Loading...
CCPC Agenda 05/17/2018Page 1 of 3 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., MAY 17, 2018, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST, NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES –April 30, 2018 CCPC/LDC “Special meeting” 6. BCC REPORT- RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN’S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Note: This item has been continued from the May 3, 2018 CCPC meeting: A. PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map by revising the conditional uses subdistrict to allow for the construction of a church or place of worship. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 6.25 acres; and furthermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity; providing for Page 2 of 3 severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to PL20160002577) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the May 3, 2018 CCPC meeting: B. PL20160002577: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a church within an Estates Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PL20160002584) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP , Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the March 1, 2018, CCPC meeting and the April 5, 2018 CCPC meeting: C. PL20170002684: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a parking exemption, to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-152, relating to a prior parking exemption. The subject property is located between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] D. PL20170002382: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 12-26, as amended, the Bent Creek Preserve RPUD, to amend the Master Plan to change the designation of a 1.27± acre area in the northwest portion of the PUD from Recreation Area (“RA”) to Residential (“R”), to remove cellular communication towers from the list of permitted principal uses in Tract RA, to reduce the minimum front yard setback for single-family attached and townhouse to 15 feet, and to add a footnote to the Development Standards Table relating to front yard setbacks on corner lots for property consisting of 138.4± acres, located approximately one-half mile east of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road, in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner] Note: This item has been continued from the May 3, 2018 CCPC meeting: E. An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which includes the comprehensive land regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, to require permanent emergency generators at residential developments with a clubhouse or community center and at facilities with fuel pumps and assisted living facilities or nursing homes, to allow yard encroachments and reduced planting areas for permanent emergency generators at facilities with fuel pumps and assisted living facilities or nursing homes, to amend landscape requirements to provide minimum size of replacement trees in shopping centers and prohibit slash pine and bald cypress, by providing for: Section One, Recitals; Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Adoption of Amendments to the Land Development Code, more specifically amending the following: Chapter Four – Site Design and Development Standards, including Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts, Section 4.05.04 Parking Space Requirements, Section 4.06.01 Generally, Section 4.06.02 Buffer Requirements, Section 4.06.03 Landscaping Requirements for Vehicular Use Areas and Rights-of-Way, Section 4.06.05 General Landscaping Requirements, Section 4.07.02 Design Requirements; Chapter Five – Supplemental Standards, including Section 5.05.04 Group Housing, Section 5.05.05 Facilities with Fuel Pumps, adding new Section 5.05.17 Residential Developments with Community Clubhouses or Recreational Facilities; Chapter Ten – Application, Review, and Decision-Making Procedures, including Section 10.02.03 Requirements for Site Development, Site Page 3 of 3 Improvement Plans and Amendments Thereof; Section Five, Inclusion in the Collier County Land Development Code; and Section Six, Effective Date. [Coordinator: Jeremy Frantz, AICP, LDC Manager] F. PL20160002360/CP-2016-3: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and map series to remove the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill subdistrict from the Urban Commercial district and to add the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed-Use subdistrict to the Urban Mixed-Use district, to allow up to 375 multi-family residential rental dwelling units and 275,000 square feet of gross leasable commercial development, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 31 acres and located at the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PL20160002306) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planer] G. PL20160002306: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Number 99-94 the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), to add 375 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the commercial district in the areas designated on the master plan; by adding development standards for residential structures; by providing a conversion rate from commercial to residential; by revising Exhibit A, the PUD master plan and providing for an effective date. The subject property is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PL20160002360) [Coordinator: Tim Finn, Principal Planner] 10. NEW BUSINESS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. PUBLIC COMMENT 13. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 1 of 10 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, April 30, 2018 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Diane Ebert Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Scott Stone, Assistant County Attorney “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 2 of 10 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the 5:05 meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission for Monday, April 30th. If everybody will rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Roll call by the secretary, please. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes. Mr. Eastman is absent. Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Ebert is here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Ms. Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Mr. Dearborn is absent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Mr. Dearborn let me know ahead of the meeting that he had a family matter to take care of tonight. Which takes us to the one and only advertised public hearing. It's Item 3A. It's for medical marijuana dispensaries in the zoning districts that they would either be allowed or not be allowed in. So we're not going to -- we can do away with disclosures. So, Jeremy, I'll turn it over to you for presentation. MR. FRANTZ: Sure. So the Board gave us direction to come back to them with an amendment that allows medical marijuana dispensaries wherever pharmacies are allowed. This is one of the two options that the state gave us. The other option is to ban dispensaries. That vote was 3-2. The amendment that you have today basically allows dispensaries wherever pharmacies are allowed. We've also included some security site-design standards in an attempt to address some of the concerns/discussion that was raised at some of the board meetings. We've just got the one amendment. We can give a presentation if you'd like, or we can go directly into your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I've read everything. I have questions, but I don't know what the rest -- is there anybody that needs a presentation? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. I've read everything. I have some questions as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then why don't we move right into the questions, but before we do, I'd just like to ask the County Attorney's Office to explain to us what we're actually reviewing tonight in regards to limitations. It appears there's either two issues, and one is we either ban medical marijuana dispensaries from within the county or we accept them, and if we accept them, it has to be to all of the zoning districts outlined within the amendment; is that fairly accurate? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I believe the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike's not on. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe the issue of whether to ban or allow dispensaries has already been decided by the Board in the sense that they have directed staff to proceed with the LDC amendment. So, Jeremy, did you believe you had direction from the Board that they wanted the CCPC direction on whether to ban or allow them? MR. FRANTZ: I believe their direction was just to bring back an amendment that allowed them where pharmacies are. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. So your issue is not whether to ban or allow. Your issue is just on “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 3 of 10 the language in the LDC language. And the bill that was enacted, essentially, said the Board can either ban or allow, and if they allow them, then, essentially, they're to be in the same zoning districts as pharmacies. And we are mostly preempted. We can allow or approve language that doesn't conflict with the state law. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. So with that, why don't we start with questions. Joe, why don't we start with yours and work our way across the panel then. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, do you want to -- just in the writeup, I need clarification. And I know this is from the state statute, so I'm looking at Page 5 of 13 in the italicized version, and it talks about a signage section per Section 381.986, and it goes on. Basically, the last sentence of that paragraph: "A medical marijuana treatment center trade name and logo may not contain wording or images commonly associated with marketing targeted towards children or which promote recreational use of marijuana." And I realize this is state statute, as it says, but what are the criteria for making that determination, and who will make that determination of images? Is there some kind of criteria, or do you have images associated? That's my question regarding the state statute. MR. HENDERLONG: Commissioner, Rich Henderlong, principal planner, LDC code section. The statute is very clear about the department is authorized to approve logos and a sign, wall sign. The text -- there's a section in the statute that talks about advertising. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's a state -- the state will approve? MR. HENDERLONG: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The county is not approving anything or not adjudicating in any way, shape, or form, logos? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You answered my question. Thank you. I do have a question on the LDC amendment, but if anybody has any other questions on the preliminaries... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I've just got a question on the LDC amendment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else got anything on the preliminaries? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess it's a preliminary question. Page 1 of the memorandum, about the middle, indicates that there are two options. These are the options that are in front of us this evening? MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. No, there's two options that were provided by the State. The Board of County Commissioners elected to permit the dispensaries in the same zoning district as a pharmacy with a 500-foot restriction, directed staff to bring that amendment through the process and to the Board of County Commissioners. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I see. So it was a 3-2 vote by the County Commission to approve -- MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- Option 2? MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I think the decision that's been made at this point has been not to ban it. Once the LDC amendment goes to the Board, it's still going to require a 4-1 vote to approve it. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's what I was going to -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So we don't know what's going to happen until it goes to the Board. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER EBERT: So it needs a supermajority to pass at the BCC? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. Land Development Code amendments require a vote of four. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. Then I have one other question, Jeremy. In reading this, it said “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 4 of 10 the rule for the dispensaries is in the unincorporated areas of Collier County. So the City of Naples is not involved in this at all; is that correct? MR. FRANTZ: They would adopt their own ordinance. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Okay. So this is just for the -- okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else in the preliminary? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Heidi, I've got a followup question. I'm a little confused. We have had a series of PUDs and/or DRIs, GMPs come through, just recently, sports park being one, mini-triangle being another. The Board had already expressed their opinions on those before they came to the zoning action, and we still treated them, though, as issues where we would have full discretion to review them and make recommendations whether they were recommendations in line with what the Board had already approved or otherwise. So now you're telling us in this case we're not supposed to do that? We're just -- because if we are, then why are we hearing it? I mean, if it's a slam dunk, if it's done, then why are we even entertaining it tonight? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, my understanding of what's sent to you is to review the LDC amendment. If you decide that the Board needs to know what your vote is on whether to ban it or not ban it, then you can certainly provide that recommendation if you would like to. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the decision to -- not to ban it, that only required three votes, but the LDC language to implement that decision requires four? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The vote to approve an LDC amendment is four. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. And that vote hasn't happened yet, but by a vote of 3-2 the BCC has approved there being no ban? MR. FRANTZ: I think that that 3-2 vote was related to the direction to move forward in this manner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh. All right. So is the issue of 1 versus 2 still in front of us? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was trying figure out. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I think if your prerogative would be to suggest to the Board of County Commissioners that from your Planning Commission perspective it was not to adopt the current proposal and to choose the other proposal, that would be within the purview of the Planning Commission. We were directed by the Board of County Commissioners to develop an LDC amendment that would permit dispensaries in the same zoning district with the pharmacy with a 500-foot restriction from the schools, and that's what's presented to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission would like to suggest to the Board of County Commissioners an alternative option, I think that's within the purview of the Planning Commission. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Although, the only alternative is ban it or accept the language presented to us tonight? MR. BOSI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I'm trying to understand. Okay. Well, let's move into the rest of it. Does anybody else -- you want to move in -- anybody have any questions about the LDC language itself? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Page 6 near the top, medical use -- sorry. Page 6 near the top, medical use, Line 6, No. 2, possession, use, or administration of marijuana in a form for smoking in the form of commercially produced food items other than edibles. Can you name me a commercially produced food item that's not edible? MR. FRANTZ: I think the term "edibles" is kind of like a term of art. It doesn't mean edible food. I think it's a type of -- a way to consume the product. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Is there a definition of that in here somewhere that would “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 5 of 10 describe it as being opposed to what Merriam-Webster would usually assume "edible" to mean? MR. FRANTZ: We're just relying on the state statute for the definition. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does the state statute have a definition of "edible"? Does anybody know? MR. FRANTZ: It does. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I don't believe so. Oh, it does? MR. FRANTZ: Yes. The definition in state statute -- I can put it on the visualizer. MR. MILLER: It was working before. MR. FRANTZ: We're maybe having some technical difficulties. The definition is short. "Edibles means commercially produced food items made with marijuana oil but no other form of marijuana that are produced and dispensed by a medical marijuana treatment center." COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That doesn't -- I'm reading this. It says, "Commercially produced food items other than edibles," and the definition you just gave says that an edible is a food item that's edible, right? Am I hearing something wrong? COMMISSIONER EBERT: He's just saying oils. MR. FRANTZ: The term is a little nuanced. In the definition it's not only a food item that is made with marijuana oil but also that's produced and dispensed by a medical marijuana treatment center. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Never mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: What you just mentioned was the liquid form only, correct? Isn't it dispensed for medical by liquid form? Some of it? MR. FRANTZ: I think there are several ways that it can be dispensed. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: But that's edible. I'm looking for a food item other than edible. And to me all food is edible, that's why it's called food. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are we -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: That's why it's called edible. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How'd we get into this? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because you asked if I had any questions and I -- that's the only question I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I asked a question about the zoning aspects of it. I think that's what -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I made my mind up 50 years ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not even going to ask. Okay. Let's move on to the rest of the language. Anybody have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, on Page 6 under No. 5, basically it says the term "medical use" does not include No. 5, its use or administration of marijuana in the following locations. You know, I think some of it's kind of humorous in the sense that I think it probably began in school institutions, but I see they're no -- and that's good they don't allow it, but that's probably where you're going to see a lot of it. But it says, "in the school bus," I understand that, "a vehicle, an aircraft, or a motor boat." What really surprised me is what's this except for low THC cannabis -- cannabis? What is the difference? What is -- what is that there for? MR. FRANTZ: I can't speak to the history of that. I mean, this is coming straight from the state statutes, but I know that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, is it? MR. FRANTZ: Low THC cannabis -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't realize that. Just -- that's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the previous statute allowed the low THC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just was wondering what it was; that's all. MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. It doesn't have the psychoactive effects that other strands have or other forms have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have a general question, Jeremy. If this were to be allowed as a “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 6 of 10 principal use by right like pharmacies are and it would be allowed in all the districts that have the commercial uses where pharmacies are allowed, whether it's C1, 2, 3, 4, or PUDs, what is the basis, then, for denial of it -- because it's all going to be done, then, administratively by staff. There is no public meeting. It gets done -- approved by staff, and it gets opened and starts to sell, correct? MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have a basis for denial different for that than you would anything else? MR. FRANTZ: Nothing different than any other permitted use or, I guess, the other standards in 5.05.16, the new section that we're adding. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And pharmacies, are they the same, as far as your understanding of the sections of the zoning code go, as drugstores? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. We have several terms that we looked at to identify which zoning districts allow for pharmacies; that was drugstore, pharmacy using a SIC code. So there were a couple of different ways that we identified that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I took a look -- when I expected this to come through, I didn't realize it would be anywhere of all the commercial districts in PUDs. That kind of surprised me. And I thought it would -- I thought there would be a limited number. And, basically, the way the statute's written, we have to accept whatever number the state says we have to accept, if we accept it tonight, or the Board accepts it. So, basically, if this passes and we think the state's going to limit dispensaries to two per county, or whatever the number is, if they decide 100 per county, we're -- they pre-exempt -- we're pre-exempted (sic) by them, and we now have that many per county. But I thought we'd be able to pick the zoning districts where we thought this would be least problematic. And the reason that that becomes important is because I looked at where people expect pharmacies to be. Pharmacies are usually something, especially the older population -- we have an average age in our area that's older than other parts of the country. And so a lot of these gated communities that have their little community centers -- and I went and checked them -- they allow pharmacies. So that means Island Walk, Winding Cypress, Ave Maria, Creekside, Greentree Center, Heritage Bay, Kings Lake, all the pelicans -- Pelican Bay, Pelican Marsh, Pelican Strand -- Wilson Boulevard Center, places like that say they can have drugstores. But now -- those now include the dispensaries if someone chooses to open one up there, and the people inside the community wouldn't know it because they'd simply go to staff at the county, apply for it, they'd get a permit, they start building and opening. Is that what you understand the procedure to be? MR. FRANTZ: In general. I mean, I can't speak to each one of those PUDs, what other approval might be needed. But, yeah, in general. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I -- okay. Well, I can tell you -- I just told you, they're principal uses by right, so they can be there. I just want to make -- I'm just trying to understand. So this is -- once this is done, no one will know where they're popping up until they pop up, unless they're monitoring all the SDPs or building permits that come to the county, which I don't know how anybody could do that. MR. HENDERLONG: Mark, we went through and looked at all the PUDs. There's 46 of them that have it identified either as SIC Code 5912, or a couple of the PUDs refer to C2 or C3, a few of them. And I've got a little chart if you want to see them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I've already look at them, so okay. MR. HENDERLONG: And then the third one is -- there's one that's called Group 59 for PUDs. So when new PUDs come in, you have the right to review or reject them, for the new ones. What we're addressing are all the other ones that have already been approved, so they're preempted or grandfathered in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I understood all that. I just wanted to make sure I understood how these would be subsequently followed up with issuing their permit only. Mike? MR. BOSI: And, Chair, you are correct. Anywhere where pharmacies would be permitted, as long as they're not in violation of that 500 feet within a school, they would be permitted administratively, and the community would not have an ability -- the community does not have an ability to weigh in on that individual “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 7 of 10 decision because it would be permitted by right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if I'm not mistaken, I saw the -- the statute referred to the numbers of dispensaries. There's no debate on our side on that because we can't limit them. That's the job -- the state does that by -- we're preempted, then, by them. So we, theoretically, have nothing to say about that either. Okay. That's kind of what I was trying to understand. Anybody else have any questions? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I do. Being you mention that, if these are in PUDs, some of these, does that mean someone with a medical reason to go in can go into one of these areas if they put it in a PUD? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They couldn't if it was a pharmacy, because a gated community, you still -- that doesn't mean the business is open to the public. It's like the Divosta products that we have in the county. They built their own village centers. You don't go in there because you want to shop in their village center. That's for the residents, at least that's my understanding. Yeah, Mike's nodding his head "yes," so. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Just double-checking. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions before we go to public speakers? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have one comment. The 500 square feet or, correction, the 500 feet from a school. I know the code does allow for other entities or businesses to be 500 feet. I personally think it should 5,000 feet and not 500 feet from any school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a little hard to elaborate. Why don't you say 5,280? That's one mile. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'd say one mile then. I was being nice. I gave them the extra. No closer than one mile from any school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think it's our -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Five hundred feet is from here to when I talk to my car. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There are so many schools in this town that, you know, between grammar schools and private schools and all, I'd have to see a map of that two-mile circle around every school before I'd think to even vote for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we can change that. That's set by the state. That's not an issue for debate. I think Joe was just trying to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- editorialize a point. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, anybody else have any questions on this before we go to public speakers? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I can see the room's full, so how many public speakers do we have registered, Mike? MR. BOSI: We have none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would anybody member of the public who's here like to speak on this tonight? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me ask this, Mark. I mean, on Page -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get back to you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- 13. Sorry. On Page 13 of 13, it does say 500 feet right in the -- and we cannot change that 500 feet? Is that state statute? MR. BOSI: As Heidi had mentioned, we cannot be more restrictive than the current statute allows. The statute allows us to put a 500-foot separation requirement between these facilities and an educational plant. And other than that, we are bound by the statute we're provided. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is it 500 feet in the state statute? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct. There is an ability for the Board, if you wanted to include that in the LDC, is to grant a waiver, but there's no ability to create a greater distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'll just ask one more time to be clear: Is anybody here from the “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 8 of 10 public who would like to speak on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No one acknowledged. Jeremy, do you have any defense/closing comments you'd like to make? MR. FRANTZ: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If anybody doesn't have any other questions, we can entertain a motion. Does anybody have any? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question, I guess, is also laced with a comment or two. Personally, I am somewhat familiar the therapeutic capabilities of marijuana, and I believe that most of the studies point to that as a legitimate use, that either palliative purposes or, as therapies, marijuana is a useful and valuable thing. And I'm not going to express an opinion on the recreational side because that's not before us, although, personally, I think that it should be treated the same way that alcohol is. Now, having said that, it's still illegal under federal law, and I just can't get my mind around how we or the State of Florida could proceed to enact something that is in direct violation of federal law. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I agree. Absolutely agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments or questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, one more question on my part. Like, a pharmacy can deliver drugs -- and they've delivered plenty during the opioid crisis -- can they deliver marijuana if this were allowed? MR. FRANTZ: Medical marijuana dispensaries, yeah, they can deliver. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if there was only dispensaries in Lee, Hendry, Charlotte, or other surrounding counties, they could deliver in our county? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to know. Thank you. So with that, is there -- Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Can a pharmacy sell medical marijuana? MR. FRANTZ: No. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: No. Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They have to be a licensed distributor. The state is going to control all the distribution and licensing, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Diane? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I have checked into this, and there is one going to be going in Bonita Springs. They make deliveries. So even if Collier County, which I would love to see, say no, we are not denying anyone their medical marijuana. They can get it through Bonita Springs or anyone else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that in mind, if there's no other comments, is there a motion? Anybody willing to make a motion? COMMISSIONER EBERT: Sure. I'll make the motion we deny this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the motion's got to be our recommendation to the Board to, No. 1, either ban -- just to do No. 1, ban medical marijuana dispensaries outright or, No. 2, to adopt the recommendations or the language that staff produced for the LDC amendment, so... COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a motion for No. 1, just to ban the medical marijuana for Collier County. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Discussion? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want to put one thing into the record. I subscribe to Scientific American. The latest issue of Scientific American, Page 10, has an editorial by their Scientific American's board of editors. It says, "End the War on Weed." You know, like I made the comment about "I made my mind up 50 years ago," 70 percent of the people in Florida have just said that they approve of medical marijuana. There's something going on with “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 9 of 10 state's rights where now all of a sudden people that were opposed to state's rights are starting to realize maybe the state knows better than the federal government. You know, I'm going to vote against Diane's motion. COMMISSIONER EBERT: That's fine. It's going to be taken up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The motion was made to recommend to the Board to ban medical marijuana dispensaries -- COMMISSIONER EBERT: In Collier County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- in Collier County. Well, yeah, it's the only county we have jurisdiction over. So with that, all those in favor of that motion, signify by saying. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 4-2. Okay. So that's the only item on our agenda tonight. Jeremy, is there anything you want to add since you're standing there so patiently? MR. FRANTZ: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You could have put a bunch of other stuff on here tonight, too. That takes us to public comments. Is anybody in the public wishing to speak on this item? Hearing none, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Wait a minute. Wait. Before we end, though, I'm a little bit uncomfortable because the LDC amendment has gone to this board for their recommendation, so -- and you're just going to say ban and not adopt? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what we said, but -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Basically all the language that we questioned we were told we can't change because we're preempted by the state. So what do you want us to do? What could we possibly do? I don't know, Heidi. I don't know how to get there. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. All right, then. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, it's either yea or nay; that's what I understand. And it got the nay vote. So with that, there was a motion made. Is there a second to adjourn? COMMISSIONER EBERT: I make a second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER EBERT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. “Special LDC/CCPC” April 30, 2018 Page 10 of 10 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 5:35 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected ______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. AGENDA ITEM 9.A This item was continued from the May 3, 2O18, CCPC meeting. You have received the complete packet at the May 3" meeting. Attached are additional materials. PL2O16OOO2584/CPS$2O17-1: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Managl,ement Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Golden Gate llrea Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map by revising the conditional uses subdistrict to allow for the construction of a church or place of worship. The subiect property is located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 6.25 acres; and furlhermore, recommending transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to PU|OI60002577) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principa! Plannerl ORDINANCE NO. 2OT8-- AII ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOIYERS OF COLLIER COI,'NTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05, ,AS AMENDED, TIIE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UI\INCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COTJNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA FTJTURE LAND USE MAP BY REVISING THE CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR TIIE CONSTRUCTION OF A CIIURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTIIEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOI'LEVARD IN SECTION II, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTII, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 6.25 ACRES; AI\[I} F.URTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANsntrTTALOF TIIE ADOPTED AMEI{DMENT TO THE TI,ORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORT[NITY; pROWDING FOR SEVERABILITY AI\ID PROYIDING FOR AIY EFFECTTVE DATE. 1PL20160002s841 WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Secrion 163.3161, et. seo.. Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Govemment 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 I0, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 201 I provides authority for local govemments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines ce(ain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. requested an amendment to the Golden Gate fuea Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map to revise the Conditional Use SuMistict to allow a church or house of worship; and WHEREAS, pu$uant to Subsection 163.3187(l), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critica.l state concern or an area of critical economic concem; anci WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and ll74Mp{098?]141l5o6/tl 96 Words underlined are added, words serck$reugh have been deleted. Gracc Romanim Churlh GMPA P1201600025E4 5t7 8 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COI.JNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, thAt: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GRowTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. - If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invatid 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: EFFECTTVE DATE. The effective date of this plan arnendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local govemmenimat ttre plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administratiou 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 o. .o.-ence before-it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administation Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolutionaffrrming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be ,"ni to thl state land planning agency. lr 7-cMP{09tzl4t t50&rl 96 Grace Romanian C'trurch GMpA PL20r@002584 srut8 words underlined are added, words smrck+hreugh have been deleted. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of 2018. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: ANDY SOLIS, CHAIRMANDeputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: r.1.( Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A - Proposed Text and Map Amendment lt7-cMp-00982/l4r 1506/ll 96 Words underlined are added, words sarrsk*hreugh have been deleted. Grace Romanian Church GMPA PL20 I 60002584 517/18 EXHIBIT A GOLDEN GATE AREA ]SASTER PLAN 2. ESTATES DESIGNANON Eatates-M lxed Use District Conditlonal Uses Subdietrict Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning districl within the Golden Gate Estates area. ln order to control the location and spacing of new conditional uses, one of the following four sets of criteria shall be met: a) Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: c) Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions: d) Transitional Conditional Uses: A. 3. e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 1. Temporary use FU) permits for moder homes, as defined in the collier county Land oevelopment code, may be allowed an),where within the Estates-Mixed use eiistria.conditional use permits for the ourpose of extending the time period foi useoiiti structure as a model home shall be required, and sha be subject to the provisions ofsection 5.04.048. and c. of the colier county Land Devebphent codi, orctinanceNo. o4.4 t, as amendEd. such conditionar uses shail not be'subjea tolhllo*iion;rc teria of the conditional uses subdistrict, and may be alloryed inywhere wiinin ttreEstates-Mixed Use Distric.t. Page I Row of asterisks (* *. **) denotes break in text. Conditional Use permits for excavation, es provided for in the Estates zoning district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use Oistrict. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, is allowed on 1rac122, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in th6 Estates Zoning Districl is allowed on the north 't80 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center lmmokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Westem Estates lnfill SuMistrict Golden Gate Parkway lnterchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway lnstitutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistric{ Conceptual Plan Everglades - Randall Subdlstrict Southbrooke Offioe Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions [r LPl: 65040r.dhtrld G\0l6lL!!l4s!rvi.u\hqnradn\e.! thdnrm 0rTr\crDPl.| rnrdid\al?c]*l hlscrhtriliqrlTsdt sal Eilb!\Ossl?.1 Grl(t foluiu tuEf ru0lG2$f\En lil r rd a 4 ltvitd iJ/5+18 Page2 Words UdeI!!B! are added; words ssue'kS+eu€h ere deleted. 2. 3. 4. Provisions), EXHIBITA PETrrroN pL20160002584 I CPSS-2017-l ^LT! CONDITIoNAL UsEs SUBDISTRICT: CoLLIER BoULEVARD SPECIAL PRoVISIoNS W' coLLTERCoLNTy,FLozuDA 0 750 1,500 3,OOO Feet|+l_++-+-+l LEGEND CONDMOML US€S SUEDISIRICT COLLIER BOULRARD SPECIAI. PROVISIONS MEPAFED OY: 'IE'II YAXG, AICPGiolvH ra,l^oElrE,\Ir OE AnreE trLE cParlotr.l slrE LoCAT,oN uAP.tui SUBJECT SITE cPss-2017-1 -z olo l 't I EXHIBIT ''A''PETITION PL20r60002584 / CPSS-201 7-1 EEIAESflOIEIIDqffi Ib__b Irw.a* J b.o|Ebrior -ffi99"- Iffi,H I -q*--** IEdlr-"tuj-. IE-"dhfubdldd I-q** Ie*.r-l. GOLDEN GATE AREA^c{ LTLTLUEN LrAt E AKEA 69>. FUTURE LAND USE MAP 0 05 1 2 3 I KendallMarcia From: Sent: -subject: Jan Lopata <JL24oz@hotmail com> Saturday, Nray 05, 2018 12:43 Pt [,,lcDanielBill; FaulknerSue RE proposed zoning change on Weber Blvd S. Sir: I am a resident in the area between white Blvd and Golden Gate Blvd. offsouth weber Blvd. The zoning is residentialestates and has been since before I moved here over 15 years ago. I have lived in Naples since 1957 1 selected this area as it was nrce and a basically rural area compared to the down town area that was, even 15 years ago, getting to be over built and crowded. I know that th is is just normal groMh but it gets old after awhile so I chose to have a bit more elbow room and here is where I chose to build and retire and want to stay. I am sure you are aware of the proposed church that is planned to be built on the corner of Weber Blvd S and GoldenGateBlvd. Also fronting on Collier Blvd as well. Since it requires a zoning change to conditional useor whatever allows it I think the proposal still requires approval of the County commissioners by vote. The planning commission seems to be in favor of the change at this point. Weber Blvd has seen a huge increase in traffic thru this residential area and it gets worse every year. The daily traffic by parents bringing their children to and from the cypress middle school and the people who use it to short cut the traffic on Collier Blvd. The owner of the property for the proposed church, to my knowledge isn't a resident here. That property has been for sale the whole time I have lived here and the owner has tried several times to get the zoning changed. He was denied allthose times. The residents have spoken and made themselves clear that they do not want the zoning changed. The owner is not vested in this community because he owns property 1e cant sell for whatever profit he wants. I am sure there is more history behind that, but its not fair for the \dwner to make the people who live here 24/7 pay for his mistakes. The proposed entra nce on Weber will make traffic on Weber a significant daily rncrease. The entrance should have been planned off Collier Blvd. regardless of the cost to the developer. lt rs possible it cant be done due to the proximity to Golden Gate Blvd., so they figured its ok to dump allthe traffic generated by the church into the neighborhood. The statement that it will only increase on Sunday is wrong as it also has proposed a day care center and there will likely be many events especially on allthe holidays as well. This will likely add traffic in the evening hours as well. They even propose a farmers market. The proposed drain field is adjacent to wells and would be a health issue. When that was pointed out to the Commission at the meeting, one ofthe commissioners made a joke about it. I was told Collier County also purchased land near enough to it for a planned well At the planning commission meeting they also tried to add other uses beyond the original plans hoping to get them added without documents including a residence for the pastor. Thereare probably even more changes the Weber Blvd. and area residents aren't aware of yet that will somehow find a way in if the 20ning change is approved. What isn't included could be approved just by doing an insubstantial chanBe to the documents once the zoning change is done. Thrs is a residential area and should stay that way. The zoning change should not be allowed as the church would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. They even used the argument worst case scenario by using which would you rather have a 7-11 or a church. They already tried to get a 7 11 type store once before and it was denied! I don't remember what other zon ing changes were attempted but they were denied as well. lfyouwouldlikelcanfindoutforyou. I will alsoforwardcopiesofthtsemailtothe other Commissioners and ask for their support. There was a comment made at the meetinB that we would be hard pressed to stop a church. That makes it sound hke its already approved. We are not anti church, we just )n't want any zoning changes that will make negative changes to our neighborhood. Thrs rs not a win/win -ltuation. The land owner wins but the residents loose. The church comment would be valid if the zoning was already in place but its not and shouldn't be. I haven't found out if a church gets any reductions in permitting and impact fees or property taxes and zoning fees erther. So I wonder how much revenue the county loses if it doesgetbuilt. With in about a 2-3 mile radius there are 3 or 4 chu rches already. The one on the corner of Vanderbilt and collier often hires off duty cops on sundays to direct the traffic so the religious attendees can get out of their parking lot. At this proposed site the access/exit on Weber will likely cause a traffic jam on v,/eber when they all leave. Theaccess/exitonGoldenGateBlvdcanonlyturnrightandgoeastorturnonto Weber where they will encounter the Weber exit. lts going to be like when the people exit a movie, they all leaveatonce. Ithinkall lhavesaidisjustthetipoftheiceberg. lts only going to get worse. The county principle planner is Sue Faulknersue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov. The petition number is SSGMpA- P120160002584/CPSS-2077-7, and CU-PL201600002577, We the residents of this area need your support to defeat the zoning change to allow the church. Thank you for your attention and help. Jan Lopata Naples Fl 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-B This item was continued from the May 3, 2018, CCPC meeting. You have received the complete packet at the May 3rd meeting. Attached are additional materials. PL20160002577: A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, providing for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a church within an Estates Zoning District pursuant to Section 2.03.01.B.1.c.1 of the Collier County Land Development Code for property located on the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Collier Boulevard in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion to PL20160002584) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] Page 1 of 2 ver.5.7.18 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: MAY 17, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION CU-PL20160002577, 3899 1st AVE SW COMPANION ITEM: PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 PROPERTY OWNER/ AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Agent: Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples Inc. Frederick E Hood, AICP 6017 Pine Ridge Road #84 Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples, FL 34119 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Conditional Use to permit construction of a new church for the subject parcel, which is zoned E, Estates. A church is listed as an allowable conditional use in the Estates zoning district. There is a companion small scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment with the petition. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: The application was continued to the May 17, 2018 CCPC hearing from the May 3, 2018 CCPC hearings. At the May 3, 2018 hearing, the CCPC requested additional information and clarification regarding proposed conditions of approval related to the project. The clarification items were the specific zoned height and actual height for the steeple feature, maximum square footage area for all structures, list of prohibited accessory uses, maximum square footage for the Pastor’s residence, outdoor lighting as “dark sky” compliant, clustered palms, and the number of parking spaces, and changing the conceptual site plan to address (right turn only on Weber). AGENDA ITEM 9-B Page 2 of 2 ver.5.7.18 The revised Conceptual Site Plan and response to the clarification of the proposed conditions of approval requested at the May 3, 2018 hearing by the CCPC was not provided to the Zoning Division until May 8, 2018, which did not provide sufficient time for the planning group to review the revised documents and provide a recommendation to the CCPC prior to the distribution of the agenda packets. The agent will be requested to present the revised conceptual site plan and provide responses to the CCPC questions at the May 17, 2018 meeting. The back-up CCPC packet materials contains the following information requested by the CCPC: 1.Revised Conceptual Site Plan 2.Revised Conditions of Approval (highlighted and clean) 3.Revised Traffic Impact Statement, Trebilcock PREPARED BY: C. James Sabo, AICP Principal Planner, Zoning Division Growth Management Department PROPOSED ZONING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Church Operating Hours: a. Church services shall be limited to Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. b. Church related meetings/gatherings (i.e. weeknight Bible Study) shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., for no more than 200 parishioners. 2. The Church is limited to a floor area of 24,000 square feet (including no more than 300 seats). 3. The Church shall provide a maximum of 140 parking spaces. 4. The following accessory uses are prohibited: - Daycare - Food services i.e. Soup Kitchens, catering services open to the public or eating places - Educational Services - Outreach programs, i.e. alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation 5. The following accessory uses are permitted (in conjunction with the Church): Outdoor - Multi-purpose / play area - Gazebos - Covered pavilions Indoor - Pastor’s residence (shall be limited to a maximum of 3,500 square feet) - Storage Sheds (shall be limited to a maximum of 1,800 square feet) 6. Signage shall be provided for the Church in accordance with the LDC. The location of signs(s) shall be within 350-feet from the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevards and will be placed along those rights-of-way. Distance shall be measured from the property lines and or right-of-way or access easement boundaries. 7. Leasing of the church facility, or property, to outside groups is prohibited. 8. Special events (operated by the Church) are limited to twelve (12) events per calendar year. 9. Outdoor amplified music or sounds are prohibited. 10. Lighting of the outdoor Recreation Area shall be prohibited. Pastor's residence, shall be lit consistent with typical residential lighting permitted for residential uses within the estates. 11. Site lighting shall adhere to the applicable Collier County Land Development Code Criteria. 12. Site lighting will be Dark Sky compliant with flat panel and full cut off fixtures (BUG rating of U-0--BUG = Backlight-Uplight-Glare). 13. Site lighting fixtures will have a maximum height of 15-feet, within 50-feet of residential property lines, the Weber Boulevard and 1st Avenue SW right-of-ways. A maximum height of 20-feet of height for lighting fixtures applies to the remainder of the project. 14. Project site light fixtures will be shielded away from residential property lines, as applicable. 15. Any Church steeple lighting shall be prohibited. 16. A photometric light level no greater than 0.2 foot-candles will be permitted along residential property lines. 17. Exterior building lighting will allow decorative fixtures in the main entry area (porte cochere, main doorway area) not needing to meet strict Dark Sky criteria. Any building wall pack lighting will be directed downward with shielding. 18. An enhanced 15-foot Type B buffer shall be provided along the abutting residential property’s shared boundaries with the Church property. The enhanced buffer shall provide the following plant materials, in lieu of a wall, and shall reach 80% opacity within one year of installation: • Trees o Installed with 25 gallon, 10-feet tall, 1.75-inch caliper, and placed at 25-feet on center at time of planting. • Hedge o Installed at 5-foot tall, placed 4-foot on center at time of planting. • Areca or Paurotis Palms (clustered) o Installed at 12-foot tall, 12-foot on center, and placed behind the required Type B Landscape Buffer trees at time of planting. 19. Actual building height shall be limited to a maximum of 50-feet for roof type, appurtenances and screening of roof mounted equipment. 20. Actual building height shall be limited to a maximum of 60-feet for a church steeple. 21. Dumpster enclosure shall be placed adjacent to the western edge of the propose Preserve Area. The Church may coordinate with waste management services and Collier County review staff to determine if roll out receptacles may be used in lieu of a dumpster enclosure as required by LDC section 5.03.04. 22. This conditional use shall be limited to a maximum of (12) twelve PM peak hour (weekday) two-way trips and a maximum of 240 peak hour (Saturday & Sunday) two-way trips. 23. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at location(s) as directed by Collier County Division Director, Transportation Engineering or his designee. PROPOSED ZONING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Church Operating Hours: a. Church services shall be limited to Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. b. Church related meetings/gatherings (i.e. weeknight Bible Study) shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 6 p.m. and 9 p.m., for no more than 200 parishioners. 2. The Church is limited to a floor area of 24,000 square feet (including no more than 300 seats). 3. The Church shall provide a maximum of 140 parking spaces. 4. The following accessory uses are prohibited: - Daycare - Food services i.e. Soup Kitchens, catering services open to the public or eating places - Educational Services - Outreach programs, i.e. alcohol and substance abuse rehabilitation 5. The following accessory uses are permitted (in conjunction with the Church): Outdoor - Multi-purpose / play area - Gazebos - Covered pavilions Indoor - Pastor’s residence (shall be limited to a maximum of 3,500 square feet) - Storage Sheds (shall be limited to a maximum of 1,800 square feet) 6. Signage shall be provided for the Church in accordance with the LDC. The location of signs(s) shall be within 350-feet from the intersection of Collier and Golden Gate Boulevards and will be placed along those rights-of-way. Distance shall be measured from the property lines and or right-of-way or access easement boundaries. 7. Leasing of the church facility, or property, to outside groups is prohibited. 8. Special events (operated by the Church) are limited to twelve (12) events per calendar year. 9. Outdoor amplified music or sounds are prohibited. 10. Lighting of the outdoor Recreation Area shall be prohibited. Pastor’s residence shall be lit consistent with typical residential lighting permitted for residential uses within the estates. 11. Site lighting shall adhere to the applicable Collier County Land Development Code Criteria. 12. Site lighting will be Dark Sky compliant with flat panel and full cut off fixtures (BUG rating of U-0--BUG = Backlight-Uplight-Glare). 13. Site lighting fixtures will have a maximum height of 15-feet, within 50-feet of residential property lines, the Weber Boulevard and 1st Avenue SW right-of-ways. A maximum height of 20-feet of height for lighting fixtures applies to the remainder of the project. 14. Project site light fixtures will be shielded away from residential property lines, as applicable. 15. Any Church steeple lighting shall be prohibited. 16. A photometric light level no greater than 0.2 foot-candles will be permitted along residential property lines. 17. Exterior building lighting will allow decorative fixtures in the main entry area (porte cochere, main doorway area) not needing to meet strict Dark Sky criteria. Any building wall pack lighting will be directed downward with shielding. 18. An enhanced 15-foot Type B buffer shall be provided along the abutting residential property’s shared boundaries with the Church property. The enhanced buffer shall provide the following plant materials, in lieu of a wall, and shall reach 80% opacity within one year of installation: • Trees o Installed with 25 gallon, 10-feet tall, 1.75-inch caliper, and placed at 25-feet on center at time of planting. • Hedge o Installed at 5-foot tall, placed 4-foot on center at time of planting. • Areca or Paurotis Palms (clustered) o Installed at 12-foot tall, 12-foot on center, and placed behind the required Type B Landscape Buffer trees at time of planting. 19. Actual building height shall be limited to a maximum of 50-feet for roof type, appurtenances and screening of roof mounted equipment. 20. Actual building height shall be limited to a maximum of 60-feet for a church steeple. 21. Dumpster enclosure shall be placed adjacent to the western edge of the propose Preserve Area. The Church may coordinate with waste management services and Collier County review staff to determine if roll out receptacles may be used in lieu of a dumpster enclosure as required by LDC section 5.03.04. 22. This conditional use shall be limited to a maximum of (12) twelve PM peak hour (weekday) two-way trips and a maximum of 240 peak hour (Saturday & Sunday) two-way trips. 23. For services and other periods and events of significant traffic generation, as determined by Collier County staff, the property owner shall provide traffic control by law enforcement or a law enforcement approved service provider as directed by Collier County staff, with staffing and at location(s) as directed by Collier County Division Director, Transportation Engineering or his designee. Traffic Impact Statement Grace Romanian Church Conditional Use (CU) Zoning Collier County, FL 05/07/2018 Prepared for: Prepared by: Grace Romanian Church Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1090 31st Street SW 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34117 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-398-2527 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee – $500.00 Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Small Scale Study – No Fee Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2 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. 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 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................... 7 Background Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 9 Existing and Future Roadway Network........................................................................................... 9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis ............................................................ 10 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis ...................................................................................................... 11 Improvement Analysis .................................................................................................................. 12 Mitigation of Impact ..................................................................................................................... 12 APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan .......................................................................................... 13 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) .................................................. 15 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition ........................................................ 22 Appendix D: Turning Movement Exhibits .................................................................................... 25 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 4 Project Description The subject project is a proposed institutional facility located in the southeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) intersection. The subject parcel has a total area of approximately 6.25 acres and lies within Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. This parcel is partially vacant land with one single-family residential structure (ref. Fig. 1 – Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan). Fig. 1 – Project Location Map As illustrated in the Master Site Plan, the conditional use zoning application proposes to allow development for 24,000 square feet (sf) multi-purpose church related building, accessory recreation area and accessory structures (up to 3,500 sf pastor’s residence and up to 1,800 sf storage sheds). For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2023 planning horizon. Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5 The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the project’s proposed trip generation. Consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) provisions for church uses, the accessory recreation area and structures are considered passive incidental to the church land use and are not included in the trip generation analysis. In addition, the traffic associated with the existing residence on site is part of the background traffic. As such, no traffic impacts are expected due to the proposed pastor’s residence use. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Development Program Development ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Code Total Size Proposed Conditions Church 560 24,000 sf (300 seats)* Note(s): *Size and seating capacity for sanctuary; sf – square feet. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on April 26, 2017, via email (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist). Connections to the subject site are proposed to be provided via one existing right-in/right-out access on eastbound Golden Gate Boulevard. Trip Generation The project’s site trip generation is based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (most current version). The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most current version is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates are used for the trip generation calculations. The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition. Based on ITE recommendations and consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture and pass-by trips are not considered for this project. The estimated project average weekday trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A. Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6 Table 2A Trip Generation (Proposed Conditions) – Average Weekday Note(s): (1) Sanctuary; sf – square feet. In agreement with the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net new external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for adjacent roadway network is PM. For the purpose of this analysis, the surrounding roadway network concurrency analysis is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour traffic as illustrated in Table 2A. The site access turn lane analysis is based on the projected higher traffic generator for LUC 560 - Church: AM and PM peak hour average weekday compared to Sunday peak hour of generator. In addition, a Sunday peak hour of generator trip generation comparison is provided between two variables: Gross Floor Area (GFA) and the number of seats. For the LUC 560 – Sunday peak hour of generator, the GFA variable is the conservative estimate of the two trip generations and it is used for the operational analysis purposes. As illustrated in the ITE LUC 560 – Additional Data, the Sunday peak hour varies between 9.00AM and 1.00 PM. The estimated Sunday peak hour trip generation is illustrated in Table 2B. Table 2B Trip Generation (Sunday Operational Conditions) Proposed Development 24 Hour Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Church 24,000 sf(1) 167 5 3 8 5 7 12 Proposed Development Sunday Peak Hour of Generator ITE Land Use Size (square feet) Enter Exit Total Church 24,000 115 125 240 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7 Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the development was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning staff. The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour and is graphically depicted in Fig. 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for Peak Hour Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic PM Peak Hour Project Traffic Volume (1) Enter Exit Collier Blvd. 30.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to Golden Gate Blvd. 35% SB – 2 NB – 2 Collier Blvd. 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd. to Pine Ridge Rd. 35% NB – 2 SB – 3 Golden Gate Blvd. 17.0 Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd. 30% WB – 1 EB – 2 Note(s): (1) Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 8 Fig. 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual peak hour, peak direction traffic volume (estimated from 2008 through 2017), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2017 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project, illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the future horizon year 2023. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2017 - 2023) Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2017 AUIR Pk Hr, Pk Dir Background Traffic Volume (trips/hr) Projected Traffic Annual Growth Rate (%/yr)* Growth Factor 2023 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Growth Factor** Trip Bank 2023 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Trip Bank*** Collier Blvd. 30.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to Golden Gate Blvd. 1,220 2.00% 1.1262 1,374 86 1,306 Collier Blvd. 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd. to Pine Ridge Rd. 1,904 2.00% 1.1262 2,145 42 1,946 Golden Gate Blvd. 17.0 Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd. 1,600 2.00% 1.1262 1,802 0 1,600 Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate - from 2017 AUIR, 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate)6. 2023 Projected Volume = 2017 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2023 Projected Volume = 2017 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2023 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 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5- Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. Collier Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10 Boulevard improvements are currently underway and are adequately reflected in the 2017 AUIR. As no future improvements were identified in the Collier County 2017 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location Exist Roadway Min. Standard LOS Exist Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Future Project Build out Roadway Collier Blvd. 30.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to Golden Gate Blvd. 6D E 3,000 (SB) 6D Collier Blvd. 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd. to Pine Ridge Rd. 6D D 3,000 (NB) 6D Golden Gate Blvd. 17.0 Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd. 4D D 2,300 (EB) 4D Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2023 future build-out conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2023 Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2017 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Roadway Link, Peak Dir, Peak Hr (Project Vol Added)* 2023 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Volume w/Project ** % Vol Capacity Impact By Project Min LOS exceeded without Project? Yes/No Min LOS exceeded with Project? Yes/No Collier Blvd. 30.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd. to Golden Gate Blvd. 3,000 (SB) SB – 2 1,376 0.07% No No Collier Blvd. 31.1 Golden Gate Blvd. to Pine Ridge Rd. 3,000 (NB) NB – 2 2,147 0.07% No No Golden Gate Blvd. 17.0 Collier Blvd. to Wilson Blvd. 2,300 (EB) EB – 2 1,804 0.09% No No Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report; **2023 Projected Volume= 2023 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Connections to the subject site are proposed to be provided via one existing right-in/right-out access on eastbound Golden Gate Boulevard. For details see Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Collier Boulevard (CR 951) is a 6-lane urban divided arterial under Collier County jurisdiction, and has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on FDOT Index 301, design speed of 45 mph – urban conditions – the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Golden Gate Boulevard (CR 876) is a 4-lane urban divided arterial under Collier County jurisdiction, and has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on FDOT Index 301, design speed of 45 mph – urban conditions – the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Project access is typically evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Right-of- way Manual: (a) two-lane roadways – 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; and (b) multi-lane divided roadways – right turn lanes shall always be provided: and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two-minute period Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12 for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. The estimated project trips at driveway locations are illustrated in Appendix D: Project Turning Movements Exhibits. Site Access – Eastbound Golden Gate Boulevard A dedicated eastbound right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria and volume threshold. There is an existing right-turn lane approximately 260 feet long. The proposed project is expected to generate 115 vph right-turning movements during the Sunday peak hour of the generator. At the minimum, the turn lane should be 235 feet long (which includes a minimum of 50 feet of storage). As such, the existing right-turn lane is adequate to accommodate projected traffic at this location. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points – turn lane requirements will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available. Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2023 future build-out conditions. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. Based upon the results of turn lane analysis performed within this report, no turn lane improvements are recommended at the project access on Golden Gate Boulevard. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points – turn lane requirements will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 14 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 16 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 17 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 18 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 19 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 20 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 21 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 22 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 23 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 24 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 25 Appendix D: Turning Movement Exhibits Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 26 Grace Romanian Church – Conditional Use Zoning – TIS – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 27 TEL TEL S89°40'50"E 660.00'(P) S89°31'27"W 660.20'(S)N00°19'10"E 680.00'(P)N00°28'33"W 680.00'(S)S89°40'50"E 330.00'(D) S89°32'25"W 330.25'(S)N00°19'10"E 330.00'(C)N00°28'48"W 330.09'(S)S89°40'50"E 330.00'(C) S89°31'27"W 330.00(S) S89°40'50"E 660.00'(P) S89°31'27"W 660.20'(S)275.00'(P)275.00'(S)N00°19'10"E 350.00'(P)N00°28'48"W 350.00'(S)6'± CONCRETE SIDEWALK 6'± CONCRETE SIDEWALK CURB INLET CURB INLET CURB INLET BUS STOP SIGN TELEPHONE PEDESTAL TELEPHONE PEDESTAL BROKEN ASPHALTAND GRAVELMITERED END SECTION WITH 18" R.C.P. MITERED END SECTION WITH 18" R.C.P. CONCRETE APRON ASPHALT ENTRANCE 300.00'(C) 300.02'(S) FOUND PK NAIL AND DISC STAMPED DCH PSM 6279 FOUND PK NAIL AND DISC STAMPED DCH PSM 3279FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN AND CAP STAMPED LB 6569 NORTH 75' OF TRACT 16 (O.R. BOOK 2559, PAGE 2820) 25' SIDEWALK, DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (O.R. 2559, PAGE 2820) 30'X30' DRAINAGE, UTILITY AND MAINTENANCE EASEMENT (O.R. 2559, PAGE 2820)330.00'(P)330.00'(S)275.00'(P)275.00'(S)75.00'(P)75.00'(S)PLATTED 30' WIDE ROAD EASEMENT N00°19'10"E 330.00'(P)N00°28'48"W 330.19'(S)75.00'(P)75.00'(S)WOOD POWER POLE 30.00'(C) 29.98'(S) S89°40'50"E 330.00'(C) S89°32'25"W 330.00'(S) 30' PERIMETER EASEMENT (O.R. BOOK 104, PAGE 239) (O.R. BOOK 1059, PAGE 631) 1ST AVE SW RIGHT-OF-WAYWATER MANAGEMENT AREA0.30 ACRE SEPTIC DRAINFIELD (RESERVED) DEVELOPMENT AREA OUTLINED FOR SANCTUARY/ MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING (24,000 SF & 300 SEATS MAX.) OUTDOOR ACCESSORY RECREATION AREA AND OR PASTOR'S RESIDENCE (NOT TO EXCEED 3,500 SF) GOLDEN GATE BLVD. W RIGHT-OF-WAY WEBER BLVD. S.RIGHT-OF-WAY75' FRONT YARDSETBACK75' FRONT YARD SETBACK 30' SIDE YARD SETBACK 30' SIDE YARD SETBACK 75' FRONT YARD SETBACK 75' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' TYPE D BUFFER 15.0' TYPE D BUFFER 15' TYPE D BUFFER 15' TYPE B BUFFER 15' TYPE B BUFFER 10' TYPE D LBUFFER EXISTING RIGHT TURN LANE PRESERVE AREA (±0.77 ACRE) WATER MANAGEMENT (RETAIN NATIVE TREES AS FEASIBLE)COUNTY CANAL RIGHT-OF-WAY(PLAT BOOK 4, PAGE 79)COLLIER BOULEVARD RIGHT-OF-WAYESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)ESTATES(DEVELOPED WATER MANAGEMENT)ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)ESTATES(DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ESTATES (DEVELOPED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)25' PRESERVESTRUCTURE SETBACK10' PRESERVESITE ALTERATIONSETBACK1 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201Naples, Florida 34104P: 239.434.6060 F: 239.434.6084Company Cert. of Authorization No. 00009496GRACE ROMANIANCHURCH6017 PINE RIDGE RD., #84NAPLES, FL 34119GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCH1DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO.:A.E.R.A.E.R.16-0106SHEET NO: OF SHEET TITLE:PROJECT:DATE:REV.DESCRIPTIONREVISIONSCLIENT:PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANN REQUIRED PRESERVE NOTES 5.15 ACRES (NATIVE VEGETATION ON-SITE) X 15% = 0.77 ACRES 1. EXISTING IMPACTED AREAS WITHIN THE PRESERVE BOUNDARY SHALL BE RE-VEGETATED PER LDC SEC. 3.05.07 AT THE TIME OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL. 2. PRESERVES MAY BE USED TO SATISFY THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AFTER EXOTIC VEGETATION REMOVAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTIONS 4.06.02 AND 4.06.05.E.1. 3. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTINGS WITH NATIVE PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LDC SECTION 3.05.07. AGENDA ITEM 9-C This item was continued from the March 1, 2018, CCPC meeting and April 5, 2018 CCPC meeting. You have received the complete packet materials at the March 1st meeting, and additional materials at the April 5, 2018 meeting. Attached are additional materials. PL20170002684: Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, granting a parking exemption, to allow off-site parking on a contiguous lot zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-4) and providing for repeal of Resolution No. 09-152, relating to a prior parking exemption. The subject property is located between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East in Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] Page 1 of 2 ver.5.7.18 SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ZONING DIVISION-ZONING SERVICES SECTION HEARING DATE: MAY 17, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PE-PL20170002684, 3106 TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH PARKING EXEMPTION PROPERTY OWNER/ AGENTS: Applicant Owner: Agent: Sandbanks LLC Frederick E Hood, AICP 700 Old Trail Drive Davidson Engineering, Inc. Naples, FL 34103 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant seeks approval for a Parking Exemption Application (PE) to permit off-site parking for the subject parcel, which is zoned C-4, General Commercial, and allow for parking on an abutting and contiguous parcel directly east of the subject property, which is zoned RSF-4, Residential Single Family. The parking area is referred to as off-site because it is located on abutting residentially zoned parcels. However, the project area is one contiguous site. The requested PE seeks to repeal the previous parking exemption that was approved under Resolution 2009-152 by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The proposed parking exemption would permit additional parking area for a proposed new retail building at 3106 Tamiami Trail North adjacent to the existing Mr. Tequila restaurant. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: The application was continued to the May 17, 2018 CCPC hearing from the April 5, 2018 and March 1, 2018 CCPC hearings. At the April 5th hearing, the CCPC requested additional information regarding project details, including information related to the use of the proposed 17,000 square foot building, parking AGENDA ITEM 9-C Page 2 of 2 ver.5.7.18 demand, location of parking spaces, emergency access from Rosemary Lane, trash enclosure location, landscape buffers, and site lighting. The Zoning Division compiled a list of the additional information requested by the Planning Commission and provided it to the agent. The revised Conceptual Site Plan and response to the information requested at the April 5, 2018 meeting by the CCPC was not provided to the Zoning Division until May 8, 2018, which did not provide sufficient time for the planning group to review the revised documents and provide a recommendation to the CCPC prior to the distribution of the agenda packets. The agent will be requested to present the revised conceptual site plan and provide responses to the CCPC questions at the May 17, 2018 meeting. The back-up CCPC packet materials contains the following information requested by the CCPC: 1.Revised Conceptual Site Plan 2.North Collier Fire District Dead End Waiver 3.Parking Demand Analysis, Trebilcock 4.Traffic Evaluation Report, Trebilcock 5.Revisions required by CCPC at April 5, 2018 meeting 6.Proposed Parking Exemption Conditions of Approval by Applicant 7.Original application form PREPARED BY: C. James Sabo, AICP Principal Planner, Zoning Division Growth Management Department COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8/1/2017 Page 1 of 7 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PARKING EXEMPTION PETITION NO (PL) PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED Parking Exemption with a Public Hearing: LDC subsection 4.05.02 K.3, Code of Laws section 2-83 through 2-90 and Ch. 3 F. of the Administrative Code Administrative Parking Exemption: LDC subsection 4.05.02 K.1-2 and Ch. 6 C. of the Administrative Code APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Agent/Applicant: ________________________________________________________ Firm: _________________________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: __________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ____________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ Name of Owner(s): ___________________________________________________________ Address: _____________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ___________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: ____________________ E-Mail Address: ________________________________________________________________ BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THIS PETITION IS SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION AND SIGN REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC). GUIDE YOURSELF ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. To be completed by staff COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8/1/2017 Page 2 of 7 PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application. If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. PRINCIPAL SITE: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________Plat Book: Page #: Section/Township/Range: / / Subdivision: __________________________________ Unit: ______Lot: Block: Metes & Bounds Description: ________________________________________________ Size of Property: _____ft. X ______ ft. = _______ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: ______ OFF-SITE PARKING AREA: Section/Township/Range / / Plat Book Page #: Lot: Block: Unit Subdivision: __________________________ Property I.D. Number(s): ________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: ____________________________________________ Size of property: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres Address/general location of subject property: _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ ZONING INFORMATION Zoning of proposed off-site parking lot: ________________________________________________ Zoning of commercial tract the Parking Exemption is proposed to serve: ______________________ Type of land use that the parking exemption is proposed to serve: __________________________ See Attachment "A" for the Legal Description COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8/1/2017 Page 3 of 7 PROJECT INFORMATION Total number of parking spaces required for project: _______________________________________ Number of Parking Spaces Proposed offsite: _______________________________________________ Is the proposed parking lot separated from the permitted use by a collector or arterial roadway? YES NO If yes, please name the roadway: ________________________________________ Does the permitted use propose to share required parking with another permitted use? YES NO ASSOCIATIONS Complete the following for all registered Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. 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 % of Ownership COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8/1/2017 Page 4 of 7 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 % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8/1/2017 Page 5 of 7 f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g.Date subject property was acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: _________________________ Date option terminates: __________________, or Anticipated closing date: _________________ h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. EVALUATION CRITERIA On a separate sheet attached to the application, please provide the following: (Include any necessary backup materials and documentation) For an Administrative Parking Exemption, provide a narrative statement describing the request with specific reference to the criteria noted in LDC subsection 4.05.02 K.1-2.; or For a Parking Exemption with a Public Hearing, provide a narrative statement describing the request with specific reference to the criteria noted in LDC subsection 4.05.02 K.3.b. See Attachment "B" COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8/1/2017 Page 6 of 7 Pre-Application Meeting and Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: Parking Exemption The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At time of submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with the application packet. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. For a Parking Exemption with a Public Hearing, see Chapter 3 F. of the Administrative Code for submittal requirements. For an Administrative Parking Exemption, see Chapter 6 C. of the Administrative Code for submittal requirements. REQUIREMENTS FOR REVIEW # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Completed Application (download current form from County website) Pre-Application meeting notes Conceptual Site Plan measuring 24 in. x 36 in. and 8 ½ in. x 11 in. Narrative Statement (based upon LDC Evaluation Criteria) Warranty Deed 2 Affidavit of Authorization, signed & sealed 1 Boundary Survey, no more than 6 months old (24 in. x 36in.) 4 Completed Addressing Checklist 2 Location Map 2 10-Year Lease Agreement, if required by the approval criteria (see LDC subsection 4.05.02.K.2.a)2 Electronic copies of all documents & plans *Please advise: The Office of the Hearing Examiner requires all materials to be submitted electronically in PDF format. 1 ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS: Following the completion of the review process by County review staff, the applicant shall submit all materials electronically to the designated project manager. Please contact the project manager to confirm the number of additional copies required. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. __________________________________ _________________ Agent/Applicant Signature Date __________________________________ Printed Name COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 8/1/2017 Page 7 of 7 FEE REQUIREMENTS  Parking Exemption: $1,500.00 o Additional fee for 5th and subsequent reviews, 20% of original fee  Pre-Application Meeting, if required: $500.00 (Applications submitted 9 months or more after the date of the last pre-application meeting shall not be credited towards application fees; a new pre-application meeting may be required.)  Estimated Legal Advertising Fee for the Office of the Hearing Examiner, if required: $1,125.00  Property Owner Notification Fees, if required: $1.50 Non-certified; $3.00 Certified return receipt mail (Petitioner to pay this amount prior to advertisement of petition) All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners The completed application, all required submittal materials, and the permit fee shall be submitted to: Growth Management Department/Zoning Division ATTN: Business Center 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 PARKING EXEMPTION AREA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The Parking Exemption area is limited to lots 14, 53, and 55 of the Rosemary Heights Addition subdivision as shown on the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering. The plan is conceptual only and utilized for Parking Exemption approval only. Final site design and development plans shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and county laws and regulations; and 2. The Parking Exemption is limited to the provision of typical parking lot features and support items i.e. water management and vehicular circulation. This area shall be restricted for use by the proposed concept building and Mr. Tequila restaurant only; and 3. Parking within the PE area is restricted to paved surface parking; and 4. The use of the Parking Exemption area identified in the "Sandbanks Redevelopment Conceptual Site Plan" prepared by Davidson Engineering for additional parking shall be restricted to serve normal retail business hours of operation. Signage will be posted restricting the parking exemption spaces to hours of use between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM; and 5. Parking Exemption Area Lighting – Parking lot lighting within the Parking Exemption Area will be restricted to light fixtures having an overall height no greater than 42 inches and shall be restricted to operating in the Parking Exemption Area between the hours of 6:30 AM and 10:30 PM. Pole Lighting (no higher than 10-feet in height) for the safe illumination of the drive aisle (within the Parking Exemption Area) is permitted. Site lighting shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line(s), and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM – 10:30 PM; and 6. C-4 Area Lighting (adjacent to Parking Exemption Area) – Lighting provided at the rear of any building and structure and adjacent to the parking exemption area within the Sandbanks Development and adjacent to lots 57, 59 and 18 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1 & 2, Pages 78 & 83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County) shall be in the form of shielded structure mounted wall packs. These shielded fixtures shall be placed no higher than 10-feet measured from finished floor of the building or structure. Pole Lighting (no higher than 10-feet in height) shall be Dark Skies compliant and installed to protect neighboring properties from direct glare by directing all light sources away from adjacent residential properties. Site lighting shall be provided with full cutoff shielding and not exceeding 0.2 foot-candles at the shared property line(s), and restricted to operating between the hours of 6:30 AM – 10:30 PM; and 7. An 8-foot precast concrete, composite fencing materials, concrete masonry, or brick wall shall be provided and located a minimum of 6 feet from the common property line adjacent to lots 57, 59 and 18 of the Rosemary Heights Subdivision (recorded in Plat Books 1 & 2, Pages 78 & 83, respectively of the Public Records of Collier County); within a 15-foot wide Collier County LDC Type B Landscape Buffer; and 8. There shall be no direct access from the adjacent streets to the parking exemption area. Access to this parking area shall be via the commercially zoned property. Revisions required for Sandbanks May 17 CCPC meeting Prepared by C. James Sabo, AICP Principal Planner-Zoning Division To Fred Hood, Jessica Harrelson: Revised narrative and how much of the 17K sf is going to be office because parking rate calculation is for shopping center. Response: Due to the conceptual nature of the project redevelopment, an approximation of office space square footage, to be provided within the proposed shopping center, cannot be provided. Trebilcock Planning and Engineering has been engaged to provide a parking demand analysis and traffic evaluation report based on using the LDC requirements for the “Shopping Center” land use. The parking demand analysis was evaluated to determine parking adequacy using two methods: The Collier County LDC parking criteria and the ITE Manual (, both using Shopping Centers for evaluation purposes. Per the conclusion of the analysis, it is determined that the proposed parking lot layout exceeds the overall maximum peak hour parking demand for the project. The traffic evaluation report was assessed based on the land uses illustrated in the ITE Manual, 10th Edition, using Land Use Code 820 – Shopping Center. Per the ITE Manual, shopping centers may contain restaurants among other uses and the ITE traffic data includes their effects. Based on the results of this traffic evaluation report, from a traffic stand point, the proposed redevelopment scenario is less intensive when compared to the approved development parameters. Additionally, the US 41 connection closure is in agreement with current FDOT standards and it provides for increased traffic capacity and safe traffic operations. Not change any of the staff recommendations unless its objection and CCPC can address those. Response: Request is unclear. Please clarify. Need analysis to tie the PE and APR together How did you get to 98 spaces as bottom line? Response: Please refer to the Parking Demand Analysis, prepared by Trebilcock Engineering and Planning. Per the conclusion of this analysis, it is determined that the proposed parking lot layout exceeds the overall maximum peak hour parking demand for the project. Emergency access for Rosemary Lane? Only a small hedge for fire truck emergency vehicle access they can drive over it? Per coordination with the North Collier Fire District, the emergency access to the site (off of Rosemary Lane) has been removed. Please see the attached Conceptual Site Plan. Revise Master Concept Plan document, Loading zones and trash enclosures need to be removed from PE. Response: The Master Concept Plan has been updated to remove the loading zone from the Parking Exemption area. Strike #10 and #11 from Davidson revisions… Response: The updated Conditions of Approval reflect the removal of #10 and #11. Dark sky compliant, remove 10 ft light poles and replace with bollards down washing sconces. If light poles are used, place in east asphalt strip facing C-4 and away from houses. Response: Please see the Condition #’s 5 & 6, updated to include language regarding the light poles within, and outside, the Parking Exemption area. Portray type D buffer on plan and illustrate to show vegetation being used. Response: Renderings to illustrate the project’s proposed vegetation will be shown at the CCPC hearing. Identifying LDC required buffer planting standards is redundant when we are not proposing an alternative buffer planting plan. Neighbors are asking for an 8 ft wall, convey to your client. Response: Please see Condition #7, updated to require an 8-foot wall. Also, parking calculation before project, (approved project), proposed 1-story and differences, not required but requested by the chair. Response: Please refer to the Traffic Evaluation Report, analyzing the differences between the approved vs. proposed projects. 15' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER 10' TYPE D LANDSCAPE BUFFER 15' TYPE B LANDSCAPEBUFFER WITH WALL15' TYPE B LANDSCAPEBUFFER WITH WALL25' FRONT YARD SETBACK25' FRONT YARD SETBACK25' FRONT YARD SETBACK 25' SIDE YARD SETBACKABUTTING RSF-4 ZONINGPROP. ONE-STORY SHOPPING CENTER AREA 17,128 SF C-4 ZONING RSF-4 ZONING C-4 ZONING RSF-4 ZONING EXIST. SHOPPING CENTER AREA (RESTAURANT) ±4,593 SF CONTIGUOUSLY OWNED PARCEL NOT INCLUDED IN PARKING EXEMPTION APPLICATION RIDGE STREET (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) ROSEMARY LANE (PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH (U.S. HIGHWAY 41(PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY)EXIST. OUTDOOR DINING AREA (±784 SF) 1 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201Naples, Florida 34104P: 239.434.6060 F: 239.434.6084Company Cert. of Authorization No. 00009496SANDBANKS, LLC700 OLD TRAIL DRIVENAPLES, FL 34103SANDBANKS REDEVELOPMENT1DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO.:JAWJAW17-0036SHEET NO: OF SHEET TITLE:PROJECT:DATE:REV.DESCRIPTIONREVISIONSCLIENT:PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTUAL SITE PLANN PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHOPPING CENTER < 400,000 SQ. FT. @ 1 SPACE/250 SQUARE FEET SHOPPING CENTER (SC) = 22,505 SQ. FT. PER LDC SEC. 4.05.04 G, NO MORE THAN 20 PERCENT OF A SHOPPING CENTER'S FLOOR AREA CAN BE COMPOSED OF RESTAURANTS WITHOUT PROVIDING ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THE AREA OVER 20 PERCENT. SC - PROPOSED BUILDING AREA = 17,128 SQUARE FEET SC - RESTAURANT FLOOR AREA = 5,377 SQUARE FEET -20% OF SC = 4,501 SQUARE FEET -876 SQUARE FEET (IN EXCESS OF 20%). THIS EXCEEDS THE 20% RESTAURANT AREA ALLOTTED (4,501 SQ. FT.) IN THE SHOPPING CENTER PARKING CALCULATION BY 3.89% ADDITIONAL PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR THE EXISTING RESTAURANT PER LDC REQUIREMENTS SHOPPING CENTER PARKING (21,629 SF / 250) =>86.52 SPACES REQUIRED EXCESS RESTAURANT PARKING ( 876 SF OR 33 SEATS / 2) => 16.5 SPACES REQUIRED OVERALL PARKING REQUIREMENT: 86.52 (SHOPPING CENTER WITH ALLOWABLE RESTAURANT SQUARE FOOTAGE) + 16.5 (EXCESS RESTAURANT SEATS) = 103.02 SPACES REQUIRED PARKING :103 SPACES PROVIDED PARKING : 100 SPACES NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT Prevention Bureau BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSION J. Christopher Lombardo, Chairman  Norman E. Feder, Vice Chairman  Richard Hoffman, Secretary-Treasurer James Burke, Commissioner  Ramon E. Chao, Commissioner  Christopher L. Crossan, Commissioner Margaret Hanson, Commissioner  John O. McGowan, Commissioner 6495 Taylor Road Naples, FL 34109  (239) 597-9227  Fax (239) 597-3522  www.northcollierfire.com April 10, 2018 To: John Carr Manager, Sandbanks LLC Re: Sandbanks 3126 Tamiami Trail N Naples Fl 34103 Ref: Parcel 71020080000 Mr. Carr, I am in receipt of your request to waive the FFPC 6th Edition NFPA 1-18.2.3.4.4 Dead End requirement of 150’ for the East side parking lot. The proposed dead-end length is approximately 230’ with no provision for apparatus turn-around. Any changes to the design that affect conditions of this waiver are void and necessitate a re-review of the deviation request. Use of this waiver accepts conditions within. Dale E. Fey, Jr. Fire Marshal North Collier Fire Control/Rescue District 6495 Taylor Rd. Naples, Fl. 34109 dfey@northcollierfire.com 239-597-9227 - Office 239-552-1365 – Direct Parking Demand Analysis Sandbanks Redevelopment Collier County, FL 05/07/2018 Prepared for: Prepared by: Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-434-6060 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Parking Demand Analysis has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. 