been little or no catalytic change over the past 16 years. There are any number of reasons — including the economic downturn; a lack of unity of ownership and aggregation of parcels into one cohesive development site; and inflexible and counterproductive design and development standards that stymie redevelopment rather than foster it. In an attempt to address these issues, a number of years ago, the County acquired 5.35 acres of land within the mini triangle. The objective was to position this property so as to be attractive to a private investor to develop the property as a catalyst project (either in the form of a public private partnership or solely as a private sector imitative). The idea is that the redevelopment of the Mini Triangle, with a mix of commercial and residential uses, will create a certain "synergy" of activity and sense of place, and that such a development will be a catalyst for future H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd ResubmittaRAttachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued September 25, 2017 investment in the greater Triangle redevelopment area. Additionally, mixed use redevelopment, such as is anticipated in this area, optimizes public transit use along the existing arterial roadways. However, redevelopment has unique challenges. Where buildings are no longer viable, as is the case in the mini triangle, the project must incur additional costs of demolition and clean up as well the need to aggregate parcels. Flexibility, in terms of design and development standards, including but not limited to lot coverage, building setbacks, building heights, access, frontage, density and size, floor area, site design, building orientation is absolutely necessary to address the unique nature of redevelopment and to help create an interest on the part of private investors despite the increased market risk. In December of 2015, Collier County issued a Request for Proposal with the intent of obtaining proposals from interested and qualified buyers for the County owned 5.35 acre mini triangle property. The RFP Scope provided for the following: 1. Project scope The proposal should provide a written description of the project, accompanied by a conceptual site plan showing proposed buildings, parking areas and how the development will interface with the surrounding areas. In addition, and, at a minimum, the proposal must clearly identify each land use within the development footprint, such as, residential, hotel units, office, retail/restaurant, public, or other space that would complement the site. 2. Community impact The proposal must describe how the proposed project fits with the adjacent parcels, meets the intent of the CRA Catalyst Project expectation, and would generally benefit the CRA, surrounding areas and the County as a whole. Include as many conceptual visuals as possible such as site plans, renderings, and elevations, if applicable. 3. Zoning The proposal must identify if the applicant will utilize the existing C-4 zoning district, a MUP for the GTMUD-MXD or a specific rezoning that will require a comprehensive plan amendment or other special zoning relief. If the proposal requires additional zoning other than GTMUD-MXD, the proposal must include a detailed explanation of what must be changed and why in order for the project to be successful. Be as specific as possible and provide documentation as needed to substantiate the request. Page 2 of 5 HA2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued September 25, 2017 4. Financing The proposal must provide a general financing plan. The proposal must identify if the project will be a straight purchase (if so, what is the purchase price?), a request forup blic dollars (if so, how much and from what funding source?), require financing (if so, is the expectation that the County will defer the purchase price until the completion of construction and/or contribute to the financing package?), or ask for a repayment back to the proposer from the project tax revenue after completion (if so, how much and when is rebate expected?). All proposals will require a nonrefundable down payment of ten percent (10%) due upon the Board's acceptance and approval of the purchase and development agreement. The financing plan shall demonstrate the proposer's financial ability to successfully purchase and complete the redevelopment of the parcels. 5. Total Project Value At a regularly schedule advertised public hearing, the CRA Board considered the qualified proposals and selected RE Partners International, LLC. Subsequently, a contract was formalized and executed. The contract was amended several times. The contract includes specific timelines and performances standards for both parties, and identifies allowable intensity and density. Both the CRA Advisory Board and the CRA Board (County Commission sitting as the CRA Board) approved the conceptual development plan. The contract provides for 210 multi -family residential units, 152 hotel units, 74,000 square feet or retail and personal service uses, and 60,000 square feet of office use. The contract is attached for your information. GMPA & MPUD The project, as proposed offers the following benefits to the redevelopment area specifically and to Collier County generally: 1. Achieves the CRA "Catalyst project" objective and will promote further private investment and desirable mixed use redevelopment throughout the greater redevelopment area; 2. The most efficient utilization of existing urban services and facilities (reducing public costs when compared to lower density development on the edges of the urban area or beyond). 3. Creates a desirable mixed-use development in urban environments by bringing these related activities closer together. 4. Includes a very significant private sector investment in the CRA where viable transportation options already exist. Page 3 of 5 HA\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued September 25, 2017 5. Promotes interconnection and shared access and given its unique location adjacent on two sides to major arterial roadways, and to other CRA commercial ort mixed use parcels on the other two sides. 6. Enhances the local tax base through re -vitalization and increase property values in the neighborhood. 7. Provides for significant job creation. The proposed Small Scale Growth Management Amendment creating the Mini Triangle Subdistrict addresses these issues and provides for relative certainty while still maintaining adequate flexibility in terms of mix of uses and development and design standards. This ensures that the project can be fluid in the market places, while being subject to identified limitations, including maximum trip generation, building height, and an adequate mix of residential and commercial uses. By creating the Subdistrict and requiring the MPUD zoning, these standards will be limited to the 5.35 acre project site. Additional Density Generally and in Coastal High Hazard Area Presently the maximum allowable density is 12 units per acre or 64 units (12 x 5.35). The Subdistrict provides for up to 210 dwelling units, or potentially more if the density or intensity of other approved land uses is proportionately reduced through the Land Use Conversion Matrix, such that the impact to the daily traffic is not increased. The controlling mechanism related to impacts associated with the additional density achievable through the Land Use Conversion Matrix is the cap on PM peak hour unadjusted trips, which is set at 875, as well as the minimum requirement of 50 multi -family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following uses: professional office, retail, restaurant and personal services. So while the mix of uses is fluid and flexible, there is a finite cap on the maximum allowable density and intensity through the maximum trip generation. This flexibility is necessary to ensure that the project can be responsive to the market, and move forward as a catalyst, in the most feasible development scenario. There are of course several other limitations in the form of design and development standards that restrict the site related impacts, including but not limited to maximum building height, required parking and landscaping, and open space. As is typical, these standards, for the most part, are not addressed in the Subdistrict, but rather in the companion zoning document (MPUD). Nevertheless they do limit the site impacts. As to the additional density in the Coastal High Hazard Area, there is no statutory or Collier County prohibition on increasing Density in the CCHA. Presently 64 units are permitted on the site, and up to 210 are requested (with the potential for additional density from utilization of the Land Use Conversion Matrix). This is an increase then, at 210 units, of 146 multi -family dwelling units. Page 4 of 5 HA\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx Mini Triangle Subdistrict Justification & Supplemental Information, Continued September 25, 2017 Density may be, and in fact has been over the past several years, increased in the CCHA, provided the BCC determines that any potential impact related to hurricane evacuation is adequately addressed. The proposed structures will be elevated and constructed to meet today's stricter building code requirements. We have met with Dan Summers, Collier County Emergency Management Director, to determine what other measures may be appropriate to address this mater. Mr. Summers has requested, and we have agreed to provide, the following: The developer shall provide the Emergency Management Division with a 45kw towable diesel, quiet running, multi phase, multi -voltage generator to be used at other hurricane evacuation shelter sites as a one-time hurricane mitigation effort. Emergency Management will provide approved specifications to the developer who will deliver the generator to Emergency Management, with all necessary warranty and manuals, new and tested for immediate operation as well as a certificate of origin for over the road towing, tags, registration, etc. The one-time generator contribution will be provided at the time of the first residential certificate of occupancy. This will provide appropriate mitigation for hurricane evacuation associated with the potential increase in residential density in the CCHA. LDC Amendment A LDC amendment is proposed in order to ensure consistency between the proposed Subdistrict and the Airport Overlay Section. Additional Supporting Information: As is typical the case, in support of the proposed Small Scale Future Land Use Element and related Future Land Use Map amendment, as well as the companion MPUD rezone and LDC amendment(s), various types of additional supporting date is provided herewith, including but not limited to: • A Traffic Impact Statement; • Various Maps and graphic exhibits required as supporting documentation for the S SGMPA and/or MPUD rezone; • Conceptual Landscape and Architectural Renderings; • A Conceptual Site Plan; and • FAA Letter of No Hazard for additional Building Height (168 feet from Mean Sea Level). Page 5 of 5 HA2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\2nd Resubmittal\Attachment B Justification 9-25-2017.docx EXHIBIT "A" PROPOSED GMPA AMENDMENT LANGUAGE Proposed Small Scale Amendments to the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Related to 5.35 Acres Located within the "Mini Triangle" Portion of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Amend the FLUE DESCRIPTION SECTION, Section I, URBAN DESIGNATION, Subsection A. Urban Mixed Use District, Page 49, as follows: 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict I. Purpose and Intent: The Mini Triangle Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment OverlU of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the 5.35 acre site specific Mixed Use Subdistrict, as a subset of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan' In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a "Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept". The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a Catalyst Project (or projects) that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards In order to provide for this greater intensity, density, and flexibility the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to MPUD. II. Allowable Uses and Restrictions: All uses allowed within the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD) shall be allowed within this Subdistrict subject to the intensity and density limitations identified in paragraphs A. through F., below. To ensure a mixed use development, a minimum of 50 multi -family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following commercial uses shall be developed: professional office, retail, restaurant and personal services. The PUD shall establish a date, timeframe, or condition by which the minimum 50 multi -family dwelling units and 30,000 square feet of commercial development shall be constructed. This date, timeframe or condition shall not be construed to limit approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or related amendment(s) thereto, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements depicted thereon, including but not limited to site access sewer and water lines and facilities, stromwater facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage, and fence or walls. A. 210 multi -family residential units are allowed by ight within this Subdistrict. B. 152 hotel suites/rooms or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites) are allowed by within this Subdistrict. 1Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Plan, approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution 2000-181 Underlined text proposed to be added; stFue'�� text proposed to be deleted. Page 1 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\I-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language (0 1 -24-2018).docx C 74,000 square feet of the following uses, as specifically permitted by right or as a conditional uses in the C-4, General Commercial District, are allowed by right within this Subdistrict: • Retail: • Restaurant; • Movie Theatre (multiplex), bowling center and physical fitness facilities; and • Personal services. D 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office uses are permitted by right within this Subdistrict. E The following additional commercial uses are allowed only if the uses listed in paragraphs A. through D above, are converted to an additional use using a conversion formula in accordance with paragraph F below. • Assisted Livina Facilities (ALF) — not to exceed 150 units and a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45; and, • Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and self storage, not to exceed 60,000 square feet (SIC Code 42252); and, • New Car Dealership, not to exceed 30,000 square feet (SIC Code 55112) ; and, • Anv other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses F. The densities and intensities identified for specific uses in Paragraphs A. through D. above may be increased through application of conversion formulas to be established during the MPUD rezone, subject to the following, minimum and maximum limitations listed below. Any increase in density or square footage identified in Paragraphs A through D. above by usingLa conversion formula will result in a corresponding reduction of dwelling, units and/or hotel suites/rooms and/or retail and/or office square footage, and additionally: • In no case shall the maximum total daily trip generation for the project exceed 875 two-way PM peak hour unadjusted trips; • In no case shall the maximum number of dwelling units for the project exceed 400; • In no case shall the maximum number of hotel rooms for the project exceed 200; • In no case shall the maximum combination of retail, office, personal service, restaurant, movie theater uses for the project exceed 200,000 square feet; • To ensure that the development is mixed use in nature, a minimum of 50 multi -family residential uses and a minimum combination of 30,000 square feet of two or more of the following shall be developed: retail, restaurant, professional office, or personal services; G Development within this Subdistrict shall be subject to the provisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, as applicable, except in the case of building height, which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16, as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16, as may be approved as part of the MPUD. 2 1987 Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Manual, Executive Office of the President Office of Management and Budget Underlined text proposed to be added; strtiek thio gh text proposed to be deleted. Page 2 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language (0 1 -24-2018).docx Amend the FLUE, B. DENSITY RATING SYSTEM, Le., Pages 50 and 51, as follows: e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System, except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the "vested" Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. 9) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. Amend the FLUE, V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES, F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, Pages 139-141, as follows: F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: 1. Mixed -Use Development: A Minix of residential and commercial uses pis permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses,, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The Underlined text proposed to be added; stFuek through text proposed to be deleted. Page 3 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language (0 1 -24-2018).docx intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or aboverg ade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadways to promote traditional urban development. 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below, or ex -e -et as may be limited by a zoning overlay, or as provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water -dependent and water -related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. 4. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and/or the west side of Airport -Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre, via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11; except that no project may utilize more than 97 units — 25% of the total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and ,comply with the standards identified in paragraph no. 8, below, except for mixed—use projects developed within the "mini triangle" catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The "mini triangle" catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning overlay adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08), and amended December 14, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-63)_ For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport - Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential - only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11. except that no project may utilize more than 97 units — 25% of the 388 total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. -In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. Underlined text proposed to be added; StFU& t rough text proposed to be deleted. Page 4 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\I-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language (0 1 -24-2018).docx c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d. All residential units shall be market rate units. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies. Properties located in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from the above provisions (paragraph 5). 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center #16, land uses°will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5, above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. 7. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses, densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. 8. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above, or as otherwise permitted within Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning . 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 10. Only the affordable -workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict -i -s are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 11. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses, as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above. This 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool corresponds with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the botanical Underlined text proposed to be added; StFHek thFeug# text proposed to be deleted. Page 5 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language (0 1 -24-2018).docx gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within T- the "mini triangle" eatalyst pr-ejeet-is are not subjeet required to utilize this density bonus pool. 12. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map (XV) Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map (XIII) Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve — Conservation Designation Map Lely Mitigation Park — Conservation Designation Map Margood Park Conservation Designation Map Urban Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay Map Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed -Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map (XXX) Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Underlined text proposed to be added; stfu,.'�,�k through text proposed to be deleted. Page 6 H:\2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\1-24-2018\Exhibit A Proposed GMPA Language (01-24-2018).doex 500 0 500 SCALE IN FEET x -- SUBJECT SITE r: Naples c.n. � '- $ S Golt Hcatef w.rA+w U:WR rt'�-r" - �� u.m IMwod _.J.1 'Z��IY:Ywaw+w i 500 0 500 SCALE IN FEET Davis BLVD AERIAL PROVIDED BY BING MAP SERVICE (USING USGS AERIALS) DATED 2017 500 0 50D SCALE IN FEET v Lin'\)vobTll 4 �.L44 AVE AERIAL PROVIDED BY BING MAP SERVICE (USING USGS AERIALS) DATED 2017 500 0 50D SCALE IN FEET IT T1 12I z0 to PARK IB 7 1 HARBOR RD B IT LOT 24 r12 13 4 ROAD RIVER OAK 14 PLANTATION 1. 7 7 A I1� I I , I F, is to 7 ESTEY 5 e vrm AVENUE ESTEY AVENUE 0 2 2 1 2 11 1 LOT PUD' 17 ae too L 17 1 L7— I F. HOLIDAY LANE 4 7 PU, FRMF-6 C-5 cu"', fA:21 2. M LOT 137 LOT 2 25 12 26 23 14 L �2 HAWTHORNE LLL 2 2. HARBOR LANE I, C-1 ru R 31 B P �l "k' I" 1.7,'B" 1 1.. � . �'y 3 4 300'OFFSET F- RSF-4 SUNSET LN Loln TERRACE PARK TFRRA, U) RR -E LU 2 —T 2 V, —1 9 P SUBJECT SITE CL 502S• <SV 14J 4-GTMLID-1 4113 -.T-,, Z 7 lUD21" - (SR C-4-TU� oo al DAMS BOULEVARD a LEV RD LL 11 71 U.- Afl I t1 "ju 0 4 2 17,615 141312 1. 2 2 Z.1 LOT 133 VJ♦ C-5 T' T 12 34,56 v 43.45 47 X'" 12 . -"- ; 419W '",Q4 I- i I HE ET .45 �47 12 C-4- KIRKWOOD AVENUE Ul 25 24 23 2 26�21Njljlllljll' 2 X 1 11 41 1 1 PUD LOT 30 CONNECTICUT AVENUE 'CU KEUERS 2 M:! 1� 12 .1 1. 3 41 -G M D '5�,:�, 71. 1 � 11, 1 22 -114113N2 "IT I LOT I E.1 LOT 4 1 A u z3 LINWOOD AVENUE LINWOOD AVENUE LINWOOD AVENUE C 62 5 4 2 1 B, 1413 2 10 9 A 2 to 3i J2'I jbzet5 I.ACT B LOT 32 FRANCIS AVENUE WAY P.U. F 2 4 le,/PET", 11 12 1 1 �,,4, 20 I, LLI 4 a 12 A La L 41 12 1� i ff 4" HARBOR LAKES CONDO. c F 4TI -1 =1.1 S!A LOT 129 WALKER LANE MILLS LANE 4 I u 2 Q A MANORCA AVENUE P.U, LOT 128 7 t MONROE AVENUE 5 WN - 12 SHAD 17 F7;7J9J1 .11 12SI ELEM TARY FF"n, 'F,.7u- 4 4 LAND USE ZONING SUBJECT PARCEL DEVELOPED C-4-GTMUD-MXD NORTH DAVIS BLVD/COMMERCIAL, MARINA C-4-GTMUD-MXD SOUTHWEST U.S. 41 /NAPLES BAY CLUB CITY OF NAPLES PD CALEDONIA AVE. WEST DEVELOPED C-4-GTMUD-MXD SOUTHEAST U.S. 41 /VACANT COMMERCIAL C-4-GTMUD-MXD 500 0 500 SCALE IN FEET DESIGNED BY DATE THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT REFERENCE NO. DRAWING NO. P.N.M.12/2016 Encore Way A PROvCD FOR CONSTRUCTION 950 EXHIBIT A. UNLESS 9111 1110*: DRAWN ByATE Naple FL. 34110 2016.052 MINI TRIANGLE M.N.K..K . 1 2/2016 lRnm Phone: (2 s') 254-2000 MINI TRIANGLE SUBDISTRICT A PRDJECT NO. NO. 39 CHECKED By DATE R , M* 12/2016 HOLE MONTES Florida Certificate of 'REVISED PER COUNTY COMMENTS 3/13/1) SUBDISTRICT -VERTICAL SCALE HORIZONTAL SCALE ENGINEERSfLANNERHURVEYORS Authorization Nc.1772 ZONING MAP DAM — 2016.052 1 OF 1 LETTER REVISIONS AT N /A Al 11-T— I r- -%rur% BAYS H0RE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY o "MINI TRIANGLE" CATALYST PROJECT ®MIXED USE ACTIVITY CENTER SUBDISTRICT ❑ URBAN RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT 71URBAN COASTAL FRINGE SUBDISTRICT 12 SUBJECT SITE "MINI TRIANGLE" CATALYST PROJECT COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA (SHOWN IN WHITE ON MAP) AIRPORT NOISE AREA OVERLAY ®LIVINGSTON ROAD / RADIO ROAD COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT CONSERVATION DESIGNATION o CITY OF NAPLES o ESTATES DESIGNATION ® HIBISCUS RESIDENTIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT �® DAVIS—RADIO ROAD SUBDISTRICT Y Q U- p W p m J HOco J H NOT TO SCALE O � GOLDEN GWE ARKWAY (C.R. 886) T` j ADIO 1rjKoAD (C.R. 856) SUBJECT SITE DAMS OU,LEVARD (S. R 84) � s Collier Env iron enfal - onsultan is Inc. Telephone (239-) 263-2687 Fax (239) 263-6616 3880 a=stey Ave. Naples, Florida 34104 Environ a -en- , Batao collier Environmental Consultants was contracted to examine the subjectparcel for any environmental issues. This project site-is•urban. redevelopment, The redevelopment - parcels are located in Section 11, Township 50, Ravage 25. Specifically, idle parcels are onDavis Blvd appraxmately 160 yards cast th the intersection of US 41(T amiami Trail). These redevelopment parcels.have been previously cleared and developed. They consist of warehouses, office buildings and paved parking. These parcels offer no environ ea al unction. 'hese parcels do not provide or have any native babitat and/or wildlife. 'These parcels are void of vegetation other than a few remnant iandscap na plarpts and some invasive exotics. These parcels have NO listed Sppc%esr Native Habitat or other environmental issues. The following plants were found or, site. F UC CS CODE AND VEGETA' ION EWENTORY 100 -Uyi ba BuHt This is diff-erent Urban built business. This bicludes warehouses, offices and other similar structures. These are some of the vegetation present iu this category. Brazilian..pepper Schinus tereb-inthifolias Exotic Cabbage porn. Sabal palmetto FAC Aiistralianpine Casuarina e€ Wsetif0h Exotic 00coplurn CbrysobalaAus icaco FACW Baliiagrass- Paspatum. notatu PACU Sandspur Cerachrus-echinatus FAC Mahogany Swieteriia, inahagoid UIPl1 130 Restdead2g — RIM" h DnsCy These afire resrdentied /amts EXEMIT C-1 141 Retail Sales and Service This is retail sales and services that include boat and car sales and/or services 1415 Restaurant This category is for food services 1451 Hotel This is exactly what it says hotel 193 Urban Land in Transition This category is for developed lands that have been abandoned and with no identification of use. This specific category was used for and is an abandoned parking lot. Cabbage paha Sabal palmetto FAC live oak Quercus virginiana UPL cocopluan Chrysobalanus icaco FACW 8143 State Road This is a State highway/road Tamiami Trail or also know as US 41 8144 County Road This road is known as Davis Blvd INDICATOR STATUS - Obligate (OBL), Facultative wet plants (FACW), Facultative plants (FAC), Upland (UPL) } Y5�-a":M'-s s.Vrat .....et•��...�rs-+X�al i�.tJa..��,saL..� � __-.,...y�,�OWN JJ AV It t ONE OF THE PARCELS - WAREHOUSES YM CLEARED PARCEL ONE OF THE PARCELS FACING US 41 SOME REMNANT LANDSCAPING PLANTS ONE OF THE PARCELS - CLEARED FIELD . ' ' • - COLLIER COU. i`rY SOIL LEGEND _ -- - REVISED 1190 H. YAMA.TAKI Hanle - H 2 HOL(?PA FS, LIMSOTCM SUBSTRATUM 4 - OHOBEE,' LIMESTONE 15UBSTRATUM AND D.� 3�IIQCS - 37FP ESSI0NAL H 6 RIER-A; LI KSTONE SUBSTRATUM- COPELAND FS 7 IMM KALRE FS • 8+€YKA FS 10 OLDSN€ R FS f LDHWMM - SUBST RAW 31 JCA FS ' H 14 Ptd FS, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATA - 15 POND FS 16 -OLDSMAR FS H 17 BASINGER FS H 18 RI V LE FS r -Ln STOI1EP SLTRSTRATIINf 20 FT. DRW AND =,HIGH-_ FS • 21 BOM FS H 22 C HOPM..f WMA ASD G& -.SOILS. D$PRESSTOML H 23 HOLOP.AW AND1K .S0lMS `DHPRESSl0WkL - H 25 BO0'. , R� r .: Li1WST0A SUBSTRA'TE4 AND - GPRLAND FS DSP ESSIONAL D. H 27 HOLOPAW Fs H 20 PINBDA AM RIVIERIA FS 29 MZBWSO FS H 31 HIWt LO., LDWSTONE SUBST ATIIMr 3UPITgR AND - MARGATE SOILS 32 URBAN `LAND • ., 33 URBAN LAND HOLOR-W BASIRM. COMPLEX 34 URBAN LAND =JM - OLDSMAR LIMESTONE SMSTRATUMM C.' ow-- 35 -DRB LAND AQUWM COMPLIKK ORGAWC 36 DD011.TH S SIMPM 37 TSCANII3 TA FS - _ 38 DR)] AN D .:MATLAOHA LIMESTONE 9UBSTRATUM • �� . CSOMPL� _ 39E,3 _ FS H 40 DlJRB3N AND :rIm .MQOKS _ ..41 'UR13W ISD S ELUTE . COMPLEX 42 {AWA 3S i Assoc-- _ H _ 43 _ lwlNpSR., R te; vrmskow SIIBS� II3': MBm. SOILS 3DEPRESSIONAL _ - 45. PAOLA FS (1-8 pexce.ut slopes) - : H 48 P SUOG© SOIL [marl prairie) H 49 11AILTAXWOME AM BOCA. FS (slough) -, 5o OCHOPE FEL„ PRA IE (marl) °s 51 OMOPRE. FSL 52 K+;$S09 ;i UC:3 _ F QUk Y FLOOD= _ 53 � 0 AND . PECKISn SOILS FLOODED - - - H 54 mpir.Kx ]RCCA - $ 56 13ASI FSS, I �Y FLOODED - C Boule- rd tot. t.mks" t� rfi MapWise Copyright 2015 MapWise, Inc. All rights reserved. www.mapwise.com. This map is informational only. No representation is made or warranty given as to its content. User assumes all risk of use. MapWise and its suppliers assume no responsibility for any losses resulting from such use. SOILS Selected Custom Parcels Streets OSM Hybrid County Boundaries Parcel Outlines Soils Boundaries II r, '180 3130 640 ft I PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES NOTES T NORTH NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT 1. POLICE PROTECTION IS PROVIDED GREATER NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT BY COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. 2. FIRE PROTECTION IS PROVIDED BY GREATER NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT. O 2 MILES Iy i t . ' E. rr,r +. 3. THERE ARE NO WELLFIELDS WITHIN OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE LAKE PARK ELEM. SUBJECT PROPERTY. " 4. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY'S t COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREA. Z W NAPLES WTP/ NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT v Q p 2i WWTP & FIRE RESCUE'` Qt, 1 MILE W NCH HOSPITAL w - SUBJECT SITE o w•� CALUSA PARK ELEM. (,L GULFVIEW MIDDLE ;, LINE INDICATES U) FIRE DISTRICT ZONE W WALKER INST. ` DESIGNATION (TYPICAL) —1 EAST NAPLES I NAPLES FIRE MIDDLE -_-- �T� Z &RESCUE NAPLES WTP GREATER NAPLES It,I LL FIRE DISTRICT id➢ -- SHADOWLAWN CC SHERIFF OFFICE ELEMGOLDEN GATE a FIRE GREATER NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT AVALON ELEMENTARY GREATER NAPLES FIRE DISTRICT 2000 0 2000 4000 - SCALE IN FEET SCALE 1' = 2000' MINI TRIANGLE DESIGNED BY DATE P.N.M. 12 2016 950 Encore Way Naples, FL. 34110 EXHIBIT T E.1 THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT APPROVED FOR BELOW: ULTON UNLESS SIGNED BELOW: REFERENCE NO. MA NO NO. 2016.052 ® DRAWN BY DATE M.N.K. z tots ® Phone: (239) 254-2000 MINI TRIANGLE SUBDISTRICT ® CHECM.N. DATE R.M. 12 2016 PRO CLT NO. 2016.052 SHCCT NO. 1 of 1 SUBDISTRICT HOLE MONTES Florida Certificate of ENGINEERSfIANNERS•SORVEYORS Authorization No. 1772 PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES MAP REVISED PER COUNTY CONVENTS 1/I]/I] VERRCAL SCALE HORIZONTAL SCALE N/A AS NOTFD DATE LETTER REVISIONS GATE MINI TRIANGLE SUBDISTRICT City of Naples utilities will provide water service for potable and fire protection needs to the property, and Collier County Utilities will provide wastewater service. The subject property is within the South Service Area. Both utilities have sufficient capacity to provide water and sewer service. The estimated potable water and wastewater average daily and peak requirements for the subject property are as follows: Potable Water 51.1 GPM (Peak 204.4 GPM) Wastewater 51.1 GPM (Peak 204.4 GPM) According to the Collier County 2016 AUIR, currently there is an existing landfill capacity of 17.7 million tons, and a ten-year landfill capacity requirement of 2.5 million tons. The estimated life of the landfill is 54 years. This is adequate to accommodate additional tons per capita disposal generated by the proposed project. Stormwater retention and detention will comply with SFWMD requirements, and State and County standards for off-site discharges will be met, resulting in no adverse impacts to stormwater management (drainage) level of service. The construction of 152 hotel rooms/suites or 73,000 SF of commercial and 60 SF of office uses will not affect school capacity. The application also proposes 210 multifamily residential units and a school impact analysis application has been submitted to the School Board of Collier County. This type of residential development (multi -family high rise) is not anticipated to have any significant effect on public schools in terms of increasing student population as history shows that few Collier County Public School students will be living in such units. On the other hand, from a fiscal perspective, any residential units will pay school taxes, and thus will overall, have a positive impact on Collier County Public Schools. The closest EMS/fire station is a Naples Fire Rescue station, located at 835 8th Ave S, Naples, FL 34102, a little over a mile from the property. The subject site is within the Greater Naples Fire District, which maintains facilities at 4798 Davis Blvd, Naples, FL 34104, 1.8 miles from the subject site, and 4375 Bayshore Dr., Naples, FL 34112, 2.3 miles from the subject site. HA2016\2016052\WP\GMPA\3rd Resubmittal\Public Facilities Report (12-1-2017).docx � Tpeuiicoch I planning -engineering Traffic Impact Statement Gateway Mini Triangle Planned Unit Development and Growth Management Plan Amendments Prepared for: Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-254-2000 Collier County, FL 03/29/2017 Prepared bV: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee — $ 500.00 Collier CountV Transportation Review Fee — Major Study — $1,500.00 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. �� J • TRE iii E NSF Q;' ..0 00 Z: No 47116 00 0:.�. STATE OF ::mow: ....... 'i4sS �0 N AL (c��`�� 11►iiil" Digitally signed by Norman J. Norman J. Trebilcock P.E. 47116 DN: cn=Norman J. Trebilcock P.E. 47116, o=Trebilcock TrebilcockConsulting Solutions, PA, ou=Norman J. trebilcock, email=ntrebilcock@trebilcoc P.E. 4 k.bDate c:--US Date: 2017.03.29 07:01:47 -04'00' Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. 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 P a g e 12 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Table of Contents ProjectDescription......................................................................................................................... 4 TripGeneration............................................................................................................................... 6 Trip Distribution and Assignment................................................................................................... 8 BackgroundTraffic........................................................................................................................ 10 Existing and Future Roadway Network......................................................................................... 11 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis............................................................ 12 SiteAccess Turn Lane Analysis...................................................................................................... 13 ImprovementAnalysis.................................................................................................................. 15 Mitigationof Impact..................................................................................................................... 15 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan.......................................................................................... 16 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) .................................................. 18 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition.......................................................... 25 Appendix D: US 41—from Goodlette Rd. to Davis Blvd. Traffic Data .......................................... 33 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits................................................................................... 39 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 13 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Project Description The Gateway Mini Triangle development is an approved Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and Tamiami Trail East (US 41 [SR 90]). The project is approximately 5.35 acres in size and is located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The project is located within the US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). The US 41 TCEA is designed to reduce the adverse impact transportation concurrency may have on urban sprawl control policies and redevelopment. Proposed development located within the boundaries of the South U.S. 41 area are exempt from transportation concurrency requirements so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies enumerated in the Land Development Code (LDC), as applicable. Refer to Fig. 1 — Project Location Map, which follows, and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Fig. 1— Project Location Map - N r 7 Naples j r Municipal i 1 41MW INT Airport 4 � - ,i eCaarry clop _ PROJECT w 11,11 � n •rA w _ TIf Go gle Consistent with the approved Collier County zoning districts and uses, the existing subject site is currently zoned General Commercial District (C-4) which provides the opportunity for the most diverse types of commercial activities delivering goods and services, including entertainment and recreational attractions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 14 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Upon approval of the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and Plan Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) applications, the project will be developed as a mixed-use project as shown in Table 1, Proposed Development Program. The proposed principal uses are illustrated as follows: Residential — Multi -family — up to 210 dwelling units. Commercial — up to 152 hotel suites; up to 74,000 square feet of Retail, Restaurant, Movie Theater, Personal services; up to 60,000 square feet of professional or medical office use. - Permitted uses based on a conversion matrix — Assisted Living Facility (ALF); Indoor air- conditioned passenger vehicle and self -storage; New Car Dealership; any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses. The units and square footage provided above may be adjusted from the stated units and square footages as provided in a Land Use Conversion Table — this document is submitted as a separate item. The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. For the purposes of this analysis, Medical Office is conservatively used, as it generates higher traffic volumes than the General Office use. Table 1 Proposed Development Program Note(s): *du = dwelling units. **sf = square feet. For purposes of this evaluation, the project build -out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2021 planning horizon. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on November 14, 2016, as illustrated in Appendix 13: Initial Meeting Checklist. Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41— northern entrance — right-in/right- out/directional median left -in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right- out/left-in access (proposed dual left directional median). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 15 ITE Land Use Development Land Use ITE Land Use Total Size Code Residential Multi -Family Residential Condominium/Townhouse 230 210du* Hotel Hotel 310 152 rooms Retail Shopping Center 820 74,000sf** Office Medical -Dental Office 720 60,000sf** Note(s): *du = dwelling units. **sf = square feet. For purposes of this evaluation, the project build -out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2021 planning horizon. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on November 14, 2016, as illustrated in Appendix 13: Initial Meeting Checklist. Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41— northern entrance — right-in/right- out/directional median left -in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right- out/left-in access (proposed dual left directional median). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 15 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Trip Generation The project's site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition and the software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most current version). The ITE rates and equations are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE — OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition. The estimated project trip generation associated with the proposed development is illustrated in Table 2. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. Per Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. For the purposes of this report, the software program OTISS is used to generate associated internal capture traffic. The OTISS calculation procedure follows the trip balancing approach as recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, Volume 1, User's Guide and Handbook, Chapter 7 — procedure for estimating multi -use trip generation internal capture, aka "triangle method". As illustrated in Table 2, calculated internal capture values are below the county limits. The pass -by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. Consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, shopping center pass -by rates should not exceed 25% for the peak hour and the daily capture rates to be assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis calculates shopping center daily pass -by trips at 15% of the gross external traffic with AM and PM peak hour at 25% of the gross external trips. Pass -by trips are not deducted for traffic operational analysis. As such, the total external generated traffic illustrated in Table 2 is computed for the site access turn lane analysis. Table 2 Trip Generation (Proposed Conditions) — Average Weekday(1) Development 24 Hour Two- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Way Volume Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA - PUDA 10,221 258 189 447 407 468 875 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 16 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Total Traffic Internal Traffic (1,300) (15) (15) (30) (56) _' (56) (112) External Traffic 8,921 243 174 417 351 412 763 Pass -By Traffic (743) (18) (11) (29) (53) (56) (109) Non -Pass -By Traffic (Net New External Traffic) 8,178 225 163 388 298 356 654 Note(s): (l) For more details on Trip Generation calculations, refer to Appendix C. In agreement with the Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM. For the purpose of this TIS, the surrounding roadway network link concurrency analysis is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour traffic generated by the project (Table 2, Total Non - Pass -By Traffic). The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the estimated traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour. Based on the trip generation results, projected PM peak hour traffic is more intense than the AM peak hour traffic (both egress and ingress traffic). As such, the PM peak hour traffic is used in the project access turn lane sizing (PM Peak Hour Enter — 351 vph; Exit — 412 vph). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 17 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Trip Distribution and Assignment Projected traffic generated by the proposed development is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning staff. Based on the estimated PM peak hour total net new external traffic, the assignment of proposed site -generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour, and is graphically depicted on Fig. 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Note(s): (l) Not a Collier County monitored roadway. (2) Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 18 Distribution PM Peak Hr Project Traffic Roadway Link CC AUIR Roadway Link Location of Project Vol.(2) Enter Exit Link ID # Traffic Tamiami Trail NSA Goodlette Rd. to Davis 40% SB —119 N B —142 East(') (US 41) Blvd. Tamiami Trail East 91.0 Davis Blvd. to Airport Rd. 20% NB -60 SB - 72 (US 41) Davis Blvd. 12.0 US 41 to Airport Rd. 40% WB - 119 EB —142 (vi 8 Note(s): (l) Not a Collier County monitored roadway. (2) Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 18 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Fig. 2 — Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour PROJECT TRAFFIC #VA DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE ..a N i �r .z '� Naisks x munictpal RE'06 ENT Airpoh r`-- Naples 40% `jFUR i JF Google �-- ( t # [NOW � 4Eey AN PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PM PK HR LL z 4011"JeouriD Jt (40) 1 o� iTgourTD ivtun`ictip8� � RE1)EV# 4 N i Aifport hk (EB - Peak SB - Peak (142) , 11 J Direction) Direction 11� (142) t� r �, 0 b ti :v� ►.. s n (SB - Pk i�T x+•� ea� 4 Direction) Q Go 9' � Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 19 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Background Traffic Future projected background traffic volumes are calculated based on approved growth rates and trip bank volumes for the segments of the roadway network in the study area, as shown in Collier County 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). The higher of the two determinations, is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. It is noted that the US 41 (SR 90) segment from Goodlette-Frank Road (CR 851) to Davis Boulevard (SR 84) is located within the City of Naples corporate limits. The Level of Service (LOS) Standard for City streets is evaluated by comparing the two-way traffic volume at peak hour, peak season with the designated roadway capacity as set forth in the City of Naples Comprehensive Plan. For US 41 (SR 90), the City is consistent with the State's policies for LOS and adopt LOS D, except for the segment of US 41 between Four Corners and Davis Boulevard which is set at LOS E (as illustrated in FDOT Collier County Level of Service Spreadsheet). As illustrated in FDOT 2015 Historical AADT Report, historic traffic for the US 41 segment from Goodlette-Frank Road (CR 851) to Davis Boulevard (SR 84) shows a negative annual growth rate for this segment (year 2006 — AADT 64,000; year 2015 — AADT 52,000). Based on Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance, a minimum of 2% growth rate is considered. Calculations of projected peak hour, peak direction background traffic volume (without project) for the future build -out year 2021, are illustrated in Table 4A and Table 4B. Table 4A City of Naples Traffic Count Analysis (US 41/East of Goodlette Rd. to Davis Blvd.) Note(s): (1) As illustrated in the 2015 City of Naples Traffic Counts. (2) FDOT 2015 Peak Season Factor Category Report. (3) Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate) 6. (4) 2021 Projected Volume= 2015 AADT x Growth Factor. FDOT - AASHTO rounding standards. (5) Refer to Appendix D. (6) 2021 Peak Hour Peak Direction = 2021 Projected AADT x 0.09 x 0.559. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 10 Traffic 2021 Peak Hour Annual 2021 AADT Peak Direction Date of Traffic Seasonal 2015 Growth Growth Background K and D Background Count Count (�i Adjustment (2) AADT Rate Factor (3) Traffic(4) Factors (s) Traffic(') (%/yr) (trips/hr) March 67,397 0.92 62,005 2015 June 2015 45,270 1.14 51,608 September 45,449 1.12 50,903 2015 December 54,976 0.96 52,777 2015 Average 54,323 2.0% 1.1262' 61,000 K= 9; D= 55.9 3,069 Note(s): (1) As illustrated in the 2015 City of Naples Traffic Counts. (2) FDOT 2015 Peak Season Factor Category Report. (3) Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate) 6. (4) 2021 Projected Volume= 2015 AADT x Growth Factor. FDOT - AASHTO rounding standards. (5) Refer to Appendix D. (6) 2021 Peak Hour Peak Direction = 2021 Projected AADT x 0.09 x 0.559. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 10 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 City of Naples 2015 Traffic Counts and FDOT traffic factors are illustrated in Appendix D, for US 41 roadway, segment located from Goodlette-Frank Road to Davis Boulevard. Table 413 Background Traffic without Project (2016 — 2021) Note(s): (')Not a Collier County monitored roadway. For more details refer to Table 4A. *Annual Growth Rate — estimated for 2008-2015 peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes, or 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate) 5. 2021 Projected Volume= 2016 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2021 Projected Volume= 2016 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank. The projected 2021 Peak Hour — Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Future projected roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5 -Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements are identified in the Collier County 2016 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build -out. The existing and projected future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 11 2021 Projected 2021 Projected 2016 AUIR Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Pk Hr, Peak Dir cc Pk Hr, Pk Dir Traffic Background Background Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Background Annual Growth Traffic Volume Trip Traffic Volume Link Link Location Traffic Growth Factor w/out Project Bank w/out Project ID # Volume Rate (trips/hr) (trips/hr) (trips/hr) (%/yr)* Growth Factor** Trip Bank*** Tamiami Goodlette Rd Trail East(') N/A N/A N/A N/A; 3,069 N/A N/A to Davis Blvd (US 41)' Tamiami Davis Blvd Trail East 91.0 1,580 2.0% 1.1041 1,745 47 1,627 to Airport Rd (US 41) Davis Blvd 12.0 US 41 to 1,520 2.0% 1.1041 1,678 14 1,534 (SR 84) Airport Rd Note(s): (')Not a Collier County monitored roadway. For more details refer to Table 4A. *Annual Growth Rate — estimated for 2008-2015 peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes, or 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate) 5. 2021 Projected Volume= 2016 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2021 Projected Volume= 2016 AUIR Volume +Trip Bank. The projected 2021 Peak Hour — Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2016 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Future projected roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5 -Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements are identified in the Collier County 2016 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build -out. The existing and projected future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 11 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Note(s): (l) 2U = 2 -lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4 -lane, 6 -lane, 8 -lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. (z) Not a Collier County monitored roadway. Capacity is consistent with similar type roadway. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links, and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, project's impacts are significant on all roadway segments within the analyzed area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at year 2021 future conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate proposed development traffic. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the studied roadway network. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 12 2016 Peak Dir, Future CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist Min' Peak Hr Project Roadway Link Link ID # Location Roadway (1) St rd Capacity Build out LOS Volume Roadway Tamiami Trail NSA Goodlette Rd. to Davis 8D E 3,600 (SB) (2) 8D East t2' (US 41) Blvd. Tamiami Trail East 91.0 Davis Blvd. to Airport 6D E 2,900 (SB) 6D (US 41) Rd. Davis Blvd. 12.0 US 41 to Airport Rd. 6D E 2,700 (EB) 6D (vi 8l Note(s): (l) 2U = 2 -lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4 -lane, 6 -lane, 8 -lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. (z) Not a Collier County monitored roadway. Capacity is consistent with similar type roadway. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links, and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, project's impacts are significant on all roadway segments within the analyzed area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at year 2021 future conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate proposed development traffic. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service, illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the studied roadway network. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 12 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) — With Project in the Year 2021 Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2021 Projected Volume= 2021 background (refer to Table 4B) + Project Volume Added. ***Not a Collier County monitored roadway. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41 — northern entrance — right-in/right- out/directional median left -in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right- out/left-in access (proposed dual left directional median). For more details refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the potential future total external traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour, as illustrated in Table 2. Based on the trip generation results, the generated PM peak hour traffic is more intense than the AM peak hour traffic (both egress and ingress traffic). As such, the PM peak hour traffic is used in the project access turn lane sizing (PM Pk Hr Enter — 351 vph; Exit — 412 vph). For the purposes of this analysis, the adjacent property to the west is included in this report. This development named Trio Hotel is currently under permitting process and consists of a 12 -room resort hotel, 24 Multi -Family dwelling units, 3,145 square feet of office space and 11,798 square feet of quality restaurant space. Site access turning movements associated with this project have been incorporated in this report as illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement for Trio Hotel, dated April 15, 2016. The estimated overall trips at the Mini Triangle site access locations are illustrated in Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 13 Roadway 2021 Peak % Vol. Min LOS Min LOS CC AUIR 2016 Peak Link Peak Dir, Peak Capacity exceeded exceeded Roadway Link ID Roadway Link Dir Peak Hr Dir, Peak Hr Hr Volume Impact without with Link # Location Capacity (Project w/Project By Project? Project? Volume Volume Project Yes/No Yes/No Added)* Tamiami Goodlette Rd. to Trail East*** N/A 3,600 (SB) 119 3,188 3.31% No No Davis Blvd. (US 41) Tamiami to Davis Blvd.. Trail East 91.0 2,900 (SB) 72 1,817 2.48% No No Airport Rd. (US 41) Davis Blvd. 12.0 US 41 to Airport 2,700 (EB) 142 1,820 5.26% No No (SR 84) Rd. Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2021 Projected Volume= 2021 background (refer to Table 4B) + Project Volume Added. ***Not a Collier County monitored roadway. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Connections to the site are proposed as follows: on US 41 — northern entrance — right-in/right- out/directional median left -in access; southern entrance — right-in/right-out access; on Davis Boulevard — western entrance — right-in/right-out access; eastern entrance — right-in/right- out/left-in access (proposed dual left directional median). For more details refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. The site access turn lane analysis is calculated based on the potential future total external traffic during the weekday AM and PM peak hour, as illustrated in Table 2. Based on the trip generation results, the generated PM peak hour traffic is more intense than the AM peak hour traffic (both egress and ingress traffic). As such, the PM peak hour traffic is used in the project access turn lane sizing (PM Pk Hr Enter — 351 vph; Exit — 412 vph). For the purposes of this analysis, the adjacent property to the west is included in this report. This development named Trio Hotel is currently under permitting process and consists of a 12 -room resort hotel, 24 Multi -Family dwelling units, 3,145 square feet of office space and 11,798 square feet of quality restaurant space. Site access turning movements associated with this project have been incorporated in this report as illustrated in the Traffic Impact Statement for Trio Hotel, dated April 15, 2016. The estimated overall trips at the Mini Triangle site access locations are illustrated in Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 13 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Project Accesses — Northbound Tamiami Trail East (US 41) This segment of US 41 has an Access Management Classification of 3. The established spacing standard for posted speed of 45 mph is 440 ft between driveway connections. The directional opening spacing is 1,320 ft. Based on these criteria, these are non -conforming driveways. The Northern access is proposed to be redeveloped into a left-in/right-in/right-out access by extending the existing directional median for a total of approximately 360 feet. Based on the posted speed limit of 45 mph on US 41 in the vicinity of project, the right -turning threshold volume for warranting a right -turn lane is 80-125 vph, according to the FDOT Driveway Information Guide. The project is expected to accommodate 68 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80 —125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated northbound -right turn lane is not warranted at this location. Based on FDOT Design Standard, Index #301 — design speed of 45 mph, the minimum turn lane length is 185 ft (which includes a 50 ft taper) plus required queue. Required turn lane storage length is determined consistent with the number of turning vehicles likely to arrive in an average two -minute period within the peak hour, as illustrated in the guidelines from FDOT Florida Intersection Design Guide Chapter 3.12.12. The existing directional median is proposed to be extended 50 feet for a total length of approximately 360 feet. The left -turn lane is expected to accommodate 85 vph left turning movements during PM peak hour. Consistent with FDOT criteria, the southbound left -turn lane should be 260 ft long (185 ft deceleration lane with taper and 75 ft storage) to accommodate the overall projected traffic at build out conditions. As such, the proposed left -turn lane is adequate to accommodate proposed traffic. The Southern access is proposed as a right-in/right-out connection. The project is expected to accommodate 17 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80 - 125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted at this location. Proiect Accesses — Eastbound Davis Blvd. (SR 841 This segment of SR 84 has an Access Management Classification of 5 with a posted speed of 45 mph. The established spacing standard is 245 ft between driveway connections, 660 ft for directional median openings, and 1,320 ft for full median openings and signals. Based on these criteria, the proposed driveways are non -conforming connections. The Western access is proposed as a right-in/right-out connection. The project is expected to accommodate 35 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80 - 125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted at this location. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 14 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 The Eastern access is proposed to be redeveloped into a dual left directional median and allows for left-in/right-in/right-out turning movements. The project is expected to accommodate 35 vph right turning movements during PM peak hour, which is below the 80 - 125 vph threshold values. As such, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted at this location. The westbound directional median left -turn lane is expected to accommodate 141 vph inbound left turning movements during PM peak hour. At the minimum, consistent with FDOT criteria, the left -turn lane should be 310 ft long (185 ft deceleration lane with taper and 125 ft storage) to accommodate projected traffic at build out conditions. The eastbound directional median left -turn lane is expected to accommodate 41 vph outbound left turning movements during PM peak hour. At the minimum and consistent with FDOT criteria, the left -turn lane should be 235 ft long (185 ft deceleration lane with taper and 50 ft storage) to accommodate projected traffic at build out conditions. Improvement Analysis Based upon the findings of the capacity and level of service analysis of this report, the estimated traffic impact is significant for the surrounding roadway network at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway surplus capacity to accommodate the traffic associated with the proposed development, without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service at future year 2021 build -out conditions. Regardless, concurrency will be measured at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP)/Construction Plans and Plat (PPL) submittals when more specific development parameters are available. At such time, should sufficient capacity not be available, the Developer may be required to assist the County with roadway link and intersection improvements in such a manner as to provide sufficient capacity. Based on the results of the site access turn lane analysis, turn lanes improvements maybe recommended at the analyzed project site access locations. A more detailed evaluation of applicable access points and nearby intersections will be performed at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP)/Construction Plans and Plat (PPL) submittals, as applicable. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Though the project is located within the US 41 TCEA, and because the project does not have LOS deficiency issues, we do not anticipate needing to exercise TDM strategies outlined in the LDC to mitigate for project transportation impacts. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 15 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan (1 Sheet) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 16 —I cr F 0 n 0 1 0 i_ r -F 0 `n D I I I 7D\'m C-1-CThTMAINT) DAVIS BLVD (100' ROW) or LEFT IN RIGHT IWOUT RIGHT INIOUT BUFFER _.___---_--_.— =�-1. 3' O,In AC � I I , I I � , NOSUFFER INO BUIRER i I I REQUIRED ZONED C-1-45TIOV -WID REQUIRED TRACT Aiatl ' i- �-"------�"- _--- TRAM\tat' I ' 1,41 AC I I 1-72 AC. - 1 , I I POTENTIAL , --- INTER -CONNECT - - -- - • i t r._.______ ' ITLACIIU�-- LONEU: C -4 -Ci IWIL-0-.NMI --- 071,1!' - r� � r .. Tw333TAc l ; ----- ti POTENTIAL TRACT C INTER -CONNECT Q �SJ LEFT IN RIGHT "WOUT \ 7'It.1CT MIL U \ IA0AC. \ ` ---------- Cl I I ---------CTI1" OF N APLOS \ - ZOM D. C-i-CWhIIID•\I.\U %ONf!D PD 515UFFER II 541 UNI LONLO: C_t."I'hiUF),NIx / TAMIAMI TRAIL! DAVIS BLVD. MPUD EXHIBIT "C" MASTER PLAN OPET4 SPACE LAND USE SLINMARY .SCALP r 50 OPEN, SPACERE011RE•D 'I'O'i';ll"SI'ffi.\C,RFAGE-X5.3.5 15%- 0.30 ACAREA PERCE__NT % -I RAC U \1 Xl: 041XF:1) iJSF,) =3.42 AC' (14% OPEM SPACE PROVIDED TRACT G (GRLEK SPACE) - 1.36 AC 22% MI.- AC I`R ACT 11)(IK I ERVA I. 1)KI VL) 4.777 AC 141So TOTAL 5 S 5 AC 100% TAMIAMI TRAIL / DAVIS BLVD ME_.Wa'` SUBJECT PARCEL '"17ii Narks, FL NM _�r ox usT MINI TRIANGLE .m Phono.(239)254.2000 EXHIBIT C r,R r �arq `�n=crWFA I'll HOLEMONTES rtooda Centiezo:t MPUD - >�M,b�Nn r� MASTER PLAN linyl AMM bR RNM _ =e Mz Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) (6 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 18 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use flAs Appendix as a work-sliect to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not appkv. bate- November 14. 2016 Time2:00 tem Location: Collier Countv Gromh Nlannement - 2685 S. Horseshoe Drive. Navles. F1 34104 People Attending: Nmile, Organization, and'Feleplione Numbots I ) Michael Sawyer. Collier County Growth \14gnagernetil Department 2) Xonnan Trebilcock. TCS 3) Daniel Doyle. *WS 4) Stephen Baluch - Collier County Groxvtli klanagement Department 5) Trinity Scott Collier County Qrowtb Management Del2itrtment 6) Laurie Beard - Collier County Orowth Xlanagenient Department 7) Lorrainel.ant/. Ct)lliCrCOLtIltN,\,Ictror)olit-atiPlanning OTgaiiization 8) Mark Clark - FDOT (via email) 9) Debomb Snyder - DKS Associates (ia email) Study Preparev Preparer's Name and Title: Norman Trebileock- AICD. PE Organizalion-, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, P Address & Telephone Number.- .1205 Piper Boulevard. Suite 202- Naples- 11 341 10-� pit 239-506-9551 Reviie%veE(s): Revlewer's Narne & 1-ttleMichael SaNyver. Project 'kianager Organization: Collier County Transportation Plann4i& Department Address & Telephone Number: 2885 S. Horseshoe Drivit. Naples. FL, 34104-. ph, 239-2-52- 2926 Applicant: Applicant's Name- Hole 'Montes_ Inc. Address: 950 Encore Way. Naples. FL 34110 Telephone Number: (239) 254-20UO Name: Gatewavrrianp-le - Mini- rianp t de Location: South of Davis, Blvd., nordi of US 41 and approximatelN intemection of Davis Blvd. and US 41 Naples. 171- (refer to Fie. 1) Page 1 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 19 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Land Use Type: Residential. Hotel, General Office, and Shopping Center ITE Code #: 151 (Mini -storage): 230 (Residential Condominium): 310 (Hotel): 445 (Multiplex Movie Theater)-, 710 (General Office) 820 (Retail — Shopping_ Center)-, 841 (Automobile Sales) Description: Residential 210 MF du; Hotel 152 rooms; General office 60.Oksf (Includes 20.Oksf automobile storage, IO.Oksf display): Retail - Shopping Center — 73.Oksf (Includes 32.5ksf movie theater). Zoning Existing: C-4 GTMUD-MXD Comprehensive plan recommendation: N/A Requested: GMPA PUDZ approval Fig. 1— Location Map 4 r. �PROJECT i r " . i} Go : glt Findings of the Preliminary Study: Since estimated new project traffic is greater than 100 two-way peak hour trips, this study dualities for a Major Scale TIS. The TIS will include AM -PM peak hour trip generation, tragic distribution and assignments and significance test (based on 2°0/2%/3% criterion), Internal capture — consistent with ITE residential, office and retail rates. Pass -by rates are assumed as follows: 25%' - AM — PM peak hour. 15% Dailv. Roadwav link analysis is determined based on estimated yroiect new PM peak hour traffic — net external (non -pass -by). Operational site access - turn lane analysis is based on proposed net external traffic build- out conditions AM -PM peak hour generated traffic. Turn lane design speeds: Davis Blvd. and US 41 —45mph posted speed limit: Page 2 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 20 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 'l'he project is located within the Collier County Trams ortation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). Sinai Scale TIS ❑ Minor TIS ❑ Maior'rlS El Study Area Boundaries; Davis Blvd: and US 41 Additional intersections to be analyzed: N/A Build Oulu, Planning Horizon Year(s): 2021 Analysis Tirane Period(s): AXI- PNI Peak Hour Future: Off -Site Developments N/A Source of Trip Generation Rates: ITE LLTC Data — ITE 901 Edition Reductions inT tip Genenition Rates: None: N/A Pass -by trips: Per ITE. CC Guidance. up to 25% for shopping center. Internal trips (PUD) Per ITE. CC Guidmumce, up to 20% maximum. Tr umsit use: /A "tier: N! A Horizon Year RoadwgjNetwork Improvements: 2021 Rletbodologry & Assumptions: Ikon -site traffic estimates: CC" 2016 AUIR: CC- Traffic Counts Site -trip generation: OUSS Software - ITE LUC 151. LUC 230. LLMC 310. LUC 445. LUC 710. LUC 820 and LUC 841 Trip distribution umetliod: Consistent with :1Vrit 15. 2016 TIS for tlme `l'rio Hotel at Davis Bled. and famnmamnm 'frail East (LIS 41) _. refer to Fig. 2 Traffic assignment method: Project trip mtencration with background growth Trak growth rate: historical m?rowth rate or 2% minimum Turning inovements: set. Findina.N of the Prelim roam,, Study Pige3o 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 21 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Fig. 2 — Project Trip Distribution by Percentage PROJECT TRAFFIC E• DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENTAGE J�- N'DOfi PROJECT 40% 20°,6 r i-7 l C70 gIe Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accidents locations: N/A Sight distance: N/A Queuing: N/A Access location & configuration: One right-in/right-out access onto westbound US 41. one directional left. richt-in/right-out access (shared with Trio Hotel) onto westbound US 41. one possible shared (site to east) directional left, right-in/right-out access onto eastbound Davis Blvd, one right-in/right-out access onto eastbound Davis Blvd (west side of site) and proposed interconnects with properties east and west of the project —coordinate with FDOT on US 41 and Davis Blvd access locations. Traffic control: MUTCD Signal system location & progression needs: N/A On-site parking needs: per CC LDC Data Sources: ITE Trip Gen.: 2016 CC AUIR; CC Traffic Counts Base maps: N/A Prior study reports: N/A Access policy and jurisdiction: CC/FDOT Review process: N/A Requirements: N/A Miscellaneous: N/A Page 4 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 22 Gateway Mini Triangle – PUDA and GMPA – TIS – March 2017 Small Scale Study – No Fee Minor Study - $750.00 Major Study - $1500.00 N Methodology Fee $500 1 Includes 0 intersections Additional Intersections - $500.00 each AlI fees will be agreed to during the Afethodologp meeting and must be paid to Transportation prior to our sign -off on the application. SIGNATURES Ntwmaw Treb%l.coc�2 Study Preparer—Norman Trebileock Reviewers) Applicant Page 5 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 123 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Collier County Traffic Impact Study Review tree Schedule Fees will be paid incrementally as the development proceeds: fetltodology Review. Analysis Rci,k..