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 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4 Parking Demand Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ............................................................................................... 9 APPENDICES Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan .......................................................................................... 10 Appendix B: ITE Parking Generation, 4th Edition (Excerpts) ........................................................ 12 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 4 Project Description The Sandbanks project is an existing zoned approved residential/commercial development pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 09–152, as may be amended. The project site is located east of US 41 (Tamiami Trail North), between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County. Refer to Fig. 1 – Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Fig. 1 – Project Location Map The Sandbanks redevelopment project consists of a 5,377 sf Restaurant (existing land use to remain on site), one Single-Family dwelling unit (currently developed to remain – not included in the parking exemption application) and a proposed 17,128 sf Shopping Center building. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5 Table 1 Proposed Development Program Development Size Proposed Land Use Commercial 17,128 sf Shopping Center Commercial 5,377 sf(4,593 sf inside and 784 sf outside); 199 seats Shopping Center – Restaurant(1) Note(s): (1) Existing use on site to remain. There are 100 proposed parking spaces (96 standard spaces and 4 handicapped spaces) for the project. In addition, consistent with provisions contained within the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Sec. 4.05.06 (reference off-street loading parking), one off-street loading area is provided for receiving and shipment of commodities. The purpose of this analysis is to establish whether there is sufficient parking (handicapped and standard spaces) to adequately service the new development demand. Parking Demand Analysis Parking demand refers to the amount of parking that would be used at a particular time and place. It is a critical factor in evaluating parking solutions. Parking demand is affected by various factors such as trip rates, time of day, parking duration and geographic location. For the purposes of this report, parking adequacy is determined based on two methods: Collier County LDC parking criteria and shared parking analysis based on Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual. A. Collier County Parking Criteria Requirements for off-street parking are illustrated in Collier County LDC – Sec. 4.05.00 – Off- street Parking and Loading. Parking space requirements are evaluated based on the following LDC land uses: Restaurant (Sit-down) and Shopping Center (with gross floor area less than 400,000 sf). Per LDC parking criteria, no more than 20 percent of a shopping center’s floor area can be composed of restaurants without providing additional parking for the area over 20 percent. The parking space requirements are functions of the type of use and various size criteria (i.e. square feet, number of seats). Minimum parking requirements for the proposed shopping center building (17,128 sf) and for the 20% allowable restaurant (4,501 sf) are calculated based Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6 on the shopping center LDC parking rate. The minimum parking associated with the restaurant area exceeding 20% allowable is determined based on the LDC restaurant parking criteria. For the purposes of this report, the number of seats associated with the excess restaurant area (876 sf) are determined as a fraction of the overall number of seats (199 seats) corresponding to the overall restaurant area (5,377 sf). Table 2 illustrates the proposed uses and the applicable code criteria for the project. As such, based on the LDC parking criteria, the total minimum required parking for the project is 103 parking spaces. Table 2 Collier County LDC – Parking Space Requirements (1) LDC Land Use Size Code Standard Parking Rate Code Required Parking Calculations Shopping Center 17,128 sf 1 space per 250 sf 17,128 sf/250 sf = 68.5 spaces Shopping Center Restaurant 20% Allowable 4,501 sf(2) 1 space per 250 sf 4,501 sf/250 sf = 18.0 spaces Shopping Center Restaurant Exceeding 20% Allowable 876 sf(3) (33 seats) 1 space per 60 sf for public use areas or 1 per 2 seats 876 sf/60 sf = 14.6 spaces 33 seats/2 = 16.5 spaces Total 22,505 sf 103 spaces Note(s): (1) Non-public use areas (kitchen, storage freezer etc.) are disregarded for calculation purposes; (2) Allowable Restaurant – 20% x (17,128 sf + 5,377 sf) = 4,501 sf); (3) Exceeding Allowable Restaurant – 5,377 sf - 4,501 sf = 876 sf; 876 sf x (199 seats/5,377 sf) = 32.4 seats. The Collier County LDC parking requirements illustrate dedicated parking for each proposed uses and do not account for any interconnection between land uses. B. Shared Parking – ITE Parking Generation Manual The overall number of parking spaces serving multiple uses in close proximity to one another may be significantly reduced through shared parking arrangements. Shared parking allows more efficient use of land compared to providing dedicated parking spaces for each use. The minimum number of parking spaces with proposed shared parking is determined following the procedures and land use descriptions of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Parking Generation Manual, 4th Edition. Share parking arrangements recognize that various uses have different peak hours. The peak parking demand for the combined demand of all uses in the development is determined based on the hourly variation in parking demand. Consistent with ITE Parking Generation Manual, the Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7 following land uses are utilized: Shopping Center – ITE LUC 820, and High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant – ITE LUC 932. Refer to Appendix B: ITE Parking Generation, 4th Edition (Excerpts). The ITE description of a shopping center includes provisions for restaurants. For the purposes of this report, the restaurant is considered to be a supportive use to the shopping center. Restaurant parking allowance under the shopping center umbrella is consistent with the LDC parking provisions for shopping centers. For more details refer to Table 3. The peak period demand is illustrated consistent with the ITE Parking Generation “85th percentile peak period parking demand” as corresponding to each land uses shown. Table 3 ITE Parking Generation – Development Program LDC Land Use Size(1) (square feet) ITE Land Use Code ITE Peak Period Demand(2) (vehicles per 1,000 sf) Shopping Center 17,128 820 - Shopping Center Weekday – 3.90 Saturday – 3.40 Shopping Center Restaurant 20% Allowable 4,501 820 - Shopping Center Weekday – 3.90 Saturday – 3.40 Restaurant Exceeding 20% Allowable 876 932 – High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant Weekday – 17.40 Saturday – 20.40 Total 22,505 Note(s): (1) refer to Table 2 from this report; (2) Shopping Center – weekday parking demand shows ITE rate for Friday (Non-December), Saturday parking demand shows ITE rate for Saturday (Non-December). High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant – parking demand shows ITE rate for Restaurant with Bar or Lounge subset. The development parking demand hourly distribution is consistent with the ITE time-of-day distribution of parking demand associated with each land use. The estimated hourly parking demand for proposed development is illustrated in Tables 4 and Table 5, for weekday and Saturday conditions, respectively. Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 8 Table 4 ITE Parking Generation – Weekday Hourly Parking Demand Hour Beginning Shopping Center Parking Demand per 1,000 sf 21,629 sf(1) Shopping Center Restaurant Parking Demand per 1,000 sf 876 sf(2) Restaurant Total Spaces Combined Demand 11 AM 79% - 3.08 67 16% - 2.79 3 70 12 Noon 100% - 3.90 85 49% - 8.53 8 93 1 PM 92% - 3.59 78 39% - 6.79 6 84 2 PM 83% - 3.24 71 27% - 4.70 5 76 3 PM 76% - 2.97 65 19% - 3.31 3 68 4 PM 70% - 2.73 60 22% - 3.83 4 64 5 PM 73% - 2.85 62 60% - 10.44 10 72 6 PM 77% - 3.01 66 94% - 16.36 15 81 7 PM 92% - 3.59 78 100% - 17.40 16 94 8 PM 89% - 3.47 76 81% - 14.09 13 89 Note(s): (1) Data for ITE LUC 820 - Friday – Non-December, to include allowable Restaurant – refer to Table 3; (2) Restaurant exceeding 20% allowable – refer to Table 3; Table 5 ITE Parking Generation – Saturday Hourly Parking Demand Hour Beginning Shopping Center Parking Demand per 1,000 sf 21,629 sf(1) Shopping Center Restaurant Parking Demand per 1,000 sf 876 sf(2) Restaurant Total Spaces Combined Demand 11 AM 90% - 3.06 67 20% - 4.08 4 71 12 Noon 100% - 3.40 74 41% - 8.36 8 82 1 PM 100% - 3.40 74 53% - 10.81 10 84 2 PM 98% - 3.33 73 46% - 9.38 9 82 3 PM 91% - 3.09 67 38% - 7.75 7 74 4 PM 76% - 2.58 56 63% - 12.85 12 68 5 PM 67% - 2.28 50 80% - 16.32 15 65 6 PM 72% - 2.45 53 100% - 20.40 18 71 7 PM 51% - 1.73 38 93% - 18.97 17 55 8 PM 52% - 1.77 39 70% - 14.28 13 52 Note(s): (1) Data for ITE LUC 820 - Saturday – Non-December, to include allowable Restaurant – refer to Table 3; (2) Restaurant exceeding 20% allowable – refer to Table 3; Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9 Based on the ITE hourly parking variation results, the peak parking demand for the combined demand of the development proposed land uses is determined to be 94 parking spaces and occurs on weekdays at 7.00 PM – 8.00 PM. As such, a shared parking arrangement at peak conditions would allow for a reduction of approximately 9% compared against the Collier County LDC parking requirements (103 parking spaces as illustrated in Table 2). Therefore, based on ITE Parking Generation criterion, the 98 parking spaces provided are adequate to accommodate the parking needs for the combined land uses. Conclusions and Recommendations The redevelopment application proposes 100 parking spaces on the property. The Collier County LDC parking standards criteria result in a conservative parking demand estimate based on dedicated parking for each one of the proposed uses. This option does not assume any reduction in parking demand as a result of mix of uses. The required number of parking spaces to accommodate the proposed development based on County’s Code Criteria is 103. Consistent with the ITE Parking Generation Manual guidelines, the minimum number of parking spaces required for the proposed mixed use development is determined to be 94. The shared parking analysis determined that the proposed parking lot layout exceeds the overall maximum peak hour parking demand for the project. Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12 Appendix B: ITE Parking Generation, 4th Edition (Excerpts) Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 14 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 16 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 17 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Demand Analysis – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 18 Traffic Evaluation Report Sandbanks Redevelopment Parking Exemption (PE) Application Collier County, FL 05/07/2018 Prepared for: Prepared by: Davidson Engineering, Inc. 4365 Radio Road, Suite 201 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-434-6060 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Evaluation Report 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. 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 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 6 Site Access Reconfiguration ............................................................................................................ 8 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Appendices Appendix A: Approved Development – Conceptual Site Plan ....................................................... 9 Appendix B: Redevelopment – Proposed Conceptual Site Plan ................................................. 11 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Manual Calculations ................................................................ 13 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 4 Project Description The Sandbanks project is an existing zoned approved residential/commercial development pursuant to Collier County Resolution No. 09–152, as may be amended. The project site is located east of US 41 (Tamiami Trail North), between Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street, in Section 22, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County. Refer to Fig. 1 – Project Location Map, which follows. Fig. 1 – Project Location Map Based on the information illustrated in the approved site plan (per approved Collier County Resolution No. 09-152) the site development is allowed for 10,000 square feet (sf) of Retail space and 50,000 sf of Office space. Refer to Appendix A: Approved Development – Conceptual Site Plan. The Sandbanks redevelopment project consists of an existing 5,377 sf Restaurant land use to remain, one existing Single-Family dwelling unit to remain and a proposed 17,128 sf Shopping Center building. Refer to Appendix B: Redevelopment – Proposed Conceptual Site Plan. Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5 For the purposes of this report, estimated traffic impacts are evaluated based on the land uses illustrated in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. It is noted that per ITE Land Use Code (LUC) 820 – Shopping Center description, shopping centers contain restaurants among other uses and the ITE traffic data include their effects. Based on the fact that the restaurant is a peripheral building, this report utilizes a separate land use ITE LUC 932 – High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant to model the restaurant use on site. However, based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual guidelines, internal traffic capture reduction is considered in evaluating traffic impacts. The captive internal traffic recognizes that people often visit two or more land uses housed within the same development due to the proximity of complementary land uses within the development. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Development Program Development ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Code Total Size Approved Development(1) General Office Building 710 50,000 square feet Shopping Center 820 10,000 square feet Proposed Redevelopment Single-Family Detached Housing(2) 210 1 dwelling unit Shopping Center 820 17,128 square feet High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant 932 5,377 square feet Note(s): (1) Per approved Collier County Resolution No. 09-152. (2) Contiguously owned parcel – not included in Parking Exemption application. Access to the subject commercial parcel is currently provided via 3 driveways along US 41, multiple wide driveways along Ridge Street and one approximately 140 ft wide drive along Rosemary Lane. The site redevelopment application proposes to close the direct access to US 41 and to provide reasonable and adequate accesses from the side streets (Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street). Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6 Trip Generation The project’s site trip generation is based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th 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: ITE Trip Generation Manual Calculations. 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 TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. For this project, the software program OTISS is used to generate associated internal capture trips. The OTISS process follows the trip balancing approach as recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. The resulting internal capture rates 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. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational-access analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). 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 are assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis calculates Shopping Center LUC 820 pass-by daily rates at 15% and AM and PM peak hour rates at 25%. As illustrated in the Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, restaurant pass-by rates should not exceed 40% for the peak hour. This analysis calculates High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant LUC 832 pass-by daily rates at 30% and AM and PM peak hour rates at 40%. No pass-by reductions have been considered for the office and residential land uses. The estimated trip generation associated with the new proposed redevelopment scenario is illustrated in Table 2A. The trip generation analysis based on approved development parameters is shown in Table 2B. Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7 Table 2A Trip Generation (Proposed Redevelopment) – Average Weekday Table 2B Trip Generation (Approved Allowed Development) – Average Weekday The net new proposed trip generation (Table 2C) shows total proposed conditions versus existing allowed (the difference between Table 2A and Table 2B). In agreement with the Collier County 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 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for adjacent roadway network is PM. In agreement with the Collier County TIS Guidelines, the potential project’s traffic impact is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour net new external trips generated as a result of the proposed redevelopment (as shown in Table 2C). Proposed Redevelopment 24 Hour Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Traffic 2,424 128 86 214 105 96 201 Internal Capture Traffic 320 11 11 22 18 18 36 Total External 2,104 117 75 192 87 78 165 Pass-By Traffic 381 32 22 54 25 21 46 Total Net External 1,723 85 53 138 62 57 119 Allowed Development 24 Hour Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Traffic 1,798 160 70 230 57 101 158 Internal Capture Traffic 174 6 6 12 7 7 14 Total External 1,624 154 64 218 50 94 144 Pass-By Traffic 175 24 14 38 11 12 23 Total Net External 1,449 130 50 180 39 82 121 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 8 Table 2C Trip Generation (Net New Traffic) – Average Weekday As illustrated in Table 2C, from a traffic stand point, the proposed redevelopment scenario is less intensive when compared to the approved development parameters. Site Access Reconfiguration The site redevelopment application proposes to close the direct access to US 41 and to provide reasonable and adequate access from the side streets (Rosemary Lane and Ridge Street). US 41 is a 6-lane divided urban arterial under Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) jurisdiction, and has an Access Management classification of 5 with a posted speed limit of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project. As such, the established driveway spacing standard between connections on this roadway segment is 245 feet. It is noted that there is approximately 290 feet of spacing between Ridge Street and Rosemary Lane. Under current conditions, the existing driveways do not meet the adopted standard connection separation. As such, the access closure on US 41 is in agreement with FDOT standards and Access Management procedures. The US 41 connection closure is a great benefit to the travelling public as it provides for increased traffic capacity and safe traffic operations. Conclusion Based on the results of this traffic evaluation report, from a traffic stand point, the proposed redevelopment scenario is less intensive when compared to the approved development parameters. The US 41 connection closure is in agreement with current FDOT standards and it provides for increased traffic capacity and safe traffic operations. Development PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Proposed Redevelopment (Net External Traffic) 62 57 119 Approved Allowed Development (Net External Traffic) 39 82 121 Proposed New Net External Traffic Net Increase /(Net Decrease) 23 (25) (2) Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9 Appendix A: Approved Development – Conceptual Site Plan Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11 Appendix B: Redevelopment – Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Manual Calculations Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 14 Approved Allowed Development Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 16 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 17 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 18 Proposed Redevelopment Scenario Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 19 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 20 Sandbanks Redevelopment – Parking Exemption Application – Traffic Evaluation Report – May 2018 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 21 AGENDA ITEM 9-D ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 12-26, AS AMENDED, THE BENT CREEK PRESERVE RPUD, TO AMEND THE MASTER PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF A 1.27± ACRE AREA IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE PUD FROM RECREATION AREA ("RA") TO RESIDENTIAL ("R"), TO REMOVE CELLULAR COMMUNICATION TOWERS FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES IN TRACT RA, TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND TOWNHOUSE TO 15 FEET, AND TO ADD A FOOTNOTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE RELATING TO FRONT YARD SETBACKS ON CORNER LOTS, FOR PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 138.4± ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF MILE EAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND IMMOKALEE ROAD, IN SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. (PL20170002382). WHEREAS, Standard Pacific of Florida, represented by Patrick Vanasse, AICP of RWA, Inc., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend Ordinance No. 12-26, as amended, the Bent Creek Preserve RPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO RPUD DOCUMENT. The RPUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 12-26, as amended, is hereby amended as shown on Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. [I 7 -CPS -0 1713/1387715/1]19 Bent Creek Preserve RPUD Page I of 2 PUDA-PL20170002382 — 4/24/18 (�O SECTION TWO: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK day of , 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Scott A. Stone Assistant County Attorney ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Attachment: Exhibit A - Amendments to Bent Creek Preserve RPUD Document [17 -CPS -0 1713/1387715/1]19 Bent Creek Preserve RPUD PUDA-PL20170002382 — 4/24/18 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A PROJECT LAND USE TRACTS TYPE UNITS ACREAGE+ TRACT "R" RESIDENTIAL 450 110.1 111.38 TRACT "RA" RECREATION AREA 0 4-6 3.32 TRACT "P" PRESERVE 0 23.7 TOTAL 138.4 II TRACT RA PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses (Typically Accessory to Residential Development): 1) Structures intended to provide social and recreational space (private, intended for use by the residents and their guest only); Construction of the clubhouse shall commence prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy ( CO) for the 45th residential dwelling unit. The clubhouse shall be located in the large RA Tract at the terminus of the entrance road, and interior to the development. 2) Outdoor recreation facilities, such as a community swimming pool, tennis and basketball courts, playground improvements/facilities, and passive and/or active water features; 3) Signs, including boundary marker signage; 43) Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (`BZA") by the process outlined in the LDC. Words 4+uek-t4fe,igh are deleted; words underlined are added. Bent Creek Preserve PL -2017-2382 August 2, February 6, 2018 030008.11.03 Exhibit A Page 1 of 6 0 EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ************************************************************************************* TABLE I RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY MULTI- CLUBHOUSE/ MINIMUM LOT AREA DETACHED ATTACHED & FAMILY RECREATION BUILDINGS SIDE S.P.S. TOWNHOUSE S.P.S. 1/2 BH PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MINIMUM LOT AREA 4,500 S.F. 1,250 S.F. PER 1 ACRE 10,000 S.F. SIDE S.P.S. UNIT S.P.S. 1/2 BH MINIMUM LOT WIDTH 40 FEET 16 FEET 150 FEET N/A MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 S.F 1,000 S.F 1,000 S.F. N/A MIN FRONT YARD 11 FEET* 29 15 FEET 20 FEET* 25 FEET MIN SIDE YARD — SINGLE STORY 5 FEET 0 FEET or 6 FEET GREATER OF 10 GREATER OF 15 FEET OR FEET OR 1/2 BH 1/2 BH MIN SIDE YARD — TWO-STORY 5 FEET GREATER _0F1 0 GREATER OF 10 GREATER OF 10 FEET OR 1/2 FEET OR 1/2 BH FEET OR 1/2 BH BH MIN REAR YARD 15 FEET 15 FEET 15 FEET GREATER OF 15 FEET OR 1/2 BH MIN PRESERVE SETBACK 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET 25 FEET MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 10 FEET 12 FEET GREATER OF 20 GREATER OF 15 FEET OR 1/2 STRUCTURES — SINGLE STORY FEET OR 1/2 THE SUM OF BH SUM OF BH MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 10 FEET GREATER OF 20 GREATER OF 20 GREATER OF 20 FEET OR 1/2 STRUCTURES - TWO-STORY FEET OR 1/2 FEET OR 1/2 THE THE SUM OF BH THE SUM OF BH SUM OF BH MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN ONE 10 FEET N/A N/A GREATER OF 20 FEET OR 1/2 STORY and MULTI -STORY THE SUM OF BH STRUCTURES MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO 35 FEET 40 FEET 45 FEET 50 FEET EXCEED (ZONED) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO 45 FEET 45 FEET 60 FEET 60 FEET EXCEED (ACTUAL) ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FRONT S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. 20 FEET SIDE S.P.S. S.P.S. S.P.S. 1/2 BH REAR (ATTACHED) DETACHED 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 5 FEET 20 FEET 10 FEET 20 FEET PRESERVE SETBACK 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET 10 FEET MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10 FEET 12 FEET 12 FEET GREATER OF 15 FEET OR 1/2 BH Words stFuck thsugk are deleted; words underlined are added. Bent Creek Preserve PL -2017-2382 Abate '�^� February 6, 2018 030008.11.03 Page 2 of 6 0041 MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO 35 FEET 35 FEET 35 FEET 40 FEET EXCEED (ZONED) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET 40 FEET EXCEED (ACTUAL) S.P.S. = Same as Principal Structures BH = Building Height — unless otherwise noted, all building heights shall be "zoned" building heights, as defined in the LDC. *: Roof overhangs shall not protrude into utility easements. Notes: 1) No structures are permitted in the required 20 -foot lake maintenance easement. No setback is required for structures adjacent to a lake maintenance easement. 2) Side yards — No side yard shall be required between units when more than one residential unit is in a single structure (i.e.: attached single-family and townhomes). 3) Terraced setbacks are permitted for either two or three story multi -family structures. Side yard setbacks shall be measured from that ground floor exterior wall of lesser height as long as a minimum 15 foot exterior building wall setback is provided for floors above the first floor as depicted in Figure 1 below. 4) Firewall protrusions into required yards are permitted up to three (3') feet but shall not encroach into any easements. 5) Entrance features (i.e.: monuments, clock towers and colonnades) may be located at the project entrance and shall be limited to a maximum height of 50 feet. 6) For all residential units, garages must be located a minimum of 23 feet from the back of the sidewalk located in the street rights-of-way closest to the garage, except for side load garages, wherein a parking area 23 feet in depth must be provided perpendicular to the sidewalk to avoid vehicles being parked across a portion, or all of the referenced sidewalk. 7) No more than ten (10) attached dwelling units are permitted per building. 8) In order to support a canopy tree with a minimum 20 -foot crown spread as required in LDC Section 4.06.05, individual lots must accommodate enough space for the entire 20 -foot canopy to be located wholly within the lot boundaries, except where the lot is adjacent to a lake maintenance easement, landscape buffer easement, and/or preserve, in which case, a portion of the required 20 -foot canopy may protrude into such area. 9) For corner lots, only 1 front yard setback shall be required The yard that does not contain the drivewaX vehicle access shall be considered a side yard and shall provide the appropriate setback Words «k' through are deleted; words underlined are added. Bent Creek Preserve PL -2017-2382 August 2, 2017 February 6. 2018 Page 3 of 6 030008.11.03 O C) 15 MIN EXTERIOR BUILDING WALL PROPERTY SETBACK LINE 1J IN =ItM-IlllllFin-llllltM-lllllFinlllllllltM-lI SIDE YARD SETBACK Words sticuek thiFebigh are deleted; words underlined are added. Bent Creek Preserve PL -2017-2382 Augus4 2, 22917 February 6, 2018 030008.11.03 Figure 1 Page 4 of 6 0 Q EXISTING CELL PHONE TOWER (TO BE REMOVE _ -BOUNDARY MARKER (TYP.) A. PLANT NURSE] 15' MIN. TYPE 'B' BUFFER HERITAGE BAY DRVMPUD MIXED USE SUBDIVISION ------ IMMOKALEE ROAD C.R. 646 ---------- -- ----------------- -----' 20' MIN. ----------- c 20' MIN -----_----------------------- -------TYPE 'D" --------- D) 'D'-===_=_-= _- _-__-� -- BUFFER =__===_ _ BU ------ - -- --- - --------------- R \I I _ 0 RA R IRI RA 1 I L I I , P R\\ \` R R I I R OIN , I\����\\\JJ — -• R R UD, TUSCANY COVE L ELOPED SUBDIVISON PUD CRYSTAL R LAKE R.V. SUBDIVISION RESORT R A. STORAGE �._I.______________ AGRICULTURE LAND USE SUMMARY UNIMPROVED FUTURE U INTERCONNECT] Q THE PRESERVE TRACT SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED BUFFER BUFFER QI A. IFI AGRICULTURE W UNIMPROVED F DEV R 450 w � 1 1 I I i TOTAL 450 HERITAGE BAY DRVMPUD MIXED USE SUBDIVISION ------ IMMOKALEE ROAD C.R. 646 ---------- -- ----------------- -----' 20' MIN. ----------- c 20' MIN -----_----------------------- -------TYPE 'D" --------- D) 'D'-===_=_-= _- _-__-� -- BUFFER =__===_ _ BU ------ - -- --- - --------------- R \I I _ 0 RA R IRI RA 1 I L I I , P R\\ \` R R I I R OIN , I\����\\\JJ — -• R R UD, TUSCANY COVE L ELOPED SUBDIVISON PUD CRYSTAL R LAKE R.V. SUBDIVISION RESORT R A. STORAGE �._I.______________ AGRICULTURE LAND USE SUMMARY UNIMPROVED 10' MIN. 10' MIN. TRACT TYPE "A" TYPE "A' Q THE PRESERVE TRACT SHALL BE SUPPLEMENTED BUFFER BUFFER WITH ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS TO SATISFY A. BOTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER AGRICULTURE REQUIREMENTS AND NATIVE PRESERVE ® UNIMPROVED REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC. RESIDENTIAL Al THE PRESERVE TRACT SHALL BE SUPPLEMEN WITH ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS TO SATISFY BOTH LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AND NATIVE PRESERVE® REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC. BOUNDARY MARKER (IYP.). -_- ----------- ---- ] I I I 1 i I 1 0' MINA TYPE 'A" I�I BUFFER o A. w 11 AGRICULTURE UNIMPROVED gI 10' MIN. TYPE "A" R; RIIFFFR ISI -FUTURE INTERCONNECTION LAND USE SUMMARY R LAND USE TRACT UNITS ACREAGE PRESERVE P 0 23.70 RECREATION RA 0 3.32 RESIDENTIAL R 450 111.36 1 1 I I i TOTAL 450 138.38 INTERCONNECTION 120' MIN R R - RIEs Dumv- RA RA � II p li I A, RA AGRICULTURE CIRCUWLATgN PATTERN DISTURBED I 1 1 I O.W. II I CONVEYANCE IIR;1 I I IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED AT EITHER SDP 1 1 I I i I I 120' MIN TYPE "D' LEGEND R - RIEs Dumv- RA - RECREATIONAL AREA p - PRESERVE 267.46' OF 60R OPEN SPACE. RA I I R.O.W. 2.THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUD CIRCUWLATgN PATTERN Q - DOUND NATURE.M AURNER TYPE "D' BUFFER I� I RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES I S071901-1 1 WITHIN THE PUD BOUNDARIES THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM ti h1 267.46' OF 60R OPEN SPACE. w I I R.O.W. 2.THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUD a 'mI" ---�- CONVEYANCE MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL IN Z W NATURE.M W II I 3.THE DESIGN, LOCATION, AND CONFIGURATION OF THE LAND U ma I I IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED AT EITHER SDP APPROVAL, OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PLAT APPROVAL I 4.PLEASE REFER TO THE BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LINE AND P I I CURVE TABLES. I I S.THE 136.4 ACRE PUD HAS 94.41 ACRES OF NATIVE VEGETATION EXISTING ON-SITE. THEREFORE, A MINIMUM OF I I 25% OF THE EXISTING NATIVE VEGETATION (23.6 ACRES) I ARE REQUIRED TO BE RETAINED OR REPLANTED AS A RPUD HABITAT NATIVE PRESERVE. APPROXIMATELY 1.47 ACRES OF THE WOODCREST PROPOSED PRESERVE WILL BE RECREATED NATIVE HABITAT I n DISTURBED I I II IN z 00 e -I O N d M m ? d � m � LL 0 N c DJ v c N 0 3 co N v m m N N Z ri � O � N � J CL Z H a Y N d '^ U a o 0) 3 Rn 0 Ln D! a CAp EXHIBIT F LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS �e9cdt�k�e$e*kx*-.'c�:kxxicic�<*kxx*icicicicxxx�ici;iex:Fx�e�cie:kkie$$e*�c*9etY�cek9cot�e�etY�cic$e**9e 9c 9c�r�it$e4e4e9e4c�rie�4�c�c�e�t�to4*$t 9c 9e PLANNING A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close- out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Centerline Homes Enterprises Three, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments." B. Construction of the clubhouse shall commence prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the 45th residential dwelling unit. The clubhouse shall be located in the large RA Tract at the terminus of the entrance road, and interior to the development. C. Related to Deviation # 1, as a part of the application material for every building permit for a model home, the developer shall provide documentation stating how many model homes are in existence so that the maximum of fifteen model homes is not exceeded. D. Construction of residential units in the "R" tract (formerly the RA tract) at the northwest corner of the property shall not commence until removal of the cell phone tower has been completed. MISCELLANEOUS A. Pursuant to Section 124.022(5) F.S. issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way creation any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the country for the issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain the requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertake actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. B. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of development. Words stFUEk threugh are deleted; words underlined are added. Bent Creek Preserve PL -2017-2382 ."ugust 2, 22017 February 6, 2018 Page 6 of 6 030008.11.03 d 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Department Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: February 21, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDA-PL20170002382 (REV 3) PETITION NAME: Bent Creek Preserve Residential Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) REQUEST: To amend the Bent Creek Preserve Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to eliminate communication tower as a permitted use in the RA, Recreation, tract; to change the RA tract at the northwest corner of the PUD to an R, Residential, tract; and, to add a note pertaining to corner lot setbacks in the Development Standards table in PUD Exhibit B. LOCATION: The 138.38-acre site is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), the west side of Woodcrest Drive, and approximately 2,000 feet east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 26, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject site is designated Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map and described in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this designation allows market rate residential development at a maximum density of 7 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) or 969 DUs as well as recreation and open space uses. The existing PUD is approved for 450 DUs (3.25 DU/A). This petition seeks to amend the PUD to eliminate communication tower use, and to change an RA, Recreation, tract to an R, Residential, tract. No changes to the PUD boundary, or in the approved density, is being requested. Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). FLUE Policy 5.6 (previously 5.4): New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Page 2 of 2 amended). (Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.) FLUE Objective 7 and Relevant Policies Due to the minor changes proposed (elimination of one use, no change in approved density), and since the Bent Creek Preserve RPUD was evaluated for consistency with the FLUE prior to adoption in 2012, staff is of the opinion that a re-evaluation of FLUE policies under Objective 7 (pertaining to access, interconnections, walkability, etc.) is not necessary. CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, the proposed PUDA may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. cc: Mike Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division Ray Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL20170002382 Bent Creek Preserve R3 G:\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2017\PUDA dw/2-21-18 PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 1 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MAY 17, 2018 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20160002306 PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUD COMPANION ITEM: PL20160002360/CP-2016-03 ______________________________________________________________________________ Owner/Applicant: Agents: Trail Boulevard, LLLP D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Goodlette Pine Ridge II LLC Bonita Springs, FL 34134 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 99-94, the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD). GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of 31+/- acres and is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County (see location map, page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petitioner seeks to amend Pine Ridge Commons PUD, approved via Ordinance #99-94, to create a mixed-use district by adding 375 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the commercial district in the areas designated on the Master Plan (See Attachment C); by adding development standards for residential structures by providing a conversion rate from commercial to residential. AGENDA ITEM 9-G PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 2 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 3 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of Pine Ridge Commons PUD: North: Developed recreational use with a multipurpose field and sand volleyball courts, with a current zoning designation of North Naples United Methodist Church MPUD and is approved for religious facilities, grade schools, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and independent living units for age 55 plus, and senior housing. East: Developed community facilities with North Naples Fire Station and offices zoned Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1) and Pine Ridge Middle School zoned Rural Agricultural (A). South: Pine Ridge Road, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then a recreational area and single-family homes with a zoning designation of Moorings Park Estates PUD (2.28 DU/AC) and is approved for single-family homes. West: Goodlette-Frank Road, a six-lane arterial roadway, and then single-family homes and undeveloped lots zoned Rural Agricultural (A). Collier County Property Appraiser PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 4 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP. This petition is not consistent with any of the Urban, Urban Commercial District, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistricts that allow mixed use zoning; it relies, in part, on a companion Large-Scale GMP Amendment (GMPA) to the FLUE provisions toward achieving consistency. The GMPA [ref. PL20160002360/CP-2016-03] to the FLUE would rename the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict and will establish the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict and amend the text to add a residential use for a maximum of 375 multi - family dwelling units for rental, while continuing to allow a maximum of 275,000 square feet of office and commercial uses to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict. The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved the amendment for transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) on December 12, 2017. Due to the request to add additional multi-family dwelling units, staff reviewed the FLUE’s density rating system to determine residential density eligibility for the Pine Ridge Commons PUD site. The Base Density in the Urban Designation Area of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), plus 1 additional DU/A for access to two or more arterial roads, plus 3 additional DU/A for being within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (depending on whether it is determined that it follows Policies 6.1-6.7) yields a total of up to 8 DU/A or 245 dwelling units (30.65A * 8 DU/A = 245.2 DUs). The FLUE states: “The County has designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA) to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provides multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips.” The project site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area, which enables this project to be eligible for 3 additional DU/A, as stated in the Density Rating System of the FLUE. Northwest TCMA is bounded by the Collier ‒ Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the I-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. FLUE Policy 6.3 states: “Collier County’s designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl by promoting residential and commercial infill development and by promoting redevelopment of areas wherein current zoning was approved prior to the establishment of this Growth Management Plan (January 10, 1989). Infill development and redevelopment within the TCMAs shall be consistent with Objective 5, and relevant subsequent policies, of this Element.” The petitioner is requesting a maximum of 375 DUs. The requested 375 DUs would be a density of 12.23 DU/A (375DU / 30.65 A = 12.23 DU/A), which is 4 DU/A higher than the number calculated by the Density Rating System. PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 5 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 The FLUE encourages Mixed Use developments through FLUE Policy 7.5, and the policy states, “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 does present many of the same characteristics allowing both residential and commercial retail/office uses, and is located at an intersection of two major roadways, may be developed at a human-scale, may be pedestrian-oriented, and provides an interconnection with one abutting project (North Naples Middle School). Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are being proposed with this Subdistrict. Also, this Subdistrict is located proximate to major employment centers and goods and services located along the Pine Ridge Road Corridor and along US 41 located ½ mile to the west. If a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed-Use Activity Center, which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is 16 DU/A. Because this project has many of the same characteristics as a Mixed- Use Activity Center, it may be appropriate to allow a density greater than that potentially allowed by the density rating system from 8 DU/A to 12.23 DU/A (which is still almost 4 DU/A less than allowed in the Mixed-Use Activity Center). Because this is a new Subdistrict, it is not limited by the Density Rating System, and the petitioner may request 12.23 DU/A. Based upon the analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMPA being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to an effective date of the companion GMP A. (Please, see Attachment B – FLUE Consistency Review.) Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states, “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible developmen t, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 6 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” The proposed PUD Amendment on the subject property was reviewed based on the applicable 2017 AUIR Inventory Report and 9th edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manual. The TIS submitted in the application indicates that the proposed mixed-use development will generate approximately 942 PM unadjusted peak hour two-way trips. This compares to the original 1999 TIS for the original commercial development that had an unadjusted PM peak hour trip total of 1,134. This difference reflects changes made between ITE data and standards between 1999 and current ITE data and standards; as well as changes from a commercial development to a mixed-use development. The proposed development will impact the following roadway segments with the listed capacities: Roadway Link 2017 AUIR Existing LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2017 AUIR Remaining Capacity Goodlette Frank Road Orange Blossom to Pine Ridge Road B 2,400/North 850 Goodlette Frank Road Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Parkway C 3,000/North 1,100 Pine Ridge Road Tamiami Trail (US 41) to Goodlette Frank Road C 2,800/East 934 Pine Ridge Road Goodlette Frank Road to Shirley Street C 2,800/West 829 PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 7 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 Based on the 2017 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Tr ansportation Element of the GMP. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): This petition can be found consistent with the CCME portion of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) after the GMPA is adopted. The companion GMPA has gone through the Transmittal process and is waiting to go through the Adoption process. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading “Zoning Services Analysis.” Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Environmental Review: The proposed revisions do not impact the previously recorded preserves within the PUD. The PUD Preserve requirement of 1.47 acres was finalized with the Pine Ridge Commons Site Development Plan, that included the preserve calculation for the entire PUD. The 1.47 acres of required preservation was based off the commercial development preservation standard of 15% of the existing native vegetation. With the proposed addition of residential use to the PUD, a preservation standard of 25% would be required. As permitted site clearing impacts have occurred within the PUD, the redevelopment from commercial to mixed use will not be able to meet the 25% standard. The GMPA includes text for the Preserve within this PUD to therefore remain at the 15% preserve requirement of 1.47 acres. Landscape Review: The proposed landscape buffer changes affect only a portion of the east buffer. Section 2.18.D. of the PUD has been revised to designate one of two types of buffers that will be required along the east not adjacent to Pine Ridge Middle School depending on whether the use will be commercial or residential. These proposed buffers changes are consistent with LDC requirements. School District: The Collier County School District does not have any issue with the proposed amendment as it will not impact the District’s level of service. PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 8 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this PUD Amendment. Utilities Review: Public Utilities staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Zoning Services Review: There is a companion item to this petition, Pine Ridge Commons GMPA (PL20160002360/CP-2016-03). This companion item proposes a large-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the FLUE, specifically to rename the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict as Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict and amend the text to add a residential use for a maximum of 375 multi-family dwelling units for rental, while continuing to allow a maximum of 275,000 square feet of office and commercial uses to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict. The maximum height for residential development is four stories over parking and is proposed to be higher than the approved height for professional or medical related offices, including financial institutions. That approved height is three stories not over parking. The maximum zoning height proposed for the multi-family structures is 55 feet. There are currently three 3-story buildings within the Pine Ridge Commons PUD, including the offices for Raymond James Financial Services and two other office buildings at the northern portion. The closest distance from the Pine Ridge Commons PUDs western boundary to the nearest lot to the west that could be developed residentially is approximately 165 feet and is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, which can only allow one single family dwelling unit with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The closest distance to the nearest single-family dwelling to the south is approximately 285 feet. The maximum building height for the closest dwelling units to the south of the site is 30 feet above finished grade of lot or from the minimum base flood elevation required by the Flood Elevation Ordinance, whichever is higher. Building setbacks on the subject property (and on the “A” parcel) would increase the separation beyond these stated distance figures. As such, the proposed PUD Amendment, which includes revised development standards, is compatible with the surrounding areas around the Pine Ridge Commons PUD property. There are a wide range of uses in the area surrounding the Pine Ridge Commons PUD. Uses range from Agriculture with single family homes to the west across Goodlette-Frank Road N., and to the north a large church, to the east is the Pine Ridge Industrial Park and C-1 and C-5 uses to the east, and to the south is residential single family. The FLUE encourages development to transition from higher intensities to lower intensities. Use intensities diminish as development moves from the industrial lands to the east towards Goodlette Road and beyond to the west in this section of Pine Ridge Road. Staff concurs with the petitioner to request 12.23 DU/A for this mixed-use project in that this will provide residential, commercial/office uses, located at an intersection of two major roadways, pedestrian and bike lane intersections, and is located near major employment centers. Please, refer to page 5 of the FLUE section of this report for dwelling unit calculations. One purpose of the transition of uses is to ensure that residential developments are not located next to high intensity uses. The proposed uses of this zoning amendment help produce this type of transition, with a proposed mix of residential uses and lower intensity commercial and office. The PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 9 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 Pine Ridge Commons PUD is presently approved for, and developed with, C-1 through C-3 uses, with retail uses limited to the southerly ¾ of the site. The addition of residential multi-family use further lessens the use intensity of the site. It should be noted that the existing development in the surrounding area is a mixture of single family residences, community facilities, and commercial uses and not out of context with regard to community character of the immediate vicinity. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that, “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report on page 4. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report, the proposed changes to the buffers along a portion of the East are consistent with the LDC requirements for the changes being proposed to the uses within the PUD. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 10 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 No deviation from required usable open space is being requested, and compliance would be demonstrated at the time of SDP or PPL. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the transportation consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of the first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time, a new Transportation Impact S tatement (TIS) will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. All future development proposed on the Pine Ridge Commons PUD would have to comply the LDC and other applicable codes. The petitioner is not requesting any deviations to the LDC. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable”: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the (FLUM) and other elements of the GMP if the proposed GMPA is adopted. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 11 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is currently zoned PUD and would remain as such. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. This petition does not propose any change to the boundaries of the PUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary; however, it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to include the proposed uses and development standards that are specific to the subject parcel. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed PUD Amendment is not anticipated to adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time, a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any SDP or PLL approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed PUDA request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area, provided stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage on this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County staff will evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at time of SDP and/or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. It is not anticipated the changes proposed to this PUD Amendment would seriously reduce PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 12 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 light or air to the adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The exchange of commercial development for residential development as proposed in the PUD amendment is not anticipated to serve as a deterrent to improvement of adjacent property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed development complies with the GMP through the proposed amendment, then that constitutes a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the proposed uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed uses, associated development standards, and developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 13 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on April 24, 2017, 5:30 p.m. at Naples Area Board of Realtors, 1455 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, FL 34109. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) petition and the companion large scale GMPA. The applicant’s team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. A total of approximately 35 members of the public along with approximately 6 members of the applicant’s team and County staff signed in at the NIM. The public asked questions about the project details. The consultant explained the application included a maximum of 400 multi-family dwelling units (DUs) either rental or townhomes; however, the petition was subsequently revised to provide for a maximum of 375 multi-family DUs, rental only. Many voiced concerns over the traffic and access points and opposed the petition for this reason. The consultants explained that the ac cess points would remain unchanged from what is currently operating and that although the trips generated from the project would not increase beyond the previously approved total number of trips, the pattern of travel times might be different. Concerns wer e also voiced over the capacity in the nearby Pine Ridge Middle School. The meeting ended at approximately 6:10 p.m. A copy PUDA-PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Page 14 of 15 Revised: April 27, 2018 of the NIM materials and transcript are attached in backup materials supplied by applicant. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require review by the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) since the project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Chapter 2, Article VIII, Division 23, Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on April 30, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval subject to approval of the companion GMPA. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Review C) Master Plan Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. 18 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 99-94 THE PINE RIDGE COMMONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD), TO ADD 375 MULTI -FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS PERMITTED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN THE AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE MASTER PLAN; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES; BY PROVIDING A CONVERSION RATE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL; BY REVISING EXHIBIT A, THE PUD MASTER PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20160002306] WHEREAS, on December 14, 1999, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 99-94, which changed the zoning classification of the described property to Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD); and WHEREAS, Trail Boulevard, LLLP, represented by Richard Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, PA and D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Pine Ridge Commons PUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendments to the PUD Document attached to Ordinance Number 99-94, the Pine Ridge Commons PUD. The PUD Document attached to Ordinance Number 99-94, the Pine Ridge Commons PUD, is hereby amended in accordance with the PUD Document attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. [ 17 -CPS -01645/1403011/1174 Pine Ridge Commons/PL20160002306 3/28/18 Words struck -though are deleted; words underlined are added. Page 1 of 2 SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon tiling with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 2018-_ becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super -majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2018. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK L-0 Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legality: Heidi F. Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attomey 3' BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0 Attachments: Exhibit A — Revised PUD Document 117 -CPS -01645/1403011/1174 Pine Ridge Cammons/PL20160002306 3/28/18 ANDY SOLIS, Chairman Words struck -through are deleted; words underlined are added. Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "A" Pine Ridge Commons A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT 31f Acres Located in Section 10 Township 49 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida PREPARED FOR: G4 Partnership PREPARED BY: WilsonMiller, Inc. 3200 Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34105 And Young, vanAssenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A. 801 Laurel Oak Drive Suite 300 Naples, FL 34108 Amended February 2018 BY: O. GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rev. Bonita Springs, FL 34134 and COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH AND KOESTER, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples. FL 34102 DATE FILE 8/27/99 DATE APPROVED BY CCPC 11/18/99 DATE APPROVED BY BCC 12/14/99 ORDINANCE NUMBER 99-94 Amended Ordinance Number Words are additions; words 6vwkthmWh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03116/2018 Page I of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND SHORT TITLE SECTION I SECTION II SECTION III EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT `B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, & GENERAL DESCRIPTION PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PAGE 4-+5 2-47 2.1 Purpose 2.2 General Description of the Project and Proposed Land Uses 2.3 Compliance with County Ordinances 2.4 Land Uses 2.5 Water Management Siting, Excavation and Setback Requirements 2.6 Fill Storage 2.7 Use of Rights -of -Way 2.8 Sales Office and Construction Office 2.9 Changes and Amendments to PUD Document or PUD Master Plan 2.10 Preliminary Subdivision Plat and Phasing 2.11 Open Space 2.12 Surface Water Management 2.13 Environmental 2.14 Utilities 2.15 Transportation 2.16 Common Area Maintenance 2.17 Design Guidelines and Standards 2.18 Landscaping, Berms, Fences and Walls 2.19 Signage 2.20 Pedestrian and Bicycle Pathway Network 2.21 General Permitted Uses COMMERCIAL -MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT 3.1 Purpose 3.2 General Description 3.3 Permitted Uses and Structures 3.4 Development Standardss PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUD MASTER PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION 3-421 Words are additions; words alowk AmWh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page 2 of 25 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The purpose of this section is to express the intent of the G-4 Partnership, and its successors and assigns, hereinafter referred to as the Developer, to create a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on 31t acres of land located in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The name of this Planned Unit Development shall be Pine Ridge Commons. The development of this site will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County as set forth in the Growth Management Plan. The development will be consistent with the policies and land development regulations adopted thereunder of the Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and other applicable regulations for the following reasons: The subject property is within the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Sub -district as identified in the FLUE of the Growth Management Plan and on the Future Land Use Map. In addition to other uses allowed by the Plan, the intent of the Sub -district is to provide multi- family residential development. shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential area within a convenient travel time and contains development intensity standards to insure that development is compatible with surrounding land uses. 2. Pine Ridge Commons is compatible with and complementary to existing and zoned future land uses surrounding the project as required in Policy 5.46 of the FLUE. 3. Site and building improvements will be in compliance with applicable land development regulations unless and to the extent amended herein. 4. The development of Pine Ridge Commons will result in a well-designed commercial project, through coordinated and regulated signage, building design, vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access and landscaping, and will further the intent of Policies 3.I.E-e and F-fof the FLUE. 5. The development of Pine Ridge Commons will be designed in a manner consistent with Objective 7, Policies 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 and 7.31, which address access management, on-site traffic, bicycle and pedestrian circulation. 6. The development of Pine Ridge Commons will result in an efficient and economical extension of community facilities and services as required in Rahao.,.. 4.1 H and I Ob*ectivc of the Future Land Use Element. 7. The Pine Ridge Commons PUD will be developed consistent with the Collier County Access Management Plan, as required in Section 2.6.38 of the Collier County Land Development Code. 8. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 3.15 of the Land Development Code. 9. Pine Ridge commons has received a waiver from the historical/archaeological survey and assessment requirements of Section 2.2.25.3.10. of the Land Development Code due to the sit's location in a low potential area for containing historical/archaeological artifacts. The Developer will comply with Section 2.2.25.8.2. of the Land Development Code should Words underlined are additions; words e/+xa4f mWk are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03/16/1018 Page 3 of 23 accidental discovery of any historic or archaeological site, significant artifact, or other indicator occur during site development or building construction. SHORT TITLE This ordinance shall be known and cited as the "PINE RIDGE COMMONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE". Words tadedln are additions; words so wok Mow ugh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03/16/2018 Page 4 of 25 SECTION I LEGAL DESCRIPTION, PROPERTY OWNERSHIP, AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to set forth the legal description and ownership of Pine Ridge Commons, and to describe the existing condition of the property proposed to be developed. 1.2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please refer to Exhibit `B," attached. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the equitable ownership or control of G-4 Partnership, a Florida partnership, or its assigns, whose address is 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Suite 200, Naples, FL 34105. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. The project site is located in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, and is generally bordered on the west by Goodlette-Frank Road, to the south by Pine Ridge Road and the North Naples fire station, to the east by the Naples Area Board of Realtors commercial building, the North Naples fire station and Pine Ridge Middle School; and to the north by North Naples United Methodist Church Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. B. The zoning classification of the subject property at the time of original PUD application is A, Rural Agricultural and RSF-3. C. Elevations within the site are approximately 7.5 to 9 feet-NGVD. Per FEMA Firm Map Panels No. 1200670193D, dated June 3, 1986, the Pine Ridge Commons property is located within zones "AE -1 l" of the FEMA flood insurance rate map. D. Prior to development, vegetation on the site primarily consists of fallow croplands with lesser amounts of low quality pine flatwoods, xeric oak, and palmetto prairie vegetation which was regenerated on the farm ditch berms since the cessation of farming. With the exception of a cypress wetland located near the northeastem corner of the property, all site habitats were previously cleared and farmed and thus have been extensively disturbed. The site has been invaded by exotic plant species, including Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, and downy rose myrtle. 1.5 PUD MONITORING One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this PUD approval the Managing Words wderlined are additions; words altwek Mow ugh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page 5 of15 Entitv is frail Boulevard LLLP. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples FL 34105 Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must nrovide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD by the new owner and the new owner's agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the and fulfillment of PUD commitments. Words underlined are additions; words mwok thmWk are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0 311 6/1 0 1 8 Page 6 of 25 SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to generally describe the plan of development for Pine Ridge Commons PUD, and to identify relationships to applicable County ordinances, policies, and procedures. 2.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY AND PROPOSED LAND USES A. Pine Ridge Commons is a 31 acre mixed use residential. retail commercial and office development oriented to serve surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance, which will consist of general and specialty retail shops, restaurants, business, medical and professional offices, and financial institutions. Emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. B. The PUD Master Plan is illustrated graphically on Exhibit A . 'Oo x005§, A Land Use Summary indicating approximate land use acreages is shown on the plan. The location, size, and configuration of individual tracts shall be determined at the time of County development approvals in accordance with the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). C. The Project shall contain a maximum of 275,000 square feet of gross leasable area for retail commercial and office and financial institution uses. Retail commercial uses shall be located south of the northern entrance and limited to 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area, and no individual retail tenant may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. A maximum of' 375 multi -family dwelling units may be permitted within the PUD. D. If an agreement is reached with the School Board of Collier County then the main northern access drive may be shared with the School as access to Pine Ridge Middle School and the parcel of land the access road lies on may be deeded to the School Board. One or both parties, depending on the agreement between the School Board and the Developer, shall maintain the road. The Developer, School Board or both may request the road be public. If the access road right-of-way is donated to the Collier County School Board, it shall be considered an internal road or drive and not as a property line for purposes of setbacks and buffering. 2.3 COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY ORDINANCES A. Regulations for development of Pine Ridge Commons shall be in accordance with the contents of this PUD Ordinance, and to the extent they are consistent with this PUD Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan which are in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which such Wordsunderlin are additions; words ofraiek thmugh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page 7 of15 regulations relate. Where this PUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that is otherwise applicable shall apply. B. Unless otherwise defined herein, or as necessarily implied by context, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the LDC in effect at the time of development order application. C. Development permitted by the approval of this PUD will be subject to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, Division 3.15 of the LDC. D. All conditions imposed herein or as represented on Pine Ridge Commons Master Plan are part of the regulations which govern the manner in which the land may be developed. E. The Developer shall submit to the County an annual PUD monitoring report in accordance with LDC Section 2.7.3.6. 2.4 LAND USES A. The location of land uses and general project configuration are shown on the PUD Master Plan, Exhibit A. Changes and variations in building tracts, location and acreage of these uses shall be permitted at time of County development approval to accommodate utilities, topography, vegetation, and other site and market conditions, subject to the provisions of Section 2.7.3.5. of the Collier County LDC. The specific location and size of individual tracts and the assignment of square footage or units shall be determined at the time of County development approval. B. Roads and other infrastructure may be public, private or a combination of public and private, depending on location, design and purpose. The Developer shall make the request for a road to be public at the time of final County development approval. The Developer shall be responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, common area, and water and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County. Standards for roads shall be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the County LDC unless otherwise approved during County development approval. The Developer reserves the right to request substitutions to Code design standards in accordance with Section 3.2.7.2. of the LDC. 2.5 WATER MANAGEMENT SITING, EXCAVATION AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS A. As depicted on the Master Plan, lakes and wet or dry detention areas have been preliminarily sited, with the ultimate location and configuration to be determined during the site development review stages of project development. B. Fill material from lakes and wet and dry detention areas is planned to be utilized within the project site; however, excess fill material may be transported off-site. The volume of material to be removed shall be limited to ten percent of the calculated Words Ladfr/la€d are additions; words enwekthmWh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Lost Revised 03//6/1018 Page 8 of 25 excavation volume to a maximum of 20,000 cubic yards. If the Developer wishes to remove additional material from the project site, a commercial excavation permit will be required. Collier County government shall be offered first refusal rights to purchase surplus fill for construction of improvements to Goodlette-Frank Road. C. Lake and wet or dry detention area banks and edge of water may be sculpted for aesthetic purposes and to complement the overall project theme and may use combinations of vertical bulkhead (rock, concrete, wood), vegetation and earthen berms for aesthetic purposes, consistent with the intent of Section 2.8.3.7.4 of the LDC. D. Final lake and wet or dry detention area siting determinations shall be in accordance with South Florida Water Management District criteria and the LDC. Setbacks: Lake excavation shall be located so that the control elevation shall adhere to the following minimum setback requirements, unless bulkheading is provided, per LDC and Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) standards: a) Lakes and stormwater management features may be located adjacent to internal roads. The roads will be designed to AASHTO road standards and shall incorporate such factors as road alignment, travel speed, bank slope, road cross sections, curbs and need for barriers. b) Lakes and wet or dry detention areas shall be set back a minimum of twenty feet (20') from external property boundaries. 2.6 FILL STORAGE A. Fill storage is generally permitted as a principal use throughout the Pine Ridge Commons PUD during development phases of the project. the following standards shall apply for stockpiled excavation material: 1. Stockpile maximum height: Thirty-five feet (35') 2. Fill storage areas in excess of five feet (5') in height shall be separated from developed areas by fencing, excavated water bodies or other physical barters if the side slope of the stockpile is steeper than 4:1. 3. Soil erosion control shall be provided in accordance with LDC, Division 3.7. 2.7 USE OF RIGHTS-OF-WAY The Developer may place landscaping, signage, lighting, water management facilities, berms, decorative walls and fences, utilities or decorative entry features within any public or private rights-of-way adjacent to or within the Pine Ridge Commons PUD, if the applicable agency's permits and approvals are acquired. 2.8 SALES OFFICE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICE Wordsmaderlin are additions; words owk WwwwSh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Cast Revised 0311612018 Page 9 of 25 Sales offices, construction offices, and other uses and structures related to the promotion, leasing and sale of real estate such as, but not limited to, pavilions, parking areas, and signs, shall be permitted principal uses throughout Pine Ridge Commons PUD. These uses may be either wet or dry facilities. These uses shall be subject to the requirements of Section 2.6.33.4 Section 3.2.6.3.6. and Division 3.3. of the LDC, with the exception that the temporary use permit shall be valid through the life of the project with no extension of the temporary use required. These uses may use temporary septic tanks or holding tanks for waste disposal subject to permitting under F.A.C. Rule l OD -6 and may use potable water or irrigation wells, except that no septic systems or holding tanks shall be permitted upon issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the specific facility. 2.9 CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO PUD DOCUMENT OR PUD MASTER PLAN A. Changes and amendments may be made to this PUD Ordinance or PUD Master Plan as provided in Section 2.7.3.5. of the LDC. Minor changes and refinements as described herein may be made by the Developer in connection with any type of development or permit application required by the LDC. B. The Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator shall be authorized to approve minor changes and refinements to the Pine Ridge Commons Master Plan upon written request of the Developer. C. The following limitations shall apply to such requests: The minor change or refinement shall be consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan and Pine Ridge Commons PUD document. 2. The minor change or refinement shall not constitute a substantial change pursuant to Section 2.7.3.5.1 of the LDC. 3. The minor change or refinement shall be compatible with external adjacent land uses and shall not crate detrimental impacts to abutting land uses, water management facilities and conservation areas. D. The following shall be deemed minor changes or refinements: 1. Reconfiguration of lakes, ponds, canals, or other water management facilities where such changes are consistent with the criteria of the South Florida Water Management District and Collier County. 2. Internal realignment of rights-of-way or internal drives. 3. Reconfiguration of parcels per Section 2.4 of this PUD. E. Minor changes and refinements as described above shall be reviewed by appropriate Collier County staff to ensure that said changes and refinements are otherwise in compliance with all applicable County Ordinances and regulations prior to Words underlined are additions, wordy sowk dwWh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page 10 of 25 Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator's consideration for approval. F. Written approval by the Community Development and Environmental Services Administrator of a minor change or refinement may occur independently from and prior to any application for Subdivision or Site Development Plan approval, however such approval shall not constitute an authorization for development or implementation of the minor change or refinement without first obtaining all other necessary County permits and approvals. 2.10 PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT AND PHASING In the event platting is required, submission, review, and approval of Preliminary Subdivision Plats for the project may be accomplished in phases to correspond with the planned development of the property. Platting or subdivision of building tracts for separate ownership for a building within typically connected buildings shall not require setbacks and other requirements from the building to a property line. 2.11 OPEN SPACE The PUD will comply with Section 2.6.32. of the LDC relating to open space. 2.12 SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT A. A South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Environmental Resource Permit will be required and obtained. B. A portion of the surface water management system for the northern entrance road may be supplied by the School Board on the Pine Ridge Middle School property. C. The surface water management system will be designed and permitted in accordance with requirements of the SFWMD and the County's Wellfield Protection regulations. Pursuant to SFWMD, Volume IV, Basis of Review 5.2.2.(e), unlined wet detention areas will be placed no closer than 300 feet from the City of Naples water supply wells. D. Pine Ridge Commons will discharge to either the existing ditch located west of Goodlette-Frank Road or to the future outfall provided during the widening of Goodlette-Frank Road that serves the upper reach of the Gordon River Extension Drainage Basin. This basin discharges into the Gordon River and ultimately into the Gulf of Mexico. The Developer shall coordinate the design of the project's outfall connection to the County's drainage system, at the time of construction permitting, with the County Public Works and Engineering Department. 2.13 ENVIRONMENTAL A. An Environmental Impact Statement waiver was requested by the Developer and approved by the Collier County Planning Services Department, pursuant to Section Words are additions; words sh wh A augh are deletions Pine Ridge Commas PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0 311 612 01 8 Page 11 of 23 3.8.9. of the Land Development Code. B. The PUD will comply with Division 3.9 of the LDC, Retention of Native Vegetation. In addition, the t 0.9 acre cypress wetland indicated on the Master Plan will be preserved and credited towards the retention of native vegetation requirements. The landscape buffers along Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road will incorporate scrub vegetation trees to the maximum extent practical, which also will be credited towards the Retention of Native Vegetation requirements. C. A Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Gopher Tortoise Incidental Take Permit for the gopher tortoises on-site will be obtained. The Developer shall relocate the tortoises into an elevated site buffer with native vegetation and/or appropriate landscaping. The tortoise relocation areas shall be fenced and maintained per Code requirements. D. Land uses shall meet all federal, state, regional and local rules for operation and location within the regulated distances of potable water wellfields. E. An exotic vegetation, removal, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan for the site shall be submitted to Current Planning Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. Designation Urban Mixed Use District of the Growth Management Plan 2.14 UTILITIES A. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time approvals are requested. B. Collier County government may replace and/or relocate existing FPL power transmission poles within the 100 foot wide existing FPL utility easement as part of the Goodlette-Frank Road four laning improvement project. The Developer does not represent that relocation can be done without approval of FPL and any other utilities that might have rights within the easement. The Developer will not object to the relocation of the power transmission poles so long as they do not interfere with access or drainage to the projects. 2.15 TRANSPORTATION A. The Developer will pay an appropriate fee required by the County's Road Impact Fee Ordinance 92-22, as may be amended, as building permits are issued for the proposed proj ect. B. The Developer will provide for a reservation of land a maximum of 50 feet in width along the western property boundary to accommodate the programmed Goodlette- Words underlined are additions; words sowek dmwgh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03/1612018 Page 12 of 25 Road Road four-laning improvements. Dedication of this land to Collier County shall be in conjunction with final subdivision plat or site development plan approval of the first phase of development or within 120 days of any written request to the Developer from the County or at the initiative of the Developer, whichever is earlier. The Developer will be entitled to impact fee credits as permitted by and pursuant to the Road Impact Fee Ordinance for this dedication. The developer is not responsible for resolving any conflicts created with other easement holders within the dedication area, such as, but not limited to, Florida Power and Light. (Commitment complete) C. The Developer shall dedicate required land up to a maximum of fifteen feet in width for a right tum lane from Goodlette-Frank Road. The Developer shall dedicate this land as part of the Goodlette-Frank Road right-of-way and the dedication shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. Dedication of the land to Collier County shall be in conjunction with final subdivision plat or site development plan approval or within 120 days of any written request to the Developer from the County. (Commitment complete) D. All project access points shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy, including tum -lane specifications. Types of access and locations of access to the project from Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road shall be as depicted on the approved Master Plan exhibit. The Developer will provide appropriate tum lanes at the project entrances as required at the time of SOP approval. These improvements are considered site related and are not subject to impact fee credits. (Commitment complete) E. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided by the Developer at project entrances to be utilized by that phase of development, prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for that phase. (Commitment complete) The Developer shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of a traffic signal at the intersection of the northern entrance road and Goodlette- Frank Road when warranted by the Collier County Transportation Department. The signal will be designed, installed, owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. (Commitment complete) G. The Developer will provide the opportunity fora mutually acceptable interconnection to adjoining commercial properties to the east. H. The nroicct shall be limited to a maximum of 942 unadjusted PM Peak hour two-wav trips. 2.16 COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE Common area maintenance, including maintenance of the surface water management system, will be provided by the Developer. Words underlined are additions; words sowk &wugb are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page 13 oj15 2.17 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS A. The Collier County Planned Unit Development District is intended to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership as set forth in the LDC. Seetion B. The Pine Ridge Commons PUD is planned as a neighborhood -oriented residential. retail commercial, office and financial institution site. The Developer will establish guidelines and standards to ensure quality for both the common areas and the individual parcel developments. All development will meet and enhance the LDC, D*risieii 2ASection 5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design Standards-and46eidelines. C. The Pine Ridge Commons PUD will feature an integrated and compatible architectural building style or theme, which will be incorporated into the primary retail center, office buildings and free-standing uses. Massing of building facades will be reduced by transitioning building heights, widths and colors, and adding architectural building details. Building architectural styles shall be compatible and complementary throughout the project and shall feature unifying and complementary elements such as roof treatments, signage, landscaping and building materials and building colors. D. The Pine Ridge Commons PUD will be a fully integrated planned site, where attention to the overall site design is achieved by providing well-designed and integrated vehicular use areas, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and architecturally unified signage, landscaping, and lighting throughout the site. I. Common Areas a) Internal roadways will provide efficient vehicular circulation and will be designed with streetscapes that create pedestrian -friendly environments. The intent is to link uses throughout the project by designing appropriately located and scaled pedestrian and bicycle paths and vehicular circulation routes. b) Architectural features shall be permitted throughout the site. c) Lake banks and wet or dry detention features shall be permitted to provide edge offsets to complement the building architectural style and landscape features of the project. 2. Free -Standing Uses a) Site Planning: Each free-standing use will provide a visually appealing, articulated, identifiable path of entry for pedestrians and vehicles from the internal drive to the site and from the site to the buildings themselves. The orientation of a building or structure upon a site will not only reflect the project's functional need, but will also be responsive to the individual parcel's characteristics and relationship to the project and vehicle and pedestrian and Words tmderlined are additions; words soweAtAmWA are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03116/1018 Page 14 oj15 bicycle access ways. When adjacent to a project lake or detention area feature, buildings may be oriented to the feature and may provide decks, walkways, and/or seating areas adjacent to or over the feature, depending upon the compatibility of such features with the type of business located on the parcel. b) Architectural standards: Design elements for free-standing use shall be compatible and complementary with the architectural theme of the project, including building materials, roof materials, colors, signage, lighting and landscaping. c) Landscaping: Landscape design guidelines for free-standing uses will create a harmonious and visually pleasing landscape that is cohesive and complementary to the overall master landscape plan. The Pine Ridge Commons PUD landscape concept will feature combinations of native plants and ornamental varieties which will be designed to define and accent pedestrian and bicycle and vehicular spaces, as well as enhance the building architectural style. Landscape designs will create a coherent theme, which emphasizes plant material as a primary unifying element. (1) Landscape elements along public rights-of-way will be complementary to streetscape landscaping. Hedge material required to be installed in separate parking areas from rights-of-way shall be installed adjacent to the parking areas. Parcel entries will be designed to harmonize with adjacent streetscape landscaping and clearly accentuate, the parcel entry. (2) Landscaping materials will be utilized to define the main site and building entrances. d) Graphics/signage: Sign graphics serve to provide continuity of design for all signage in the project, consistent with the overall visual impression of the project. All monument signage shall be housed within an architecturally uniform sign structure. 2.18 LANDSCAPING, BERMS, FENCES AND WALLS Landscaping, berms, fences and walls are permitted as a principal use throughout Pine Ridge Commons. Required buffer treatments shall terminate at entrances to accommodate entrance treatments and at lakes to accommodate views into the project. The following standards shall apply: A. Landscape buffers contiguous to public right-of-ways: Pine Ridge Road: Minimum width of 20'-0", measured from the property line. The minimum Words yrlined are additions; wards eowk Aownh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Lost Revised 0311612018 Page 15 oj25 number of required trees shall be calculated at 1 tree per 25 linear feet. Plantings shall not be required to be planted on 25 foot centers in a linear manner, but may be clustered or planted in irregular patterns to provide greater buffers in certain areas and to provide view corridors of key project features in order to create greater visual interest. 2. The height of required trees within the buffers shall be 12 feet on average. Canopy trees shall have a 6 foot canopy spread at the time of planting. Hedges, where required by the LDC shall be installed in accordance with LDC, Division 2.4, Landscaping and Buffering. Goodlette-Frank Road: 1. The Florida Power and Light Company and City of Naples water line easements provide the buffer width. The required trees may be planted within the easements with approval of the easements holders. If approval is not received, the trees can be placed immediately adjacent to the easements. The minimum number of required trees shall be calculated at 1 tree per 25 linear feet. Plantings shall not be required to be planted on 25 foot centers in a linear manner, but may be clustered or planted in irregular patterns to provide greater buffers in certain areas and to provide view corridors of key project features in order to create greater visual interest. 2. The height of required trees within the buffers shall be 12 feet on average. Canopy trees shall have a 6 foot canopy spread at the time of planting. 3. Hedges, where required by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) shall be installed in accordance with LDC, Division 2.4, Landscaping and Buffering. B. Landscape buffers contiguous to the Pine Ridge Middle School, immediately east of the Pine Ridge Commons, shall be installed at the time of site development improvement adjacent to the school property and will have the following supplementary landscaping requirements: Canopy trees will be planted at an initial height of 12 feet on average, with a 6 foot spread. 2. The buffer shall have a minimum average width of 10 feet, measured from the property line except where wetland or other native preservation and enhanced areas are provided. The minimum number of required trees shall be calculated at I tree per 30 linear feet. 3. An existing fence lies on the School property. No additional fence or wall is required. C. Landscape buffers contiguous to the agriculturally zoned parcel immediately north Words rllned are additions; words as " through are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Lass Revised 03116,2018 Page 16 of15 of the Pine Ridge Commons PUD shall be at a minimum a Type "A" buffer and will be installed at time of site development of the northern parcel. D. Landscape buffers contiguous to the eastern boundary not adjacent to the school shall be a minimum 10' wide Type "A" buffer if developed with commercial or a minimum 15' wide Type "B" buffer if developed with multi -family. E. Landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls may be constructed along the perimeter of the Pine Ridge Commons PUD boundary concurrent with site development improvements. F. Sidewalks, signage, water management systems, drainage structures, project architectural features, walls, fences and utilities shall be permitted within landscape buffers per LDC, Division 2.4. G. Landscape berms located within the Pine Ridge Commons PUD boundary and contiguous to a property line and/or right-of-way line may be constructed such that they encroach into the right-of-way when approved by the applicable owner or agency. 2.19 SIGNAGE A. General I. All ground mounted project and free-standing use signs shall be of consistent architectural style and shall feature like building materials and sign structures. Sign structures will be uniform in size, color and building material. Pole signs shall be prohibited. 2. Pursuant to Sections 2.8.3.6.2.1 of the LDC, the following conditions provide for the required comprehensive sign plan for the Pine Ridge Commons. All sign regulation, pursuant to LDC, Division 2.5 shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with any conditions established in this PUD, in which case the PUD Document shall govern. a) Free-standing use parels shall be considered a separate single use parcel of land for each use for the purposes of this PUD so that signage may comply with the LDC requirements. b) Signs and decorative landscaped entrance features within a public right- of-way shall require a right-of-way permit subject to the review and approval of the County and FDOT where applicable. c) A minimum setback of 5 feet from edge of pavement shall be required, except that no sign shall be located so as to create a vehicular line of site obstruction. d) All project sign structures may feature architectural treatments, which Words are additions; wordy eawk A sugh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page l7 oj15 shall be permitted to extend above the maximum height of the sign specified herein. B. Project Identification Signs One project directory sign, with a maximum of 150 square feet of sign copy per side and a maximum sign copy height of 20 feet, shall be permitted per entrance per public right-of-way frontage. The directory sign may be permitted within the medians of project entry drives generally depicted on the Master Plan. 2. Project identification signs shall be located as generally depicted on the PUD Master Plan. Project identification signs shall be monuments or wall mounted signs and feature only the project name, insignia or motto of the development. 