-w, and Suflicienev Reviews. Fees for additional meetings or other optional scrt ices are also provided below.. Methodolot?t Review - $500 Fre letltodcrlog} Review includes review of a submitted methodology, statement, including review of submitted trip Generation estimatc(s), distribution. assignment, anti review of a "Small ScaleStudy" determination, written approval/comments on a proposed methodology statement_ and written confirmation of a re-submittcd, amended metbodolon, statement, and one meeting in Coilicr County, if needed. ')Satan Scale St,udv" Review - No ,additional Fee. (Licludes one sufficiency review`) Upon ,approval of the methodology review, the applicant may submit the study. The review includes: a concun-cncy 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 sufficien, a review) Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: optional field visit to site, confirmation of trip generation, distribution, and assigirmcirt, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements. rVvievv of traffic volume data eouceted'assembled, review of off -situ improvements within the right-of-way, review of site access and circulation,, and preparation and review of ``sufficiency" commentsiquestions. "Maior Studyi Review" - $1,500 Fee (Includes tiv'o intersection analysis and two sufticiencvi reviews Review of the submitted traffic analysis includes: field visit to site. confirmation of trip generation, special trip generation an&or trip length study, distribution and assignment, concurrency determination, confirmation of committed improvements, review of traffic volume data collectc;d,;arse#tabled. review of traffic growth analysis, review of off=site roadway operations and capacity :analysis, review of site access anti circulation, neighborhood triflic intrusion issuest any necessary improvement proposals and associated cost estimates,. and preparation and review of up to two rounds of"sufficiency" comments/questions and/or recommended conditions of approval. ",Ndditionaal intersection Review" - S500 Fee The review of additional intersections sliall include the same parameters as outlined in the `NMajor Study Review" and shall apply to each intersection above the first two intersections included in the " Major Study Rcviewv "Additional Sufl"iei£ncv Reviews" - Maim Fee Additional sufficiency reviews beyond those initially included in the appropriate study shall require the additional Tee prior to the: completion of die review, Paige 6 of 6 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 24 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition (7 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 125 G) Q ro Q Q� LQ M I C Q i y I Q z NN O V a c Project Name: Mini -Triangle Proposed No: Date: 12/19/2016 City: a StatelProvince: ZiplPostal Code: Country: Client Name: Analyst's Name: Edition: ITE-TGM 9th Edition b1tEEK113nY AM PEAK HOUR PIVI PEAK HOUR i LARD USE SIZE Entry Exit Entry Exit Entry Exit 230 -Residential CondominiumiTownhouse 21001 i 614 613 11 16 77 74 36 Reduction 0 0 0 0 ¢ 0 0 Internal 221 [ 233 i 5 P 7 24 19 l Pass -by I 0 € 0 0 0 0 0 t Non -pass -by i p 393 '>80 11 70 50 17 p 310 - Hotel 152 rr 621 I 621 48 33 46 45 t. Reduction ¢ 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0 Internal 0 0 0 0 I 0 j 0 Pass -by 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 621 621 48 33 46 45 i 820 - Shopping Center 74 Pt 2792 [ 2792 81 49 235 255 Reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal 345 287 9 6 24 [ 31 Pass -by 1 367 s 376 18 11 53 56 Non -pass -by 2080 2 1_9 ? 54 32 158 168 g E 720 - Medical -Dental Oce Building Office 60 t° 1084 1084 113 € 30 52 132 Reduction b 0 0 0 0 0 0 Internal F 84 130 I 1 2 8 6 Pass -by � � 0 6 G 0 I 0 0 0 0 Non -pass -by 1000 954 112 4 28 44 I 126 i Total 5111 a 5110 258 @ 189 407 .� 468 Total Reduction 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 Total Internal I 650 650 ' 15 15 56 56 Total Pass -by 367 I 376 18 11 53 t 56 E Total Non -pass -by 4094 4084 225 183 298 _ 356 t. k t (1) Dwei0v Urzts i (2) Rooms (3) 1000S,7. Feet Gross leasable Area I (4) 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Fbcr Area G) Q ro Q Q� LQ M I C Q i y I Q z NN O V Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Analysis: Weekday Page. 1 of'2 PERIOD SETTING , DATA PROVIUED BY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips gerlerated In the analysis. To record any notes. click •-' Add Notes above Internal Trips for each Land Use will be deducted from the adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the previous ,.!1i IInllt Hnil .I.I'I : t [!'I'•: -I ' PVnI r,;;! rinMt Waekdey 694 LAND IISE INDEPENDENT SIZE vAR1ABLE TIME PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL 'O. 230 - Resldenhall OweOrng tAnits 210''`' Graph Look Up Voll � Weekday � 614 613 1227 COndomiNumRawnhOUse _ n =0.07 Ln +246 Exit 613 Demand Exit: ( 38 1% (2331 G, 310 - HotelRooms v 116.' " iuJ' i Weekday v Average v 621 621 1242 230-Rasiderdial CondominiunYTownhouse l Exit 613 Demand Exit: 10 ;% at G, 920 • Shopping Center 1000 Sq. Feel Oros• v 7t'<" �_—. v jj � Graph look Up Vah I Weekday �I 2742 2792 6564 310 -Hotel —fit Ln a 0.6 Ln(X) + 5.63 Exit 621 Demand Exd: 10 D% (0) 720 - Medical -Dental OrOce 1000 Sq. FtN Gro>C V 6o`" Weekday v Average19 1064 64 1064 2166 Building 36.13 Exit 621 Demand Exit: 10 1•f6 10► O! !ndi_ales z¢e out arrange Entry 621 Demand Entry: n% (0) Balanced: 0 Demand ExII: 10 h6 (0) Exit 1084 TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of trips that occur between the Land Use on the left and the Land Use on the right. The table below displays the total number of trips that have been reduced from a particular Land Use. The total number of Internal Trips for each Land Use will be deducted from the adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the previous section_ To record any notes, click the ' Icon above. For recommended values see the ITE Handbook or NCHRP 694 230 - Residential Condominiurrt?ownhouse 310 - Hotel Exit 613 Demand Exit: 10 I% (01 Balanced: 0 Demand Entry: (o ;% (u) Entry 621 Entry 614 Demand Entry: 10 % (01 Balanced: 0 Damand Exit: I u —) (0) Exit 621 230 - Residential CondominlunVTowahouso 020 - Shopping Center Exit 613 Demand Exit: ( 38 1% (2331 Balanced: 23'3 Demand Entry' ' 9 % (25 1) Entry 2792 Entry 614 Demand Entry: 133 1% (203) Balanced 203 Demand Exit: i 11 9 (307) Exit 2792 230-Rasiderdial CondominiunYTownhouse 720 -Medical-Dental Olflce Building Exit 613 Demand Exit: 10 ;% at Balanced: 0 Demand Entry: '�0 1% (0) Entry 1084 Entry 614 DemandEmry: 13 (10) Baiancoa: 18 DemandExII: (2 ^FA (22) Exit 1004 310 -Hotel 820 - Shopping Center Exit 621 Demand Exd: 10 D% (0) Balanced. 0 Demand Entry: : 0 ri (0) Entry 2792 Entry 621 Demand Entry: f O—j96 (0) Balanced: 0 Demand Exit: 10 1% (0) Exk 2792 310 - Hotel 72-0-- Medical-Dentat Office Building Exit 621 Demand Exit: 10 1•f6 10► Balanced 0 Demand Entry: 0 % (0) Entry 1084 Entry 621 Demand Entry: n% (0) Balanced: 0 Demand ExII: 10 h6 (0) Exit 1084 820 -Shopping Cantor 120- M adical-Dental OTce Building Exit 2792 Demand Exit: l3 1% 184) Balanced 84 Demand Entry: !Is ',% (163) Entry 1004 Entry 2792 Demand Entry: C1% (1121 Balanced: 112 Demand Exit: 122 _ qb (238) Exit 1004 230 -Residential CondomkllunvTownhouse TOTAL TRIPS INTERNAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS :rotisstraflic.cam.'prujectsludl ?prqjcetid=153R91kstudN=�4G13.4 12! 19'2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 27 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Analysis: Weekday Page 2 of 2 EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass -by Trips for each Land Use. The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section. To record any notes, click ' Add Notes above. The 0 Icon preceding the Pass -by% value Indicates data provided by ITE Clicking the Icon changes a custom Pass - by% value to data provided by ITE LAND USE EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS -BY% PASS -BY TRIPS NON-PASSBY TRIPS 230 - Residential Condomin(um/Tovmhouse 773 0�% 0 773 310 - Hotel 1242 t ! 0 1242 820 - Shopping Center 4952 15 743 4209 720 -Medical -Dental Office Building 1954 �0� ]96 0 1954 https:/'otisstrallir.con) Print Preview , Save Analysis jectid=15389&study=4613=4 12/19/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 28 310 •Hotel 920 PInO Total Cen`e I( DentalO I 9, Entry 614 (100%) 0(0%) 203(33%) 16(3%) 22106%) 393 (64%1 Exit 613 (10096) 0(0%) 233 (38%) 0(0%) 233(38%) 380 (62%1 Total 1227000%) 0 (01A) 436 (3696) 18 (1'%,) 454(37%) 773 (63%) 310 - Hotel INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 720 - Medical. EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 -Residential 820 -Shopping Dental OMce Total Condomin(umlTownhouse Center Building Entry 621 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 621(100%) Exit 621(100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 621(100%) Total 1242000%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0(0%) 1242 (100%) 920 -Shopping Center INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 720 - Medical- EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 -Residential 310 -Hotel Dental Office Total CondominlunYTownhouse Building Entry 27921100%) 233(8%) 0(0%) 112(4%) 345(12%) 2447(88%) Exit 2792(100%) 203(7%) 0(0%) 84(3%) 287(10%) 2505(90%) Total 5584 (100%) 436 (8%) 0 (0%) 196 (4%) 632(11%) 4952 (89%) 720 • Medical-0ental Office Building INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 290 • Residential 820 -Shopping EXTERNAL TRIPS CondominlurNTownhouse 310 -Hotel Center Total Entry 1084 (100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 84(8%) 134 (8%) 1000 (92%) Exit 1084(100%) 18(2%) 0(0%) 112(10%) 130(12%) 964(08%) Total 2168(100%) 18 (1%) 0 (0%) 196 (9%) 214(10%) 1954 (90%) EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass -by Trips for each Land Use. The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section. To record any notes, click ' Add Notes above. The 0 Icon preceding the Pass -by% value Indicates data provided by ITE Clicking the Icon changes a custom Pass - by% value to data provided by ITE LAND USE EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS -BY% PASS -BY TRIPS NON-PASSBY TRIPS 230 - Residential Condomin(um/Tovmhouse 773 0�% 0 773 310 - Hotel 1242 t ! 0 1242 820 - Shopping Center 4952 15 743 4209 720 -Medical -Dental Office Building 1954 �0� ]96 0 1954 https:/'otisstrallir.con) Print Preview , Save Analysis jectid=15389&study=4613=4 12/19/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 28 Gateway Mini Triangle - PUDA and GMPA - TIS - March 2017 Analysis: AAd Peale Hour Page 1 of 2 PERIOD SETTING , DATA PROVIDED SY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis, To record any notes. click .. Add Notes above 310 -Hotel LAND USE INDEPENDENT SIZE VARIABLE TIME PERIOD METHOD Et-MiY FAIT TO T.,: • . 230 - Residential, I �llingunitss--�V�rtl 211° Graph Look Up Va6 Y� 16 77 93 Wepkday.Peak Ho 0LnIJJ Condomlmum/iovmhouse _0.8LrdX +0.26 310 •Hotel Rooms fVl l tmp, Wukdey.Peek He V Awl � ; e 48 33 81 Demand Ext: �0__- (0) , 820, Shopping Center 11000 Sq. Feet Gros 74'" Weekday. Peek Ho v Graph Look Up Vak 49 130 720-Madlcal-DentalOmce,AVataQ0 Buiidng I low SQ. Feet Gros: 80'" Ln(T)-0.61 Ln(X)+2.24 V Weekday. Pesk Hot ._ . 113 30 143 Demand W; K% (41) 2.39J 101 glolcales sate out of rano Entry a TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of trips that occur between the Land Use on the left and the Land Use on the right. The table below displays the total number of trips that have been reduced from a particular Land Use. The total number of Internal Trips for each Land Use will be deducted from the adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the previous section To record any notes, click the - Icon above For recommended values see tie ITE Handboo, or NCHRP 684 230 - Residential CondominlurniToWnhoUsa 310 -Hotel Exit 77 Demand Ex4; 10 t% (0) Balanced: 0 Demand Entry: 11-0 1% 101 Entry 48 Entry 16 Demand Entry. �% (0) Balanced: 0 Demand Ext: �0__- (0) Exit 33 230 - Residential Condominlumr1rawnhouse 820 - Shopping Center Exit 77 Demand W; K% (41) Balanced: 7 Demand Entry: l=_/ 17) Entry a Entry 16 Demand Eniry. 31 % (5) Balanced: 6 Demand Ext: ( 12 JI& (6) Exit 49 230 - Residential ContlominiunYToWnhouse 720 - Medical -Dental Office Building Exit 77 Demand E4; l0 i% 101 Balanced; 0 Demand Entry: I 0 j (01 Entry 113 Entry tb DemandEnlry: 152-7196 (0) Balanced: 0 Demand Exit: LTJ' -(1) Exit 30 310 - Hotel 820 • Shopping Center Exit 33 Demand W., L� (to Balanced; 0 Demand Entry: (0-1% (0) Entry 81 Entry 48 Demand Entry 0 74 101 Balanced: 0 Demand Ext: to — 101 Exit 49 310 -Hotel 720 • Medical -Dental Office Building Exit 33 Demand EArl: � 3% 10) Balanced; 0 Demand Enlry: A (01 Entry 113 Entry 48 Demand Entry: LLD% 10) Balanced: 0 Demand Ext: �0 ,94 (0) Exit 30 1120 -Shopping Center 720-Medleal.Dental Office Building Exit 49 DemendEx4: 13 'J% (11 Balanced: 1 DemandEnlry13% (36) Entry 113 Entry 81 Demand Entry: (2-7% 121 Balanced: 2 Demand Ex/: 23 P4 171 Exit 30 230 • Residential Condominlunvrovenhouse TOTAL TF?iP" INTERNAL TRIPS I I ERTERNAL TRIPS ; otisstratl; ic.com /projectstudy?projectid-15389&stud}-46135 12/19,'2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 1 29 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Analysis: ANI Peal- Hour Page 2 of 2 EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass -by Trips for each Land Use. The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section. To record any notes, click - Add Notes above. The lir Icon preceding the Pass -by% value Indicates data provided by ITE. Clicking the (con changes a custom Pass - by% value to data provided by ITE_ LAND USE EXTERNAL TRIPS PA$SBY% PASS -BY TRIPS NON -PASS -BY TRIPS 230 - Residential Condominium/Townhouse 81 �0 �96 0 81 310 - Hotel 81 (0 J°lb 0 61 020- Shopping Center 115 25 1% 29 86 720 - Medical -Denial office Building 140 (0 1% 0 140 Print Preview Save Analysis ://otisstraliic.coni/projectstudy'?projectid=15389&study=46135 12/19/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 130 910 -Hotel 820 - Shopping 720 • Medical- Total Center Dental office Building Entry 16(100%) 0(0%1 601%) 0(0%1 5(31%) 11(69%) Exit 77000%) 0(0%) 7(9%) 0(0%) 7(9%) 70 (91%) Total 93 (100%) 0 (0%) 12 (13%) 0 (0%) 1203%) 81 (87%) 310 - Hotel INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 720 - Medical. EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 -Residential 820 -Shopping Dental Office Total CondondnlumrTownhouse Center Building Entry 481100%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 48(100%) Exit 334100%) 0(0%) 0 (0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 33(100%) Total 81 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0(0%) 81 (100%) 820 • Shopping Center INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL. TRIPS 720 -Medical- EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 - Residential 310 -Hotel Dental Office Total Condomin)umrrownhouse Building Entry 811100%) 7(9%) 0(0%) 2(2%) 9(11%) 72189%) Exit 49(100%) 6(10%) 0(0%) 1(2%) 6(12%) 43(88%) Total 130(100%) 12 (9%) 0 (0%) 3 (2%) 15(12%) 115 (88%) 720 • Medical -Dental office Building INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 • Residential I 910 -Hotel 820 -Shopping Total CondominiumRownhouse Center Entry 113(100%) - ()(G%) 0 (0%) 16%) 1(1%) J 112(99%) Exit 30000%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 2(7%) 2(7%) 20(93%) Total 143(100%) _ 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (2%) 3(.2%) 140 (98%) EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass -by Trips for each Land Use. The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section. To record any notes, click - Add Notes above. The lir Icon preceding the Pass -by% value Indicates data provided by ITE. Clicking the (con changes a custom Pass - by% value to data provided by ITE_ LAND USE EXTERNAL TRIPS PA$SBY% PASS -BY TRIPS NON -PASS -BY TRIPS 230 - Residential Condominium/Townhouse 81 �0 �96 0 81 310 - Hotel 81 (0 J°lb 0 61 020- Shopping Center 115 25 1% 29 86 720 - Medical -Denial office Building 140 (0 1% 0 140 Print Preview Save Analysis ://otisstraliic.coni/projectstudy'?projectid=15389&study=46135 12/19/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 130 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 lnalysis. PSI Peal. Hour Page I of 2 PERIOD SETTING ,, DATA PROVIDED SY ITE Specify the Independent Variable, Time Period, and Calculation Method to be used in the calculation of the number of Trips generated in the analysis. To record any notes. click - Add Notes above. I I1IL MINI 1 PM Peek Hour —) LAND USE INDEPENDETjT SIZE VARIABLE RMF PERIOD METHOD ENTRY EAIT rOTAt 230 - ReskfenllalGraph Condom:mum/Townhouss �D"llin9Units 2117 " Lao k Up Vah v (Weekday. Peak Ha 74 36 110 - 0 82 Lh X) + 0.32 �ILn G 310 •Notal Rooms NI� 1r>r " ( Weekday, Peak Ha J AWm=e I 46 45 91 0.6 —1� 820 - Shopping Centel i 1000 Sq Feet Gros v r4'' Weekday. Peak Hot{vI; Graph Look Up Vah I� i 235 255 490 l�l Ln(T1=0.67Ln(XI+3.31 medical-Dontal Once 1000 Sq Feet Gros Iv :.n 0 3 Weekday, Peak Ho v Graph LooK Up Vak , 62 132 164 Builder Building - - - LriTj=0.9Ln1X)+11..313 :�Ca163 :z- uui c(ranga TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of trips that occur between the Land Use on the left and the Land Use on the right. The table below displays Ute total number of trips that have been reduced from a particular Land Use The total number of Internal Trips for each Land Use will be deducted from the adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the previous section To record any notes, click the - Icon above For recommended values see the ITE Handboo{{ or NCNRP 684- 230 - Residential CandaminwmrTOWnhdtlse 310 - Hotel Exit 36 Demand Exp: 10 '�% 101 Balanced: 0 Demand Entry: I (01 Entry 46 Entry 74 Demand Entry: O96 (0) Balanced: 0 Demand Exit; CCD% (0) Exit 45 230 - Residential Candominlu"VTOWnhouse 820 - Shopping Center Exit 36 Demand Exp: 153 '% 119) Balanced 19 Demand Entry: t9 �% ou Entry 235 Entry 74 Demand Entry 131 1% 123) Balanced 23 Dam and ExI1� (3 1) Exit 255 230 - Residential CondominlumrTownhouse 720 - Madical-Dental Office Building Exit 36 Demand Exp: l0 % lot Balanced: 0 Demand Entry: 10 fit% 101 Entry 52 Entry 74 Demand Entry- 11) Batanced 1 Dam and Exit: �2 X96 (3) Exit 132 310 - Hotel 820 • Shopping Center Exit 45 Demand eld: (01 Balanced; 0 Demand Entry: ! 0 ��96 t0) Entry 235 �'� Entry 46 Demand Entry. t" % (0) Balanced; 0 Demand Exit: 10 y -9b (0) Exit 255 310 - Hotel 720 • Medical -Dental Office Building Exit 45 0emand Exp: Fo (0) Balanced; 0 Demand Entry: i 0 --- 7'% 10) Entry 52 Entry 46 Demand Entry: Ro 10) Balanced 0 Demand Exit: fo (01 Exit 132 220 - Shopping Center 720.1Nedical-Dental Oflite Building Exit 265 Demand Exp' 13 196 (8) Balanced: 8 DemandEnlry31 i% (16) Entry 62 Entry 235 Demand Entry: �2 i94 151 Belenced: a Demand Exit: 1-!!--J% 1301 Exit 132 230 • Residential CondominlumRownhouse TO ;L THIF,`'-. INTERNAL TRIPS EA17ERt4AL TRIPS I I I)ttl)s:' otisstiulric.cont/prujectstudy?projectid-15-389&study-461361 12119, 2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 131 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Analysis: PM Peak Hour Page 2 of 2 310 .Hotel--- Shopping Medical. Total Center 1 Dental ce I Building ..._ Entry 741100%1 0(0%) 23(31%) 10%) 24 (32%) 50(66%) Exit 36000%) 0(0%) 19(53%) 0(0%) 19(53%) 17(47%) Total 110(100%) 0 (0%) 42 (38%) 1 (1%) 43(39%) 67 (61%) 310 • Hotel INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 720 - Medical. EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 - Residential 820 - Shopping Dental Office Total Condondniumrrownhouse Center Building Entry 461100%) 0(0%) 0 (0%1 0(0%) 0 (0%) 46(100%) Exit 451100%) 0(0%1 0(0%) 0(0%) 0(0%) 45(100%) Total 91 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0(0%) 91 (100%) 820 -Shopping Center INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS 720 -Medical. EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 - Residential 310 • Hotel Dental Oleee Total Condondniumrrownhouse Building Entry 235 (10096) 19(8% ' 1 0(0%) 5(2%) 24(10%) 211 (9096) Exit 2551100%) 23(9%) 0(0%) 80%) 3102%) 224(88%) Total 490(100%) 42 (9%) 0 (0%) 13 (3%) 55(11%) 435 (89%) 720 - Medical -Dental Office Building INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS 230 -Residential 310 • Hotal 820 • Shopping Tool CondondnlumlTownhouse Carxte► Entry52 (100%1 0(0%) 0 (D%) 8(15%) 8(15%) 1 44 (65%) Exit 132 (100%) 1 (1 %) 0 (0%) — 5(4%) 6(5%) I 126(95%) — -- Total 184 (100%) 1 (1%) , 0 (0%) 13 n%) 14(8%) 170 (92%) EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass -by Trips for each Land Use. The percentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section. To record any notes, click • Add Notes above. The 0 icon preceding the Pass -by% value Indicates data provided by ITE. Clicking the icon changes a custom Pass - by% value to data provided by ITE LAND USE EXTERNAL TRIPS PASS -BY% PASS -BY TRIPS NON -PASS -BY TRIPS 230 - Residential Condom lnlum/Townhouse 67 �--u ( 1% 0 67 310 - Hotel 91 L_J'- 0 91 820 - Shopping Center 435 025 109 326 720- Medical -Dental Office Building 170 Cf96 0 170 Print Preview Save Analysis https://otisstralTie.com/projectstudy'?projectid=15389&study=46136 12/19/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 132 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Appendix D: US 41- from Goodlette Rd. to Davis Blvd. Traffic Data (5 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 133 Two-way Volumes (Vehicles Per Day) For collector streets Arterials. In the City Of Naples TRAFFIC COUNT STATION NUMBER ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET MAR. 2015 1ST QTR PEAK HOUR JUN. 2015 2ND QTR PEAK HOUR SEPT. 2015 3RD QTR PEAK HOUR DEC. 2015 4TH QTR PEAK HOUR MAXIMUM 2015 2015 PEAK HOUR 8 GOLDEN GATE PKWY CR 886 25,747 2,184 18,199 1,543 17,363 1,444 23,332 1,929 25,747 2,184 10 IGOODLETTE ROAD CR 851 32,686 3,100 28,373 2,750 27,033 2,682 29,762 2,874 32,686 3,100 15 US 41 N OF CR 886 45,488 3,748 32,665 2,919 32,454 2,738 40,141 3,512 45,488 3,748 16 US 41 S OF CR 886 44,434 3,570 31,657 2,680 31,172 2,608 37,775 3,362 44,434 3,570 19 US 41 6 AV N/7 AVN 40,582 3,257 33,134 2,705 29,460 29408 36,605 3,034 40,582 3,257 23 US 41 W OF CR 851 46,057 3,775 29,610 2,543 30,245 2,601 37,206 3,111 46,057 3,775 30 4 F PARKSHORE DRIVE 6 , 7 17,425 5 49 1,563 -4g,;10 7,484 _;,M2_. 657 45 449 7,478 3,950 721 54 976 11,636 4 744 1,085 67 397 17,425 5,649 1,563 34 GULFSHORE BLVD N 5,932 588 2,192 199 2,187 234 3,398 348 5,932 588 37 HARBOUR DRIVE 6,464 658 4,333 428 4,080 402 4,935 447 6,464 658 38 CREECH ROAD 1,029 110 913 102 855 89 1,087 106 1,029 110 39 IMOORING LINE DRIVE 8,382 775 3,992 358 3,046 322 4,007 387 8,382 775 40 CRAYTON ROAD 9,515 955 3,009 304 2,166 230 5,467 537 9,515 955 43 22ND AVENUE NORTH 4,151 461 2,482 232 2,632 268 04 346 4,151 461 44 ORCHID DRIVE 4,765 442 3,453 340 3,101 326 568 4,765 568 45 FLEISCHMANN BLVD 5,937 665 4,405 527 3,945 408 r4,402 159 2,016 18,159 2,016 48 GULFSHORE BLVD 8,312 822 2,745 272 2,616 281 36 410 8,312 822 49 BANYAN BLVD 4,180 431 2,107 217 1,967 184 69 292 4,180 431 55 7TH AVENUE NORTH 5,333 504 3,943 368 3,773 365 4,570 459 5,333 504 56 10TH STREET 3,332 367 2,396 274 2,536 279 3,052 341 3,332 367 57 5TH AVENUE NORTH 3,881 347 3,142 286 3,198 302 3,596 354 3,881 347 62 CENTRAL AVENUE 8,865 898 5,574 589 5,389 516 7,047 687 8,865 898 63 8TH STREET 4,959 526 2,723 395 3,146 299 4,164 448 4,959 526 64 3RD AVENUE SOUTH 8,286 744 4,263 338 4,324 461 6,394 582 8,286 744 70 5TH AVENUE SOUTH 10,532 766 6,318 548 6,511 491 6,381 683 10,532 766 72 STH STREET 10,115 842 6,066 532 5,811 518 10,118 1,139 10,118 1,139 76 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH 7,853 680 4,780 450 4,578 438 6,241 607 7,853 680 77 3RD STREET 6,521 527 3,724 331 3,683 335 4,383 435 6,521 527 79 GORDON DRIVE 9,855 914 6,644 703 6,473 688 9,616 902 9,855 914 83 SANDPIPER ST 6,939 550 4,880 410 4,568 384 5,946 495 6,939 550 85 GULFSHORE BLVD SO 6,334 616 2,509 276 1,217 122 4,640 609 6,334 616 86 4TH AVENUE NORTH 7,038 639 5,336 516 5,481 502 6,533 618 7,038 639 89 INEAPOLITAN WAY 7,916 785 4,890 505 4,847 440 7,037 716 7,916 785 91 IWEST RD 3,866 404 2,098 238 1,968 224 3,268 347 3,866 404 12/30/2015 Gateway Mini Triangle - PUDA and GMPA - TIS - March 2017 2015 PEAK SEASON FACTOR CATEGORY REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL CATEGORY: 0301 US 41, N OF SR 951 140CF: 0.89 WEEK DATES SF PSCF 1 01/01/2015 - 01/03/2015 0.95 1.07 * 2 01/04/2015 - 01/10/2015 0.94 1.06 * 3 01/11/2015 - 01/17/2015 0.93 1.04 * 4 01/18/2015 - 01/24/2015 0.91 1.02 * 5 01/25/2015 - 01/31/2015 0.90 1.01 * 6 02/01/2015 - 02/07/2015 0.88 0.99 " 7 02/08/2015 - 02/14/2015 0.87 0.98 * 8 02/15/2015 - 02/21/2015 0.86 0.97 * 9 02/22/2015 - 02/28/2015 0.86 0.97 *10 03/01/2015 - 03/07;2015 0.86 0.97 *11 03/08/2015 - 03/14/2015 0.86 0.97 *12 03/15/2015 - 03/21/201S 0.88 0,99 *13 03/22/2015 - 03/28/2015 0.90 1.01 *14 03/2�9�/2015 - 04/04/2015 0.92 1.03 ..fe...01%Q�/s'lt-�'03M-720"t...t7A-•-•----r.O�-. 16 04/12/2015 - 04/18/2015 0.97 1.09 17 04/19/2015 - 04/25/2015 0.99 1.11 18 04/26/2015 - 05/02/2015 1.02 1.15 19 05/03/2015 - 05/09/2015 1.04 1.17 20 05/10/2015 - 05/16/2015 1.07 1.20 21 05/17/2015 - 05/23/2015 1.08 1.21 22 05/24/2015 - 05/30/2015 1.10 1.24 23 05/31/2015 - 06/06/2015 1.11 1.25 24 06/07/2015 - 06/13/2015 1.13 1.27 25 06/14/2015 - 06/20/2015 1.13 1.27 26 06/21/2015 - 06/27/2015 1.14 1.28 - y,+�---bb'l28 -015'----f.lT- - - - - -- 1-3s -- 28 07/05/2015 - 07/11/2015 1.14 1.28 29 07/12/2015 - 07/18/2015 1.14 1.28 30 07/19/2015 - 07/25/2015 1.14 1.28 31 07/26/2015 - 08/01/2015 1.13 1.27 32 08/02/2015 - 08/08/2015 1.13 1.27 33 08/09/2015 - 08/15/2015 1.13 1.27 34 08/16/2015 - 08/22/2015 1.13 1.27 35 08/23/2015 - 08/29/201S 1.14 1.28 36 08/30/2015 - 09/05/2015 1.14 1.28 37 09/06/2015 - 09/12/2015 1.14 1.28 --38-� 09 13124.x.- Q3 ii �ii`...1.4....... 39 0920/1015 09/26}2015 1.10 1.24 40 09/27/2015 - 10/03/2015 1.08 1.21 41 10/04/2015 - 10/10/2015 1.06 1.19 42 10/11/2015 - 10/17/2015 1.04 1.17 43 10/18/2015 - 10/24/2015 1.02 1.15 44 10/25/2015 - 10/3'1/2015 1.01 1.13 45 11/01/2015 - 11/07/2015 0.99 1.11 46 11/08/2015 - 11/14/2015 0.97 1.09 47 11/15/2015 - 11/21/2015 0.97 1.09 48 11/22/2015 - 11/28/2015 0.96 1.08 _ 49 . . 1 /29 1015 i�% O1 •••Q 95----.-- 1.008... 50 1 %6/2015 ±G - 12 '/ 0. 51 12/13/2015 - 12/19/2015 0.94 1.06 52 12/20/2015 - 12/26/2015 0.93 1.04 53 12/27/2015 - 12/31/2015 0.93 1.04 " PEAK SEASON 03 -MAR -2016 11:17:49 830UPD 1 0301 PKSEASON.TXT Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 135 v QJ m CD a FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2015 ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC REPORT - REPORT TYPE: ALL COUNTY: 03 COLLIER SITE AADT f?K" "D" "T" SITE TYPE DESCRIPTION DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 TWO-WAY FCTR FCTR FCTR 0094 T SR-90/IIS-41,.3 MI SE OF CR31/AIRPORT RD,COLLIEP. E 20496 W 21061 41557 C 9.0 55.OA 3.OA 0104 SR 90/US 41, EAST OF SR 29 CC616 E 1800 W 1900 3700 C 9.5 55.1F 11.7A 0111 SR 90/US 41, WEST OF SR 29 CC617 E 2200 W 2200 4400 C 9.5 57.2F 9.8A 0123 SR90/US41 W OF CR851/GOODLETTE (W OF 12TH ST) NP E 18500 W 19000 37500 C 9.0 55.9F 3.6A 0124 SR 90/US 41, SOUTHEAST OF CR 851,/GOODLETTE RD NP E 26000 W 26000 52000 C 9.0 55.9F 4.OA 0143 T SR 29,0.4 MI S OF SR-82,IMMOKALEE,COLLIER CO. N 7870 S 7901 15771 C 9.5 59.3A 10.5A 0157 SR 951, SOUTH OF SR 90/US 41 CC557 N 16500 S 16500 33000 C 9.0 55.OF 6.6A 0158 CR 851, GOODLETTE RD, S OF CR896,P RIDGE RD CC5 N 18000 S 18000 36000 C 9.0 57.2F 3.OA 0160 PINE RIDGE RD, E OF CR 31/AIRPORT RD CC526 N E 27500 W 28000 55500 C 9.0 57.2F 3.8A 0170 SR 84, EAST OF SANTA BARBARA BLVD CC560 E 6400 W 6800 13200 C 9.0 57.2F 4.OA 0173 SR 93/I 75, EAST OF SR 29 COLLIER COUNTY W 10000 E 10500 20500 C 10.5 55.4F 15.3A 0175 CR 31/AIRPORT ROAD, N OF SR 84/DAVIS BLVD CC55 N 23000 S 21500 44500 C 9.0 57.2F 4.3A 0176 SR 84, EAST OF CR 31/AIRPORT ROAD CC5 E 14000 W 14000 28000 C 9.0 57.2F 2.6A 0177 CR 31/AIRPORT ROAD, S OF SR 84/DAVIS BLVD CC55 11 16000 S 15000 31000 C 9.0 57.2F 4.5A 0178 SR 84, WEST OF CR 31/AIRPORT ROAD CC5 E 14000 W 14500 28500 C 9.0 57.2F 3.5A 0179 SR-45/US-41, N OF CR 887/OLD IIS 41 5 19500 N 20000 39500 C 9.0 55.9F 2.9A SITE TYPE : BLANK= PORTABLE; T= TELEMETERED "K" FACTOR : DEPARTMENT ADOPTED STANDARD K FACTOR BEGINING WITH COUNT YEAR 2011 AADT FLAGS C= COMPUTED; E= MANUAL EST; F= FIRST YEAR EST; S= SECOND YEAR EST; T= THIRD YEAR EST; X= UNKNOWN "D/T" FLAGS : A= ACTUAL; F= FACTOR CATG; D= DIST FUNCL; P= PRIOR YEAR; S= STATEWIDE DEFAULT; W= ONE-WAY ROAD; X= CROSS REF 16 -MAR -2016 08:11:29 PAGE -03- 622UPD 1_03 CAADT.TXT FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TRANSPORTATION S>TATISTICS OFFICE 2015 HISTORICAL AADT REPORT COUNTY: 03 - COLLIER SITE: 0124 - SR 90/US 41, SOUTHEAST OF CR 851/GOODLETTE RD NP24 YEAR AADT DIRECTION 1 DIRECTION 2 *K FACTOR --------- D FACTOR T FACTOR ---------------- ---- 2015 ---------- 52000 C ------------ E 26000 ------------ W 26000 9.05 55.90 4.00 2014 53500 F E 26500 W 27000 9.00 55.20 2.80 2013 51500 C E 25500 W 25000 9.00 55.70 2.80 2012 50000 C E 24500 W 25500 9.00 55.60 3.10 2011 50000 F E 25000 W 25000 9.00 55.20 2.60 2010 50000 C E 25000 W 25000 10.26 55.44 2.60 2009 53000 C E 26500 Id 26506 10.94 55.85 2.80 2008 56500 C E 28000 W 28500 10.83 56.26 2.90 2007 63500 C E 32000 W 31500 10.40 55.47 2.20 2006 64000 C E 31500 W 32500 10.22 56.00 2.80 21005 61000 C E 30500 W 30500 10.30 57.10 8.40 2004 50500 C E .30000 W 30500 10.00 57.10 5.20 2003 58500 C E 29000 W 29500 9.90 56.70 3.10 2002 58000 C. E 28500 IAT 29500 10.20 57.20 8.00 2001 55000 C E 27000 W 28000 10.00 57.70 3.10 2000 ;f 52000 C E 25500 W 26500 11.40 56.'70 2.40 AADT FLAGS: C = COMPUTED; E = HA.NUAL ESTIMATE; F = FIRST YEAR EST114ATE S = SECOND YEAR ESTIMATE; T. = THIRD YEAR ESTIMATE; F = FOURTH YEAR ESTIMATE V = FIFTH YEAR ESTIMATE; 6 = SIXTH? YEAR ESTIMATE; X = UNKNOWN 'l *K FACTOR: STARTING WITH YEAR 2011 IS STi?NDARDK, PRIOR YEARS ARE K30 VALUES Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 FDOT Florida Traffic Online Identify Infonnation Site Information Feature 1 Road Name TAMIAMI TRL Site 030124 Description SR 90/US 41, SOUTHEAST OF CR 851/GOOD LETTE RD N P24 Section 03010000 Milepoint 12.34 AADT 52000 Site Type Portable Class Data es K Factor 9 D Factor 55.9 T Factor 14 TRAFFIC REPORTS(provided in format Collier County nnuall Average Daily Historical AADT Data h0cle Class History Print this window. Close this window. Page 1 of 1 ,'Into.dot.state.n.ushvebsite/FloridaTrafliiicOnline/displayAttributeDataAll3.asps 11/21/2016 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 138 Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Appendix E: Turning Movements Exhibits (3 Sheets) Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 139 n 0 En 0 O' N G a Q 19 I Gateway Mini Triangle — PUDA and GMPA — TIS — March 2017 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e 141 n 0 �' ao 0 c o' Q m �o S Y, - -{ x v y ilp "ap y� SUBJECT SITE �4yxr. D� racft�ni;BLVfrn.: x. e Davis BLVD ofj ti J. j --�� J P '�i. .� *tea •�c :ur o'�� '=�� ,,' � _ , 411 VEt, '� •a~0!r'�" r` i. Linwood AVE X! 11411101 ��` y tt �► fimrqp AVE c • Z u - `� i or A'�' a --- __ - A . p• •ti , AW LOIS.,.,T�.'' LOCATED IN COLLIER COUNTY SUBJECT SITE IN FLOOD ZONE AE FIRM PANEL 12021 C0394H BASE FLOOD ZONE ELEV = 8.0' (NAVD) EFF DATE: 5/16/2012 soo o soo SCALE IN FEET (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 COUIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONALLY APPEARED ROBERT J MULHERE, FAICP WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/SHE HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 10.03.00 OF THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON THE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER SSGMPA-PL20160003084/CCPS-2016-3 95-0 ENCORE WAY SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX ROBERT J. MULHERE, FAICP NAPLES, FL 34110 NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY, STATE ZIP # HOLE MONTES, INC. STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of January 20 18 by ROBERT J. MULHERE , personally known to me or who produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath. � E STEPHANIE KAROL Signatu of Notary Public V PV®',�i Notary Public - State of Florida w • Commission # FF 939980 My Comm. Expires Mar 9, 2020 STEPHANIE KAROL ° ll %``�� Bonded through National Notary Assn. Printed Name of Notary Public My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Rev. 3/4/2015 ti Kn 1 PUBLIC NEARING RE -QUESTING A SMALL SCALE w:• GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTTO ESTABLISH THE MINI TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT TRIANGLE PETITION # SGMPA PL 2 0160 - MIXEDUSESUBLJwISTRICT - to BE HEARD BY INE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - rEpt a.040 SGARD UCovNrl raMMISSICKEIAC 9-.rr +u 'r MAW.1 (f Tff EA13[i IF C+JIN"t CtV#SS1',1X IS OF C::LIER CC1WY ROR'ICA, .A1lENOnG ORDINANCE 140, 31-05. AS ANE1I DEO, THE COLLIER .910Y WWI °VA%Lgt-VEW#T P_ JA KPI -H1 ILIN- KORP99ATED E. OF COLL.=A COUXTY. FL99U, SPLCIFICAL11 ►L�IEhaItIG NE FUTURE LAKF USF ELEMENT = , AIR1 wm lixt '.S.t m1u) w Vm i[RIES V 13DING THE KIM W1111 USE 5111IMSTRICT TO &LOW CDNSTRUCTIOR OF OF TO 210 RESIOEVIAL WU119 7VT5. `5: KTL SMTES !JP 1: 14,01Q Vj,'JARE FE1" QF r,Ro55 ;LOQR I+AEA UF C.QMWERCIAL RE74IL USES AND ;UP TO MOOD SQUARE FEET OF tss Fm m.4 v ;balm tm' V'Fra '5E5. ALL ` ITI4 COWERSIDUS; PROVIDING FOR WXIMUIN HEIGHT OF lit FEET T1IIE SMICT PROPERTY IS MATED 1011 141 '�1f?MEI. Lt 'HE 'VEMECTI h Of tOWS vgUIE'i%V* AND TA'1IVAI TRAIL EAST IN SECTIOU Il, TUWNSHIf 50 SOUTH, RAIXE 25 EAST, :4N313'ItQ 3i- - fGFLS AV-, TV"I 1p' 2pt RECD MNtNDING TRXIISVITTAt OF Tot 1409PTEO AMEN'IOME.VT TO TRE 'FLCRIOA DEPARTUL)IT DF ECOIIDNIG �PiRPJ�iT'i °�Gti•Df4r Ftp SE1t��i=lfTV �G11Q'Pit11•,"TfRt� FDt. a� :FFF.TI1rE DATE IPLr116DDV3ElJ4'CI�SS-F016-�1 CCPV WE: 'FED 15fn 2018 - 9:00AM CONTACT: SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER a . SCC WE. MAR. 7th., 2018 q-'ooAm PHONE. to '' .I 252-S115 511E.FAUL NERC ��J�Tkol� ��>� �CRc � $�c hEJk�lhl�. BOARD OF�CCUMT'� C�3MY15 (ER��UhIT'�FL.{�i�V . $IOMEf�5' MEETING 1110114. THIRD FLOOR, ' COLLIER COUNTY GOVERN MEMT CENTER, '- RAIRMS. F -ORIDA 34112 T MIA 411 TRAIL EAST, FlEOVESTING A 'SMALL StAlE PUBLIC HEARING MEAT TO ESTABLISH GROWTH MANAGEMEWT PLAN AWEND THE MINI TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT -2016-3 MINI TRIANGLE PETITION 0 SSG %i PA - K 2 0160 0 0, 30 B. 4 CFS S mi x Uo U's E SU 80 1 Sl R t C T % j, il i'l It mpl. am go&" kt. VV AmItor, glk�..Xkx" ..It Pok awevw MOM 10 VP M. ea l* so ON MA V WAS in &Iowa *Me - 61 m$ op kit_ 1w kv let" ANA Clow I * V"it'"! va spay. s �t A.$ taww"tw 1w i' ,::.ft-w lok row -m for, emic'! t 21011 ;CKAq r 9 DOAKN ec,lc oa2" L WX 04ARMOGS OF C OUN E it cowl T low, 0 $44r I MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA-PL-20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: "NO HAZARD LETTERS" FROM FAA MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT S S GMPA-PL-20160003084/CPS S-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: TEN PRINCIPLES FOR REBUILDING NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT S S G M PA -PL -20160003084/C P S S-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: HIGHER -DENSITY DEVELOPMENT MYTH AND FACT MINI TRIANGLE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT SSGMPA-PL-20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 PLEASE SEE CITYVIEW TO VIEW: SMART GROWTH AND ECONOMIC SUCCESS: INVESTING IN INFILL DEVELOPMENT Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -15837 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building NE Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-17.05N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-46.69W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Pagel of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Constriction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918335-318678168 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25239 -OE Page of Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jeriy Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -15988 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building NW Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-17.03N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-49.45W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Pagel of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE, AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918336-318676303 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure Would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE Page 7 of 8 23 CYY ipo Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25240 -OE Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -15989 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building SW Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-15.43N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-49.23W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Page 1 of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918337-318678163 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25241 -OE NP-10-m- mmm r ' 3� W i�T s/Supple en Na Glass D/E {sfc}-off hr ,m NAPLES {APF} CT -1 V,OR-D r ATIS 134.225 yeRESS66 i 23WON 0 r R Pts, 14 Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -15987 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building SE Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-14.58N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-46.68W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (3 0) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Page 1 of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918338-318678171 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25242 -OE Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -16235 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building N Corner Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-14.25N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-47.37W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Pagel of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918339-318678167 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE Page 7 of 8 V,OR-DME °Y RRES 123 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25243 -OE Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -16236 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building E Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-13.16N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-46.03W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Pagel of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918340-318678164 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25244 -OE Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -16237 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building W Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-12.96N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-48.53W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Page 1 of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918341-318678172 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those_ altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE Page 7 of 8 D NOTAMs/Su � Class Dl E (sf a wmw,o, CyImm 0 Omm "ON 0=0 0 now No= Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25245 -OE Page of Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE Prior Study No. 2016 -ASO -16238 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building S Corner -Davis Triangle Development Collier Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-11.99N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-47.14W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Page 1 of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918342-318678165 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0. 89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25246 -OE Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building RES A Building NW Corner Davis Triangle Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-17.03N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-50.79W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Foran 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Page 1 of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual constiuction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918481-318678161 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25247 -OE Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building RES A Building NE Corner Davis Triangle Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-17.03N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-49.59W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Pagel of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918482-318678162 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25248 -OE Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01/20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building RES A Building SW Comer Davis Triangle Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-15.21N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-50.79W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Pagel of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE, AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918483-318678160 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0. 89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25249 -OE �g rrp TO Wiftse Naples Far NO .i NAPLES � w. it Little 4 Page 8 of 8 Mail Processing Center Federal Aviation Administration Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group 10101 Hillwood Parkway Fort Worth, TX 76177 Issued Date: 01 /20/2017 Jerry Starkey Real Estate Partners International, Inc 1415 Panther Lane Naples, FL 34109 Aeronautical Study No. 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE ** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning: Structure: Building RES A Building SE Coiner Davis Triangle Location: Naples, FL Latitude: 26-08-15.21N NAD 83 Longitude: 81-46-49.57W Heights: 8 feet site elevation (SE) 160 feet above ground level (AGL) 168 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) This aeronautical study revealed that the structure would have no substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on the operation of air navigation facilities. Therefore, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, it is hereby determined that the structure would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s) is(are) met: As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 L Change 1, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, red lights - Chapters 4,5(Red),&12. Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number. It is required that FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, be e -filed any time the project is abandoned or: At least 10 days prior to start of construction (7460-2, Part 1) _X_ Within 5 days after the construction reaches its greatest height (7460-2, Part 2) See attachment for additional condition(s) or information. The structure considered under this study lies in proximity to an airport and occupants may be subjected to noise from aircraft operating to and from the airport. Page 1 of 8 This determination expires on 07/20/2018 unless: (a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E -FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD. This determination is subject to review if an interested party files a petition that is received by the FAA on or before February 19, 2017. In the event a petition for review is filed, it must contain a full statement of the basis upon which it is made and be submitted to the Manager, Airspace Policy, & Regulation, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave, SW, Room 423, Washington, DC 20591. This determination becomes final on March 01, 2017 unless a petition is timely filed. In which case, this determination will not become final pending disposition of the petition. Interested parties will be notified of the grant of any review. For any questions regarding your petition, please contact Airspace Regulations & ATC Procedures Group via telephone -- 202-267-8783 - or facsimile 202-267-9328. This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. An account of the study findings, aeronautical objections received by the FAA during the study (if any), and the basis for the FAA's decision in this matter can be found on the following page(s). Page 2 of 8 If we can be of further assistance, please contact Michael Blaich, at (404) 305-6462. On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE. Signature Control No: 305918484-318678173 Mike Helvey Manager, Obstruction Evaluation Group Attachment(s) Additional Information Map(s) Page 3 of 8 (DNH) Additional information for ASN 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE APF = Naples Municipal Airport ASN = Aeronautical Study Number AGL = Above Ground Level AMSL = Above Mean Sea Level NM = Nautical Miles ARP = Airport Reference Point RWY = Runway IFR = Instrument Flight Rule RPZ = Runway Protection Zone The proposed project was originally submitted for two Buildings, represented by 8 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25239 - OE through 25246), representing the four corners of each structure. A third building, represented by 4 ASNs (2016 -ASO -25247 -OE through 25250), was added later to the project, at the same AGL and AMSL heights as the other two buildings, with no greater effect. The three buildings are proposed at a height of 160 feet AGL/168 feet AMSL and will be located approximately 0.89 NM south of the APF ARP and extends to approximately 0.97 NM south of the APF ARP and from 192.49 degrees azimuth clockwise to 197.78 degrees azimuth. The proposal would exceed the Obstruction Standards of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 77 as follows: Section 77.19 (a) APF: Horizontal Surface --- > Exceeds by 10 feet. No IFR Effect. Details of the proposed project were circularized to the aeronautical public for comment. There were four letters of objection received during the comment period. The letters of objection can be summarized as the following: proposal exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards, proposal exceeds APF traffic pattern, proposal would be an issue for landing and takeoff procedures for RWY 05/23, concern about future development, concern about flight training schools with inexperienced pilots, potential aviation accident involving an entertainment area in project, a local county land development zoning restriction of 112 feet. Part 77 Obstruction Standards are used to screen the many proposals submitted in order to identify those which warrant further aeronautical study in order to determine if they would have significant adverse effect on protected