3. Project identification sign copy will not exceed 80 square feet in size on any side, and shall not exceed a maximum height of 8 feet above finished grade, except for architectural detail treatments. 4. No minimum setback shall be required, except that no sign shall be so located so as to create vehicular line of site obstructions. C. Free -Standing Use Monument Signs Each free-standing use shall be permitted one monument sign per public road and private drive frontage. Maximum permissible sign copy shall be 80 square feet per side for public road frontage and 60 square feet for private road frontage. 2. For public road frontage, the maximum height of the sign copy shall be 8 feet above finished grade. Architectural details of the sign structure may project above the 8 foot height; however, no part of the sign or sign structure shall exceed 10 feet in height above finished grade. For private drive frontage, the maximum height of the sign copy shall be 6 feet above finished grade. Architectural details of the sign structure may project above the 6 foot height; however, no part of the sign or sign structure shall exceed 8 feet in height above finished grade. D. Traffic Signs Traffic signs such as street name signs, stop signs, and speed limit signs, may be designed to reflect an alternative specification and common architectural theme upon approval by the Development Services Director, in accordance with Section 3.2.8.3.19. of the LDC. E. School Signs One directionaltidentification sign for the Pine Ridge Middle School shall be Words mare additions; words sowshohrergh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 031162018 Page 18 q(25 permitted at the Goodlette-Frank Road project entrance. Directional/identification signage shall be ground -mounted and may not exceed 50 square feet in area, nor exceed a height of 8 feet above finished grade. The sign can be located independently of the project directory sign within the central median of the entrance road or on one side of the entrance road. 2.20 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE PATHWAY NETWORK A. A pedestrian and bicycle path -way network shall be established throughout the project as shown conceptually on the PUD Master Plan. The pedestrian and bicycle system will serve to link the primary shopping and office areas with free-standing uses at the perimeter of the project site, by providing a landscaped walkway. Any required breaks in the pedestrian and bicycle network for vehicular access to the site shall be identified through the use of pavers, signage, or other traffic calming techniques deemed appropriate to reduce the speed of vehicles and provide safe pedestrian and bicycle movements throughout the site. B. This pedestrian and bicycle way shall be 6 feet wide. This pathway network area will feature canopy trees or palms with ground level landscape plantings. Canopy trees or palms will be planted within adjacent parking landscape islands. Canopy trees or palms shall be planted along the pathway system and shall be a minimum 12 feet high with a 6 foot spread for canopy trees and equivalent specification for shade palms, at the time of planting. C. An 8 foot wide pedestrian and bicycle path shall be provided on the north side of the possible shared school access road to Pine Ridge Middle School as depicted on Exhibit "A". 2.21 GENERAL PERMITTED USES A. Certain uses shall be considered general permitted uses throughout the Pine Ridge Commons PUD. General permitted uses are those uses, which generally serve the Developer and tenants of Pine Ridge Commons and are typically part of the common infrastructure. B. General Permitted Uses: Essential services as set forth under LDC, Section 2.6.9.1. 2. Water management facilities and related structures. 3. Lake and wet or dry detention features, including features with bulkheads or other architectural or structural bank treatments. 4. Architectural features and elements including walls, fences, arbors, gazebos and the like. Temporary construction, sales, and administrative offices for the Developer Words amierrfin are additions; words &4wok dmWh we deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03/16/2018 Page 19 of23 and Developer's authorized contractors and consultants, including necessary access ways, parking areas, utilities and related uses. 6. Landscape features including, but not limited to, landscape buffers, berms, fences and walls subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.11 of this PUD. Pedestrian and bicycle pathways. 8. Kiosk vendors. Fill storage subject to the standards set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. Site filling and grading as set forth in Section 2.7 of this PUD. 10. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Planning Services Director determines to be compatible. C. Standards for parking, landscaping, signs and other land uses where such standards are not specified herein are to be in accordance with the LDC provision in effect at the time of Site Development Plan Approval. D. Shared parking between the primary retail facility and free standing uses shall be permitted throughout the site. Each free-standing use shall not be required to provide 100% of the LDC minimum parking on the project site; however, the total parking provided for the Pine Ridge Commons shall meet or exceed the minimum parking required for the combined land uses. Words io derlinedare additions: words almok thmWh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Jest Revised 0311612018 Page 20 of 25 SECTION III COMMERICAL -MIXED USE 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within Pine Ridge Commons Ddesignated Commercial on the Master Plan. 3.2 GENERAL DESCRIPTION A. Areas designated as "C" Commercial on the PUD Master Plan are intended to provide a maximum of 275,000 square feet (gross leasable area) for retail commercial, office and financial institution uses. For each residential dwelling unit receiving Site Development Plan or Plat approval the amount of commercial square footage permitted within the PUD shall be reduced by 200 square feet. Of the maximum 275.000 gross leasable area for retail commercial office and financial institutional uses, Rretail commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area on the ±23 acres of the site south of the northernmost entry road depicted on the Master Plan. A depicted on Exhibit 'A' PUD Master Plan B. Site Development Plan submittals shall provide trackiniz of the residential unit count and associated commercial square footage adjustment as applicable to aid PUD monitoring, 3.3 PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or part, for other than the following: A. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures (outside amplified music is prohibited atter 9 p.m.l: All permitted and conditional uses in the C-1, C -1/T, C-2, and C-3 Zoning Districts of the Collier County Land Development Code, in effect as of June 22, 1999, except those uses identified as prohibited in Section 3.3.0 below. 2. Real Estate (Group 6512) Miscellaneous Personal Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, (Group 7299) except escort service; massage parlors; steam baths; tattoo parlors; Turkish baths. Words wide lined we additions; words so whthreugh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0 311 612 01 8 Page 21 of 25 I Multi -family residential dwellings. B. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with principal uses permitted in this District. 2. Outdoor dining shall be permitted as an accessory use to an eating establishment. C. Prohibited Uses and Structures Any use that would be subject to regulation under Ordinance No. 91-83 and any amendment or successor ordinances thereto regulating sexually oriented businesses. 2. 4493 — Marinas 3. 4311 — Department Stores 4. 5941 — Sporting Goods Stores and Cycle, only: ammunitions; firearms; hunters' equipment. 5. 5999 — Miscellaneous Retail Stores, Not Elsewhere Classified, only fireworks. 6. 7361 — Employment Agencies, only labor contractors 7. 7363 — Help Supply Services, only : Labor pools; Manpower pools 8. 7389 — Business Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only: automobile recovery services; automobile repossession service; bondspersons; gas systems, contract conversion from manufactured to natural gas; metal slitting and shearing on a contract or fee basis; repossession service; solvent recovery service on a contract or fee basis. 9. 7922 — Theatrical Producers, only burlesque companies 10. 7993 — Coin -Operated Amusement Devices, only: Gambling Establishments primarily operating coin-operated machines; Gambling machines, coin-operated; Slot machines. 11. 7999 — Amusement and Recreation Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only: aerial tramways, amusement or scenic; amusement concessions; amusement rides; animal shows in circuses, fairs and carnivals; bath houses, independently operated; betting information services; billiard parlors; bingo parlors; bookies; bookmakers, race; card rooms; carnival operation; circus companies; fireworks display service; fortune tellers; Words gQdfrllarft are addidow; words sm A through are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page 22 oj13 gambling establishments not primarily operating coin-operated machines; gambling machines, except coin-operated; game parlors, except coin operated; go-cart raceway operation; go-cart rentals; motorcycle rental; off-track betting; pack trains for amusement; pool parlors; shooting galleries; shooting ranges; skeet shooting facilities; trapshooting facilities. 12. Homeless shelter, as defined by the LDC. 13. Soup kitchens, as defined by the LDC. 14. 8063 — Psychiatric Hospitals. 15. 8069 — Specialty Hospitals, Except Psychiatric, only: alcoholism rehabilitation hospitals; drug addiction rehabilitation hospitals; rehabilitation hospitals drug addiction and alcoholism; tuberculosis and other respiratory illness hospitals. 16. 8322 — Individual and Family Social Services, only: alcoholism counseling, nonresidential; crisis center; crisis intervention centers; hotlines; offender rehabilitation agencies; offender self-help agencies; outreach programs; parole offices; probation offices; public welfare centers; referral services for personal and social problems; refugee services; self-help organizations for alcoholic and gamblers; settlement houses. 17. 8361 — Residential Care 18. 8399 — Social Services, Not Elsewhere Classified, only Social service information exchanges: e.g., alcoholism, drug addiction. 19. 9211—Courts. 20. 9222 — Legal Counsel and Prosecution, only: public defenders' offices; public prosecutors' offices; U.S. attorneys' offices. 21. 9223 — Correctional Institutions. 3.4 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (COMMERCIAL) A. Minimum Lot Area: 20,000 square feet B. Minimum Lot Width: 100 feet C. Minimum Yard Requirements: Principal Permitted Uses a) Goodlette-Frank Road: Zero feet (0) to the east edge of the FPL Words gnder(rneQ are additions; words vowkAm Wh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03116/1018 Page 23 of 25 easement b) Pine Ridge Road: Forty feet (40') from edge of pavement. c) Minimum Building Setback from North and East Perimeter Project Boundary of the PUD: Thirty feet (30). d) Internal Drives: Fifteen feet (15) from rights-of-way line. e) Distance between Free-standing Uses: Thirty feet (30') f) Water management structures: Zero feet (0D to bulkhead or riprap at top of bank. g) Buildings or portions of buildings under separate ownership including connected units: Zero feet (0'). h) Preserves: Twenty-five feet (25') 2. Accessory Structure Setbacks: a) Perimeter (1) Roofed parking facilities- Twenty feet (20') b) Side Yard: (1) Common Architectural Features- Zero feet (0) (2) Roofed parking facilities- Ten feet (10) c) Lake Bank: (1) Common Architectural Features -Zero feet (0) (2) Seating areas- Zero feet (0) d) Preserve: Ten feet (10') D. Maximum Height: 1. Retail Buildings: One story, not to exceed forty feet (40'). 2. Office and Financial Institution Buildings: Three -stories, not to exceed fifty feet (501). 3. Architectural features: Sixty feet (60') E. Individual Retail Tenant Size 1. No individual retail tenant may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Words glare additions; words mmok Om Wh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 03116,2018 Page N oj25 3.5 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (RESIDENTIAL) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MULTI -FAMILY Minimum lot Area 1 acre Minimum Lot Width N.A. Minimum Lot Depth N.A. Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 5 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback*1 10 feet Minimum Lake Maintenance Easement Setback*1 0 feet Minimum Setback from FPL Easement 0 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback *2 excluding 25 feet boundary abutting FPL Easement Maximum Building Height Zoned Actual 55 feet 60 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 10 feet Floor Area Min. (S.F.1 per unit ground floor 700 SF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Minimum Front Yard Setback 10 feet Minimum Side Yard Setback 0 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet Minimum Drainage Easement Setback 0 feet Minimum Setback from FPL Easement 0 feet Minimum PUD Boundary Setback *2 excluding boundary abutting FPL Easement 15 feet Minimum Distance Between Buildings 0110 feet Maximum Height Zoned Actual 20 feet 25 feet Minimum lot areas for any unit type may be exceed d The unit Noe. and not the minimum lot area shall define the development standards to be applied by the Growth Management O'vision during an application for a building Pe m t '1 -The Landscape Buffer Easements shall be located within open space tracts and Lake Maintenance Easements shall be located within lake tracts and not be located within a platted residential lot *2 -The minimum distance for all residential units from the southern PUD boundary shall be 350 feet. Note. nothing in this Pup Document shall be deemed to approve a deviation from the LDC unless It is exviessly stated in a lit of deviations. Wordfadditions; words sxerek thoeugh are deletions Pine Ridge Commons PUD, PL20160002306 Last Revised 0311612018 Page 25 of 25 NOTE5: �p pppp THIS PIANO CONCEFNAL IN NATURE AND a 9U41ECT oQR NORTH NAPLES UNITED TO MINOR MODRCWTN DUE TOAGENCYPERMTTING 'i2 r > METHODISTCHURCHMPUD REQUIREMENTS_ P SPORTS FIELD PRESERVES:$�'�E� Naciva Pr wd Raqulmd: 9.85 acroe oPaxbtAng luLlva veyetauonx � .'R �` 15%. 1.47acn m ' m PlatWO Pneaeve FmAded: 0.95 ae+ 0.05u+ 0.47 ac. 1.47 acres PRESERVE j'•'.'.'e^�:::; 3 1 (AREA 2) t::.:�: s•. • ' m kMC 1 0.05 ACRES EHl m E .5 1^ T \� X $ Ni+1EkL-AN 3 22 X ..RESERVE m r5 8 S5F F 1t I(AREA 3) m 0.47 ACRES D O.R. 3916, PIS 0682 A 8 i O�zg N A 1 z ; y o A ii 'Sm" >; ti 2 • C � • f1 Q Um ' o�yyJJ ; Irl[Sl ,�,• m 1 O N (l y �- PheE RAGE ROAD 'a i GOODLETTE COR4ER5 PUD pI 1 , MOORINGS PARK ESTATES COMMERCIAL I�II� TES FUDR D® II RE91DEN71AL SCALE: V- 200' wr Ran®earxt* GradyMinor PINE RIDGE COMMONS MPUD € "F••"""" EXHIBIT KEVI5ED IT9bo . Lmiiswem1 . Plcm. I AKW 11/03/2017 waw PUD MASTER PLAN r1�I►ee� 9YJIT.IIM ....cwarq...wa a.Euw seauo rem 1 u t WflsQ�iMll�er marr s Description of pan of Section 10, township 49 Sauk Range 25 ant, Collier County. Florida (Parcel W) AO that pan of Section 10. Township 49 South, Reap 25 East, ColgaCaury Florio, being more particularly described a follows: COMMENCING m the malwriy IN edmer of Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; theme along the noro"not n IN section Uro of said Section 10. Nano 01.18'35" West 69.79 feet to a polo on the northerly boundary of Pine Ridge Road (S.R. 2%) and tin POW OF BEGINNING of the parcal herein described; thence along said bmmdary, South g9'o7'5r West 937 fest to a polo of curvature on the estally right orway of Frank Boulevard. 100 foot dyn-of-way as recorded in Pid Book 13, Poe 58 of the Public Records of Cotler County, Florida: then« along acid right of way 454.06 reef along tlm are of circular curve moneave the amt, having a radius or$679.65 rees, though a central angle of 04.34'51^ aid being sabteaded by a chard which bean Nath 04641148^ Eat 453.% rest: thence continuing along said rightoF-way North 07'06'130 got 1102.02 fact; thence leaving said rightof-way North 89'29'57' Fast 783.65 feet to a polm on she boundary of the Faucet of land described in O.R. Book S03, page 206; thence along mid boundary South 0064624• Ecu 132429 hot to a point on she boundary ofthe parcel described in O.R. Book 1037, pages 1602.1605; the oar along mid boundary South 89'29571 West 190.00 fee thence condoning along said boundary Seth 90'4674• East 232.40 fed to the northerly boundary of mid Pine Ridge Road; thence along the northerly boundary of Pbw Ridge Road, North 89'3525' West 779.46 real to a point on the northlsouth IN section line of Section 10 and do POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Pored contains 30.65 acres more or Was. Subjaes m euamwta, resmieiom and mavatona of retrad Overlap are based on the masterly boundary Tiro of Pine Ridge Road (SR NO bdag Seth 89.3925' West WILSON, MILLER BARTON A PORK, INC. Rsgirsr-L'Mind Lard Surveyors By: ns L. Delman, P.S.M. 6 5086 Certificate of authorization L"3. Not Valid unless embossed with the Professional's seal. Ref. 20.496 W.0.: 00011-0ON-SRV -00000 Date: April 17, 1998 repro fort Mrars 7a ssare Na/artaa !Howl, 32Epdaeytlr5otr200 Nflal FWA034na-e5a, a.,.eL4MW'�91,-6U.6J,dm .w..w..aw....w. 74 411DOe1.BE5 ALLdL:I1I11C11L D Coder �o-K-nty Growth Management Department Zoning Division,/Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division Date: April 23, 2018 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) - PL20160002306 - REV 6a PETITION NAME: Pine Ridge Commons PUD REQUEST: Amend the Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), previously approved by Ordinance #99-94, to add a maximum of 375 multi -family and townhome residential dwelling units as a permitted use within the PUD. The existing PUD permits up to 275,000 square feet of a variety of office, retail and personal service uses. Approximately 205,000 square feet have been developed to date. LOCATION: The 130.65 -acre site is located at the northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) and Goodlette- Frank Road North (CR 851), in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Commercial District, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The Subdistrict reads: "In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation, the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict is to provide shopping, person services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle School and nearby residential development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles." Uses within the urban designation generally include residential and non-residential uses. Non-residential uses may include, but are not limited to: essential services; parks, open space and recreational uses; child care centers; community facilities such as churches, schools, libraries; safety service facilities; utility and communication facilities; earth mining; agriculture; support medical facilities; and commercial uses accessory to other permitted uses; hotels/motels; and others. The proposed addition of a residential use is included in the urban designation uses. Comprehensive Planning reviewed the FLUE's density rating system (DRS) to determine residential density eligibility for the Pine Ridge Commons site. The base density in the Urban Designation Area of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), plus 1 additional DU/A for access to two or more arterial roads, plus 3 additional DUTA for being within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (depending on whether it is determined that it follows Policies 6.1-6.7) yields a total of up to 8 DUTA or 245 dwelling units - based upon the entire subdistrict acreage (30.65A * 8 DUTA = 245.2 DUs). Density calculated under the DRS would be for residential -only development for any given portion of the site; commercial acreage would not be used in the density calculation. The petitioner is requesting a maximum of 375 DUs, which is contingent upon approval of the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (PL20160002360/CP-2016-3). The requested 375 DUs would be a density of 12.23 DUTA (375 DUs / 30.65 A = 12.23 DU/A). Zoning Division - 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, FL 34104. 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 3 The amount of preserve required for the existing Pine Ridge Commons PUD is specified in the existing Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, and is based upon the GMP (CCME-Conservation and Coastal Management Element, Policy 6.1.1) and LDC requirements for a commercial development. The PUD Preserve requirement of 1.47 acres was finalized with the Pine Ridge Commons Site Development Plan, that included the preserve calculation for the entire PUD. Now that amendments to the Subdistrict and PUD are proposed to allow mixed use development (commercial and residential uses), the GMP and LDC require a greater amount of preserve. Given that the site was cleared, filled and mostly developed (over ten years ago) — except for the preserve area required by the existing PUD and Subdistrict, there is little or no additional native vegetation area to retain; the preserve requirements for a mixed-use development cannot be met, but for requiring re-creation of habitat. The proposed GMP amendment includes specifying the amount of preserve area to be required in this Subdistrict (which is less than that otherwise required by the GMP and LDC). Staff is requesting the PUD amendment include language that explains the preserve requirement for this PUD, as shown below. Not adding this explanatory language to the PUD may lead to questions in the future as to why the preserve amount is less than that specified in the CCME, which in turn would result in staff unnecessarily spending time researching the issue (inefficiency) and/or questions as to whether the County made an error in approving a lesser amount of preserve. Staff -recommended language (to PUD Section 2.13): The PUD Preserve requirement of 1.47 acres was calculated with the Pine Ridge Commons Site Development Plan, that included the preserve calculation for the entire PUD. The 1.47 acres of required preservation was based off the commercial development preservation standard of fifteen (15) percent of the existing native vegetation. With the proposed addition of residential use to the PUD, a preservation standard of twenty-five (25) percent would be required. The PUD will continue to provide 15% preservation (1.47 acres) as identified on the master concept plan, which is allowed by the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, as amended. In reviewing for compliance with Policy 5.6 (shown in italics below) of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text.] FLUE Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.] In reviewing for compliance with FLUE Objective 7 and related Policies (shown in italics), staff provides the following analysis in [bracketed bold text]. FLUE Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [`Exhibit A, PUD Master Plan' in the petition packet, depicts three access points: one on Pine Ridge Road (CR 896), a principal arterial (urban and rural), and the other two on Goodlette-Frank Blvd. N. (CR 851), a minor arterial (urban and rural).] FLUE Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [`Exhibit A — PUD Master Plan' shows only existing roads and driveway accesses. Panther Lane, with a traffic signal at Goodlette-Frank Rd., runs east/west, bisecting the site. Premier Way with an access onto Pine Ridge Rd. runs south/north up through the site to Panther Lane. An access drive, approximately 635 feet north of Pine Ridge Rd., runs east from Goodlette-Frank Rd. connecting with Premier Way. These existing roadways should enable movement among residential and commercial uses.] FLUE Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 ofthe Transportation Element. Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive - Naples, FL 34104. 239.252-2400 Page 2 of 3 [`Exhibit A - PUD Master Plan' indicates an interconnection point with the adjoining the Pine Ridge Middle School using Panther Lane. No additional interconnections are shown on the Master Plan to the Fire Station or the Board of Realtors offices to the east (both sites fully developed), or to the church property to the north (containing a preserve and an athletic field). Goodlette-Frank Rd. is to the west of the project site and Pine Ridge Rd. is to the south of the project site.] FLUE Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [There is an existing sidewalk on one side of Panther Lane, Premier Way, and the access drive to Goodlette-Frank Rd. The proposed residential portion of this development is for high density multi -family and townhome dwelling units. According to `Exhibit 4' in the petition packet, usable open space will be provided. In the approved Ordinance #99-94 Section 2.17 D.l.a. Design Guidelines and Standards, there is a commitment to create pedestrian -friendly environments, by designing and appropriately locating bicycle and pedestrian pathways in the common areas of the project.] CONCLUSION: Based on the above analysis, staff finds the subject petition NOT consistent with the FLUE; however, the petition may be deemed consistent IF the companion GMP amendment is adopted and becomes effective. The PUDA Ordinance needs to contain an effective date linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA. Also, text should be added (to PUD Section 2.13) explaining preserve requirements, as noted previously and as shown below. "The PUD Preserve requirement of 1.47 acres was calculated with the Pine Ridge Commons Site Development Plan, that included the preserve calculation for the entire PUD. The 1.47 acres of required preservation was based off the commercial development preservation standard of fifteen (15) percent of the existing native vegetation. With the proposed addition of residential use to the PUD, a preservation standard of twenty-five (25) percent would be required. The PUD will continue to provide 15% preservation (1.47 acres) as identified on the master concept plan, which is allowed by the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, as amended." Petition on CityView cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division PUDA-PL2016-2306 Pine Ridge Commons Rha G:ICDES Planning ServiceslConsistency Reviews120181PUDA SF-dw/4-23-18 Zoning Division • 2800 North Horseshoe Drive • Naples, FL 34104. 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3 tILL41t11111C11L U NOTES: fi.'c; THI5 PLAN 15 CONCEPTUAL M NATURE AND 16 5U6JECT ao v m r z NORTH NAPLE5 UNITED TO MINORMODIFICAIOTNDUE TOAGENCY PERMIM14G apop = 23> METHOD15TCHURCH MPUD REQUIREMENTS_ n SPORT5 FIELD PRE5EKYE5: 2 -n G1 Native Preserve Required: v Z i O U3 9.65 acres of exittln native g vegetation x y ' z 3 15%= 1.47 acres u �m n3 i .z �. M Native Preserne Provided; �7>7� T 20 D O n 0.95ac+0.05ac+0.47ac=1.47acres ��- cZ m - Epm m 2z PRESERVE mm m v (AREA 2) Noz,> eF z2 0.05 ACRES FN7PANIF L 1 h L (AREA 3) 0.47 ACRES O.R. 3916, PG 0682 N W A $ ao �- M apop r m O n -0 y 70 2 -n G1 Z i O U3 rn GOODLETTE CORNERS PUD + I a z 3 D ?o7a n3 r MOORINGS PARK ESTATES PUD rn > i M A r rnF �7>7� T 20 D O D Z N r D n cZ m x rn Epm m 2z mi mm m v MPUD N z2 Z m N Z n� m c ~ ��''"'"~'�'"` 4.191 -1 S i � C m I co ri � N I O> vz V para i c mooveee C Z n O m h L (AREA 3) 0.47 ACRES O.R. 3916, PG 0682 N W A �r Nx T PINE RIDGE ROAD 2 E n GOODLETTE CORNERS PUD + I a vY COMMERCIAL ` r MOORINGS PARK ESTATES PUD rn > ZS a 1 I r RE5IDENTIAL SCALE: 1"= 200' WAEN Rana 9 a.s x i r HT1 D A I :. MPUD N v m 0. C.* VkW 9W AW LW PA. ® �GradyMinor 3mwDo low m c A ��''"'"~'�'"` 4.191 EXHIBIT A C REYI5ED I CMIEnglneetx . LaaasamTme Plamers ri T; •ii• I 11/03/2017 _ a w Lh oml sl para i c mooveee PUD MASTER PLAN SHM 1 or � z me h L (AREA 3) 0.47 ACRES O.R. 3916, PG 0682 N W A Nx T PINE RIDGE ROAD 2 E n GOODLETTE CORNERS PUD + I a COMMERCIAL ` r MOORINGS PARK ESTATES PUD rn > 0 100' IOQ r RE5IDENTIAL SCALE: 1"= 200' WAEN Rana 9 a.s x i r PINE RIDGE COMMONS MPUD �'r- 0. C.* VkW 9W AW LW PA. ® �GradyMinor 3mwDo low ��''"'"~'�'"` 4.191 EXHIBIT A REYI5ED CMIEnglneetx . LaaasamTme Plamers . LandacapeAmMecta 11/03/2017 _ a w Lh oml sl para i c mooveee PUD MASTER PLAN SHM 1 or � Bontta BpnW. 299.917.1144 .... Cr&a�, elj or. nea Voce My— eta -Baa --4700 IE Clerks Office COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS Z e c: tr7 PROJECT LOCATION '- SE A Glk.T. IR Mill t PINE i#- RD CC i 4 2016 CYCLE 3 GMP AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARING) Project/Petition#PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 CCPC: MAY 17, 2018 BCC: JUNE 26, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2016 Cycle 3 GMP Amendment Project PL20160002360/Staff Petition CP-2016-3 [ADOPTION HEARING] 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENT: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit "A"text(and/or maps): 3) TAB: Transmittal Executive Summary DOCUMENT: BCC Ex. Summary 4) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: 5) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit "A"text(and/or Maps) 6) TAB: Project/Petition DOCUMENT: Project PL20160002360/ Petition CP-2016-3 7) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPCAdoption Advertisement v STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: May 17, 2018 SUBJECT: PROJECT/PETITION PL20160002360/CP-2016-03, LARGE SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDA- PL20160002306) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) PROPOSED AMENDMENT PETITION PL20160002360/CP-2016-3, The applicant proposes a large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to rename the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict as Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict and amend the text to add a residential use for a maximum of 375 multi-family dwelling units for rental,while continuing to allow a maximum of 275,000 square feet of office and commercial uses to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict. The applicant also proposes to create a new map ("Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict") to replace the map "Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill" in the Future Lane Use Map series, which will identify the newly named and revised Subdistrict. Though the existing Subdistrict is deleted from the Urban Commercial District and the new Subdistrict is added to the Urban Mixed Use District, the substantive change is to add the allowance for 375 multi-family rental units and a maximum height for residential buildings. The subject property, a ±30.65-acre planned unit development, is located in the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) and Goodlette-Frank Road N. (CR 851) in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Note:A companion PUD amendment petition is scheduled for this same hearing. Transmittal hearings on the amendment were held on November 16, 2017 (CCPC, Collier County Planning Commission) and on December 12, 2017 (Collier County Board of County Commissioners). The Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented further below. Within CCPC materials provided, you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the Board hearing, and the Transmittal CCPC staff report for the petition, which provides staff's detailed analysis of the petition. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 1 of 4 In accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3)(b)1., F.S., pertaining to the Expedited State Review Process, this Transmittal package was provided to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other reviewing agencies on December 20, 2017. STAFF COMMENTS ON "MARKET STUDY OF MAGNOLIA SQUARE APARTMENTS" At the November 16, 2017 meeting, the Collier County Planning Commission requested the applicant submit a revised market study (housing needs analysis) as part of their application packet for the Adoption Hearing. They suggested the applicant review and confirm the data representing the current supply (inventory) of apartment units and also ensure that all approved apartment projects (units in the pipeline) were considered in projecting the future need. The applicant submitted the revised market study, as requested, with adjusted inventory numbers and the new projected need. The conclusion of the study remains that there is demand (unmet need) for additional apartments in the market study area beyond the number of units of this project, and there is a need for apartments in the area of Magnolia Square. Staff did notice some minor discrepancies within the study, e.g. reference to 400 units in this project whereas that was revised during transmittal review to 375 units, however these minor issues do not affect the Study's conclusions. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS After review of the Transmitted amendment within each reviewing agency's authorized scope of review, the DEO, as well as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services/Florida Forrest Service, Florida Department of State/Bureau of Historic Preservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), rendered their comment letters indicating"no comment"or"no adverse impacts found" or the agency did not respond. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review, but did not express any concerns regarding this project. The Comments Letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide a Comment Letter. Within CCPC materials provided is an Ordinance with Exhibit "A"text (and map)for the petition; this exhibit reflects the text as approved by the Board for Transmittal. There have been no revisions from the version Transmitted. TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To Transmit to DEO. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 7/0). The CCPC requested the petitioner revise the market study (housing needs analysis) to reflect additional apartments projects in the pipeline, and submit to staff for review, for adoption phase of this petition. BOARD ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 4/1), per CCPC recommendation, Commissioner Taylor opposed. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 2 of 4 ADOPTION The petitioner submitted an update (dated 2/13/18)to the market study(housing needs analysis), specifically sections 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0. Staff has reviewed the updated study and notes that, while the unmet demand for new apartments in the greater Naples area is less than that shown at Transmittal hearings, there is still unmet demand at present and through 2021, the end of the projections period. In 2021, the unmet demand is approximately 1,900 units. Further, staff notes the apartments recently developed or in the pipeline are not proximate to the subject site or even in the North Naples or Central Naples Planning Communities; these apartments are a minimum of seven radial miles from the subject site, and all but one are to the south or southwest (that one exception is in the northwest quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Blvd.). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward the single, 2016 Cycle 3 petition to the Board with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. LEGAL REVIEW This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on May 1, 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] [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: DATE: 4 y ao w 19' SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION DATE: (-1"3 J () MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: DATE: /' /s' FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Petition Number: PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 Staff Report for May 17, 2018 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 26, 2018 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, CHAIRMAN Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples;FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 4 of 4 <- tiNj STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: May 17, 2018 SUBJECT: PROJECT/PETITION PL20160002360/CP-2016-03, LARGE SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDA- PL20160002306) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) PROPOSED AMENDMENT PETITION PL20160002360/CP-2016-3, The applicant proposes a large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to rename the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict as Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict and amend the text to add a residential use for a maximum of 375 multi-family dwelling units for rental, while continuing to allow a maximum of 275,000 square feet of office and commercial uses to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict. The applicant also proposes to create a new map ("Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict") to replace the map "Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill" in the Future Lane Use Map series, which will identify the newly named and revised Subdistrict. Though the existing Subdistrict is deleted from the Urban Commercial District and the new Subdistrict is added to the Urban Mixed Use District, the substantive change is to add the allowance for 375 multi-family rental units and a maximum height for residential buildings. The subject property, a ±30.65-acre planned unit development, is located in the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) and Goodlette-Frank Road N. (CR 851) in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. Note:A companion PUD amendment petition is scheduled for this same hearing. Transmittal hearings on the amendment were held on November 16, 2017 (CCPC, Collier County Planning Commission) and on December 12, 2017 (Collier County Board of County Commissioners). The Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented further below. Within CCPC materials provided, you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the Board hearing, and the Transmittal CCPC staff report for the petition, which provides staff's detailed analysis of the petition. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 1 of 4 In accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3)(b)1., F.S., pertaining to the Expedited State Review Process, this Transmittal package was provided to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other reviewing agencies on December 20, 2017. STAFF COMMENTS ON "MARKET STUDY OF MAGNOLIA SQUARE APARTMENTS" At the November 16, 2017 meeting, the Collier County Planning Commission requested the applicant submit a revised market study (housing needs analysis) as part of their application packet for the Adoption Hearing. They suggested the applicant review and confirm the data representing the current supply (inventory) of apartment units and also ensure that all approved apartment projects (units in the pipeline) were considered in projecting the future need. The applicant submitted the revised market study, as requested, with adjusted inventory numbers and the new projected need. The conclusion of the study remains that there is demand (unmet need) for additional apartments in the market study area beyond the number of units of this project, and there is a need for apartments in the area of Magnolia Square. Staff did notice some minor discrepancies within the study, e.g_. reference to 400 units in this project whereas that was revised during transmittal review to 375 units, however these minor issues do not affect the Study's conclusions. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS After review of the Transmitted amendment within each reviewing agency's authorized scope of review, the DEO, as well as the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services/Florida Forrest Service, Florida Department of State/Bureau of Historic Preservation, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), rendered their comment letters indicating"no comment"or"no adverse impacts found" or the agency did not respond. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review, but did not express any concerns regarding this project. The Comments Letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide a Comment Letter. Within CCPC materials provided is an Ordinance with Exhibit "A" text (and map)for the petition; this exhibit reflects the text as approved by the Board for Transmittal. There have been no revisions from the version Transmitted. TRANSMITTAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: To Transmit to DEO. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 7/0). The CCPC requested the petitioner revise the market study (housing needs analysis) to reflect additional apartments projects in the pipeline, and submit to staff for review, for adoption phase of this petition. BOARD ACTION: Transmitted to DEO (vote: 4/1), per CCPC recommendation, Commissioner Taylor opposed. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 2 of 4 ADOPTION The petitioner submitted an update (dated 2/13/18) to the market study (housing needs analysis), specifically sections 6.0, 7.0 and 8.0. Staff has reviewed the updated study and notes that, while the unmet demand for new apartments in the greater Naples area is less than that shown at Transmittal hearings, there is still unmet demand at present and through 2021, the end of the projections period. In 2021, the unmet demand is approximately 1,900 units. Further, staff notes the apartments recently developed or in the pipeline are not proximate to the subject site or even in the North Naples or Central Naples Planning Communities; these apartments are a minimum of seven radial miles from the subject site, and all but one are to the south or southwest (that one exception is in the northwest quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Blvd.). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward the single, 2016 Cycle 3 petition to the Board with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. LEGAL REVIEW This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on May 1, 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] [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: ' __ DATE: 4 -30 " 155r SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: DATE: L - o - /g- DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION DATE: 1-3 i is) MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 41111110. DATE: s'-I— /S FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Petition Number: PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 Staff Report for May 17, 2018 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 26, 2018 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, CHAIRMAN Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples, FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 4 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. 18- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES TO REMOVE THE GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT FROM THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND TO ADD THE GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, TO ALLOW UP TO 375 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING UNITS AND 275,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 31 ACRES AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. [PL20160002360] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Community Planning Act, formerly 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, Petitioners, Trail Boulevard LLLP and Goodlette Pine Ridge II, LLC have initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use element; and WHEREAS, Collier County transmitted the Growth Management Plan amendments to the Department of Economic Opportunity for preliminary review on November 20, 2013, after public hearings before the Collier County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, the Department of Economic Opportunity reviewed the amendments to the Future Land Use Element to the Growth Management Plan and transmitted its comments in writing to Collier County within the time provided by law; and CMP-02374/1407738/1]97 PL2Words underlined are additions;Words struck throughare deletions. Pae 1 of 3 PL.20160002360 g 4/18/18 ************are a break in text WHEREAS, Collier County,has 180 days from receipt of the Comments Report from the Department of Economic Opportunity to adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data and analysis supporting adoption of these amendments, including the following: the Collier County Staff Report, the documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendments and other documents,testimony and information presented and made a part of the record at the public hearings of the Collier County Planning Commission held on , and the Collier County Board of County Commissioners held on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of the law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The amendments to the Future Land Use Element attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and shall be transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. 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 commenced 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-CM0000974/1407738/1]97 Words underlined are additions;Words struck through gh are deletions. Page 2 of 3 4/18/18 ************area break in text 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: 10, Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Text and Map [16-CMP-00974/1407738/1]97 PL20160002360 Words underlined are additions;Words struck through are deletions. Page 3 of 3 4/18/18 ****** *** ***are a break in text PL20160002360/CP2016-3 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** TABLE OF CONTENTS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page vi] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** • Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map • Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map • Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Map • Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict Map • Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Map --� *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK **_ *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN—MIXED USE DISTRICT [Page 9] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict C. URBAN—COMMERCIAL DISTRICT [Page 10] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 9. Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 10. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 1-2, 11. Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Page 1 of 4 Words underlined are added; words etr-uelk-tate are deletions PL20160002360/CP2016-3 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** b. Non-residential uses including [Page 26] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban — Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District [Page 47] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 19. Goodlette/Pine Ridae Mixed Use Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two major arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation, the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict also permits multi-family rental residential dwelling units. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle school and nearby residential development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. Access to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict may feature a signalized traffic access point on Goodlett-Frank Road, which may provide for access to the neighboring Page 2 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deletions PL20160002360/CP2016-3 Pine Ridge Midule School. Other site access locations will be designed consistent with the Collier Co_Int/access management criteria. Commercial development intensity within the Subdistrict will be limited to single-story retail commercial uses, while professional or medical related offices, including financial institutionsmay occur in three-story buildings. A maximum of 275,000 square feet of gross leasablie area for retail commercial and office and financial institution development may occur within this Subdistrict. Retail commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125.000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south +/- 23 acres. No individual retail commercial use may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Residential development within the Subdistrict will be a maximum of 375 multi-family rental dwelling units. The maximum height for residential buildings shall be 4 stories over parking. Unless otherwise required by the South Florida Water Management District, the 0.87± acre wetland area located on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved. A total of 1.47 acres of native vegetation shall be provided within this Subdistrict. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District [Page 63j *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** architecture, - - _, - ---- -= _ - - -• _ ------ • • - ---- • . bicyclists, as . Assess-464w _•_ ' _ --_ - - -- _ - - • ::•_ .- • •- - ' _ - •--. ... t..,!!!! __ _ _ __ _ _ ___ ____ • ___ _ _ _- - _ _ _ -__ _ •:. _ _ ._ _ _ __ = ISI 10. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Page 3 of 4 Words underlined are added; words ewe ough are deletions PL20160002360/CP2016-3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 427 11. Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page 144] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Page 4 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deletions EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE MIXED-USE INFILL SUBDISTRICT ��( COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ,� AutumnW lodls BLVD' Oe /ciP° ,':>\, \<,. O. „ i i O Y ce G SUBJECT SITE I,/,j , C6-3 is Parte I, C iv A4 , / P''''"e //. L11 , ve A :r/A K 1 1 1 AVA Pine Ridge RD Kristin CT Northgate DR en 11 O: 1 I I Milano DR 0P le10. U n ' • .9 m Lastrada LN 2I �— v LEGEND PREPARED BY:GIS/CAD MAPPING SECTKl 230 460 920 Feet %// SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DATE:7/2017 1 I I I f ; I I I T46S i T475 i T48S I T49S 7 T50S i T5iS I T52 i T53S i S iila E o "e _ - S w $8� FWD 408 ^<8�"o:_ M1 M1 R<_�� n 3 II i � 8� z.m2n =adz'�u��-"'goxW=m$`'ovoo '¢oom=�og ZO - li S, o " `�'oa _ _ort-o2. aoa 6o o5 ibio wo obz5izo 0 f i z ±� r t a. r z 6 O < 3 < < _ yy h Z 3o W tai. gee 5 a 9a'8f s I�g11 . o I' 1 1 € '< 1 F II s i It of sa t` l d4 , — _ _ 3 0111- 11 — m g 0_®10®0 gpppg¢ �: 83a 3, W .as tq.,,,. W ef e _ gg i W g 'x 1� i,1111 g4111! 1i1 11 S$t hi ~a b 34 4 i h k 1 i- thi al ' M S iF E iE y 4=J 1 c ti i i Y Yl ;.9999 1 ctM W ata 18 .38 IS H s f9 as a E s �e pirrli ° o 111111_ I 11 E 0 I i _ W a o { E '` w N N 11 2 ja• s 3v !I 14 i$ is t I n ai W11114 ,a �i �a � 9 ll L � z 1 • s13iii- § . o $ piP9I l is Iiii 13 q,; s �`.6 f$ A +f' i ,5 3i $y f i 1p W 4 _06 jA 1111 1111 D r: w M W CC / / 41 w / W rrj s' re /____711_77L i 1 ! 7 w a 1E D w W g � cn N rc i IL _ g Y m ! A 1 I __ L n re 4 i i I1 •.Y u ws°s( "---r / w to at CC u111111� "-18111 N ■11 ij — — _ S !. ir rh - h N if R a .,�.. .ge i N 23 • CL re a f tt g — KWj-a MEM II X.a g '�`.�6••`•t 7 — W ¢F�� \\``` ,��4 5 N � trans � �a / 0-- / - -4 10 z aW �n ' Z �z§ W p RVIM i - N W II./DOM (n N �� i. /� a U • sz N U 2LLUN �I i'/ _ 'zd LL LL=ww �' _ �wilig b�di.� _ O all W AI / / N 1"' �p0 ��i' 5•"'>` ids N U¢ Ike is IV z LL ItI ir\ Milliiii ,_ i'V''. 11 _d°''a.i 3 I T46S I 147S i T48S i T49S i T50 I T51 i T52S I 153S i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve the single petition within the 2016 Cycle 3 of Growth Management Plan Amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for review and Comments response for an amendment specific to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict at the northeast corner of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. (Transmittal Hearing) (PL20160002360/CP-2016-3) [Companion to Petition PUDZ-PL20160002306] OBJECTIVE: For the Board to approve the single petition in the 2016 Cycle 3 of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan(GMP) for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Comprehensive Plan. • Collier County Resolution No. 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the GMP. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency" under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2016 Cycle 3 petition on November 16, 2017 (one petition only,PL20160002360/CP-2016-3). • This Transmittal hearing for the 2016 Cycle 3 considers an amendment to the Future Land Use Element(FLUE). The GMP amendment requested is specific to the entire Subdistrict, approximately 30.65 acres, and is located in the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) and Goodlette-Frank Road North (CR 851) in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East (Central Naples Planning Community). The subject site encompasses the Pine Ridge Commons PUD and is already approved for 275,000 sq. ft. of office and retail commercial uses and preserve — and has been partially developed with approximately 205,000 square feet. This petition seeks to amend the GMP, adopted by Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element(FLUE) and Map Series by: Removing the text of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict from the Urban Commercial District and adding the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict text to the Urban Mixed Use District; allowing up to 375 multi-family residential rental dwelling units and 275,000 square feet of commercial development; and, creating a new Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict map, for inclusion in the Future Lane Use Element map series to replace the existing Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict map. The proposed amended Subdistrict text, as recommended by the Collier County Planning Commission(CCPC), is depicted in Ordinance Exhibit"A." CP-2016-3 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict GMP Amendment Page 1 of 3 Based on the review of this large-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. • The proposed uses are generally compatible with surrounding development. • The proposed Subdistrict shares characteristics of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, including mixed use, high density, location at a major intersection, and proximity to residential development. • The infrastructure needed to serve the development can be provided without related levels of service concerns. • Transportation-related concerns were brought forward by citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting; however, Transportation Planning has determined there would be a net decrease in the number of vehicle trips. • Based on data and analysis submitted for the supply of, and demand for, existing and potential multi-family residential rental development within the study area for the subject property,the need for the maximum of 375 dwelling units contemplated by this amendment has been demonstrated. This location fulfills the localized need to provide market-rate rental housing near employment and shopping. • The Pine Ridge Commons PUD was approved via Ordinance#99-94 for commercial/office uses in December 1999, almost 18 years ago. • Correlating amendments to the Pine Ridge Commons PUD have been submitted and may be heard subsequent to, or concurrent with,the Adoption phase of this GMPA application. 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: No fiscal impacts to Collier County result from this amendment, as this approval is for the Transmittal of this proposed amendment. Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of associated legal advertising/public notice for the public hearings. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment by the Board for Transmittal and its submission to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity will commence the Department's thirty(30) day review process and ultimately return the amendment to the CCPC and the Board for Adoption hearings tentatively to be held in the Spring of 2018. 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: CP-2016-3 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict GMP Amendment Page 2 of 3 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 majority vote for approval because this is a transmittal 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. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their November 16, 2017 meeting and voted unanimously 6-0 to forward the subject petition to the Board with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Prepared by: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, and David Weeks,AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division CP-2016-3 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict GMP Amendment Page 3 of 3 IPIsk Coer County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: November 16, 2017 RE: PETITION CP-2016-03/PL20160002360, LARGE SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDA- PL20160002306) [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Owner/Applicant: Trail Boulevard, LLLP. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Owner: Goodlette Pine Ridge II, LLC 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, a ±30.65-acre planned unit development, is located in the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) and Goodlette-Frank Road N. (CR 851) in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. (Central Naples Planning Community). Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 1 of 11 4N � 1 '_ i M �^ .. s a ,� .id Nir . +� #4.4 �' I Ery off,. .[ 4 , , l I PiOpos- i.-m..::1 & +>a °7 a";Y,+P,.. .,, p' ...../ ` d ;Site I E ale S 4 mot A .., se �i k ,, vils _.: ' ::._, tre , ',7; -- : i * ., , ,t.• : 'ill - -; 4 alli:: , '.:1141., v # , i., %,,10,.. 1.......1_ve.,--- i- ,4(1--' ` - , , i < : t' '1_,, ,,aux ii, _ t .. ..xe• - 'PINE RIDGE ROAD=L-,• { fi 4 $ f i. - yk Q'4 ems �.i...— i/ '*, ' Y .,..„......,-,,I., -' -4 "`, 4, i f ,vi 4F 4 _ F-4 '6' , 3 : . -$ ! .4 , • —* ' Fes,„ -` ` [..� ;g REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to rename the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict as Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict and amend the text to add a residential use for a maximum of 375 multi-family dwelling units for rental, while continuing to allow a maximum of 275,000 square feet of office and commercial uses to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict. The applicant also proposes to create a new map ("Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict") to replace the map "Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill" in the Future Lane Use Map series, which will identify the newly named and revised Subdistrict. Though the existing Subdistrict is deleted from the Urban Commercial District and the new Subdistrict is added to. the Urban Mixed Use District, the substantive change is to add the allowance for 375 multi-family rental units and a maximum height for residential buildings—see below. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added, single strike-through text is deleted, and is also reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A). A. Urban Mixed Use District [Page 47] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 19. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two major arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation, the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and Page 2 of 11 Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict also permits multi-family rental residential dwelling units. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle school and nearby residential development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. Access to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Mixed Use Subdistrict may feature a signalized traffic access point on Goodlette-Frank Road, which may provide for access to the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle School. Other site access locations will be designed consistent with the Collier County access management criteria. Commercial development intensity within the Subdistrict will be limited to single-story retail commercial uses, while professional or medical related offices, including financial institutions, may occur in three-story buildings. A maximum of 275,000 square feet of gross leasable area for retail commercial and office and financial institution development may occur within this Subdistrict. Retail commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south +/- 23 acres. No individual retail commercial use may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Residential development within the Subdistrict will be a maximum of 375 multi-family rental dwelling units. The maximum height for residential buildings shall be 4 stories over parking. Unless otherwise required by the South Florida Water Management District, the 0.87± acre wetland area located on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved. A total of 1.47 acres of native vegetation shall be provided within this Subdistrict. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the Growth Management Plan Amendment is to create text and a map for a new Mixed Use Subdistrict (Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict) to replace the commercial- only Subdistrict(Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict). The Subdistrict boundaries and acreage will remain the same but will allow residential uses along with previously approved retail commercial and office uses. The amendment is necessary in order to allow residential development of a maximum of 375 multi-family rental dwelling units in addition to the previously approved maximum of 275,000 square feet of retail commercial and office uses, as part of this proposed mixed use Subdistrict. A new map will be created of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict and included in the Future Land Use Map Series of the Future Land Use Element, while the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map will be removed from same. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The +30.65-acre subject site is zoned Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD) allowing uses from the Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1), Commercial Convenience District (C-2), and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning districts. The Future Land Use designation of the Subdistrict as shown on the Future Land Use Map is Urban Designation, Commercial District, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict. The site is Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 3 of 11 developed with approximately 205,000 square feet of the approved maximum of 275,000 square feet of commercial and office uses. Surrounding Land Uses: North: To the north is the North Naples United Methodist Church Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)that is designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; it is developed with a multipurpose field, sand volleyball courts, and parking lot. Further to the north is the North Naples United Methodist Church and Village School campus and single-family subdivision (Autumn Woods), all zoned 300 Acre Goodlette Road PUD and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. South: Immediately adjacent to the south (across Pine Ridge Road), are residential single- family units and recreation area zoned Northgate Village PUD and partially zoned within the Corridor Management Overlay; this area is designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Further to the south is a golf course zoned GC, Golf Course, and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and residential single-family units, zoned Residential Single-Family 3 dwelling units per acre(RSF-3),designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and the Moorings Park development with a mix of residential dwelling units, assisted living and nursing facilities, located in the City of Naples. West: Immediately adjacent to the west (across Goodlette-Frank Road N.) are residential single-family units and undeveloped lots, zoned A, Rural Agricultural and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Further to the west are mostly residential single-family units, zoned Residential Single-Family 1 dwelling unit per acre (RSF-1) and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and beyond the residential there are parcels zoned General Commercial District (C-4), designated Urban, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center#12 Subdistrict, and developed mostly with retail, office, and restaurant uses. East: Immediately adjacent to the east is a North Naples Fire Station and offices, zoned Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1) and Pine Ridge Middle School, zoned A, Agricultural with provisional use, designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Further to the east is the Mission Square PUD developed with a shopping center containing restaurants, retail uses, etc., and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and a commercial PUD (Jaeger) and Heavy Commercial District (C-5), developed with a variety of commercial uses and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and the Pine Ridge Industrial Park, zoned I, Industrial, designated Urban, Industrial District, and developed with a variety of industrial uses. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict was created via Ordinance #99-15, approved by the Collier County Board of County Commissioners on February 23, 1999. The intent of the Subdistrict was to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. According to Ordinance #99- Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 4 of 11 15, "retail commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south ±23 acres and no individual retail tenant may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Development intensity within this district will be limited to single-story retail commercial uses,while professional or medical related offices, including financial institutions, may occur in three-story buildings." The applicant proposes to create a Mixed Use Subdistrict to allow residential development in the Subdistrict in addition to the previously allowed commercial development. The proposed text for the new Subdistrict includes the following statements: "Residential development within the Subdistrict will be a maximum of 375 multi-family rental dwelling units. The maximum height for residential buildings shall be 4 stories over parking." Residential density, building height and compatibility (including appropriateness of the location) for this project are identified by staff as the main areas of concern to address. Density: This petitioner is proposing adding a residential component of 375 multi-family rental dwelling units. Comprehensive Planning staff reviewed the FLUE's density rating system to determine residential density eligibility for the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Subdistrict site. The Base Density in the Urban Designation Area of 4 dwelling units per acre(DU/A), plus 1 additional DU/A for access to two or more arterial roads, plus 3 additional DU/A for being within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (depending on whether it is determined that it follows Policies 6.1-6.7) yields a total of up to 8 DU/A or 245 dwelling units (30.65A* 8 DU/A = 245.2 DUs). The FLUE states: "The County has designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA) to encourage compact urban development where an integrated and connected network of roads is in place that provides multiple, viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips." The project site is located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area,which enables this project to be eligible for 3 additional DU/A, as stated in the Density Rating System of the FLUE. Northwest TCMA is bounded by the Collier—Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the 1-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side (See Map TR-5 in the Transportation Element of the FLUE). FLUE Policy 6.3 states: "Collier County's designated Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMAs) shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl by promoting residential and commercial infill development and by promoting redevelopment of areas wherein current zoning was approved prior to the establishment of this Growth Management Plan (January 10, 1989). Infill development and redevelopment within the TCMAs shall be consistent with Objective 5, and relevant subsequent policies, of this Element." The petitioner is requesting a maximum of 375 DUs. The requested 375 DUs would be a density of 12.23 DU/A (375DU / 30.65 A = 12.23 DU/A), which is 4 DU/A higher than the number calculated by the Density Rating System. 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 does present many of the same characteristics (allows both residential and commercial retail/office uses; is located Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 5 of 11 at an intersection of two major roadways; may be developed at a human-scale; may be pedestrian-oriented; provides an interconnection with one abutting project (North Naples Middle School). Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, is being proposed with this Subdistrict. Also, this Subdistrict is located proximate to major employment centers and goods and services located along the Pine Ridge Road Corridor and along US 41 located 1/2 mile to the west. If a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center, which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. Because this project has many of the same characteristics as a Mixed Use Activity Center, it could be appropriate to allow a density greater than that potentially allowed by the density rating system from 8 DU/A to 12.23 DU/A (which is still almost 4 DU/A less than allowed in the Mixed Use Activity Center). Because this is a new Subdistrict, it is not limited by the Density Rating System and the petitioner may request 12.23 DU/A. Height: The maximum height for residential development(4 stories over parking)is proposed to be higher than the approved height for professional or medical related offices, including financial institutions (three stories not over parking). There are currently three 3-story buildings within the Subdistrict, including the offices for Raymond James Financial Services, and two other office buildings at the northern portion. The number of floors of underneath parking are not specified in this proposed Subdistrict. The closest distance from the Subdistrict's western boundary to the nearest lot to the west that could be developed residentially is approximately 165 feet and is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, which can only allow one single family dwelling unit, with a maximum building height of 35 feet. The closest distance to the nearest single family dwelling to the south is approximately 285 feet. The maximum building height for the closest dwelling units to the south of the site is 30 feet above finished grade of lot or from the minimum base flood elevation required by the Flood Elevation Ordinance, whichever is higher. Building setbacks on the subject property (and on the "A" parcel) would increase the separation beyond these stated distance figures. Compatibility: There are a wide range of uses in the area surrounding the Subdistrict. They range from Agriculture with single family homes to the west across Goodlette-Frank Road N., to a large church to the north, to the Pine Ridge Industrial Park and C-1 and C-5 uses to the east and residential single family to the south. The FLUE encourages development to transition from higher intensities to lower intensities. Use intensities diminish as development moves from the industrial lands to the east towards Goodlette Road and beyond to the west in this section of Pine Ridge Road. One purpose of the transition of uses is to ensure that residential developments are not located next to high intensity uses. The proposed uses of this Subdistrict help produce this type of transition, with a proposed mix of residential uses and lower intensity commercial and office. The Subdistrict is presently approved for, and developed with, C-1 through C-3 uses, with retail uses limited to the southerly 3/4 of the site. The addition of residential multi-family use further lessens the use intensity of the site. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed at time of zoning, and may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 6 of 11 Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The petitioner states, "The amendment is consistent with other Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Growth Management Plan, which promote mixed use development and connectivity." The applicant's justification for the requested amendment is to meet the market demands for multi- family rental housing, while continuing to offer opportunities for commercial development in this Urban Subdistrict. The petitioner believes this location will allow for residents to live, shop and work within a convenient travel distance. The petitioner submitted a market study with his application that indicated that there is a demand in Collier County for multi-family rental housing that would be supported at this location. One recent development (Orchid Run located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road) of new multi-family rental housing at market price has been well-received. The proposed residential component of this Subdistrict is anticipated to follow the success of Orchid Run. The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant at the intersection of two arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road N. This Subdistrict location is within 4 miles of high employment centers such as NCH North on Immokalee Road, NCH Downtown, multiple shopping areas (including Coastland Center), Naples High School, Pine Ridge Middle 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 renters. This location is well situated for a mixed use development. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent GMPA Criteria in 2017 Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3177: (6)(a) 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: (a) The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. [The applicant conducted a market study to determine the number of multi-family dwelling units that might be supported at the project's location and what the demand might be on the 31 acres. The applicant determined that a density might exceed the Density Rating System's eligible density(potentially 8 DU/A) for this site and still be supported on this project site.] (b) The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. [The consultant estimated that the total population that will reside within this Subdistrict might (with a maximum of 375 multi-family dwelling units) result in an estimated population of approximately 900 full time residents. (c) The character of undeveloped land. [The Subdistrict land has been largely cleared and filled and supports a variety of retail and office development. A portion of an existing retail building will need to be raised in order to provide sufficient land area to support the proposed 375 units.] (d) The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. [Adequate infrastructure is available to serve the site.] (e) The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination --. of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. [The proposed development of multi-family dwelling units would represent a redevelopment of Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 7 of 11 a site in order to respond to a changing market. The market study showed there is great demand for dwelling units in close proximity to other urban services and employment areas.] (f) The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. [n/a, no military installations are near the subject property.] (g) The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s.330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. [n/a, the site is not proximate to an airport.] (h) The discouragement of urban sprawl. [The redevelopment of the site will discourage urban sprawl consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the State, Regional, and Collier County Growth Management Plan.] (i) The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. [The proposed multi-family dwelling units support job creation and capital investment during construction and after construction, the dwelling units will provide needed housing for employees to support the local economy.] (j) The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. [This project is not within an antiquated subdivision.] 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. [The applicant has stated that he has analyzed the proposed impacts of the addition of dwelling units on all public facilities. There are no projected deficiencies.] 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. [The 31 acre Subdistrict site is located at the intersection of two 6 lane arterial roadways. The site is located adjacent to additional commercial development and is within walking distance of public and private school. There are no natural resource constraints impacting development potential of the site.] c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. [A market feasibility analysis shows that the demand for the proposed mixed use project on the 31 acres represents the minimum area necessary to support the proposed mix of residences and non-residentials developments.] Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: The Environmental Planning Section reviewed the petition. The proposed revisions do not impact the previously recorded preserves within the Pine Ridge Commons PUD. The PUD Preserve requirement of 1.47 acres was finalized with the Pine Ridge Commons Site Development Plan, that included the preserve calculation for the entire PUD. The 1.47 acres of required preservation was based off the commercial development preservation standard of fifteen (15) percent of the existing native vegetation. With the proposed addition of residential use to the PUD and Subdistrict, a preservation standard of twenty-five (25) percent would be required. As Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 8 of 11 permitted site clearing impacts have occurred within the PUD, the redevelopment from commercial to mixed use will not be able to meet the 25% standard. Staff is not recommending additional preserve be required for this specific PUD as all the impacts to native vegetation (outside of the preserve areas) onsite have been previously permitted. Summer Araque, Principal Environmental Specialist with Collier County Environmental Planning Section, completed her review and approved this petition in November 2016. No historical or archaeological impacts were addressed in this application. This site is previously cleared and currently significantly developed. Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, completed his review and approved this petition in July 2017. Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition in December 2016. He added one note: "Note: net decrease in trips (75 new non-pass-by-net decrease)proposed with residential use.Applicant intends to retain current use allowance (942 total trips, 736 non-pass-by trips)." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A,was duly advertised, noticed, and held on April 24, 2016, 5:30 p.m. at Naples Area Board of Realtors, 1455 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, FL 34109. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this large scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) petition. The applicant's team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. A total of approximately 35 members of the public along with approximately 6 members of the applicant's team and County staff signed in at the NIM. The public asked questions about the project details. The consultant explained the application included a maximum of 400 multi-family dwelling units (DUs) either rental or townhomes; however, the petition was subsequently revised to provide for a maximum of 375 multi-family DUs, rental only. Many voiced concerns over the traffic and access points and opposed the petition for this reason. The consultants explained that the access points would remain unchanged from what is currently operating and that although the trips generated from the project would not increase beyond the previously approved total number of trips, the pattern of travel times might be different. Concerns were also voiced over the capacity in the nearby Pine Ridge Middle School. 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. Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 9 of 11 • Transportation-related concerns were brought forward by citizens at the Neighborhood Information Meeting; however, Transportation Planning has approved this project and determined there would be a net decrease in the number of trips. • There are no utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • The Pine Ridge Commons PUD was approved via Ordinance#99-94 for commercial/office uses in December 1999, almost 18 years ago. • The use is generally compatible with surrounding development. • The proposed Subdistrict shares characteristics of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, including mixed use, high density, location at a major intersection, proximity to residential development. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney's Office on November 3, 2017.The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] Zoning Division•2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 10 of 11 PREPARED BY: DATE: I/- 1'7 SUE FAULKNER, PRINCIPAL PLANNER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION REVIEWED BY: tA114/ DATE: DAVID WEEKS,AICP, GROWTH MANAGEMENT MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION, ZONING DIVISION DATE: 11- 37 MICHAEL BOSI,AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: 411111,,C- 4.•4.i DATE: l7- 7-/ 7 • MES FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Petition Number: PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 Staff Report for November 16, 2017 CPCC meeting NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the December 12, 2017 BCC meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, CHAIRMAN Zoning Division*2800 North Horseshoe Drive•Naples,FL 34104•239-252-2400 Page 11 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. 17- 250 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES TO REMOVE THE GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT FROM THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND TO ADD THE GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE MIXED- USE SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, TO ALLOW UP TO 375 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING UNITS AND 275,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 31 ACRES AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PL20160002360] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, 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, Petitioners, Trail Boulevard LLLP and Goodlette Pine Ridge II, LLC, have initiated this amendment to the Future Land Use Element; and WHEREAS, on November 16, 2017, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and Words underlined are additions;Words struck through are deletions *** *** *** ***are a break in text [16-CMP-00974/1351309/1]65 Pine Ridge Commons/PL20160002360 11/3/17 Page 1 of2 WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing,to Collier County its comments within said thirty(30)days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty(180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this day of N,,-t z,.0 b ,- , 2017. ATTEST: ;`w0<< ,, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E:$ROCK, CLERK COLLI.R ' NTY, FLORIDA • f` i AV tet /Q.: BY. eputy Clerk isi. ;t'ar to Chair,nan's11661 hairman ��cacrcu� r., c.,. signature only. Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit "A'° Words underlined are additions;Words struck through are deletions *** *** *** ***are a break in text [16-CMP-00974/1351309/1]65 Pine Ridge Commons/PL20160002360 11/3/17 Page 2 of 2 PL20160002360/CP2016-3 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** TABLE OF CONTENTS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** IL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES [Page vi] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** • Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map • Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map • Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Map • Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict Map • Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Map *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN — MIXED USE DISTRICT [Page 9] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict C. URBAN — COMMERCIAL DISTRICT [Page 10] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 9. Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 11. 10. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict 12. 11. Davis — Radio Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Page 1 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deletions PL20160002360/CP2016-3 FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECT' ON *** *** *** *** **, *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGN/1,710N *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** b. Non-residential uses including [Page 26] *** *** *** *** *,.* *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban - Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, 'Jincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davis - Radio Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict,Goodlctte/Pine Ridge -=•• Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District [Page 47] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 19. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeastyuadrant of two maior arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation, the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict also permits multi-family rental residential dwelling units. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle school and nearby residential development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. Access to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict may feature a signalized traffic access point on Goodlette-Frank Road, which may provide for access to the neighboring Page 2 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deletions PL201600023 60/CP2016-3 Pine Ridge Middle School. Other site access locations will be designed consistent with the Collier County access management criteria. Commercial development intensity within the Subdistrict will be limited to single-story retail commercial uses, while professional or medical related offices, including financial institutions, may occur in three-story buildings. A maximum of 275,000 square feet of gross leasable area for retail commercial and office and financial institution development may occur within this Subdistrict. Retail commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south +1- 23 acres. No individual retail commercial use may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Residential development within the Subdistrict will be a maximum of 375 multi-family rental dwelling units. The maximum height for residential buildings shall be 4 stories over parking. Unless otherwise required by the South Florida Water Management District, the 0.87± acre wetland area located on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved. A total of 1.47 acres of native vegetation shall be provided within this Subdistrict. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District [Page 63] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict 10. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Page 3 of 4 Words underlined are added; words StFLIGIC-through are deletions PL20160002360/CP2016-3 *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 1-2, 11. Davis —Radio Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE VIAP SERIES [Page 144] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Mixed Use Subdistrict Map Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Page 4 of 4 Words underlined are added; words struck through are deletions EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160002360/CP-2016-3 GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE MIXED-USE INFILL SUBDISTRICT 01 \,/ COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA Itit / I I I I I I Autumn.Woods BLVD) / 011.1 Z O 2 C SUBJECT LE SITE C7 /j o CP-2016-3 Q III I r / ep , r 00 A A$ I/ ri v, Ar A 414 toI _ Pine Ridge RD I Kristin CT /C�� (/ cc _ —Northgate DR p Ill V II Milano DR , �� --t4;3: IV .,U i 7 -■I0. c Lastrada LN zl 'Cc?' II / LEGEND I PREPARED BY:GIS/CAD MAPPING SECTION 0 230 460 920 Feet IA- SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DATE:7/2017 I I 0 I I I I 1 I — ---- 14 -'l C.. I SES1 I SZ91 I S IS1 I SOS1 I S8 .1. SLP.I. I s9vi F- , i o 1 1 "9 ,-, T1; ' • — '•'-'" g,27, 0 • 1 IN J ' - ,i,-- a .„ 73 m 11 --- (1. T, -. . ., . .... ,_ 11 11=4:= •'..6\\, ,2zin .0.1 Zg KnaleiPIMIP— , -0 \-- n 00mil °X ------ ,..--- V ‘, it , / 4111141"00110A1110.1 0 N 2 c 8 73 N 1" IN) -o — , ....., i , — 115 i:, Ilir . a glall_ pi r...) 0 .,:.,,, co 00 ....ic_. .- 21 ,,, '' '' • ''e:lk;,,I7 3. I T ilaarill _,. o 0 0) c. L (^,-; ':' 8P' / .77/ I 4134 ' ; 'r-7 .:„!„1,,-;, / Pi s , h.) m 1 NNW\ CD "6"73 EC _ x ,, ,ii..,. .,,...,,.,1 c. or4 . 01 1'. ,. (,,- e:A.G.& ,,,,...- - ii Mik i , vs.' -,, -. •: 1 1 . cr'i moc. E 1 i ,,, ty , -T.h. 0 li ' ;:;;;:i .. 4 . _ > f Air_ , d . .„ 7 \ v . ..., R'' g 4/\,,, = , ,_ 'mom „ - •k =la - V.... - ... v n1 g 111rAW Ei I . , •P A • II , ' .. ,0-11:--'4••:::'' . _ 1-- i ii. 11 . "-' 1 3 i , , // - - ._._ . . . , . m , , ,O. imrim rjo p m 1 , im... / H 4 • .3 2 .,,.. 5 m 1 10 i J i 4 ...1 F 1 r _ . , rn m / . m . . m / ml epTh • / / 1 gi I tt 1 ii Iti i'I :I!Ut : w M 11 7I.L1 E11116! II 11Wia%•11 m I 1 - ! il 1 q I li 1! 11. 1 i I i ii 11 ii bil 1 ! 1 i l i 7. ! 1--- I i:i21:111! P I I II 1.11 1111 , . --- m w if i i Mr, il f.g.' ,2 PO li i la 2 73 . ilgE Kg- m 1 , IN al a 1 n ii. iiR pi!ii 11 ; i i M li 1 i 2: 1 if Ifil ir V 1 ' _ 1 .1.0,i -t i 1 - i i J ,10, I - got ii . m — — / 1 rill ON—Iffil—0 OI 1 H II ri M 110 ---- - , ;,1 F, ,, ii. rii , > ig_iLiihiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ; ; ; ; 8 i il; I a-1 -.H., 2-.-g '' A-g_A-g162Eagi5:Aik_A fi,§14F,0, ?RinEir?.?i7i°4?..fF27 ?I?2?-0°?:7i7 7 7 7 7 7 - 7 7 7 2 2 2 I 1 5 EEpla, ir:::1.-;:•,;1•,,-;.1;-?..-n3-2,•,i.,pt,iz..--i,.011v.g.F,E,,,i;; = • ZI g ,i 1 g : i E F. i-; ',-; g 1 f 1 i 9- 'II I Sul I sm.'. 1 si.91 1 sm.'. I S61,1 I SOP1 I SLI I S9P1 1 AO Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict ( PL20160002360/CP-2016-3) Application and Supporting Documents May 17, 2018 CCPC Hearing Prepared April 25, 2018 ©Gradytinor Civil Engineers•Land Sunews•Planners•landscape Architects PQF Page 1 of 244 APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND --- THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATOIN NUMBER PL20160002360 DATE RECEIVED PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT This application,with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I. GENERAL INFOMRATION A. Name of Applicant David Genson Company Trail Boulevard LLLP Address 2600 Golden Gate Parkway City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34105 Phone Number 239-262-2600 Fax Number B. Name of Agent * D. Wayne Arnold, AICP • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Address 3800 Via Del Rey City Bonita Springs State Florida Zip Code 34134 Phone Number 239-947-1144 Fax Number Bl. Name of Agent * Richard D. Yovanovich • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239-435-3535 Fax Number C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Trail Boulevard LLLP Address 2600 Golden Gate Parkway City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34105 Phone Number 239-262-2600 Fax Number Cl. Name of Owner (s) of Record Goodlette Pine Ridge II LLC 1 PQF Page 3 of 244 Address 2600 Golden Gate Parkway City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34105 "1 Phone Number 239-262-2600 Fax Number D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Please see Exhibit I-D 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 Not Applicable 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 Please see Exhibit II 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 Not Applicable 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 Please see Exhibit II 2 PC)F Page 4 of 244 E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE,with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable Date of Contract: F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address Not Applicable G. Date subject property acquired (X 12/2010, 12/2009, 10/2002) leased ( ): Term of lease yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates: , or anticipated closing: H. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please see Exhibit III.A B. GENERAL LOCATION Northeast quadrant of Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road C. PLANNING COMMUNITY North Naples D. TAZ 116 and 117 3 PQF Page 5 of 244 E. SIZE IN ACRES 31±acres F. ZONING Pine Ridge Commons PUD G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Developed residential, commercial, school and Church H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban Designation, Commercial District, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: Housing Element Recreation/Open Space Traffic Circulation Sub-Element Mass Transit Sub-Element Aviation Sub-Element Potable Water Sub-Element Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element NGWAR Sub-Element Solid Waste Sub-Element Drainage Sub-Element Capital Improvement Element CCME Element X Future Land Use Element Golden Gate Master Plan Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) v, 11, 26, 47, 65, 66 and 145 OF THE Future Land Use ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: Please see Exhibit IV.B .r"e C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict TO Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict to Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Not applicable V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN l"=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 V.A Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI's, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exhibit V.A Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries,source, and date. Exhibit V.A Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. 4 PQF Page 6 of 244 B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION Exhibit VB 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 N.A. 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. N.A. Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.),Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2(Copies attached). 1. INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-1 1.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? r., (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N/N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5%of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. Y, ** 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-1 1.007, F.A.C.) ** Please see Market Study prepared by Michael J.Timmerman E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: Exhibit V.E. Potable Water Exhibit V.E. Sanitary Sewer Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Pine Ridge Road Goodlette-Frank Road f� *** Please see Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, P.A. 5 PIF Page 7 of 244 Exhibit V.E. Drainage Exhibit V.E. Solid Waste Exhibit V.E. 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 V.E. 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. N.A. 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: Zone X Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). Exhibit F Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N.A. Traffic Congestion Boundary,if applicable "^N, N.A. Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable N.A. High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport,if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION Provided $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) N.A. $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) Provided Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Provided Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) Submitted Electronically 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed,25 copies of the complete application will be required. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1"=400' or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 6 PCF Page 8 of 244 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Trail Boulevard LLLP (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Date: Goodlette Pine Ridge II LLC STATE OF ( ) COUNTY OF ( Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 2016 by MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 7 PQF Page 9 of 244 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: Date: Trail Boulevarc I hereby certify that I have the authority to make the foregoing application, and that the application is true, correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. Signature of Applicant as of Trail Boulevard LLLP STATE OF ( FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF ( COLLIER ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 2016 by MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: who is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath did not take and Oath NOTICE - BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." 8 PCF Page 10 of 244 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Trail Boulevard LLLP (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: 1 Date: i C-1 - Z(2.1 Brian Goguen as C i f Operating Officer of Barron Collier Management,LLC,Authorized Agent of Goodlette i e Ridge II, LLC STATE OF ( F-iLaQ..‘oit-- ) COUNTY OF ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of CC-I-cC a C:ti ,2016 by =- 1 =.< -�/ MY COMMISSION EXPIR - Notary Public SABINAEHARDY MY COMMISSION t FF 189689 CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: ` EXPIRES January 14,2019 X6,...1/ Bonded ThruNoary Public Umlerwriters �� who is personally known to me, � who has produced as identification and did take an Oath Vdid not take an Oath NOTICE- BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." PDF Page 11 of 244 LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I hereby authorize Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.and Coleman,Yovanovich and Koester,P.A. (Name of Agent) to serve as my Agent in a request to amend the Collier County Growth Management Plan affecting property identified in this Application. Signed: . Date: I O '__1.--2 c)I La Trail Boulevard L I hereby certify that I have ii- authority to make the foregoing application,and that the application is iii„, true,correct and complete • the best of my knowledge. v Signature of Apr. ant Brian Goauen as o, Operating Officer of Barron Collier Management,LL • thorized Agent of Trail Boulevard LLLP STATE OF ( FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF (COLLIER ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1.3 day of C)c i o i�,C 2 ,2016 by -I-4.L, - _,a MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Notary Public SABINA E HARDY , MY COMMISSION t FF 189689 CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: 3.: ,L urs EXPIRES:January 14,2019 tpr �;•' Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwrders Vwho is personally known to me, who has produced as identification and did take an Oath / did not take and Oath NOTICE- BE AWARE THAT: Florida Statute Section 837.06 - False Official Law states that: "Whoever knowingly makes a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duty shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree,punishable as provided by a fine to a maximum of%500.00 and/or maximum of a sixty day jail term." PDF Page 12 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit II Disclosure of Interest Information B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Goodlette Pine Ridge II LLC 100% 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Name and Address Percentage of Stock The Residences at the Mercado, Inc. 50.00000% Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust 12.50000% 1998 Barron Collier III Irrev. Children's Trust 12.50000% Phyllis G. Alden Irrevocable Trust 6.25000% R. Blakeslee Gable 3.12500% Michael Wells Gable 3.12500% Christopher D Villere 2.08333% Mathilde V Currence 2.08333% Lamar G Villere 2.08333% S Brent Keller 1.25000% Chelsea Keller Kunde 1.25000% Ashleigh N Keller 1.25000% Matthew D Keller 1.25000% Kathryn E Keller 1.25000% D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Trail Boulevard LLLP 100% 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Barron Collier Corporation 0.1000% Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust 24.9750% 1998 Barron Collier III lrrev Children's Trust 37.4625% Phyllis G. Alden Irrevocable Trust 12.4875% R. Blakeslee Gable 6.2438% M. Wells Gable 6.2438% Christopher D. Villere 4.1625% Mathilde V. Currence 4.1625% Lamar G. Gable 4.1625% October 4,2016 Page 1 of 1 Gradv,Alinor Mil Engineer:•land Surveyors•Planner;•land, ia':1rctiteelc PDF Page 13 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 163.3177(6)(2)and(8),F.S. Criteria Chapter 163.3177 (6)2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. The subject property is already designated for urban land use intensity and is located in the Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element. In addition to the various commercial uses permitted by this land use category, all other uses permitted in the Urban Residential Future Land Use District are also permitted. Residential is one of those permitted land uses. The property owner proposes to permit a higher residential density than that currently permitted by the Future Land Use Element. The proposed maximum number of units proposed within this 31 acre Subdistrict are supported by a market analysis identifying the need for the proposed number of dwelling units. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. The analysis of public facility impacts submitted in support of the application makes assumptions of the total estimated additional population that will reside within the Subdistrict. The proposed maximum of 400 multi-family dwelling units will result in an estimated total population of approximately 960 full time residents. c. The character of undeveloped land. The property within the Subdistrict has been largely cleared and filled and supports a variety of retail and office development. A portion of an existing retail building will need to be raised in order to provide sufficient land area to support the proposed 400 units. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. Public facilities with adequate capacities to serve the proposed 400 units are available at the site. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. The proposed development of multi-family dwelling units would represent a redevelopment of a site in order to respond to a changing market. There is great demand for dwelling units in close proximity to other urban services and employment January 27, 2017 Page 1 of 3 Gradyy\linor ch 0 Engineers•Land Surse rs•Planners•landscape Architects PAF Page 14 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 163.3177(6)(2)and(8),F.S. Criteria areas. The redevelopment of the site as a mixed-use project is also consistent with other goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan which promote mixed use development patterns. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. NA, no military installations are near the subject property. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. NA,the site is not proximate to an airport. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. The redevelopment of the site will discourage urban sprawl consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the State, Regional,and Collier County Growth Management Plan. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community's economy. The proposed multi-family dwellings support job creation and capital investment during construction phases, and after construction, the dwellings will provide needed housing for employees to support the local economy. The provision of a variety of housing types is supported by the Future Land Use Element and Economic Element of the Growth Management Plan. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Although the project is not a typical subdivision,there is a demand for housing in close proximity to urban services and employment opportunities. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. The applicant has analyzed the proposed impacts of the addition of dwelling units on all public facilities. There are no existing or projected deficiencies on public facilities resulting from the proposed amendment. January 27,2017 Page 2 of 3 ©GradyMinor Chil Engineers•Land SWAMI •Planners•l.andncapw>Architects PQF Page 15 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 163.3177(6)(2)and(8),F.S. Criteria 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. The subject Subdistrict consists of 31 acres of land located at the intersection of two 6- lane arterial roadways. The site is located adjacent to additional commercial development and is within walking distance of public and private school, making the site an ideal candidate for higher density residential development. There are no natural resource constraints impacting development potential of the site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. A market feasibility analysis has been prepared which identifies the demand in this area of Collier County for increased dwelling units. The proposed mixed-use project on the 31 acres does represent the minimum area necessary to support the proposed mix of residences and non-residential development. January 27, 2017 Page 3 of 3 GradyMinor Civil Engineers•land tier ewrs•Planners•Landscape,Architects PQF Page 16 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit I.D Professional Consultants Planning/Project Management: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239.947.1144 239.947.0375 fax warnold@gradyminor.com Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239.435.3535 239.435.1218 fax ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Transportation: Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 239-566-9551 ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Market Analysis: Michael J. Timmerman, CRE, FRICS, SRA CEO & President MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. 1415 Panther Lane, Ste 428 Naples, FL 34109 239.269.0769 mtimmerman@mjtrea.com October 18, 2016 Page 1 of 1 Gra(yMinor Ovil Engineers•Land Sn yars•Manners•Landscape Architects PQF Page 17 of 244 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 10 Principal, Director of Planning GradyMinor Education Mr. Arnold is a Principal and co-owner of the firm and serves as the • Master of Urban Planning. Secretary/Treasurer and Director of Planning. As Director of Planning, Mr. University of Kansas, Arnold is responsible for and oversees services related to plan amendments, Lawrence property rezonings, expert witness testimony, ROW Acquisition, public • Bachelor of Science,Urban participation facilitation, and project management. Mr. Arnold previously and Regional served as the Planning Services Director at Collier County, where he oversaw Planning/Geography, the County's zoning, comprehensive planning, engineering, platting and Missouri State University Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) functions. Mr. Arnold also has Professional Registrations/ prior Florida planning experience with Palm Beach County Government and Affiliations the South Florida Water Management District. • American Institute of Mr. Arnold has been accepted as an expert in land planning matters in local and Certified Planners(AICP) • American Planning state proceedings. Association(APA) • Urban Land Institute,S.W. Florida Chapter,Board of Relevant Projects Directors 1996 • Collier County Rural Fringe • Collier County Growth Management Plan Committee,Chairman, 1999 • Marco Island Master Plan • Collier County Streetscape • Immokalee Area Master Plan Ad hoc Committee, 1999 • Collier County Land Development Code • Leadership Collier,Class of 2000 • Logan Boulevard Right-of-Way Acquisition Planning Analysis • Bonita Springs Chamber of • U.S. 41 Right-of-Way Expansion Planning Analysis Commerce Government • Copeland Zoning Overlay Affairs Committee • Collier County Government Center Development of Regional Impact(DRI) • Collier Building Industry • Winding Cypress DRI Association,Board of • Pine Ridge/Goodlette Road Commercial Infill District Directors • Lely Lakes PUD Rezoning • Collier County Jr.Deputy • Henderson Creek Planned Development/Growth Management Plan League,Inc.,Board of Directors Amendment • Orangetree (Settlement Area)Growth Management Plan Amendment • Mercato Mixed Use Planned Development Arium,Aw _ • North Point DRI/MPD • Vornado RPUD ' • Orange Blossom Ranch MPD Palermo Cove RPD _ Q. Grady Minor&Associates, P.A. Civil Engineers•Surveyors•Land Planners•Landscape Architects PQF Page 18 of 24-4 Richard D. Yovanovich Rich Yovanovich is one of the firm's shareholders. He moved to Naples in 1990 and was an Assistant County Attorney for Collier County from 1990-1994. As an Assistant County Attorney he focused on land development and construction matters. Since entering private practice in 1994,Mr.Yovanovich has represented property owners through the entitlement process before local and state agencies. His representation includes project ranging from small residential and commercial projects to large developments of regional impact. Professional Activities/Associations The Florida Bar Collier County Bar Association Civic/Charitable Activities/Associations Member,Furman University Trustees Council,2007- Chairman,Leadership Collier Foundation Alumni Assoc. Member,Board of Directors,Holocaust Museum 2007— Member,Leadership Collier,Class of 2000 Member,Board of Directors,CBIA(Director 2004-2008, Vice President 2006-2007) Member,Board of Director,Immokalee Friendship House Member,Board of Director,Avow Hospice 2011- Member,Florida Trend Legal Elite Elder,Vanderbilt Presbyterian Church Bar& Court Admission Florida, 1988 U.S District Court,Middle District of Florida U.S.Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit Education University of South Carolina J.D., 1987 J.Ed., 1986 Furman University B.A.,cum laude, 1983 pc)F Page 19 of 244 Norman Trebilcock,AICP,P.E. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Mr.Trebilcock directs plan production,design development and Total Years of Experience permitting efforts on public works and private sector projects. 26 Offering 26 years of professional experience, he specializes in transportation engineering, including highway design, Education signalization, utility relocation, drainage design, street and Site • University of Florida lighting, access management and permitting projects. He M.E.in Public Works, 1989 prepares and reviews traffic impact statements and related • University of Miami reports. The firm is registered by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and South Florida Water Management B.S.in Civil Engineering,1988 District(SFWMD)as a Small Business Enterprise(SBE),and certified • US Army Engineering School by FDOT in several work groups. Mr.Trebilcock manages team Engineer Officer Basic Course, 1988 members and various sub-consultants through contract negotiations, preliminary engineering, permitting, final design, Licenses/Certifications and construction administration. He has attended numerous transportation seminars,and • Professional Engineer,Florida has held leadership positions on many transportation-related task forces and in #47116 professional societies. • Certified Planner,American • Institute of Certified Planners Consulting Engineering Services • Certification,FDOT Advanced Work • Coordinated and spearheaded the joint pond agreement successfully executed for Zone Traffic Control the Marbella Lakes project with the FDOT as part of the 1-75 6-laning expansion. This agreement helped the FDOT avoid a potentially adverse pond site acquisition,and Affiliations resulted in a win-win conclusion. • American Planning Association • SFWMD surface water management permit assistance on more than 40 residential, • American Institute of Certified commercial, institutional and highway projects totaling over 3,000 acres. Relevant Planners projects include Aster Court Outfall replacement,Bald Eagle Drainage improvements, • American Society of Civil Engineers and Westlake Outfall Pipe improvement replacements. • Florida Engineering Society,Calusa • Provided technical expertise for transportation issues affecting land development Chapter(Past President) projects including Pelican Marsh,Pelican Bay,Lely and Grey Oaks communities. • Institute of Transportation Engineers • Designed street lighting system for Woodlands CDD,Airport-Pulling Road,Golden Gate • Illuminating Engineering Society Parkway,Vanderbilt Beach Road,and Airport-Pulling Road/Davis Blvd.intersection. • Society of American Military r1 • Designed arterial roadway signalization systems for 20 locations in Southwest Florida, Engineers including mast-arm and concrete strain pole installations. • FDOT Conceptual Access permits for the northeast commercial area at Pelican Bay, FDOT Pre-qualifications Naples International Park,and Pelican Marsh PUD. 1 Highway Design- Group 3 Roadway Representative Projects City of Bonita Springs Old 41 Downtown Improvements Design-Build;Bonita Springs,FL 3.1 Minor Highway Design As part of a Design-Build team headed by Wright Construction Group(WCG),Trebilcock Consulting Solutions provided traffic design for the roadway improvements. The main Group 6 Traffic Engineering& Operations Studies feature of the improvements was to reconstruct Old 41 as a complete street with sidewalks, bike lanes, possible narrow median and two travel lanes. Traffic calming 6.1 Traffic Engineering Studies features were proposed, as were roundabouts at Terry St and Pennsylvania Ave. Mini 6.2 Traffic Signal Timing roundabouts were anticipated on Old 41. Project length is 4,414 If(0.84 miles). Parking Group 7 Traffic Operations Design improvements were proposed along Felts and the cross streets(Wilson,Childers,Ragsdale, Abernathy,Hampton,Crockett,and Dean)within the project limits. 7 1 Signing,Pavement Marking&Channelization City of Naples Design-Build Decorative Mast-arm at 5th Ave and 3rd St OnPower 7.2 Lighting The project provided design and construction services to replace the existing traffic signal span wire system at the intersection of 5th Ave and 3rd St with a decorative mast-arm 7.3 signalization assembly with pedestrian crossing signals. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions provided plan Group 13 Planning production and design development for the project. Responsibilities included _ 13.4 Systems Planning signalization,signing and marking plans,maintenance of traffic plans,and coordination with the project team and City staff. 13.5 Subarea/Corridor Planning 13.6 Land Planning/Engineering Mercato-Strada Place and Vanderbilt Beach Road Signalization;Collier County,FL Trebilcock Consulting Solutions prepared a traffic study and provided design for a new traffic signal at the intersection of Strada Place and Vanderbilt Beach Road,roadway realignment,signing and marking modifications,traffic control plans,and resurfacing for nearly 0.5 miles of roadway. Multi-modal improvements included bike lanes,sidewalks, and vehicle accommodation. /^t Trebilcock eiaeninu-eneineerins PCs Page 20 of 244 Michael J.Timmerman,CRE, FRICS,SRA ..a As President & CEO of MJT Realty Capital Advisors, Michael Timmerman provides expert consultation and advisory services to clients throughout the Southeast United States and in particular Florida. In October of 2013 Mr. Timmerman was awarded a Fellowship to the Royal Institute of Chartered + iiik I Surveyors, with a professional specialty of Management Consultancy. This IA specialty provides independent impartial advice in all areas of business and real ,' estate lifecycles. In 2007 he was awarded the CRE (Counselor of Real Estate) designation by the Counselors of Real Estate, an international group of high profile real estate practitioners who provide expert advisory services to clients on complex real property and land related matters. Mr. Timmerman has over 30 years of experience in the real estate industry including consulting, valuation and geo-spatial analysis of a broad spectrum of residential and commercial properties. He has been quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, New York Times, USA Today, Fortune Magazine, Worth Magazine, Builder Magazine and many other state and local newspapers and magazines. He is also frequent speaker for the Urban Land Institute (ULI),The Appraisal Institute, Florida Bar Association, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), Florida Bankers Association and International Council of Shopping Centers(ICSC). Prior to his founding MJT Realty Capital Advisors, he was a Senior Associate at Fishkind & Associates, Florida's premier economic consulting firm. His position as Senior Managing Director of Hanley Wood Market Intelligence was a continuation of his management after the purchase of his firm, Feasinomics, Inc., by Hanley Wood, LLC in March of 2005. Feasinomics was a full service market research firm offering real estate research, consulting and geo-spatial analysis throughout the State of Florida. EDUCATIONAL AND PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS • FRICS, Fellow-Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors • CRE Designation,Counselors of Real Estate • SRA Designation,Appraisal Institute • Advanced coursework in financial and economic analysis, highest and best use analysis, and case studies required for the MAI designation through the Appraisal Institute. • Northland College, B.S. Business Administration and Economics • Licensed Florida Real Estate Broker • State Certified Residential Real Estate Appraiser CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY • Executive Committee Member,Urban Land Institute(ULI) • Board Member, United Cerebral Palsy(UCP)of Southwest Florida • Board Member,Naples Pelican Bay Rotary Club • Past Board Member,Collier County Economic Development Council • Performed Pro bono work for Collier EDC, Naples Chamber of Commerce, Collier Building Industry Association, Lee Building Industry Association, International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), Collier County School Board and many others. PDF Page 21 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit II Disclosure of Interest Information B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Goodlette Pine Ridge II LLC 100% 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Name and Address Percentage of Stock Manager The Residences at the Mercato, Inc. 50% Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust 12.50% 1998 Barron Collier III Irrev Children's Trust 12.50% Phyllis G. Alden Irrevocable Trust 6.25% R. Blakeslee Gable 3.125% Michael Wells Gable 3.125% Christopher D. Villere 2.08333% Mathilde V. Currence 2.08333% Lamar G. Villere 2.08333% S Brent Keller 1.25% Chelsea Keller Kunde 1.25% Ashleigh N Keller 1.25% Matthew D Keller 1.25% Kathryn E Keller 1.25% D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Trail Boulevard LLLP 100% 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Barron Collier Corporation 0.1000% Juliet C. Sproul Family Inheritance Trust 24.9750% 1998 Barron Collier III lrrev Children's Trust 37.4625% Phyllis G. Alden Irrevocable Trust 12.4875% October 4, 2016 Page 1 of 2 ©GradyMinor ( ,I Nnginccrs•Land Surve ors•Planners•Land capes Architects PDF Page 22 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit II Disclosure of Interest Information R. Blakeslee Gable 6.2438% M. Wells Gable 6.2438% Christopher D. Villere 4.1625% Mathilde V. Currence 4.1625% Lamar G. Gable 4.1625% October 4, 2016 Page 2 of 2 101 GradyMinor mil Engineers•Land Surverors•Planters•Landscape Architects PIDF Page 23 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict h Exhibit III.A Legal Description All that part of Section 10,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,Collier County Florida,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the southerly 1/4 comer of Section 10,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,Collier County, Florida; thence along the north-south 1/4 section line of said Section 10,North 01°18'35"West 69.79 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of Pine Ridge Road(S.R.896)and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; thence along said boundary, South 89°07'52" West 9.57 feet to a point of curvature on the easterly right of way of Frank Boulevard, 100 foot right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 13, Page 58 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida: thence along said right of way 454.08 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave the east,having a radius of 5679.65 feet, through a central angle of 04°34'51" and being subtended by a chord which bears North 04°48'48"East 453.96 feet; thence continuing along said right-of-way North 07°06'13"East 1102.02 feet; thence leaving said right-of-way North 89°29'57" East 783.65 feet to a point on the boundary of the parcel of land described in O.R.Book 503,page 206; thence along said boundary South 00°46'24"East 1324.29 feet to a point on the boundary of the parcel described in O.R.Book 1037,pages 1602-1605; thence along said boundary South 89°29'57"West 190.00 feet thence continuing along said boundary South 00°46'24" East 232.40 feet to the northerly boundary of said Pine Ridge Road; thence along the northerly boundary of Pine Ridge Road,North 89°3525"West 779.46 feet to a point P"1 on the north/south 1/4 section line of Section 10 and the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Parcel contains 30.65 acres more or less. Subject to easements,restrictions and reservations of record. Bearings are based on the northerly boundary line of Pine Ridge Road(SR 896)being South 89°35'25"West. October 10,2016 Page 1 of 1 GradyMinor ttngineen,•Land Surveyors•Planners•Landscape Architects PQF Page 24 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language Revise the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** xxx *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** TABLE OF CONTENTS *** *** *** xxx xxx Text break *** *** *** *** *** *FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES * Future Land Use Map * Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Centers 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 Map * Estuarine Bays Map * Future Land Use Map Soils * Future Land Use Map Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites * 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 * Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map * Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map * 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 Mixed Use 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 * Livingston Road/Veteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map *Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map *Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map *Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Map September 20,2017 Page 1 of 6 (,ra(iy\1inor CMI Engineers•Land Sureepers•Planners•Landscape Architects PIF Page 25 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language *Coastal High Hazard Area Map *Coastal High Hazard Area Comparison Map *Gordon River Greenway Conservation Area Designation Map * Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Map *Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Map * Davis-Radio Commercial Subdistrict Map *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY A. URBAN - MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict 3. Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict 6. PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict 7. Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict 8. Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict 9. Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 10. Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict 11. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 12. Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict 13. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 14. Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 15. Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict 16. Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict 17. Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. Davis Radio Commercial Subdistrict 19. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict B. URBAN -COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3. Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4. Business Park Subdistrict 5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict 6. Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict 7. Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict 8. Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict 9. Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict 10. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict 4410. Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict September 20,2017 Page 2 of 6 go GradyMinor Engineers•Land Surrcgnrs•Planners•Landscape Architects P 173 Page 26 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language 11. Davis— Radio Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** xxx *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** b.Non-residential uses including: *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban - Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict,Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict,Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict,Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict,Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict; and,in the Urban Commercial District,Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict,Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict; Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay;and,as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** A.Urban Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** 19. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict: This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two major arterial roadways, Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road. In addition to uses generally allowed in the Urban designation, the intent of the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict is to provide shopping, person services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance. The Subdistrict also permits multi-family rental residential dwelling units. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle School and nearby residential September 20,2017 Page 3 of 6 1111 CradyMinor Civil Engineers•Land Sureegurs•Planners•Landscape Architects PDF Page 27 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles Access to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict may feature a signalized traffic access point on Goodlette-Frank Road, which may provide for access to the neighboring Pine Ridge Middle School. Other site access locations will be designed consistent with the Collier County access management criteria. Commercial development intensity within the Subdistrict will be limited to single-story retail commercial uses, while professional or medical related offices, including financial institutions,may occur in three-story buildings.A maximum of 275,000 square feet of gross leasable area for retail commercial and office and financial institution development may occur within this Subdistrict. Retail commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south +/-23 acres. No individual retail commercial use may exceed 65,000 square feet of gross leasable area. Residential development within the Subdistrict will be a maximum of 375 multi-family rental dwelling units. The maximum height for residential buildings shall be 4 stories over parking. Unless otherwise required by the South Florida Water Management District, the .87±acre wetland area located on the northeastern portion of the site will be preserved. A total of ,•-. 1.47 acres of native vegetation shall be provided within this subdistrict. *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** This Subdistrict consists of 31 acres and is located at the northeast quadrant of two major arterial provide shopping, person services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a Ridge Middle School and n arby residential development and therefore, emphasis will be placed on common building architecture, signage, landscape design and site accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as motor vehicles. Access to the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict may feature a signalized traffic Ridge Middle School. Other site access locations will be designed consistent with the Collier County access management criteria. Development intensity within the Subdistrict will be limited to single story retail commercial uses, September 20,2017 Page 4 of 6 Gradyi hinor Ci,il Engineers•Land Sui ccors•Planners•landscape Architects PDF Page 28 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language commercial uses shall be limited to a maximum of 125,000 square feet of gross leasable area on the south +1 23 acres. No individual retail commercial +use may exceed 65,000 square feet of gro,c leasable area. Unless otherwise required by the South Florida Water Management District, the .87 ± acre wetland area located on the northe\as1er-a--portion-e •- - • _- _ - - .—_. 4410.Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** xxx xxx Text break xxx *** *** *** *** 4411.Davis—Radio Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** xxx xxx Text break *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps Properties Consistent by Policy (5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12) Maps Collier County Wetlands Map Collier County Wellhead Protection Areas and Proposed Wellfields and ASRs Map Future Land Use Map Rivers and Floodplains Future Land Use Map Estuarine Bays Future Land Use Map Soils Existing Commercial Mineral Extraction Sites Map Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map Stewardship Overlay Map Rural Lands Study Area Natural Resource Index Maps North Belle Meade Overlay Map North Belle Meade Overlay Map Section 24 Existing Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Future Schools and Ancillary Facilities Map Plantation Island Urban Area Map Copeland Urban Area Map Railhead Scrub Preserve—Conservation Designation Map 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 Mixed Use Subdistrict Map September 20,2017 Page 5 of 6 GradyMinor Mil Engineers•Land Survetars•Planners•landscape Architects RQI Page 29 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit IV.B Amendment Language Henderson Creek Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Buckley Mixed-Use Subdistrict Map Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Livingston RoadNeteran's Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Map Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict Map Coastal High Hazard Area Map 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 September 20,2017 Page 6 of 6 Gradyllinor Chil Engineers•Land Survc ors•Planners•Landscape Architects RQF Page 30 of 244 EXHIBIT IV.B - Proposed Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict Map(inset map) n GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA liplikli \ • / 111111111100.. ii 1 i A 1111111 1 1/1 as Mt Pi=M (•C.R.-694) sox ROO('gout CC 0.-SRA) } ALANAAR OA jigilill all 1 fir IIII 4. .ANO CR+K - , `ei:. lit III , 111 III ilk, I 4, , LA 1-- 1 . ►-� 1 Illkma .> 1 l ORM LAS 1 i , y III ,IIIIIRi - F I _ ..... 1\ otstOt VLW 0 . . .,., - ..., AtdENDED - OCTOBER 14. 2O08 (Ord No, 2008-5 } LEGEND AMENDED - MAY 2017f rr +`/`f///j.4.. GMIXED TTE/PINE RIDGE ` „..... MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT RQF Page 31 of 244 O s - f ila 101% 1 - il. ''',,..',,....Is! 4 0 i `t s _ B OO N! y<<� —.map—Z1� I -N m.'. C tY' t ,� RAE • o mss" � __ E d 0• O. J csi ... h z J _ 1.1 LL Q t 4d .}:yy a. azo II L7,- ;w. .,......A „fillA o > 3 i oaf �.. :+. :�iwu5'.`hi OZ y _ `1 .i.:),. (�' , = m _1i 4 w aLO 3 A �m :ice �I 1 1 k;-$41-"'. 4‘ ' (�$ �F } ""�lrii*',`�' s..u. w ..V'j 'B^� i[ ✓ V {iffii F ... ,, -_ , .00" I ,t, ZU H 5 { ,92,s Z w P i O L ,,,,,,, at gii , 1 414 - # `00.1. i i. t G 113 - '� - �. NtRld 3 70000 .mak v 1 tet' - s _ i ..4. 71.- _- =�, OODLETTE-FRANK ROAD H Z3Wuo � -id F. `o w cu R y ,-- -.i' ,• !l1ZU' K s _ 4 ..... �.. "` w U W., Y O y5 v a ' ,- , , 4 lkimJZ w f1 R 3 ¢, " x ai U Wt- UOZ ate , N K N U. WIt o O O wa w D t W > NW2 Z 4 'ii.,)f pIt- W�f~.f0 j~ O * LL N 0 1.":1,, N akrcW as U O a , ,> rc 9,W,yo 1% w U z 3 W tx- ga Q W a W S0 W Q Z aJ 5 s'. ,, ,�-x f +i zOiw iz 3 g 3a_ - g -" ,,. , ,i�' a`" i c�mo h aW W W W Of= a6 .„,„1 "LL = K a V LL Q d'R' a a g 2 2 F f zz z E • U F F F w f� t� E7 t� N N N Z Z Z Z xx x a �zu rz FZW X211 ''` N W W W 0 O N D O N 0 W N 0 W N 7 _ 1 T 46 1 T47S I T4BS 1 T49S I T5OS I T51S I T52S I T53S I c fit !! ( ill l i l i1 q . $. r eI,i iq#,s .. e p K:!I'R if!R!f!a rn`lt 04 1 ni "1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '1 '1 1 1 1 1 avc 't5 a 1l' kg 1211 1 1!1 111111111111-1-1-1-/-/-1-1-1-1-1111 IV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !y uvnO3 Cn — 1 i ig a I° 1 INroo cavMoae — M o co LdgN ❑ I �+ W m I o it iii 1111111-i R il 'gig 11liIli.; 1 , , , a GI 1 t_ 1111 1118 8 1111 ; 11 ` 1;111 rc M ■ao11■❑ 2011■ ! ❑l■ Io 'io19 - - /i 1 10 11;i111 c ' W < ,", 1 1 ill 1 i ik lk 1 ii;!ill= o z a aa.1 1 iiI! iViiiUi!iI! ; 1I11,11,11 la la id ❑ohl 222i■ •••0 09M M EE EL, K O R W 5 Z ""� 7 13 W u. R 0 0 I �.U; ct Z00 c a ..,_ _ it _ — >O rn e . l '''''.1.14-i 'icf'' ''''''' Eg — I . „itli)le,g'0' — o N iiiih 's ' -40114/4i; z LI —--' . di2p1 k 1L-L,4.„_7,-,,, __ . , L, L„ a LLf u m N Q 3< i �, N fg cc ► t h t r••• N w r —Ili p = 611 �` ,.e,. /\y'; I, t�;' /• J<¢ Q \it-`l - \�`\`���\,\\\\\\\\�`/%/ %''� �` iLu/�` '. Tel N z 3 85.1 W V 5� §_ 1 o ,.�� I i. Q N o a e z ''''''' '41-j. we C J 4 w — K U E' O 1cc . i 1 Iiiiii', . g U 1E;i4 rza uEgWerikira ± #A, s ¢I ' 11! CL ' 81 Mia � r .rr� 6 136 Li Wto• t N D W uCm "-: Midi/i' s- -».=23. a y@ + N M a g o w • ',`0me/ Iii ce �m Gulf of S941 I SL41 I S941 1 S641 1 SoS 1 I S lS 1 1 SZSl 1 SCS 1 EXHIBIT V.B. - EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP SUBJECT SITE: URBAN DESIGNATION COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT = 31± ACRES GOODI_ETTE/PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA m cc w ____ W a w a 1T PINE RIDCIF ROAD(C.R.-896) //I PINE RIDGE ROAD(C.R.-896) RECATAn a AREA 1 I . DRIVE MILANO DRIVE � % %' . ., El _ ... lir $7"-- U v1111:114 II *lio LASTRADA LANE - -Z �,,,// II POMPEI LANE_ f I . I 1 c,� I 1 1 1 11—_- — 8 , o� riL� WOODRIDGE AVENUE �'- I x"9.0 . Wiliii 411111, WESTLAKE BLVD. i I 1 11 I 1__1 1 1 1 e 0 AMENDED — OCTOBER 14, 2008 I SC I (Ord. No. 2008-59) LEGEND 0 200 FT. 400 FT. GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE A. SUUBDISTRICT INFILL PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICA, SUPPORT SECTION _ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE: 10/2008 FILE: CPSP-2006-13A-1.DWG - - --- Page 2 of 2 F.QF Page 34- of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial lnfill Subdistrict Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: The Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict is a partially developed commercial development. The Subdistrict currently authorizes up to 125,000 square feet of retail commercial space and up to 150,000 square feet of office use on approximately 31 acres. To date, 205,878 square feet of commercial has been constructed within the project. The growth management plan amendment proposes to retain all of the commercial entitlements and to add a maximum of 375 multi-family dwelling units within the sub-district. The public facilities analysis evaluates the project impacts on potable Water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, fire/EMS, and solid waste. The source for the LOS information is the 2016 AUIR. Potable Water The property is located within the Collier County potable water service area. The County has existing plant capacity of approximately 52 mgd. The proposed addition of 375 multi-family dwelling units will not create any LOS issues in the 5-year planning horizon. This Project will have no significant impact on the potable water system and capacity is available in Collier County. A comparison of the existing and proposed uses are shown below. Water Demand: Existing: Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf= 18,750 gpd Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month =28,125 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf=22,500 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month =33,750 gpd Proposed: Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf= 18,750 gpd Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month =28,125 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf= 22,500 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month =33,750 gpd Multi-family 375 x 150 gpd x 1.8= 101,250 gpd Multi-family 375 x 150 gpd x 1.8 x 1.2 max. month = 121,500 gpd Collier County LOS: 150 gpcd/(0.15)gpd/sf* Permitted Capacity: 52.75 mgd Required Plant Capacity FY26: 41.9 mgd *Based on EP Extimates June 14,2017 Page l of 4 a GradyMinor EMI Engineers•Land Survebvrs•Planners•Landscape:lrchitecis PEF Page 35 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Data Source: Collier County 2016 AUIR Sanitary Sewer The subject project is located within the urban boundary with standards for Sanitary Sewer established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The subdistrict is located in the north sewer service area of the Collier County Water/Sewer District. This Project will have no significant impact on the Collier County Regional Sewer System. A comparison of the existing and proposed uses are shown below. Sewer Demand: Existing: Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf= 18,750 gpd Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month =28,125 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf=22,500 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month =33,750 gpd Proposed: Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf= 18,750 gpd Retail 125,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month=28,125 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf= 22,500 gpd Office 150,000 x 0.15 gpd/sf x 1.5 max. month =33,750 gpd Multi-family 375 x 100 gpd x 1.8= 67,500 gpd Multi-family 375 x 100 gpd x 1.8 x 1.2 max. month =81,000 gpd Collier County LOS: 100 gpcd/(0.15)gpd/sf* Permitted Capacity: 24.7 mgd Required Plant Capacity FY26: 16.8 mgd *Based on EP Extimates Data Source: Collier County 2016 AUIR Arterial and Collector Roads Please refer to the Traffic Impact Statement for discussions of the project's impact on level of service for arterial and collector roadways within the project's radius of development influence. Drainage The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quantity and quality standards established in Ordinances 74-50, 90-10, 2001-27, and LDC Ordinance 2004-41, as may be amended. The single project within the proposed subdistrict has been issued a surface water management permit by the South Florida June 14,2017 Page 2 of 4 GradyMinor deli i.:nginerrs•Land Sune}vis•Pianncis•Landscape Architects PIQF Page 36 of 244 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Water Management District which has established criteria for the volume of water stored on site as well as the quality of the water which may be discharged from the site. The development within the subdistrict is consistent with the County LOS standards. Solid Waste The adopted LOS for solid waste is two years of lined cell capacity at the previous 3 year average tons per year disposal rate and 10 years of permittable landfill capacity of the disposal rate. There are no current capacity issues and none are anticipated through the year 2065. Existing: Retail 125,000 x 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft= 625 lbs/day x 365=228,125 lbs/year or 228.12 tons/year Office 150,000 x 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft=750 lbs/day x 365= 273,750 lbs/year or 273.75 tons/year Proposed: Retail 125,000 x 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft= 625 lbs/day x 365= 228,125 lbs/year or 228.12 tons/year Office 150,000 x 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft= 750 lbs/day x 365 =273,750 lbs/year or 273.75 tons/year Multi-family 375 x 0.54 tons per person x 2.4=486 tons Current landfill capacity in 2017 is anticipated to be 16,309,943 tons. Available Inventory as of July 2012: 2,236,272 tons Required Inventory as of July 2015: 446,042 tons Available Inventory as of July 2015: 3,186,107 tons Surplus Capacity as of July 2015: 2,740,065 tons Source: Collier County 2012 AUIR Cal Recycle Parks:Community and Regional The proposed 375 multi-family dwellings will pay park impact fees to mitigate for their impacts on this public facility. No adverse impacts to Community or Regional Parks result from the amendment of the subdistrict. Schools June 14,2017 Page 3 of 4 Gradytinor Civil Engineers•Land Sw a orn•Planners•Landscape Architects PDF Page 37 of 24-4 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis The proposed 375 multi-family dwellings will pay school impact fees to mitigate for their impacts. No adverse impacts to schools result from the creation of the subdistrict. Fire Control and EMS The proposed project lies within the North Collier Fire and Rescue District. The North Collier Fire and Rescue District - Station #40 is located at 1441 Pine Ridge Road, which is adjacent to the southeastern property boundary. No significant impacts to Fire Control level of service are anticipated due to the proposed project. Estimated impact fees for EMS and fire would be determined at time of SDP based on each unit. Sheriff, Fire Protection and EMS Services location/address of facilities intended to serve the project are; North Collier Fire and Rescue District-Station#40 1441 Pine Ridge Road Collier County Sheriff North Naples Substation 776 Vanderbilt Beach Rd June 14,2017 Page 4 of 4 GradyMinor Civil Engineers•Land Sunk+ors•Planners•Landscape Architects PEDF Page 38 of 244 Md£CZL 910Z/9L/Ol OM03A 1191H%3 9lVdald\59NIMYd0V90£Z000910Z1d)ON3WV and 9N011W00 3OOIN 3NId-91Vd0Nd\ON1NNVId-raid\ONINNVId\5311JV1V,0TNOO\\ ai 1 1 1 ap m e t a `tb. a N I I w I LU C0 • 0 m- O. —kI • } , ; i l ,1 r, t LOGAN......_BLV[) L_� a 1 : .= 1 A AkUAR. BLV6 ce f — J •.,y -,)--:1,-„41 p a1 . J , L) Mae-: . \ I I ,, . - . - t \ Im •4f S r '"•-••• (1'7 .(,,t 1 NI I INTERSTATE 7 ` (1-75) \ L., --J -'---al-i-1--'--.2C)11 1C)1( \ ' 1-c 1 a77 f w d ;;, 1 a,.-�1 i 1 - w • a r q IV I 1' I r 1..., . a. _ .�_1 O \ d .. o; is 7 ft( i Ifvirr % 6 ._� L QW ,.... .... 4 _ C c 2. O: ` I'„ —"N U ` y ' ' ) )r 0 I �M4Q 03 1,. — LL...Lu\ i 2„,)‘,...,, 48,1"1-\ ii:. )''' =E / 7'.-- t i 3 ,f 1 r, J b ��', 1 - L�' ' �r R OAS ` 1� .._ ....1 { _ i F- \\, t 1 : , L .t I C L' ., I ( ` W W I r 'I Ir ( �”\{)f 1- 1 -CLI _ _.._ln 5. - ,iii ... CZ F2- ; 1 /-,-'S.:::.4.71_,1 Via— ;. mcg _ e - f i }( - mid I r t � 1 ,� I ..,.. 41,..'," 1 lt _ „,,-- ;;,, ,: ) [ 2 ET-":.)--. -),...-- iiii „ , : 7. 1 r , .. � � < I st �. ' , V Li4_, , 1z. - gy .. ) 1 rr...� } ' Ig al i a a � _ rt� - www AAA- 0Lc'Kj k .--1 Jz w3 to ;a ....Pa.-- Ild/D*/oritz/L TAD-IA 119IHXD 91.Vd3ild\SDNIAIVHDVDDEZ00091.0?-1d)WM CCI sN011N101 D1(110 DNIrl-9lVdDHADNIN ld-1'0 d\DNIN:Jr1\D uco j.i,.u—,, • „ t 0 %E . N UI UI cU 4( -` 0 ul ?--01 7J.,.. >, 6 0/1S Sa`ldlIN 00,, ,... O. a 0. s ,-, :4j;,"*.i.,..,AyL,,o,ft- R"0_ci :ItoRes,.., tj , ,,; D1C4 ` -roNEGATE DR - ; \11 NI cv,.... fi •,tlftV I CIV0 - 21>I NV21J31.110 00 A -- ,- c`00 >2.44'4e1CP p"El- ''''' ‘114. :11/44. 1V44.4141 Cg W 0 Rlv,J_SV3 CL 4 t4, 4-'00.J 4.4 i*si,4s4t.,otk.s0. LL. LT_ Id pa tuvl30,I aNV3 114111. - a'ciii ilvta riv '' : IMVO 0Al1-SM 3 'uk" M >1 N te,. 4- 0 0 E , 1 m LLI .', ▪ , . '; ---,. .....-.. 1 ,, , _ ---- i --- . • G ' a eu at 4' -.1.---- '* E Z it _,..n li • '''''' . • ! ; o ,▪ T, 7, — > C --..1 = rE , r, > EI .. 4 , N • O to (0 2 )11± • ,r- .11: .,-.1 .. . f . ,- - A , • ,_ N Lr) (0 7 15 it ti II 11 4.7., - . lc cteEEE • I 'Pi. NI N N N •e' 'a ->.• r P.; :; '' s 15 , Fri'..5 i - e - • , I , VII. -, '1 Z E - ' . ,. . 