aeronautical operations. While the obstruction standards trigger formal aeronautical study, including circularization, they do not constitute absolute or arbitrary criteria for identification of hazards to air navigation. Accordingly, the fact that a proposed structure exceeds an obstruction standard of Part 77 does not provide a basis for a determination that the structure would constitute a hazard to air navigation. The proposal does not exceed the APF Traffic Pattern Altitude. The proposal has No IFR Effects. There would not be any increase to minimums on any arrival or departure procedure. This aeronautical study considered and analyzed the impact on existing and proposed arrival, departure, and en route procedures for aircraft operating under both visual flight rules and instrument flight Page 4 of 8 rules; the impact on all existing and planned public -use airports, military airports and aeronautical facilities; and the cumulative impact resulting from the studied structure when combined with the impact of other existing or proposed structures. The study disclosed that the described structure would have no substantial adverse effect on air navigation. Any future development would be evaluated on a case by case basis and would require a proposal to be filed with the FAA. Flight training schools and inexperienced pilots are not under the scope of this aeronautical study. The potential for an aviation accident is greater if structures, which will result in the congregation of people within an RPZ, are strongly discouraged in the interest of protecting people and property on the ground. In cases where the airport owner can control the use of the property, such structures are prohibited. In cases where the airport owner exercises no such control, advisory recommendations are issued to inform the sponsor of the inadvisability of the proposal from the standpoint of safety to personnel and property. The proposed project is not located in the RPZ. This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR arrival/departure routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR en route routes, operations, or procedures. > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed IFR minimum flight altitudes. AERONAUTICAL STUDY FOR POSSIBLE VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) EFFECT DISCLOSED THE FOLLOWING: > The proposed structure would have no effect on any existing or proposed VFR arrival or departure routes, operations or procedures. > The proposed structure would not conflict with airspace required to conduct normal VFR traffic pattern operations at any known public use or military airports. > The proposed structure would not penetrate those altitudes that are normally considered available to airmen for VFR en route flight. > The proposed structure will be appropriately obstruction marked and lighted to make it more conspicuous to airmen flying in VFR weather conditions at night. The cumulative impact of the proposed structure, when combined with other existing structures is not considered significant. Study did not disclose any adverse effect on existing or proposed public -use or military Page 5 of 8 airports or navigational facilities. Nor would the proposal affect the capacity of any known existing or planned public -use or military airport. Therefore, it is determined that the proposed construction would not have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace by aircraft or on any air navigation facility and would not be a hazard to air navigation. Page 6 of 8 TOPO Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE Page 7 of 8 Sectional Map for ASN 2016 -ASO -25250 -OE `tle�ll � Page 8 of 8 COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section May 1, 2018 To: Jeff Klatzkow, County Manager & Patricia Morgan, Director, Minutes & Records From: Marcia R. Kendall, Senior Planner Comprehensive Planning/Zoning Division RE: BCC Hearing Packets for May 8, 2018 Mini-Triangle GMP Small Scale Amendment (Adoption hearings) You previously received a complete CCPC hearing packet for their meeting that was held on February 15, 2018, continued to March 1, 2018, and further continued to April 5, 2018. Therefore, please find attached only the additional pages added to the packet to include CCPC updates for their 4/5/2018 meeting, and added pages for the BCC. Beginning now, and in future, I will only forward the additional pages necessary to complete the CCPC/BCC hearing packet for each GMP amendment, for any future Transmittal or Adoption Hearings. If for any reason you would prefer to receive the full packet for both hearing boards, please advise and I will comply. Thank you! Cc: Michael Bosi, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, GMP Manager CCPC/BCC Memo folder 2018 Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT Project/Petition #PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 (ADOPTION HEARINGS) [Companion to PUDZ-PL20160003054] PROJECT War LOCATION o • • 44, S f)AVISBLVD 0- 14. O CCPC: APRIL 05, 2018 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 15, 2018, MARCH 01, 2018, and APRIL 5, 2018) BCC: MAY 08, 2018 Clerks Office EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve petition PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3, a Growth Management Plan Small Scale Amendment specific to the Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. (Adoption Hearing) [This is a Companion to Agenda Items 4896,and 4895] OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) to approve (adopt) the proposed small- scale Growth Management Plan amendment and approve the amendment for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS: The subject petition is submitted as a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. As such, per Florida Statutes, the request is heard once only by the Collier County Planning Commission and the BCC. If approved by the BCC,the petition is transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO). The process for adoption of a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part)the following statutory standards be met [followed by staff analysis in bracketed text]. (1) A small-scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The proposed amendment pertains to a 5.35-acre property.] (b) The cumulative annual effect of the acreage for all small-scale development amendments adopted by the local government does not exceed a maximum of 120 acres in a calendar year. [To date,no small scale GMP amendment has been adopted in calendar year 2018.] (c) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government's comprehensive plan,but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small-scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small-scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment is for a site-specific Future Land Use Map change and directly-related text changes.] (d) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern,unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3)and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [Internal consistency will be maintained between and among elements if the amendment is approved.] The GMP amendment requested is for approximately 5.35 acres located on the south side of Davis Boulevard (SR 84), the north side of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), approximately 500 feet east from the intersection of those two roads,and 300 feet west of Commercial Drive,in Section 11,Township 50 South, '"� Range 25 East. (East Naples Planning Community). PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict GMP Amendment Page 1 of 4 This petition seeks to amend the GMP,adopted by Ordinance No.89-05,as amended,specifically amending the Future Land Use Element(FLUE)and Future Land Use Map(FLUM) Series by: Adding text to establish the new Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict, within the Urban Mixed-Use District,to allow 377 multi-family residential dwelling units;228 hotel suites/rooms; a maximum of 200,000 square feet of various commercial uses (retail, eating and drinking establishments, movie theatre (multiplex), bowling center, physical fitness facilities, yoga studio, bicycle rental, museums and art galleries), personal services, general and medical offices, indoor airconditioned passenger vehicle and/or self-storage (not to exceed 60,000 square feet), new or used car dealership (not to exceed 30,000 square feet), and any other comparable use; and,Assisted Living Facility (150 units maximum and 0.45 FAR). Also,the subdistrict requires the implementing planned unit development zoning district to include: minimum residential and commercial development thresholds, and timing thresholds,to insure mixed use development;requires a cap on the total number of vehicle trips; and, provides that the height may exceed that specified in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area zoning overlay. And, creating a new Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict map for inclusion in the FLUM series. The proposed amended Subdistrict text, as recommended by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), is depicted in Ordinance Exhibit"A." Based on the review of this small-scale GMP amendment petition, including the supporting data and analysis, staff makes the following findings 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-related concerns; the companion PUD rezone caps the traffic impact to that allowed under the existing commercial zoning on the site. • The subject site lies within the Coastal High Hazard Area as identified on the FLUM and mitigation has been provided for(in the companion PUD rezone)pursuant to Policy 12.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. • Several citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting voiced concern/questions about the proposed 168-foot building height. Staff notes there has been a 196-foot telecommunications tower on the site for years and a "no-hazard" letter from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)is part of the petition packet. There is no maximum height specified in this petition;that detail is included in the companion PUD rezone petition. • The uses are generally compatible with surrounding development. • The Mini Triangle site,located at a major intersection and proximate to residential development and commercial development, has been identified and approved by the CRA as a catalyst project area which includes mixed use and high density. • The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay in the FLUE identifies a "mini triangle"area-formed by US 41, SR 84 and Commercial Drive-in which high density,mixed use development is encouraged as a catalyst project(s)to facilitate further redevelopment; the subject site is located within this"mini triangle." • The CRA Advisory Board recommended approval of this project. • The CRA Board,by virtue of its contract with the petitioner,has conceptually approved of the general scope of this project. • Staff accepts the petitioner's assertion that the greater densities and intensities requested are necessary for the project to be viable. �-. The data and analysis provided for the amendment generally supports the proposed changes to the FLUE. The complete staff analysis of this petition is provided in the CCPC Staff Report. PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict GMP Amendment Page 2 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to process,review and advertise this petition was borne by the petitioner via application and advertisement fees. Therefore, there are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of the adoption of this amendment. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed amendment by the Board for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity(DEO)will commence the thirty-day (30) challenge period for any affected person. Provided the small-scale development amendment is not challenged, it shall become effective thirty-one(31)days after receipt by DEO. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan(GMP)amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: "plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies,community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue." Section 163.3177(1)(f), FS. In addition, Section 163.3177(6)(a)2, FS provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies,public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. And FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analysis per Section 163.3177(6)(a)8.: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land,soils,topography,natural resources,and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires a super-majority vote for approval because this is an adoption hearing. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the CCPC forward petition PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 to the Board with a recommendation of approval. PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict GMP Amendment Page 3 of 4 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their meetings on February 15,March 1, and April 5, 2018, and voted 3-2 (Fryer and Ebert)to forward the petition to the Board with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to text changes, all of which are reflected in Ordinance Exhibit A. Dissenter concerns included density,building height and traffic impacts. There were five public speakers, four of which expressed concerns; these included: building height; storm water quality and its impact on Naples Bay;traffic impacts;need for pedestrian improvements on adjacent roads to facilitate more pedestrian usage; impact upon beaches and parks in the City of Naples. RECOMMENDATION: To adopt and transmit petition PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity per the CCPC recommendation. Prepared by: Sue Faulkner,Principal Planner, and David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict GMP Amendment Page 4 of 4 Co e-r County STAFF REPORT ADDENDUM COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: April 5, 2018 (cont'd from 2/15/18 and 3/1/18) RE: PETITION PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-03, SMALL-SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDZ- PL20160003054) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) This ADDENDUM (to the Staff Report prepared for the February 15, 2018 CCPC meeting) pertains to the petitioner's submittal of March 16, 2018, which attempts to reflect the CCPC discussion and suggested changes from the February 15 and March 1, 2018, CCPC meetings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval subject to the following changes to the Subdistrict text: 1. All revisions per Managing Assistant County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko's 3/21/18 edits. 2. Paragraph c.: Add uses "yoga instruction, and bicycle rental" and "museums and art galleries" since they are listed in the MPUD - UNLESS these uses are deleted from the MPUD. 3. Paragraph c.2.: Delete "Restaurants" and replace with "Eating and drinking establishments" so as to reflect both uses (though a restaurant may serve drinks it is not a drinking establishment) and to be in concert with the PUD (this correlates to a recommended text change to the MPUD). 4. Paragraph d.: Change to a number and move under paragraph 2. so as to be subject to the 200,000 s.f. cap—to correlate with the MPUD which places this use (ALF)within that 200,000 s.f. cap. 5. Paragraph f.: Add back use minimum intensity requirements to insure a mixed-use development and remove text deferring to the PUD. Modify to read: "In order to ensure a mixed-use development, the subdistrict shall be developed with a minimum of 105 dwelling units and 37,000 s.f. of floor area of uses listed in at least two of the above paragraphs c.1. through c.4." /s/David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager CCPC Staff Rpt ADDENDUM CPSS-16-3 Mini Tri. G:ICDES Planning Services\ComprehensivelComp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments12016 Cycles & Small Scale Petitions12016 Small Scale petitions\CPSS-16-3 Mini Triangle MU Subdist\CCPC dw/3-22-18 . Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict The Mini Triangle Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, as a subset of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier CountyCommunity Redevelopment Area(CRA)as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan (approved on June 13,2000 by Resolution No. 2000-181). In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a "Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept". The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a mixed use "Catalyst Project" (or projects)that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards. In order to accomplish this greater intensity,. density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards,the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD). Development within the Mini Triangle Subdis ' t shall be subject to the following: a. A maximum of 377 multi-family residential units may be permitted. b. A maximum of 228 hotel suites/rooms (or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites)may be permitted. _ c. A maximum of 200,000 square feet of any combination of the following commercial uses may be permitted: 1. Retail; 2. Restaurants; 3. Movie Theatre (multiplex),bowling center and physical fitness facilities: 4. Personal services: 5. General and medical offices: 6. Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and/or self storage,not to exceed 60,000 square feet(SIC Code 4225); 7. New Car Dealership,not to exceed 30,000 square feet(SIC Code 5511);and, 8. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted at5INCIr principal uses. d. A maximum of 150 Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) units may be permitted, subject to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45.0 e. The MPUD shall establish a maximum trip capacity ("Trip Cap") for the Mini riangle MPUD based upon"Net New Trips. The term Net New Trips means the projected PM peak hour trips generated by anticipated development within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, reducass-by trips and internal capture. f. In order to$ensure a mixed use developme t e MPUD shall establish the minimum required number of multi-family residential uni e minimum required square footage of a combination of the commercial uses 1. through 4. in paragraph c, above, and the minimum required square footage for general/medical office. g. The MPUD shall establish a date, timeframe, or condition by which the minimum requirementshall be constructe• This date, timeframe or condition shall not be 1 c1_ Cif` rtk bev.e 611 1" Ak Wit • q^-v- skp 44(‘ W S constr d to limit approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or related amendment(s) they o, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements d icted thereon, including but not limited to site access, sewer and water lines and facilities, tormwater facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage, and fence or walls. h. The provisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 -Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, as applicable, except in the case of building height, which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16, as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16, as may be approved as part of the MPUD. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** ***' *** B. Density Rating System 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System,except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the"vested"Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. 9) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities 2 that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods.The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay.The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: 1. Mixed-Use Development: A Mmix of residential and commercial uses ere-is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district usesa except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle)to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at. or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadways to promote traditional urban development. 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below, or and except as may be limited by a zoning overlay, or as provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water-dependent and water-related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. 4. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard(SR 84) and/or the west side of Airport-Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre, via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11; except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25%of the total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards identified in paragraph no. 8, below, except for mixed_use projects developed within the "mini triangle" catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The "mini triangle" catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning overlay adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08),and amended December 14,2006(Ordinance No.06-63),For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase,their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a 3 future zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport- Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential- only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11. except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25% of the 388 total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project.-In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d. All residential units shall be market rate units. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase,their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center#16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5,above.The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. 7. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses,densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. 8. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above, or as otherwise permitted within Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict,mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density 4 `a being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 10. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict-4s are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 11. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses, as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above. This 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool corresponds with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the botanical gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within T the "mini triangle"eatalyst-project-is are not subject required to utilize this density bonus pool. 12. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** Future Land Use Map Mixed Use&Interchange Activity Centers Maps Properties Consistent by Policy(5.11,5.12,5.13,5.14)Maps Collier County Wetlands Map *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] --- 5 HOLE MONTES ENGINEERS•PLANNERS•SURVEYORS 950 Encore Way•Naples,Florida 34110•Phone 239.254.2000•Fax:239.254.2099 March 26, 2018 Eric Johnson,AICP, Senior Planner Collier County Growth Management 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples,FL 34104 Re: Mini Triangle(LDCA-PL-2:0160003642),(SSGNI PA-PL-20160003084/CPSS-2016-3) & (PUDZ-PL-20160003054) Resubmittal for Review at April 5,2018 CCPC LEVI File No.2016.052 Dear Mr.Johnson: Pursuantto your recommendation from our meeting on March 8, 2018 (which included Heidi Ashton- Cicko and David Weeks), I am submitting the above referenced documents for staff review in advance of the April 5, 2018 CCPC hearing. I am resubmitting now to ensure plenty of time for you to prepare an addendum to your staff report (related to these latest versions), and to distribute your staff report addendum these documents to the CCPC members to ensure they have adequate time for review. The following is a summary of the revisions that have been made to these documents based upon CCPC direction (from the previous CCPC hearings), comments and suggestions made by Christopher A. Rozansky, Executive Director of the Naples Airport Authority, and comments fnna staff After several meetin• and from formal review comments received via email from various staff the week March 19 through 23 (including you,Heidi Ashton-Cicko,David Weeks,Peter Shawinsky,and Mark Templeton): LDC Amendment: • Revised to clarify that the exemption is limited to the maximum allowable horizontal zone height of 150 feet from the established elevation of the Naples Airport, as established in LDC Sections 4.02.06., and 4.02.06.F., to allow for buildings up to 160 feet in height from the established elevation of the Naples Airport, and required the development to comply with conditions in the FAA Letters of No Hazard, based upon meeting with NAA Executive Director and Legal Counsel and County staff held on Friday March 16,2018. SSGMPA: • Reformatting Document for consistency; • Clarify Maximums and required that minimums be addressed in MPUD; • Simplified formatting and list of allowable uses; • Remove reference to conversion matrix; and • Clarify Trip Cap based upon Net New Trips. .PUD: • Simplified formatting throughout document; • Simplified permitted uses language and structure; • Clarified terminology related to allowable building height(Zoned and Actual); • Revised and clarified maximums and minimums for various permitted uses and revised to use consistent language throughout document(i.e., general office versus professional office); • Added additional limitations to car dealership use; H:\2U16\2016U52\WY\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Post Staff Meetirg 3-8-19\Resubmittal Cover Letter 3-26-18,docx Eric Johnson,AICP, Senior Planner Re: Mini Triangle(LDCA-PL-20160003642), (SSGMPA-PL-20160003084/CPSS-2016-3) &(PUDZ-PT.-20160003054) March 26, 2018 Page 2 • Eliminated conversion matrix(and related tables)and revised remaining Table 1 to clearly reflect minimum and maximum allowances; • Revised Trip Cap to use Net New Traffic terminology; • Clarified that no individual commercial use may be located in a building less than three stories; • Revised Front Yard Adjacent to a Public Street to in order to allow fur potential right turn lanes; • Added additional deviation to allow the landscape buffer reduction adjacent to a right turn lane; • Revised Developer Commitment 2.to reflect Trip Cap based upon Net New Trip terminology; • Eliminated Exhibit G(sample Conversion Matrix Tacking sheet); and • Added Naples Airport Conditions to PUD Exhibit F — Developer Commitments, as agreed by applicant, NAA, and County Staff during meeting between NAA Executive Director, NAA Counsel and various County Staff during meeting on March 16, 2018. PUD Master Plan Exhibits;Revised the Master Plan Exhibits as follows: • Separated height exhibits into two sheets for clarity; and • Revised Deviation list to include new deviation referenced above. If you have any questions,please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, HOLE MONTES,INC. Robert J.Mulhere,FAICP Vice President, Planning Services RJM/sek Enclosures as noted. cc: David Weeks, Growth Management Planning Manager WIenclosures Sue Faulkner,Principal Planner w/enclosures Mike Bosi,Zoning Division Director w/enclosures Ray Bellows,Zoning Manager w/enclosures Heidi Ashton,Esq. w'enclosures Jeff Klatzkow,Esq.w/enclosures Richard Grant,Esq.w/enclosures Jerry Starkey w/enclosures H:12016\2016052\WP\PUDZ\Post CCPC\Post Staff Meeting 3-8-19\Resubmittal Cover Letter 3-26-18.docx 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict The Mini Triangle Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, as a subset of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan (approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution No. 2000-181). In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a "Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept". The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a mixed use "Catalyst Project" (or projects) that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards. In order to accomplish this greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards, the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Development within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. A maximum of 377 and multi-family residential units may be permitted. b. A maximum of 228 hotel suites/rooms (or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites)may be permitted. c. A maximum of 200,000 square feet of any combination of the following commercial uses may be permitted: 1. Retail; 2. Restaurants; 3. Movie Theatre (multiplex), bowling center and physical fitness facilities; 4. Personal services; 5. General and medical offices; 6. Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and/or self storage, not to exceed 60,000 square feet(SIC Code 4225); 7. New Car Dealership, not to exceed 30,000 square feet(SIC Code 5511); and, 8. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses. d. A maximum of 150 Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) units may be permitted, subject to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45. . e. The MPUD shall establish a maximum trip capacity ("Trip Cap") for the Mini Triangle MPUD based upon"Net New Trips. The term Net New Trips means the projected s PM peak hour trips generated by anticipated development within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, reduced by pass-by trips and internal capture. f. In order toe ensure a mixed use development the MPUD shall establish the minimum required number of multi-family residential units, the minimum required square footage of a combination of the commercial uses 1. through 4. in paragraph c, above, and the minimum required square footage for general/medical office. g. The MPUD shall establish a date, timeframe, or condition by which the above three minimum requirements shall be constructed. This date, timeframe or condition shall not be 1 construed to limit approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or related amendment(s) thereto, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements depicted thereon, including but not limited to site access, sewer and water lines and facilities, stormwater facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage, and fence or walls. h. The provisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 - Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area, as applicable, except in the case of building height, which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16, as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16, as may be approved as part of the MPUD. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** ***• *** B. Density Rating System 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System,except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the"vested"Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. 9) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities 2 that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: 1. Mixed-Use Development: A Mmix of residential and commercial uses ar-e-is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadways to promote traditional urban development. 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below, or and except as may be limited by a zoning overlay, or as provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water-dependent and water-related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. 4. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard(SR 84) and/or, the west side of Airport-Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre, via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11; except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25%of the total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards identified in paragraph no. 8, below, except for mixed_use projects developed within the "mini triangle" catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The "mini triangle" catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning overlay adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08),and amended December 14,2006 (Ordinance No. 06-63). For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase,their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a 3 future zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport- Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential- only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11. except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25% of the 388 total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts,by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project.-In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d. All residential units shall be market rate units. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center#16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5, above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. 7. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses,densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. 8. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above, or as otherwise permitted within Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict,mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density 4 being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 10. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict-is are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 11. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses, as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above. This 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool corresponds with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the botanical gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within the"mini triangle"catalyst project is are not suit required to utilize this density bonus pool. 12. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** Future Land Use Map Mixed Use&Interchange Activity Centers Maps Properties Consistent by Policy(5.11, 5.12,5.13, 5.14)Maps Collier County Wetlands Map *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** Davis-Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 5 ORDINANCE NO. 2018- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE MINI-TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP 377 MULTI- FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, 228 HOTEL SUITES, 150 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES INCLUSIVE OF 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF SELF-STORAGE AND 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF CAR DEALERSHIP. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, CONSISTING OF 5.35 ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160003084] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Real Estate Partners International, LLC requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to create the Mini-Triangle Subdistrict; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and [16-CMP-00975/1405905/1]205 1 of 3 PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3—Mini-Triangle SSGMPA 4/10/18 Words underlined are added,words struck throes have been deleted. WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on February 15, 2018, March 1, 2018, and April 5, 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 May 8, 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 permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. [16-CMP-00975/1405905/1]205 2 of3 PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3—Mini-Triangle SSGMPA 4/10/18 Words underlined are added,words struck-through have been deleted. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment&Map Amendment �..� (16-CMP-00975/1405905/1]205 3 of3 PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3—Mini-Triangle SSGMPA 4/10/18 Words underlined are added,words struck-through have been deleted. 19. Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict The Mini Triangle Subdistrict is 5.35 acres in size and is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of this GMP. The purpose and intent of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, as a subset of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, is to further the goals of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) as stated in the adopted Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan (approved on June 13, 2000 by Resolution No. 2000-181). In particular, Section 5.7 of the Community Redevelopment Plan identifies the Triangle Area as a"Mixed Center/Corridor Development Concept". The intent of the Plan related specifically to the Mini Triangle area is to create a mixed use "Catalyst Project"(or projects)that will foster the revitalization of the surrounding Gateway Triangle area. In order to facilitate the development of a Catalyst Project and further the intent of the Community Redevelopment Plan, this Subdistrict provides for greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards. In order to accomplish this greater intensity, density, and flexibility in applicable Site Design and Development Standards, the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be rezoned to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). Development within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. A maximum of 377 multi-family residential units may be permitted. b. A maximum of 228 hotel suites/rooms(or other transient lodging uses including but not limited to interval ownership or vacation rental suites) may be permitted. c. A maximum of 200,000 square feet of any combination of the following commercial uses may - be permitted: 1. Retail 2. Eating and drinking establishments; 3. Movie Theatre (multiplex),bowling center,physical fitness facilities,yoga studio,bicycle rental and museums and art galleries; 4. Personal services; 5. General and medical offices; 6. Indoor Air-conditioned passenger vehicle and/or self storage, not to exceed 60,000 square feet(SIC Code 4225); 7. New or Used Car Dealerships, not to exceed 30,000 square feet in total (SIC Codes 5511 and 5521); and, 8. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the forgoing list of permitted principal uses. d. A maximum of 150 Assisted Living Facilities (ALF) units may be permitted, subject to a maximum floor area ratio of 0.45. e. The MPUD shall establish a maximum trip capacity("Trip Cap")for the Mini Triangle MPUD based upon"Net New Trips. The term Net New Trips means the projected PM peak hour trips generated by anticipated development within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, reduced by pass- by trips and internal capture. f. In order to ensure a mixed use development,the MPUD shall establish the minimum required number of multi-family residential units, the minimum required square footage of a 1 C:\Users\ashton_h\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\rNetCache\Content.Outlook\DO21CO6L\Ex.A GMPA 3-26-18_to BCC_FINAL.docx combination of the commercial uses 1. through 4. in paragraph c, above, and the minimum required square footage for general/medical office. g. The MPUD shall establish a date,timeframe,or condition by which the minimum requirements in paragraph f., shall be constructed. This date, timeframe or condition shall not be construed to limit approval of a Site Development Plan (SDP) or related amendment(s) thereto, nor the installation of any site related infrastructure or other site improvements depicted thereon, including but not limited to site access, sewer and water lines and facilities, stormwater facilities, surface parking, landscaping, signage, and fence or walls. h. Development within this Subdistrict shall be subject to the provisions of LDC Section 4.02.16 -Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area., as applicable,except in the case of building height,which may exceed the maximum allowable height established in Section 4.02.16,as well as any deviations from the applicable provisions of Section 4.02.16, as may be approved as part of the MPUD. 1 *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** ***• *** B. Density Rating System 1. The Density Rating System is applied in the following manner: *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** e. All new residential zoning located within Districts, Subdistricts and Overlays identified above that are subject to this Density Rating System shall be consistent with this Density Rating System,except as provided in: 1) Policy 5.1 of the Future Land Use Element. 2) The Urban Mixed Use District for the"vested"Port of the Islands development. 3) The Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict 4) The Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict. 5) The Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict. 6) Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict. 7) Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. 8) The Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict. 9) The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** 2 C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y11UZG5\Ex.A GMPA 3-26-18 to BCC_FINAL.docx F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13,2000.The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property,or joint ventures between property owners,while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: 1. Mixed-Use Development: A Minix of residential and commercial uses anis permitted. For such development,commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses,except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict;hotel/motel use;theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle)to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below,at,or above grade,with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadways to promote traditional urban development. 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below,or and except as may be limited by a zoning overlay,or as provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water-dependent and water-related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. 4. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard(SR 84) and/or the west side of Airport-Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre, via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11; except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25%of the total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards 3 C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y 11IJZG5\Ex.A GMPA 3-26-18_t0 BCC FINAL.docx identified in paragraph no. 8,below,except for mixed use projects developed within the"mini triangle"catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The"mini triangle"catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre,with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning overlay adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08), and amended December 14, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-63), For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport- Pulling Road(west side only)or US 41 East,may be allowed to redevelop as a residential-only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11.except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25%of the 388 total density pool units available.The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts,by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project.-In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d. All residential units shall be market rate units. For projects that do not comply with the requirethents for this density increase,their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies.Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center#16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5,above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code,whichever is applicable,shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. 7. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses,densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses,densities and development standards. 8. To qualify for 12 dwelling units per acre as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above, or as otherwise permitted within Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the 4 C:\Users\Icathynellcrotteau'AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y111JZG5\Ex.A GMPA 3-26-18_to BCC FINAL.docx Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code,whichever is applicable,or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict,mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought.The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 10. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict-is are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 11. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses,as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above. This 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool corresponds with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the botanical gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within the "mini triangle"eatalyst-projeet-is are not aubjeet required to utilize this density bonus pool. 12. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** Future Land Use Map Mixed Use&Interchange Activity Centers Maps Properties Consistent by Policy(5.11, 5.12,5.13,5.14)Maps Collier County Wetlands Map *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 5 C:\Users\kathynellcrotteau\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\Y11UZG5\Ex.A GMPA 3-26-18_t0 BCC_FINAL.docx I 746S T47S T48S T49S T50S I TS1S T525 I T53S N, 8 . 7-1 t i k 2 :4 .1 gg3€i ;T} i gt T§a - r h '4Il5 a Ell w 0s� 5W SE o$ ai€ . $ € � gz— e 9 9ao `g� �z £�z„ x � dS �zr yf 8i ' b 00.0'10; d b bzzkbo� o0..pbo oo0 0 v b; ; . < i ;o ihtia-m. l // o W ce I a 1 1 `. gil S ia1 ij dS ti _ a I t ' — 2 •} i 111 ikIltI I i i Iii .11114 111111D1011111 tpi ot W �1g11 $ �` 3 s S q s 1i ! t; iiItii1i $ ii ii i $ 111,hi ! 1 W I _• 0I 111 11 11liiigo ii W a cc ) / ffI l — 11 X Ce f L g Lis1 W ` w W , Pli! n / i I Wei ` W IN g ,. -7 ❑- immi, 1, 1 — 4.... . „. ,_._.._ ,—w-- h 41 A no 3 cc cc a- , L ill 1 it ' i,”' LU in MN � m 1 <IUZ \ �M \ \ /�jMN a, LINrvirm -- , / ( WI Z ` .),gili w W -mrip /rill •in' k 1 xw 0�� rienj644"'sCI) _ :I; W Jte ~ Yi 8 �1 z a i aligs C) c .. tai `'tler , 3l (1 LI ! 0 I T52S I T18ST47S I 148S f __749S i__,—T50S I T51S I 153$ EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160003084/CPSS-2016-3 .� MINI TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT ` COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA — G--1 f .... i I 1 i � J 1 I ! SUBJECT 11 SITE I , I DAVIS BLVD r• I / rii// Hti 3IIi ± is �� _- 1 4 N- i 1 / 1 i l ; ' 1i 1 , 1 I . I i I ii j I , 1 I Nom` ` ! I 1. ; LEGEND PREPARED BY:GIS/CADMAPPING SECTION �„ GROWTH MANAGEMENT T DEPARTMENT FILE:CPSS-2016-3 MAP.mxd 0 137.5 275 550 Feet Subdistrict DATE:1/23/2018 I I I I I I I I I j3ai1j 'ruts 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 1983933 CPSS-2016-3 PL201600 4500182060 Pub Dates April 18,2018 • tett 620-61a/1 (Sig ture of affiant) KAROIEKANGAS I NWnwec-StakdFbrM i Sworn to and subscribed before me I � C tGGI2 t This April 18,2018 Comm. " 19' t am6d6041NaadWNorWIL II \* WW1 CV\ler (Signature of affiant) 10A 1 WEDNESDAY.APRIL 18,2018 a NAPLES DAILY NEWS A Senate candidate with a a BEACH HEARING -= TECHNOLOGY different type of conviction Best Pricing In Town! West Virginia coal p`^ United Mine Workers of America's FREE Hearing Tests baron sees time behind you've action committee. But if s attl�>< mill you've got enough money,you can bars as an asset do anything.Ile ought to be In Jail." "' "` Whue at Taft correctional Intl- 4t15Tamia ilTTrei,Naples 8.34108• 659-0707 Nicole aaadiano ration in California,Blankenship O58 1088 described himself as a"political sMeae.ar..eaM.n.'ww I... prisoner,"and he continues to fault WASHINGTON-In West Vie- the government for the 2010 explo- date GOPTaSenen hipprimary,is ndl- than kit lled e9ppermen BiTh Mine Safety SALE date Don Blankenship is running thatkilled 29 men.The Mine Safety on a different kind of record. and Health Administration blamed The formerCEO of Massey Ener- Don Blankenship,former CEO of the company for safety violations gy served a one-year sentence, Massey Energy,is a candidate in and assessed$10.8 million in pen- ending In May 2017,for conspiring West Virginia's Republican attics. But Blankenship says a BOB BAKER SHOES to violate mine health and safety primary for U.S.Senate. change in airflow, required by standards In connection with the Blankenship served time for MSHA,caused the explosion. Beautiful,Comfortable Shoes for Women nation's deadliest coal mining ex- conspiring to violate mine health He says the Department of Jus- plosion in decades.Blankenship's and safety standards in tice Office of Professional Respon- I Sp.«d HALF PRICE period of supervised release connection with the nation's sibility is reviewing his prosecu- i selection,, doesn't end until May 9,the day af- deadliest coal mining explosion in than.A DOJ spokesman declined to ter the primary,according to court decades.STEVE secoes/AP comment. -Ate S.Naples.FL•Hrc'Mon-Sat 10-5.262-6358 records. Blankenship's candidacy is bol- But Blankenship said he was stered by an"anti-establishment "falsely imprisoned"by the Obama ship's primary opponents-Rep. vibe"In West Virginia,particularly Lawn Replacement administration,and he doesn't see Evan Jenkins and the state's attor- from those In the southern part of P that as a political liability-not to ney general, Patrick Morrisey - the state,who don't trust that the MALONEY'S West Virginians who accuse the show Blankenship,68,is within government was fair to him,said former president of waging a war striking distance of the lead.He Ls a Patrick Hickey.an assistant profes- on coal and their livelihoods.To self-funded candidate who can sor at West Virginia University. • IIhim,such an"Improper"conic- laugh when he says,9 don't need National Republicans aren't tion can be a political asset. any money"and blankets the air- sure whether Blankenship can win It was, he noted, for former waves with his message. the primary,but they're concerned South African President Nelson His spin on his conviction could that If he does,he'll lose the general "fli0 j too Big or too Small"Mandela,who spent 27 years in help him with hard-core Republi- election against his likely oppo- prison •^� for fighting an apartheid cans looking for the most anti-es' nett,Democratic Sen.Joe Man- Naples&Bonita•239-775-9339 government."There are situations tablishment candidate in the race, chin.Trump hasn't weighed in on WWW.lt�EUOAtfyiMl.COril in history where being In prison said Larry Sabato,director of the the race,but he notably sat be- was an advantage,"he said."I think University of Virginia's Center for tween Jenkins and Morrisey re- that's the case in West Virginia." Politics. cently at a tax reform roundtableP'N-e•°1e attanta Blankenship is not the only 2018 "It's a good strategy," Sabato with elected officials In West Vlr- medurea xe r r "'`'RRi 'c candidate who is still considered said.'Takea negative and make it a ginla.Blankenship was not Invited T'" viable despite legal baggage.Ml- positive.That's one of the cardinal to the event,held on the eighth an- C,dl Pur.& ,,c:1tc80%opm.I presctui. cheat Grimm,a GOP candidate for rules of politics." niversary of the mine explosion. calm mm¢ .0 om, rf57 his former New York House seat, But Mark Horsey,a retired coal "It's delusional to think that swe4erooee Itnt. ill ph POI 18 pleaded guilty in 2014 to tax fraud, miner from Rivesvtlie,said the coal spending a year in a California Kis- Sutra to no as ras___. _tarn and former Maricopa County Sher- miners he knows are"flabbergast- on is an asset,"said Nachama Soto- tent In In IWNO.. _.....YJ►i.M iff Joe Arpato,an Arizona Senate ed" by Blankenship's re-emer- veichik,a Morrisey spokeswoman. elrbdnn Sam¢ ',rt•,<. _._.._use it candidate,was pardoned by Presi- gence.They think he got off easy "I'm not sure what planet Don is %elle nor 0I. t<:;,me«.. _._.fiMN dent Donald Trump last year for a with a misdemeanor. running on,but It's not Earth,and shown a'for t ' .c .ri • lira St contempt of court conviction in a "The audacity for him to run for it's sure as heck not West Virginia. ,r I y I 4%111511 16 lu I`I 1 4 �•� racial profiling case. a public office I think is terrible." Joe Manehin would crush Don 1•446 14 11♦R 1,,1 I r 11 Polls commissioned by Blanken- said Dorsey,a representative of the Blankenship in the fall." 941-421-7155 NOTICE...LIG HEARMO NOTICE OF LATENT TO CONSIDER OtDSUNCee NOISO•14.011 S.Ow 4 c41.c4r,eacoa.. ....,taMemilk Memo o14S.Oft ACCESS EVERYTHING YOU NEED, nea.a.....,wwl,ne.aoa<a4 Canty CLAN-,wmx.Ow. law.Co.Cm.Derannnet Goma O A To ToDet AN M I.EMKO DE D L!.NR.E.B DE 1..1 <M„Y.FLORIDANT PLA FOR TIM 111 ei fep I time need i.L• II ORUPDPICOR S a0.Mq K P COLLIES ME COW.2R CMNTY.ALAI ANINi1.15 F1 FOR AND P1.AP ID.ATRI 111V I ING Mr SON.IME PTwa LANG AREA S NLITIO Of Alen MM 1 44 11 AIMING LNG MD+VIt1AROTE.MI T.n tar. ,.1.mtHrrue♦aEKT NA.ARE.7UTOFr.CA OvAMA1EAREw.t>sew•.s EB1YROva.M4TED rAlt wHBLu RERSI..AMLottE EAT/0N OFDEM,...E RDAND AW..TRNaA.156.MON Enjoy more access to your kitchen with custom TI.S01.1101. "Fitt TRAIL IA. 1 pull-out shelves for your existing cabinets. TRANSAITITAL OF TOE.010110 AMENDSIS.TO..11.011.14 DEPASTOGOT OF 1te FW'•rDING POISEVERM2tY.AND MOODS.FOlt.FITEC11.FIDE 114.1.601.1011.11r.SCP ton 1.14.1 . . . MOM EBtwa,ISH DO . OW. i CIAIDOVICATION OF e E al An xwMA %W I III€tt - r -SrI An' PLAN. ICM'11.1./Lt .. T atnanm os Fitt eeoaoutvo ALL. TR DET TO111 IC TOB D Iailikk. .`. OW tTM rzI , ^ale^ M1ysSWAM vat FIST NESCLM.ISEA +'ttLF E Or Gr...eel cal,OFFICE FF�� µate act AND NIA.SOMA.PE.Oe('.0 11.1 MAX11.1aBM ROPE a1.LTlOx 1 LAST 1.111.11,4t FOR IMI, LOF j pmt. EASTOACTI.FDMIS W o :LS=C eO aggaiiilt 1St alsounotiotidantro...00,.storms was m.meMeN. 111 c OCATrON l� Ia an` t�,5 ONE{ t ' I. Il a \y, FaSA4 A........./.0.1.1........C........011101./............. ea web...OM*.e.-o,a,..:.n nn.nse,oeonRMCNN.w..F,P..MnwFE..n....a Mw..SODAM. ...111.4....................../....s.*moo.Sn.Car....CMB• Once eno Plno;LAM 101.Coe.Cw”.am..4.10,0.8 MMM.,wit A.Pe.C IS..a".UAO 5...V.,B' wenn Moons ton.Ozwnwv.raba,.N0 to.n.WC re.,Como,Cwmee.o,n."S..eanal* cmnva.SMwmOUMM......Nc.Mw 01.15101.11........, 0Mni,•Me,e o.�D ..... n...n.onna,.wn. c...S..balo..Mp.. ,...a,,..F,D4m' shelf I i wa,nems wn.e.a.n.na maa..nc c ew.owexa aa1n wnn.mw.I.n.M ns N.M..nn EVERYTHING wITNIN REACH. .•sob or INA woc..aroe.n.w.w-.recd.tela.n.M../..r. Am...vain of.Dm.0.A.la I. 5.4 ..M a M.b'uy.ww DA.art ax^n.d...".or.a*Op.."E".woce..ne Do.e et..M M+c..Pl...®r.�:Bo Coro.C........a•n.•'rt Dr..n..c4M 3.6T~ . ..1%1s was. .9.111- Mr °°61.1... /MI."-r°ws.Wm, 50% OFF INSTALLATION' noLIsOF COON.ra-•NaWn£as nu.CWN'V.11S190,1 AN...,. schedule your free design consultation >NswT E.ewCR.CUM (888)886-6133 • Shelfgenie.com Br.T....c.,,,.n co.D a..MEAL/ L FuDD,w'rAmoN".uaww,- .11111.Ala M111.111.11 =,.m sn,ax M.,.w...wr..Nw<W,x w SaM.m NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER'ORDINANCES • . Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on May 8,2018, commencing at 9:00 a.m.,in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 E.Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL The purpose of the hearing is to consider. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND • USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND'USE MAP AND MAP SERIES BY ADDING THE MINI-TRIANGLE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO 377 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS,228 HOTEL SUITES,150 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS,AND 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES INCLUSIVE OF 60,000 SQUARE FEET OF SELF-STORAGE AND 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF CAR DEALERSHIP.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION. 11,TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,CONSISTING OF 5.35 ACRES;AND FURTHERMORE,RECOMMENDING I TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. IPL20160003084I. & • aI AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH - ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN m • THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY(C-4-GTMUD-MXD) C;) ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE Z m • GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY(MPUD-GTMUD-MXD)ZONING DISTRICT FOR A PROJECT N � KNOWN AS THE MINI-TRIANGLE MPUD TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF UP TO,WITH A MIX TO BE DETERMINED CI BY MAXIMUM'ALLOWABLE TRAFFIC GENERATION, 377 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS,228 HOTEL SUITES, > 111,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USES AND 90,000 SQUARE FEET OF GENERAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE USES,150 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS,60,000 SQUARE FEET OF SELF-STORAGE AND 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF CAR y DEALERSHIP;PROVIDING FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 168 FEET,ON PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHERN "CI CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF DAVIS BOULEVARD AND TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST IN SECTION 11,TOWNSHIP 50 X SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,CONSISTING OF 5.35±ACRES;PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ✓ CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTIONS;AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.(PL20160003054I CO t z l O f PROJECT , co Co- - =LNL . H v) / LOCATION 0 t q a 0 F SDAVIS BLVD m `j �',w o N t T/4.. Q a r• 414 p 6 Z o / u) �Vr° N ' m f • All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCES will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,FL,between-he 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,Suite 401,Collier County Government Center,East 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 8,2018 will be read and considered at the public hearing. • If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners 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 IIbased. 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. • BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COWER COUNTY,FLORIDA • ANDY SOUS, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E.BROCK,CLERK ' By: Teresa Cannon - Deputy Clerk(SEAL) April 18,2018 ND-1983933 L . . SN+apirs Battu 3\,, ,4'ettis NaplesNews.com Published Daily Naples,FL 34110 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida Counties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na- ples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples,in said Collier County, Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.# BCC/COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 1895229 CPSS-2016-3 and PL20 Pub Dates January 26,2018 L1L(, Mz'i (Sig ture of affiant) I r;::'4.... KAROLE KANGAS I I r lana Florida Sworn to and subscribed before me - Commission 2021 ' This January 26,2018 ' ,,,.,,„;, OICO (Signature of affiant) NAPLESNEWS.CON R FRIDAY.JANUARY 26.2018 I 22A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NSIDER ORDINANCE NOTICE Of LAND SLOP ENT CODE CHANGE NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER Notice is hereby given that on Wednesday,February 7,2018,in the Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room,3rd Floor,Building ORDINANCE(S) "F," Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, �� N.aea n given that e,0 Caw(nouns Commiwon we a c meeung on Fmoruaty 15, Naples,Florida 34112,the Collier County Planning Commission, Ro1Re0m .R:OOAtrx.,eo dmc0'.000 Erna.a.o,,.sctRmbWOIwO0000.co'.m"Ga..mm,nr sittingas the localagency and as the Environmental cameo azss"'°E;�.vr m;an,�v 10 rraaa..F:.. planning 9 Y Advisory iM oppose m ma heennoe to consider: Council, will consider an amendment to the Collier County Land Development Code.The meeting will commence at 5:05 p.m.The title ORDINANCE OF THE ROUE of COUNT COMMISSIONERS O GODLIER GROWTH Tl, of the proposed ordinance is as follows: A N AGEMENT PLA ORDLVA9LE NO.KR AS D:NDED.THECOWER COSSET P P PEEC/SE/I PLAN INNG THE UE L.UNINCORPORATED ELEMENT AND WORE COUNTY USE MAP AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ANO MAP SERIES BY ADDING nn.MINT-TRIANGLE MIXED LIE SUBDISTRICT TO Allow OF COWER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE CONSTRUCTION OF LETO 110 RESIDENOALDWELLEN'G LPTre.1e1HOTEL SITTER LT TO TPN '• ,ARE FEET)OF `RIM!LOURAF.EAOFCCASSUERCIALRCOMMERCIAL �ETAILU NE USES,ALL Nr OM.000IN SQL RE NUMBER 04-41,AS AMENDED,THE COWER COUNTY LAND FEEPROVIDING FOR YAXI.NISW HEIGHT OF IMI MEL THE SIEJECT PROPF:RTS IS I.0 CAIED ON DEVELOPMENT CODE,WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE E IN SOUTHERN NON III,OWNMITE H.RAN:E ON IS EAST..CONSISTING of s.A5 ACRES AND LAND REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF FLRTIERNRRE,RECOMMENDING TRANa00 1 OF ria.ADOPTED 8 800 n+¢N T To THE COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA,BY PROVIDING FOR:SECTION ONE, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT T OF ECONOMIC OPPORIL:IVY:PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR ANEMMA.DATE.IPLMIMOMMCPld-Mliell RECITALS;SECTION TWO,FINDINGS OF FACT;SECTION THREE. a ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AN ORDINANCE OF TIE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OE COLLIER 000oerY, CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: REEL AMENDING O001001ce.NO.IaNJr,As AMENDED.nm COLLIER COUNTY LAND CHAPTER ONE-GENERAL PROVISIONS,INCLUDING SECTION FOR11 PXO:NT CODE.000Ir1 RSTABumino 108 00000.000..FLORIDAIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AR.Tw COLLIER COUNTY.FLBY AMENDING THE 1.08,02 DEFINMONS;CHAPTER TWO-ZONING DISTRICTS AND OF THE HEREEINAiODNDFsCRIABED REI:PROPERTY FiCHANGING A NRAL�iOMERCIAL CLAIMS-EATON IN USES, INCLUDING SECTION 2.03.03 COMMERCIAL ZONING 1T:MIXED IRE srentsmIcr OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY DISTRICTS,SECTION 2.03.04 INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, C.4(:TM1D-NLYD0 ZONING DISTRICT TA MIXED PLANNED SNIT DEVELOPMENT IN THE >DXTODUSESUBL STRICR; TOETGAM:O MI0000AS-TRIANGLE XEDUSEDOTRICI OVEREAT mmn SECTION 2.0.9.07 OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION OT+W 0100. O`P ZONING ntarni0T FOR A Pawner KN.IOW As THE 1O:ETT0.A.NGLE SPUD To ALLOW WNSIRUCnos To MO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING LITS.00 HOTEL ETU, 2.03.08 RURAL FRINGE ZONING DISTRICTS;CHAPTER THREE ST TO'LFN SOSARF.FEET OF GROSS FLOPS ARTA OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL INES AND ST BPROVIDINGLFEET OF GROSS OOARE,oCoELT" CE ISLALL WITT - RESOURCE PROTECTION, INCLUDING SECTION 3.05.07 'PO • FRS FALPRLOCATED THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF THE INTEREECtION oe DAVIS ROLEEYARD AND T'AMIA.MI TRAIL PRESERVATION STANDARDS;CHAPTER FOUR-SITE DESIGN Easy IN SECTION u,TOWNSHIP Pe SOL-IT 0ANOE 05 EAST.COWER COUNTY.FLORIDA AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.INCLUDING SECTION 4.02.01 CO 011PROVIDINGANEFFECTIVERDATE IOR000FE U.OF CONDITIONAL I. RESOLUTIONS, DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS FOR PRINCIPAL USES IN BASE ZONING DISTRICTS, SECTION 4.02.03 SPECIFIC STANDARDS YRRalcT FOR LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, c 8 LOCATO11 O SECTION 4.02.04 STANDARDS FOR CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL Y DESIGN,SECTION 4.02.06 STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN .D'',44 i AIRPORT ZONES,SECTION 4.02.14 DESIGN STANDARDS FOR owe nap e DEVELOPMENT IN THE ST AND ACSC-ST DISTRICTS,SECTION 4.03.04 LOT UNE ADJUSTMENT AND LOT SPLIT;CHAPTER SIX 'a.. -INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS AND ADEQUATE PUBUC • '1.F i FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING SECTION 6.01.05 • i SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN; CHAPTER • NINE-VARIATIONS FROM CODE REQUIREMENTS,INCLUDING 3 SECTION 9.03.03 TYPES OF NONCONFORMITIES, SECTION AR interested 00000 ale matted to wpm.,and be heard.Coons w me tenons00.OROPONIGEIEI will Ise mime 9.04.04 SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR MINOR AFTER-THE- Naples.be inspect.at to,8.00MDA N and aw PN1..M°..Comprehensive Planning°-urthermore..Me800 mate.,o00, FACT ENCROACHMENT,CHAPTER TEN-APPLICATION,REVIEW, Made wales,m:nape``sdnet<m Collier Co.(. 0 ik4Gmoe.lomnFloor.Colter County eovamneetCenter. AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES,INCLUDING SECTION trod lE,0„u,g.Any meaMms cenaning to the dogma.00Oindo R]be dented to the GLAD Zoning 80mon.Comwenen,. Section. 0010 10.01.02 DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRED.SECTION 10.02.09 and 80 Clerk,oinee.awsueuwa„i�F.awry ts.ao+e.ml lie AIRED a :a-�ee>r0d ei,n. REQUIREMENTSFORTEXTAMENDMENTSTOTHELDC,SECTION Ila person dec....P..1 any dension inane Ihi the Collier County Planning Comm..w0rasp.+wEr 10.02.13 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD)PROCEDURES, nwda....red al such meeting er heanaw.he MI ne..w a-eeas.i tat aoA..Emy and as awn mamma he SECTION 10.03.08 PUBUC NOTICE AND REQUIRED HEARINGS m may need to ensure mai a.eatim.me of the p,a.eeamos a made.eh.ream,meedes the testimony and ..derwe upon which the appeal.8 to be,rice. FOR LAND USE PETITIONS; SECTION FOUR, ADOPTION OF II you are a person w,th a awe atv sura,needs 010.0oom meden0n n,order ie 000000x.in MIs or.ceaaiw.you AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY OFFICIAL ZONING 0 anagemOiin0OOn'i,.you to. at 33,15 Iaronm 11 t. o Please 3.112,356.(r20sizsz Faulines .Tm. ATLAS, MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FOLLOWING: Nast two days prior to m meeting.Asaare0 Waning da.0es for the Asn g.mpa0d we.00 Nam m On 0000 ZONING MAP NUMBERS 522930,2033N,2033S,2034N,2034S TO a County awmassasels Omw. REMOVE THE ACSC DESIGNATION FOR CONSISTENCY WITH Mack P.sunEnact., THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN;SECTION FIVE,CONFLICT January�� County 18 Commisaan ""1N9iz2" AND SEVERABILITY;SECTION SIX,INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE:AND SECTION SEVEN. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING EFFECTIVE DATE. NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER Location of amendments to allowed uses: AN ORDINANCE FiNotice is hereby given thablt a public hearing will be held by the Coe County Pluming OA.,CON% Co..M,IoR(CCPCI M 9,00 A.M..February IS.2818.in the Board of County Commissioners rTa.w. Meeting Room,Third Floor.Collier Government Center.3299 East Tamimni Toed.Naples VA FL,to consider: toxin _. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER �IE7BIE I COUNTY FLORIDA.AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-20.AS AMENDED. Z iii THE CALUSA ISLAND VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD1.TO , ALLOW UP TO TWO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.NITS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO COMMERCIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMERCIAU I MIXED USE AREA OF THE.PUD:AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, „�;-•�` • FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE.SOUTH SIDE OF GOODLAND DRIVE.(C.R. A 8923,APPROXIMATELY ONE HALF MILE SOUTH OF SAN MARCO ROAD(CR •'....11S,0 �'-"--�. 921.IN SECTION 18.TOWNSHIP 52 SOUTH.RANGE 27 EAST COLLIER COUNTY. - FLORIDA.IPUDA-PL_201NRR10087J Location of amendments to Official Zoning Atlas: • f LOCATION OF ZONING �, ATLAS CHANGE p \}...........„ S'n Marco RD'. S..-'-'7,)::...\:::',..,, 11& V ¢_ �- $ p kyle ` r :::::'BNy. °nV TqC E PROJECT x I`b LOCATION C '`r" °.' ' All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of . 7 the proposed amendments are available for public inspection in the All interntedparunare invited toappear and beheard.Copinofthe propoaedORDINANCE Zoning and Land Development Review Section.Growth Management will be made v variable for inspection at me Collier County Clerks olive.Fourth Floor.Collier Department,2800 N.Horseshoe Drive,Naples,Florida,between County Government Center.3299 past Tamiami Trail.suite 401.Naples.FL.one week prior the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday. to the scheduled hearing.Written comments must be filed with the Zoning Division,Zoning Furthermore,materials will be made available for inspection at the service,section.prior to Frbru.y 15,2018. Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Suite 401,Collier County If a person decides to appeal any dec,Hon made by the cower ro.my Pluming Co. 0005 Government Center,East Naples,one week prior to the scheduled with respect to any matter wnsidered at such meeting or hearing.he will need a record of hearing. that proceeding.and for stich purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation proceedings is made which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal in order to participate in this proceeding.you are entitled,at no cost is to be basedto you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the "0"*•\ If you am 0 porion with a disability who needs any aocommOJaliOn in ordcr t0 participate Collier County Facilities Management Division.at 3335 Tamiami Trail m this proceeding.yea are enfiued,al no cost to you.i0 the provision of certain assistance. East.Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division.located at 3335 Tonnami days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing Trail East Suite IOL Naples.FL 34112-5356.(2391157-0300.at loan two days prior to the impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioner's Office. meeting Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are wadable in the Rivard of County Commissioners Office. Collier County Planning Commission Collier County Planning Commission Mark Strain,Chairman Mark Strain.Chairman January 26,2018 ND-1883723 January 26.2018 ND-1897508 wawa.