0 0 0 0 0 -44 a . i N 0 N U) 0- ------f o -.......—Z . — I ,,,,I.To-rtA.04e*''' 1- 1 --- ----------- I , , I ,S, = €' ' N .., ' . --r--7! .•-•=r-•""•".-""-- ,4••,.. i — LLI _J < - 0 U V) ..---- I'll Riverview Center Blvd,Suite 205 a Springs, FL 34134 9-269-0769 .mjtrea.com Market Study of Magnolia Square Apartments Naples, Collier County FL Effective Date of report October 21, 2016 Revised January 20, 2017 Prepared by: Michael J.Timmerman, CRE, FRICS MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. 0 2oi6 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PAF Page 41 of 244 li M,i../ J REALTY ECONOMIC ADVISORS INC. April 27, 2018 Mr. David Genson, PE Barron Collier Companies. 2600 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34105 Dear Mr.Genson, Per your request,we have completed the market study on the Magnolia Square Apartments, a proposed market rate rental apartment community located on the northeast corner of Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge Road in Naples,Collier County, Florida.Our objective is to research the market to measure the demand for additional rental apartment supply in Collier County. Market demand is measured by reviewing the historical pricing and occupancy trends and relating those trends to the current and future supply of market rate rental apartment units in the County. The proposed rental apartment community is in the North Naples submarket which is close to employment, retail,entertainment facilities as well as public and private schools.This established area is very desirable as evidenced by the recent redevelopment of homes in Pine Ridge, Pelican Bay and other residential communities.The proposed rental apartment community is a partial redevelopment of an existing community shopping center that no longer viable and, in consultant's opinion,does not represent the sites highest and best use. The study evaluated the occupancy and rental rate trends from January 2011 to October 2016 and found the rental rate and occupancy metrics have increased significantly over that timeframe indicating strong demand for market rate rental apartments in the county.The delivery of 86o new rental units in 2015 and 2016 had no significant measurable impact on the rental rate and occupancy trends,which continue to rise.The anticipated delivery of 2,616 rental units over the next 2 years will help to increase the overalls supply, but not enough to satisfy the demand. Orchid Run is the most comparable new market rate rental apartment community in terms of location and general appeal.This community is achieving the highest rental rate and saw the fastest 1 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PIDF Page 42 of 244 lease up of the three new communities delivered in 2015 and 2016. This community's location and superior quality has attracted a more upscale clientele who desire better access to the locational amenities of Naples and superior quality apartments and amenities.The Magnolia Square location is a major influence that will attract a similar upscale clientele to that of Orchid Run. The unit sizes proposed for the Magnolia Square Apartments are consistent with the most recently developed rental apartments.The introduction of a small number of Studio apartments in Magnolia Square will help to draw a new tenant profile as this will be the first new community to offer this efficient design. Based on the analysis of the market rate rental apartment market, it is my conclusion that sufficient demand exists to support the development of the proposed 40o units at Magnolia Square.The sites location and proposed quality will attract an audience that desires these features which can't be found anywhere else in the county. Please review the report and let me know if you have any questions or clarifications. It was a pleasure to work with you on this project. Sincerely, Michael J.Timmerman, CRE, FRICS Principal 2 ©2o1.6 MIT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 4-3 of 244 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.o CONDITIONS OF THE REPORT 4 1.1 INTENDED USE OF THIS REPORT 4 1.2 INTENDED USER OF THIS REPORT 4 2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY 4 2.1 TASK PLAN 4 2.2 SITE INSPECTION 5 3.o PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT 6 3.1 DEVELOPMENT SITE ATTRIBUTES AND SURROUNDS 6 4.0 COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL TRENDS 15 5.o COLLIER COUNTY RENTAL APARTMENT MARKET 17 5.1 MARKET RATE APARTMENTS 25 5.2 MARKET PERFORMANCE SCORE 32 6.o MARKET DEMAND CONCLUSIONS(UDPATED APRIL 23,2018) 35 7.o PROPOSED RENTAL APARTMENT SUPPLY 37 8.o DEMAND SUPPLY CONCLUSIONS 38 9.o CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 39 9.1 RENTAL RATE CONCLUSIONS 40 9.2 ABSORPTION CONCLUSIONS 40 COPYRIGHT,TRADEMARK AND LEGAL DISCLAIMER 45 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE 46 PHOTOS 53 3 Mt ©2076 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 44 of 244 Introduction As we understand it, BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES ("Client") would like MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. ("Consultant")to prepare a Market Study for the proposed 40o-unit Magnolia Square Apartment community located on the northeast corner of Goodlette Rd and Pine Ridge Rd in Naples, Collier County, FL. The property is currently developed with a community shopping center which is planned to be removed and redeveloped with a new 40o-unit rental apartment community. i.o Conditions of the Report The Client and designated representatives are responsible for representations pertaining to the properties future development plans, marketing expectations and for disclosure of any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected,and the differences may be material. 1.1 Intended Use of This Report The intended use of the study is to provide BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES ("Client") with market supported conclusions of demand for the proposed apartments based on its construction quality and location within the Naples market. 1.2 Intended User of This Report The intended user of this analysis is BARRON COLLIER COMPANIES("Client")for the purpose of changing the land use to legally permit the proposed use. No other users are authorized to use the report for any other purpose. 2.0 SCOPE OF STUDY Based on our understanding of the current situation,the Consultant has developed a scope of work to analyze the Project as identified above.The scope is based on the Client's objectives, as described to the Consultant,which includes the following interrelated tasks. 2.1 Task Plan We will perform the following scope of professional services in order to meet the objectives of this assignment: 1. Research, profile and map all market rate rental apartment complexes in Collier County and provide occupancy data associated with the current rental rates. 2. Research and map any newly developing or planned rental apartment communities in the market to evaluate the potential competition. 4 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 45 of 244 3. Based on the findings from the research above, provide conclusions and recommendations regarding the following; a. Recommended pricing per square foot for each Bedroom Plan. b. Forecast absorption rate to stabilized occupancy. c. Profile additional supply that may be under construction or planned that could be future competition. 2.2 Site Inspection The site was originally inspected on October 19, 2016 with subsequent inspections made in April of 2018.The rental rate and occupancy analysis is based on data collected in October of 2016.The market demand conclusions are based on the most recent population and demographic data,which had an effective date of February 2018.The site photos were taken at the date of the original inspection in October of 2016.The site has had no changes since that date. 5 .u, ©203.6 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PIDF Page 46 of 244 3.o PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT 3.1 Development Site Attributes and Surrounds The project known as the Magnolia Square Apartments is proposed on a site located on the northeast corner of Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge Road in Naples, Collier County, FL. A portion of the site is currently improved with a structure formerly occupied by a Sweet Bay grocery, with the remainder of the development parcel currently vacant.The proposed rental apartment community will be constructed on two separate parcels connected by a pedestrian bridge over the existing Premier Way vehicular roadway. Based on the Collier County Property Appraiser's office the site is currently owned by Trail Boulevard LLLP and consists of a total of 19.42 acres.The development site for the proposed rental apartment community is planned on approximately 12 +/- acres of the site. The site's future land use is classified as the Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict. The intent of this future land use designation is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas.The uses allowed are those generally found in the Urban FLU designation and include retail,office and multifamily. The site is currently zoned as a PUD under the Collier County zoning classifications and is known as Pine Ridge Commons.This ordinance was approved on December of 1999 and allows the development of 275,000 sqft of commercial development on 31 total acres of land. Per the most recent PUD list from Collier County,approximately 205,000 sqft has been developed.This includes the existing structure that is planned for removal to develop the subject apartment complex. The site is generally rectangular and has three access points, the north at Panther Lane and Goodlette Road is a signalized intersection, an unnamed access road between Pine Ridge and Panther Lane and a southern access point off Pine Ridge Road just east of the intersection with Goodlette Road. The site's location on Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette Road offers good access to the employment, shopping and recreational amenities of North Naples. The sites transportation infrastructure is very good and allows for easy access north to Bonita Springs via Tamiami Trail and to 1-75,which is 3.75 miles east of the site on Pine Ridge Road.The NCH Hospital is located 4.5 miles north of the site on Goodlette Road with the Mercato Entertainment Center located 3.5 miles northwest of the site at the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Tamiami Trail. The Waterside Shops is another upscale shopping center with restaurants located 3/4 of a mile west of the site at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Tamiami Trail. Located below are several maps showing the location of the subject site from a regional perspective and aerials showing the existing developments in the immediate area. 6 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PDF Page 47 of 244 Magnolia Square Apartments ,` ych.“: 2. Regional Street Map ' < `'`-} l,. Pr4yrC%t:E t4 _ ° u,,. Pine � orlrf C't P+5lfr,tart Ridge Ordnc Blossom Dr fi tli s 4i4 't:age 15h (Ai Arbour W.40,.. .,; North zr NapieS G Trade€�enter' ay F e E -4 4$00$ # xi 2 9 (e) Is e V 41; Pine Ridge Rd m i+ e 0 ”+' 0 ' _ 0 ' 4 u 0 = r �. v "^ tld -a d 9 of gapeWoo Eagle f%" 0. S.Dian a POI Dr i Pact u+ x� ,s"+r-1r e Id P t.0 to ,,,tt i1t- Dr rb '; 2, indaCte,, �t _ £ o4 r�4yg,T'F H�A➢t � TJ .. 07 1 ..ji"r y `viera D fUrZ, Legend 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 hvliles,l e i`7 E MIN =I s ^ iii Gcodlet=.:Fine-_RimeCcmmer is lIrfill Subdistrict t,Rd -- S *, 1,,, i Scvice, Esri111-4Elii Delccme.;37SGS,Intitrmac,Invented:P Corp. NPCAt ., Ecri apa ,tIE?I'EVi Chi^a *€ gKcsg,E,ri:Thailand),titacmylydia.E _______ ,,, Ccer•St est;.tap rw isr,.atc, a rd,tre GIS User Ccrtsmunity,tri, g,g 7 di ©2o26 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 48 of 244 Magnolia Square Apartments Local Street Map ti1.1. Ii 17, Mohr.13, ' k"..; P m e FOci40 e au, atoori Park Estates r ttAilA k..21 11 wood,idsit Axe7 0 Sou . Fork-st Lake A , Et- Homes Moorings Park Legend 0 16 0.075 0 0,15 Miles r=ii3codietts"Pine_RiOge cimmerical Irfill Subdst,ict SutlectSite Esn,HERE,CeLcArre,Ii SC-Si Intarrnac,inaement P CCfC. Esti China:Hong Kong),Esci iTnailanai,hilapmylnuis, CuarEtseetriilap mrtsibutors,arc tre GIS User Community 8 gral m ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. 1=.173 Page 49 of 24-.4 ` ; Magnolia Square Apartments �� � ; Regional Aerial Map ' �`� � ' /,'::';'''.;:t,,,,... Pik* . ] i 4 North i .t i{ate ' d is; , . , w 0; 025 u 5 o Nlil�s --(11y, Legend l:::1G©ad1eY Pine _Ridge Infill 9u Gdzric3 _ .—_—_ _ 9 I r ©2016 MiT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. REI Page 5O of 244 , ,.,14,,,,,,, vg!,,,::: ;-;,*,,,,.:,.".:'4?'-'-'14. '-''.:F':''-':,-,.,T(.,V,"-7‘.3-f.4t1i,",:;:„.,,,','4:„,71,-$,i-4=,,.,--i*:'11'_,,-,7„:,r2,:::,;,i,:Ai:riili'i,ri.p-:,..::"*.,-T,--,r,-;.1.isi;,-L-•,.iL-14i:i.0'i-:s:,.,t?-;i;crc,t'.,,,:,:-I,:,,.;”-),-',,''_4'.,%;,14',,f.'z,42,,%:e':'°'7':--''4-1A'-:, Magnolia Square Apartments Local Aerial Map Site reAt',..-7'-'1.— : .•".-'''''..'‘4.141::''=1:- =2 iiti-''.1;i4°°;,` r '2'ikl., ' :Nittitilii‘i`iiir,P16'''' iiiiiiitiiiiig :.' � ,-;:,,,,-°J.°441-,,;,..'ilig",„,f,., r:rti,., ,17!'-' --` ' *-----tt,' ---,''' ' + mow' € ., �,,:‘, 74,40,,,,!:,:t-,.t-.„-,„, -..,,,r.,,:-,,L,.: -.,:z.,..‘„,-;,.,....k:38,,,-:-:,,,,r_,,:,,,,-,s.,,,..„.„. ,,,.:I.,7„,7,-„,,,,,„..7. ,,,,,t, , t: 4 2,-',, 7.:, 'k; '''.!qiI,VI'kV:.t.'.;,*.0,7„.'",,,...,'''''',4:4''''-1:„'", :';'-',,,.'?''''', , , ----...- '':;,17*-4:',:t..,,,,r1.`,°:''ir':,,;-'':',''',...:'::: 'i,,': ,, .................... ,,,r,,,,:,i,..t 444 :%, » � . t L end C r�; Li ( i s _:,..4>,F.. e9 } �i'socdlette,Pine Ridge�emrret,c I Infill Subdistrict k _,_,T,,,,,,..,;"-::;:. SubjsctSiis < rid £TIE i } s ▪ c^s n r� 0 1 ra rev ° t'- :;,, � .▪ } . + t °fit „,;, 10 111.1, ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PAF Page Si of 244 0001)LETTE/PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT fy COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA f r ` `�``..-4,.... —fes ti 1 '''> 7 �-- 01 : 4 /4,..4 a / . --,,,„ PRA ROM POO(CR.-Ne) 'CtE ROAD(CR.-YR6) ....TA .......... -4 _.,i_ 1 1 �AsnrAnn ENO II ' r - — : _, 11 . POPPEr wa I C,',/. ii in i ioaoPA fbJl� A. 5cc VI 4?. I . SI RA I g,a AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 i toa (Ord.No. 2068-59) LEGEND ' Q »" .40. ': I /) GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE ' /�/A COMMERCIAL INFILL PREPARED LIY,CJtt,PHIC4 AND TECH�YCAL SUPPORT sterol !-', r//,a SUBDISTRICT COMPUNPTY DEVELOPMENT AND ENMRDNMENTAL SERVICES DIVISOR DATE. 10/2006 I7Lc CP57-2006-150.-1.0*5 ..._�__,.m. b,._.____ m..._.�..�. -a_... ........... .....,.-.. „Po.M...,.. mz,.� 11 OP ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PE2F Page 52 of 244 The site is located in the larger North Naples Planning Community, which will serve as the primary trade area for the analysis of current and future supply and demand analysis. Located below is a map showing the boundary of the North Naples Planning Community. 12 11, ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. RQF Rage 53 of 24-4 North Naples Planning Community TEtry 5t `wry Sr is ti Bonita . '..P1-11 $8.00.0.scatil Rd SE ' Writ uxerl� 1 'r 1..0411 V., E ry Naples ' Park _ NEI r It.1 tridriMarsh TiGur�n ^`i:*if iii3g t ;;,Csd t.;lit 4. .k rt'I`:eaeh R i Pelican Pine , Bag Ridge, r,ggBtfassC,"t'' North e Naples 2a tl. .a-' aal 11 g u H Golden Gate iea fir i, �: 1.,^C+, V. >a vs xr.lt t.itib l. =1.: East Naples 11,iril-, Davi*Blvd w+--- Legend 1.5 0 75 0 1 5 Miles s GcodlettelPineRidge Commercial Intl!Si district -,. = :. Sc.ce: Esrs HERE,CeLcrme.USGS Int€gep,i^oement P Corp.,t... SubjedSde Esri Japan,I'ETI,yEsri Chira hcng Kmg),Es fThallend),4iepmyIreie .__.— -per Streettdac xntsit:uix,,tre the GIS Usej Cammtn,iy 13 ©201.6 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 54 of 244 Within the North Naples Planning Community, only the Imperial Lakes PUD, located north of the subject site, has approval for 430 multifamily sites. It should be noted that the sites multifamily approval does not specify rental units, therefore the true potential of land with approval may be none.Located below is a map showing the location of the Imperial Lakes PUD and the subject site. Imperial Lakes MF Site Bonita �,, ta.1:4 SPang, sa s.4,13tN. _ t i Imperial Lakes 430 MF Linde - do Pah 1,1 4. . \ v. Pellt'A R R NY *%" NUM Ntq<. t Legend , OMs..neE,n Q3mdR_?.a_R SaMuraat_Ec...try - ., _ Scum E SERE D- USGs{rb $ F I neP�^seilrertlFCup. 'j'' ` '" ENI 15 MET] i 4 EKmg £s ,ThedRhtl)Mapmylnd,O 1.FJF+"nSl'+f4tlS p Mt NCitut)rC N+tGfS limo GarnreunRy Product Mix The introductory unit mix includes four floorplans offering Studios, 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units with 1 and 2 bathrooms. Unit sizes range from 600 sqft for a Studio unit to 1,361 sqft for a 3 bedroom 2 bath unit.The proposed unit sizes are consistent with the current market offerings of new and existing rental apartment projects in the area. 14 OR ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 55 of 244 Located below is a summary of the preliminary unit mix followed by a tentative site plan. Unit Type Unit Count Size Studio 20 600 1 Bed/1 Bath 145 850 2 Bed/2 Bath 158 1125 3 Bed/2 Bath 52 1,361 Total Units 375 Wtg Avg Size 1,023 4.0 COLLIER COUNTY RESIDENTIAL TRENDS The charts below provide an overview of historical residential develop trends for Collier County. The overview is in terms of single family and multifamily housing starts and residential price and volume trends.The analysis of both single family and multifamily growth trends is an important attribute in understanding the overall housing market. Figure 4.1—Collier County SF Housing Starts County Sum of Sum of SF Starts Single Family Housing Starts 3000 2655 2690 2500 m 2044 m 2000 1500 1442 1086 1214 I1l 688551 500 I I 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year ■Total Year .=a Source:Bureau of Economic and Business Research The chart above reflects annual single family housing start trends for Collier County from January 2oo7to through the end of 203.6. Single Family Housing starts have increased steadily over the past 5 years and have averaged approximately 2500 starts between 2015 and 2016. 15 h,�ir ©2.016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PEJF Page 56 of 244 Figure 4.2—Collier County MF Housing Starts County Sum of Sum of MF Starts Mulitfamily Family Housing Starts 1000 923 900 Y-1 800 700 617 618 665 c 600 545 n 500 425 x o 359 = 400 • 300 271 243 G 200 100 66 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Year ■Total Year ."i , Source:Bureau of Economic and Business Research The chart above reflects monthly multifamily housing start trends for Collier County from January 2007 through end of 2016. Multifamily housing starts include both condominium development and rental apartments.Over the past four years, multifamily housing starts have averaged approximately 600 units per year, of which the majority are new fee simple condominium developments. Milano Lakes, off Collier Blvd on Lords Way, is the most recent rental apartment community being developed in Collier County.This community will consist of 296 units and cater to young professionals and families. Construction stated on this community in late 2016. The recent growth of single family and multifamily housing starts has kept pace with population growth, indicated a balanced market. 16 ti ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQP Page 57 of 244 Table 4.3—Collier County Residential Sales Trends County -' Sum.of SF.C need Sales Average of SF_Median Sale Price Sum of C_Closed Sales Average of C_Median Sale Price Collier County Residential Sales Trends 1600 $500,000 1400 $450,000 1200 - - $400,000 1000 $350000 o a 800 $300,000 'tj600 $250,000 400 $200,000 200 .. $150,000 p $100,000 ti/ ti� ti/ � A tiP tib tip 4" 4? 4/ 4? 4? 4? oh O 4? 4? d0 ti tiLL ,�P `~O4~ ry419 OO01. \tiy \ atiA\ 34 A\'' ,„11tiA\ 4" tiA\ 4 51Cc5\ Period Sum of SF_Closed Sales mom Sum of C_Closed Sales Average of SF_Median Sale Price.........Average of C_Median Sale Price Period - Source:Florida Association of Realtors The chart above reflects the monthly sales volume for single family homes and condominiums as well as the median home price for each design since January 2013. We can see the sales volume of condominiums typically outpaces that of single family homes, due primarily to the lower product pricing. Sales of all residential product has slowed since the beginning of 2015 due to the rapid price increases over the past several years and the increased supply of new product offerings. Year over year, the median single family home price has decreased slightly at 1.48% while condominium home pricing has increased 4.6%for the same period. On an annual basis, both single family and condominium pricing increased 4%over the same period in 2015. 5.o COLLIER COUNTY RENTAL APARTMENT MARKET A review of 43 rental apartments in Collier County was conducted to estimate the overall supply within the market. The apartments utilized in this sample are those with soo or more units, range in age from new to 40 years old and represent both subsidized rental and market rental communities. Collier County has a total of 10,462 total rental units of which 4,814 or 46%are subsidized in some way. The following data includes the total supply with Market Rate apartments analyzed later in the report. 17 MJ ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. F'QF Page 58 of 244 Located below is a map showing the location of the apartments researched for this study followed by a map key. i rt @3 V..,ll, 1=tr' All Rental Apartments :, ;,1 i,, iE 1241 .al., _lam. tt •4 li ,x Y {4x. tttu} ..Lttr Naples '- Park •� s i `- ifrobb&aibb R irir Prfilt Ali 1=1n. Qa:. Ridge •'- Hai)] of'ta. F;- yI • .. • c s • 3 . 0 2 3 ,L21, . • Ea.t rt #1.0,-, •ce t t t,c, 4 • - to ta+: m1 • !I 0 t. 23 • 6d 010,b006.Ftb)a�i°obb. 1i' Lely .sIco r_c)u w; Naples '..1,1b ktanor 0 1.5 0.75 0 1.5 Miles sF 7,-+--.. E-. 1111111111 d� S Legend Scuce- Earl,HERE tr G5,Interrnap,increment F Corp..#iRCfiP• • -{aertmenta 20180 a_final Esri.,a Fan,hIETI,Esri China 3Ncnp hQt.Esri;Thailand),Maprnylndie,5 Open5treetMMap ccrtridutcrs,and the Gt5; ser Ccmmunay �� p 18 PI, ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PAF Page 59 of 24-4 MapID Apartment Name MapID Apartment Name 1 Bear Creek 22 Oasis of Naples(Arbor Walk) 2 Belvedere 23 Ospreys Landing 3 Berkshire Reserve 24 Meadow Brook Preserve(Turtle Creek) 4 Bermuda Island 25 River Reach 5 Brittany Bay I&II 26 Sabal Key 6 Bryn Mawr 27 Saddlebrook Village 7 College Park 28 San Marino(Aventine) 8 Coral Palms 29 Shadowood Park 9 Goodlette Arms 30 Somerset Palms(Arbor View) 10 Heritage(MerSoleil) 31 Summer Lakes I 11 Heron Park 32 Summer Lakes II 12 Ibis Club 33 Summer Wind 13 Jasmine Cay 34 Tuscan Isle 14 La Costa 35 Villas of Capri 15 Lagu Bay 36 Waverley Place 16 Malibu Lakes 37 Whistler's Cove 17 Meadow Lakes(Saxon Manor) 38 Whistler's Green 18 Naples 701 39 Windsong Club 19 Naples Place I-Ill 40 Aster Lely 20 Noah's Landing 41 Sierra Grande 21 Northgate Club 42 Orchid Run 43 Milano Lakes The apartments surveyed include both market and subsidized housing and are all included to provide a census of the rental apartment market. Located below is a summary of all the rental apartments within the market based on their age and total number of units. 19 � aT�'7 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 60 of 244 All Apartments by Age 1 Wm II,pki ee 1,,,rk ' 0 Pelican Pine ii Bay Ridge' _ 1-z le,, North Napiei ylt4 13 0 Ea,t } - rapt O_.-- c Dry 29 0— © � 41 Legend t Years Old 1 iiapt r.e, ,, Less than.c, Manor Q eto1U • 11 0:115 ��i tt --t 1.5 0 75 0 1.5 Miles ',, • 16 to 20 q 0 Mare then 20 so .Esr, PERE.CeL rme LOGS Sten rop ,^verrent FCorp.,t1ECA^s, Esri Japan,M611,Esri Ch,.o f ong"iCorg),Etri tTtailanC),Map milreia,lb GperStreetrlap cantriout o,arc the 0151iter Community 20 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PIDF Page 61 of 244 All Apartments by Unit Count ,,Yr 0 0 i Pa s.--ii ga,— e n ,cAso 1 h�6,..an Mata, ,0,,t,r, �:::4):. N. fh,ii-*act,Fa Pelican Rine Bay Ridge c -; , North LL Mala a:tic Napa r of Na ., m t ,E3m n V V to ❑ z 4 v. 12-0 U yv.' 26 3 .,.. A' et'. 4 _ ©i- } °�-1 11 _,,i P 17 gb ao .w,„..., 0East L Na pies i 0 tlapte., 0"--- - G :r Natoli cit CA I-1 0 43 4,= b 171 73- 0 Legend Lely _ Total_Units Naples ' o Less than 200 Manor it o 201 to 250 , 37 t 0 251 to 350 i`° _ 15 0?o l 1.6 Miles ? 40 251 to 504 tye if S • tt More 1han 540 SOL. Esri,HERE.DeLwrne,-UGS,Intl+nap,increment P Corp..t'{-vAFY, Est',.s pan,t1ETI,Esri China fHon ).Esri Thailare),T1a mylreia0 Cee'Stee.Riap certrituters.ane the ,,lser Cvn nznity 21 ©2016 MJT Realty Ecor omic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 62 of 244 The first map shows all the rental apartments based on their age. The supply of rental apartments in the county is generally older with the majority being developed more than zo years ago. Many have been renovated, however their floorplan design, amenities and general appeal reflect their aging criteria. The newest communities are located primarily off Collier Blvd in South Naples with the Orchid Run community located closest to employment centers and support facilities located on the southwest corner of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway. The second map shows all the rental apartments based on the total number of units within each complex. The majority have between z5o and 400 units with the newest communities averaging 300 units each. The development of rental apartments in Collier County started in the mid 1970's with a surge of new development occurring in the mid 1980's which coincided with the first wave of new residential development. As we can see from the graph below, most the apartments built consisted of and 2 bedroom designs.The first real influx of3 bedroom units did not begin until the mid 1990's, following that decade's recession. Development of rental units from the mid 1990's through today consisting primarily of 2 and 3 bedroom units with a very limited supply of 4 bedroom units. Sum of 1BR Sum of 2BR Sum of 3 BR Sum of 4BR Historical Development 1400 1200 A 1000 5 800 n 600 ▪ 400 2001iI I_ I � 1111: o 19751976 1985 1986 198719881989 19901991 19931995 1997 19981999 20002001 20022003 200720142015 Period ■Sum of 1BR ■Sum of 2BR ■Sum of 3 BR ■Sum of 4BR Y ,Built z—T Product size by bedroom count has stayed relatively consistent for the 1 bedroom design,with the 2, 3 and 4 bedroom designs getting slightly larger over time.The subject will a very small number of 600 sqft Studio Apartment which is a new design for the Collier County market. 22 ©201.6 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PIDF Page 63 of 244 Unit Size by BR Count and YR Built 1600 1400 41200 - - - 1000 - - - • - 600 iii � � � r ' ■ iur Irl ' z 400 • ■ ■ ' ' ■ ' ' ' ■ ' ' 200 ,■111111 ■ ■ ■ 1 1 ■ 1 1 1 ■ III 1 1 1 1 0 y°1�co, 4• ,x'40 y'4\y��y°'Si0 yci'0 'S,tic yc°C,0 yy4,ycpq Ls•Q Ldisr tC�L YC�3 Lf�1 0�4 Y�sy Period gam Average of 1BRS MEI Average of 28RS Average of 3BRS Average of 4BRS Linear(Average of 1BRS)- -Linear(Average of 28R5) - -Linear(Average of 3BRS) Located below we will analyze the projects based on their location,age and rental rate per sqft. The chart and graph below represent the weighted rate per sqft based on the unit mix of both the subsidized and market rate apartments.As we can see the rate has increased significantly over the past four years. Average Rate by Bedroom Count Bedroom Count Jan-11 Oct-11 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-15 Sep-16 1 Bed $0.94 $0.91 $1.01 $1.12 $1.32 $1.42 2 Bed $0.78 $0.77 $0.86 $0.95 $1.18 $1.21 3 Bed $0.75 $0.73 $0.81 $0.89 $1.21 $1.17 4 Bed $0.78 $0.82 $0.86 $0.94 $1.25 $1.15 Historical Rate $1.50 $1.40 $1.30 $1.20 - 4101111444... _ I$1.10 I$1.00 $0.90 $0.00 $0.70 $0.60 N N N N 0 0 3 R R S N A A Period -1 Bed -2 Bed -3 Bed -a Bed 23 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PIDF Page 64 of 244 Occupancy has also risen significantly over the past 4 years to the current 97%which represents stabilized occupancy when you consider a typical 5%turnover rate. Located below is a chart and graph showing the historical occupancy from January zoic to present. Jan-11 Oct-11 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-15 Sep-16 Avg Occupancy 92% 91% 96% 95% 99% 97% Historical Occupancy 100% --- 98% — .-.. 90% I94% a9195 .._. ------ ----- -- -- ----- g 90% 88% 86% .�.' '�` `.' .�.. .�.+ '.Z3 .tea .moi r3i 3 3 4 n 4'i 4 4 « M OA AO Period —Avg Occupancy The overall occupancy rate has fallen slightly due to the introduction of new supply into the market. The chart and graph below show the rental rates and size by bedroom count for the current period. Bedroom Count Avg Size Sept 16 Rate 1 Bed 775 $1.42 2 Bed 1,020 $1.21 3 Bed 1,220 $1.17 4 Bed 1,407 $1.15 24 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PIF Page 65 of 244 Relationship of Avg Size to Rate per sqft 1,500 _.,._._.____- -- ------_---------- ------------------------_-_....____..___---..............__..-___.___--- $1.60 - $1.40 1,300 51.x0 1,200 $ 1,100 - $1.00 1,000 $0.80 X r goo a t800 $e60 700 111 $0.40 WO - $0.20 500 $0.00 1Bed 2Bed 3Bed 4Bed Unk Type aim Avg Site —Sept 16 Rate 5.1 Market Rate Apartments Market rate apartments were the first developed in the county, with subsidized housing starting in the late 1.98o's to accommodate the increasing employment for hotels and other hospitality related industries.There is a total of 5,648 market rate rental units in Collier County which accounts for 54% of the total. The mix of market rate units by bedroom count is consistent with the overall supply in the county. The increase in supply of 3 and 4 bedroom units did not begin until 2000 when the availability of affordable family accommodations was restricting due to rapidly rising home prices. Most of the market rate rental apartment communities are located on major arterial roadways allowing for easy access to a wider market area. Market rate rental apartment complexes prefer to be located closer to employment centers, entertainment venues and other support facilities to attract tenants. Located below is are maps showing the age and size of the market rate apartments followed by graphs and charts summarizing these rental communities. 25 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 66 of 244 Market Rate Apartments 1'1 i• Pal *mak aira lei o , 0 Pel Kan Pine Bay Ridge North Naples r:2 0[11 14i 361 21 G4119 1421 ®{25! 712 E ;.t Narita, off- ttaE,{Y;, 2 8, 18 121 olLo aa i l s !411 ! 1. Mag+Pr; +E,.�n o r n 1 0 75 0 1.5 Miles Legend ' Sources Esei HERE,ieLcarre, 'SC-S I^5 r inclement F Csxp t•RCAN. 0 Il arketRate.Apartm eats all.apa.,HETI Esti China Heng 4phg),Esri,Thsilant),Hapmylrcia,41. OperShe,ir,Lsp eentgiNJicrs,are the 61E,:J'sat Community 26 /l ©2o16 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PDF Page 67 of 244 Market Rate Apartments by Age i' Naples m Park Pi --6 I .s rtt,ttki it,, iv iisTr..„1d.,i±A, T tvJce n ,ltt-tut, y. .,°nr4mrtx+t 'death Rd Pelican Pine - Bay Ridge ;I CJs a North 15 ;'ae TM Ravi r tot NapW 14 2 ( V aJ 0 1 i ll "1-9) ti a 3 R t ef'. E V 3 o 12 . East E Naples # rear l- C 2B u c 18. 0 I:10 [ 1 LI ao, kRatiia*,tiatts kemi�+c Rd 41 Legend ` Lely Years Old Naples 0 Lessthan E Manor C• etc 10 1t to 1.` W E 1 5 0 75 0 1.5 Miles t^tc2% 111111111EMIIIIIIM i. 4.1' i 0 � � h?ci e tear,:;�, Sc;3raes E;n,HEP.E.Voter me-+3 &;Into-rmaR increment FCarp.,tiR.CRK. Esri Japan MET1,Esri ChinatHon�i+.g},Esti tT 9ilard},M pmylydia.0 - OprsnSiseetHiap contributors lino the di�`6.Jser Community 27 •; ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PIDF Page 68 of 244 Market Rate Apartments by Unit Count '---------- „ . „,...„ .. — .,--,'- '-gualt Woo ' 6614; 14i ' 0622 k -,-; i i 14402; 1161 irarrilir niiitiit'Pd 0-- . ,5, „..,-,,” 1, .) ,.. 1-nhi-iiii Pin, Bo, RI dge ,cp:,..Ea221, 1 15 2 1 TN, tith ,,.tir tilao, .21 , , 13311_ 41111 0 0 i - p_b_i [ i Got 19 _ 0 12M-0,-.10 n - .t: E.A-t 6 ,---. •,_..3 tlacitfn-,- 281 0 18; 43; 0 .. .,__,......._, ' 6 F2 ' 0 41 Legend -, Total_U nits Le-1,, 0 Less than 200 11 Aitt it,.„ 0 201 to 2513 N 0 251 to 350 1 5 075 0 1.5 Miles S., I 0 351 to 500 IML=NICIIIIIII= s (i) More than 500 ani.rms:Esti,iirEfiE,DeLoo' ,.U.SQS,Intern-auinc.-amen+,P Corp.,NRCAN Esri Japan,VIETI,Esri China ftiontilW0).Esri;Thailand),Mapmylntia.0 OpenStreettAat contributors,ant the Glkyser Community .......... 28 MI ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. i=.rf,F Page 69 of 24-4 County »'`[ Market Rent .y Sum of 1BR Units Sum of 2BR Units Sum of 3 BR Units Sum of 4BR Units Historical Size By BR Count 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 _ I 0 1975 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1995 1998 2000 2001 2002 2014 2015 •Sum of 1BR Units ■Sum of 2BR Units ■Sum of 3 BR Units ■Sum of 4BR Units Year Built .T Product size by bedroom count has stayed relatively consistent for the i bedroom and has increased slightly for 2 and 3 bedroom units. County,.M" Malicet Rent .T Average of 1BR Size Average of 2BR Size Average of 3BR Size Average of 4BR Size _...., Historical Size By BR Count 1800 1600 1400 . . 1200Iii....... .11 :1.... 800 ._,..., ..... 600 400 200 0 1975 1985 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1995 1998 2000 2001 2002 2014 2015 Pm=Average of 1BR Size MIMI Average of 2BR Size mom Average of 38R Size •••••Average of 488 Size Linear(Average of 1BR Size) Linear(Average of 2BR Size) Linear(Average of 3BR Size) Year Built . ',` Located below we will analyze the projects based on their location,age and rental rate per sqft. The chart and graph below represent the weighted rate per sqft based on the unit mix of the market rate projects only.As we can see the rate has increased significantly over the past four years. 29 11411 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. RIDr= Page 70 of 244 Average Rate by Bedroom Count-Market Bedroom Count Jan-11 Oct-11 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-15 Sep-16 1 Bed $0.93 $0.93 $1.02 $1.17 $1.40 $1.52 2 Bed $0.86 $0.85 $0.93 $1.01 $1.26 $1.36 3 Bed $0.83 $0.81 $0.87 $1.02 $1.29 $1.34 4 Bed $1.03 $1.04 $1.11 $1.15 $1.47 $1.47 Historical Rate-Market $1.60 �. $1.50 $1.40 H $1.30 $1.20 $1.10 - y S $1.00 ce $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 ;1 .^�� .''i `a .~i ti :"', "a' ti ti 3 3 a v, N co ‘o a o a 5i - ga o a � a Period -1 Bed -2 Bed -3 Bed -4 Bed The rental rate per square foot between 2014 and 2015 has increased at an average of 6%per year for each bedroom design. This annualized rate is lower than previous years due to the limited supply of new product. Occupancy has also risen significantly overthe past 4 years to the current 97%which represents stabilized occupancy when you consider a typical 5%turnover rate. Located below is a chart and graph showing the historical occupancy from January 2011 to present. Market Rate Jan-11 Oct-11 Mar-13 Dec-13 Jun-15 Sep-16 Avg Occupancy 89% 90% 94% 97% 95% 97% 30 ©201.6 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 71 of .4.4 Historical Occupancy-Market 98% 96% 94% A 04 92% 5 n u 90% 6 88% 86% 84% .+ .. N .. N N N M m (fl a a et a N N .1 N lD t0 t0 1 c d ° ? n I G Q 0 Q o Q Q � Q Q Q 0 Period -Avg Occupancy The chart and graph below show the market rental rates and size by bedroom count for the current period. Bed room Count Avg Size Sept 16 Rate 1 Bed 804 $1.52 2 Bed 1,040 $1.36 3 Bed 1,244 $1.34 4 Bed 1,501 $1.47 31 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PQF Page 72 of 244 Relationship of Avg Size to Rate per sqft-Market 1,700 — $1.65 - $1.55 1,500 - $1.45 1,30011 ., - $1.35 N LR y 5 1,100 $1.25 - $1.15 900 ■ ■ - $1.05 700 - $0.95 500 $0.85 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed Unit Type Avg Size —Sept 16 Rate The market rate apartments are located throughout the county with the majority south of Golden Gate Parkway.Three of the four newest communities are located off Collier Blvd near the intersection with Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Orchid Run is the 15t market rate rental community developed west of 1-75 in more than zo years. Its locational influence has resulted in the highest rental rates and quickest lease up in Collier County.This community is currently under contract for sale. Orchid Run's market performance provides evidence that well located rental communities in Collier County are in demand. 5.2 Market performance score The consultant developed a market performance score for each rental apartment complex using age, average occupancy and average rental rate per sqft as criteria. After the score has been determined, each sites score is mapped to see the spatial distribution of the best performing complexes. For this study, we are only reporting on the market rate rental apartment communities as Magnolia Square will compete with these communities.After we have determined the criteria for the score,we developed a ranking system for each criterion.In this case,a score of between i and 5 was selected for each criterion with assigned thresholds for each.The thresholds range from one,which represents an older or lower attribute to five,which represents newer and/or a higher ranking. Located below are the criteria and the ranking for each criterion. 32 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. PEDF Page 73 of 244 Age(yrs). lo hi score �� 0 5 5 6 10 4 11 15 3 16 20 2 20 1000 1 Occupancy(%) lo hi score 95.00% 5 90.00% 94.90% 4 80.00% 89.90% 3 75.00% 79.90% 2 75.00% 1 Rent/Soft($1 to hi score $1.40000 5 $1.20000 $1.39999 4 $1.10000 $1.19999 3 $6.80000 $1.09000 2 $0.80000 1 A score was assigned to each attribute for each rental apartment complex.Once each attribute is assigned for each rental apartment complex, we weighted each to calculate a final score. Located below is the weighting we assigned to each attributes score. Weights Age 15% Occupancy 50% Rent/Soft 35% 100% Below are the individual scores for age, occupancy and rental rate per sqft for each of the market rate complexes and the final weighted average score. Project _Mapes Age : Occupancy 2 Rate sqft Market N 9/2016 score'; Belvedere 2 1 5 1 1 4.0 +`� Berkshire Reserve 3 2 5 3 1 4.9 Bryn Mawr 6 2 5 1 1 4.2 Ibis Club 12 2 5 1 1 4.2 La Costa 14 1 4 4 1 4.6 Laguna Bay 15 1 4 4 1 4.6 Malibu Lakes 16 3 5 5 1 5.7 Naples 701 18 1 5 4 1 5.1 Naples Place I-Ill 19 1 5 4 1 5.1 Northgate Club(Avesta Elderado) 21 1 5 4 1 5.1 Oasis of Naples(Arbor Walk) 22 1 5 4 1 5.1 River Reach 25 1 4 5 1 4.9 'San Marino(Aventine) 28 2 5 5 1 5.6 Shadowood Park 29 1 5 2 1 4.4 Summer Wind(ARIUM Gulfshore) 33 1 5 5 1 5.4 Waverley Place 36 1 5 4 1 5.1 Aster Lely 40 5 4 5 1 5.5 Sierra Grande 41 5 5 5 1 6.0 Orchid Run 42 5 5 5 1 6.0 The final weighted scores range from a low of 4.0 for Belvedere an older community to a high of 6.o for Sierra Grande and Orchid Park due to their newer age, higher rental rates and high occupancy.In orderto identifythe spatial distribution of the best performing sites,we mapped each of the market rate rental apartment communities and delineated the score range by color code.Located below is a map of the market rate apartment complexes by final weighted score. 33 OP ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. P17F Page -74- of 244 Market Performance Score eE,nrta io -'ii ,rzso,,Ilr;a1 .CIG' I.A ha;a t.a,ah* 1.11Yt a'..l+tt: 4 oap r, k a r k .j 6 int-ma-44a #aa4. ISO (Auk- ,6 IAY= i..iil,fi I.: xrr-k. t3t11':111.; r-Mt` [i,f r R1,1p. 22 (" 15 ohito,, er t7r_rt?..1 �.1 r. 33 al 14 2' — t. U 361 121 Pe,r ,19 1 a e y ia Pahry+' i .i r� - 2t }v 121 ttn$.a+. i Legend 118I MarketRateAparttnents143 1291 ;, I Septl6score 401 0 Lass than 3 ;i,411 0 al to4 alto-5t,rEJ .2 ra • 6.1 to..F 1.5 0.75 0 1.5 Miles INDI. 411 eetne Sctaoes 0,i,t 1EPE,)eLcrme U5GS,In ermap,increment P C;:c NRCAN, Esti.iapan,eitillf Esri Chiral 94yih' Vo'g) Esri'ThailanC),t4apmylrhia.'S C-er S et!Llap d6r trit•,uton,ar+e tie GIS User Ct i 5y 34 /1' ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved. F QI Page 75 of 244 The highest scoring apartment complexes are Sierra Grande, Aster at Lely, located on Collier Blvd, south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road, Malibu Lakes, located off Immokalee Road at the intersection of 1-75,and the newest community, Orchid Run, located on Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. Of the four highly rated communities, Malibu Lakes is the oldest, however is achieving high rental rates and a high occupancy due to its location and easy access to 1-75. Orchid Run is the newest of the stabilized rental apartment communities in Collier County.This community is achieving the highest rental rates in the market due to its superior quality, unit design, amenities and most importantly its location. Its central location near the employment and entertainment centers of Naples as proved the market demand for a better-quality community in a superior location. Orchid Run is currently under contract for a reported $75,000,000 or $265,000 per unit. This would be the highest sale of a rental apartment community in Collier County. The existing supply of market rate apartment complexes are enjoying high occupancies and increasing rental rates due to the lack of apartment complexes in the market and more importantly an increase fee simple housing cost which is directing the consumer to the few rental market options available.The introduction of Milano Lakes and the proposed Magnolia Square Apartments will increase supply to the currently market restricted area. 6.o MARKET DEMAND CONCLUSIONS(UDPATED APRIL 23,2018) The demand for market rate rental apartments is not isolated to a specific area of Collier County, however, the rental communities within the North Naples planning district are some of the oldest in the county. The demand for rental apartments is based in part on the lack of available supply, resulting in record occupancy of the existing facilities and on the size of the population that primarily occupies them. Rental apartment demand is a function of population growth. Most of the occupants for rental apartments are single and/or couples, are employed and vary in age from millennials to baby boomers or from 26 to 6o years of age. The forecast for rental apartment demand starts with a review of the current market status. Data used to support this forecast is based on the US Census Estimates,Moody's Analytics,the American Community Survey(ACS) Housing Summary and the National Multifamily Housing Council. The supporting documentation is included in the addendum of this report. Located below is the calculation of demand for market rate rental apartments in Collier County.This is followed by an explanation and support of the forecast. 1 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 35 I r I Page 76 of 244 A B C D E F G H I J K L M Pct of Rental Annual Units Pct with Demand with Income for rent Pct between Market between Total Total Persons Annual Rental 35K and Rate $800 and Market Current Annual Cumulative Year Population Housholds per HH Rental Households 99K Units $2,500 Demand Supply Need Demand 2012 328,209 122,972 2.67 2015 356,570 145,194 2.46 16% 23,231 45.0% 10,454 59% 6,168 5,648 520 520 2016 365,136 147,758 2.47 16% 23,641 45.0% 10,639 59% 6,277 5,648 629 1,149 2017 368,787 152,747 2.41 16% 24,440 45.0% 10,998 59% 6,489 5,944 545 1,693 2018 372,475 154,274 2.41 16% 24,684 45.0% 11,108 59% 6,554 5,944 610 2,303 2019 376,200 155,817 2.41 16% 24,931 45.0% 11,219 59% 6,619 5,944 675 2,978 2020 379,962 157,375 2.41 16% 25,180 45.0% 11,331 59% 6,685 5,944 741 3,719 2021 383,762 158,949 2.41 16% 25,432 45.0% 11,444 59% 6,752 5,944 808 4,527 The estimate of market rate rental unit demand, is based on the relationship of rental units to population and the associated rental housing units. Column B starts with the 2012 Population estimate from the Collier County Planning Forecast,with estimates through 2015 and forecast through 2021. Based on the Collier County Planning department, the forecast is reflective of the BEBR Medium population estimate.Column C reflects the total households taken from the 2017 Moody's forecast. Column D is the calculation of the persons per household which is the total population divided by the total households,which is 2.41.The 2.41 persons per household figure will be used in the forecast to calculate the estimate household growth in relation to the Population estimates. Column E is the percentage of households in Collier County that are identified as reserved for rental. As of the 2017 Demographic and Income Profile, there are a total of 48,666 units in Collier County that are identified as use for rentals which represents 31%of the total including seasonal rentals. We have estimated that roughly half or 16% represent households that will rent on an annual basis. Column F reflects the percentage of households that have income between $35,000 and $99,000 within the County. The households with income in this range are most likely to rent apartments in the county.The household income range represents 45%of the total within the county. Column G is the calculation of the total rental households would be made up of the households that make between 35K and 99K annual income. The resulting number reflects the total households that, based on their income would be most likely to occupy market rate rental housing. Column H is the estimate of total market rate rental households based on the household income range and is calculated by multiplying Column F by Column G. , kr ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 36 PEF Page 77 of 244 Column I reflects the percentage of rental units that have month rates between $800 and $2,500 per month. This is obtained from page 2 of the ACS housing Summary and provides support for the percent of units with rental rates in this range. This is considered the general rental range for market rate rental apartments in Collier County. Based on this data, 59% of the rental units in Collier County have a monthly rental rate between $800 and $2,500 per month.Those units with rental rates below are considered subsidized housing and those with monthly rates above are typically condominiums in superior locations. Column J is the estimate of total market rate rental households based on the data provided. It is calculated by multiplying Column H, Annual Market Rate Demand by Column I, the percentage of rentals that have a rental rate consistent with market rates from the survey. Column K reflects the total market number of market rate rental apartment units in Collier County as of April 23, 2018. Column L is the difference between the Column J, the total demand for market rate rental apartments, and Column K, the supply of market rate rental apartments as of April 23, 2018. This reflects the annual need for market rate rental apartment units. Column M is the cumulative number of annual market rate rental units needed until 2021. Based on this analysis, we forecast that by the end of 2018, there will be demand for an additional 2,303 market rate rental apartment units over the current 5,922 units supply. The demand is anticipated to grow to a total of 4,527 over the current supply by the end of 2021. 7.o PROPOSED RENTAL APARTMENT SUPPLY In addition to the existing 5,922 market rate rental apartment units,there are currently eight properties with a proposed total of 2,616 units that are in varying stages of completion or pending approval in Collier County. Assuming all 2,616 units are delivered at their projected delivery year,these approved units must be subtracted from the estimated demand to reflect the net need for additional market rate apartments units. The eight projects and their estimated delivery dates are below. Est Delivery Apartment Year Total Units Inspira at Lely Resort 2018 304 Briarwood Apartments 2018 320 Legacy Naples New Hope Ministries 2018 304 Addison Place 2018 240 Springs at Sabal Bay 2019 340 Ave Maria Apts 2019 250 Journey's End 2019 483 Pine Ridge Commons 2020 375 Total Units 2616 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 37 PDF Page 78 of 244 These eight properties are located throughout the county.The estimated delivery date of the projects is based on a property inspection of each property in April of 2018. It should be noted that not all the projects will be completed on the estimated date. 8.o DEMAND SUPPLY CONCLUSIONS The analysis above indicates an increasing demand for market rate rental apartments in Collier County.Currently,eight facilities are proposed for a total of 2,616 additional market rate rental apartments that will be added to the current supply and help to satisfy the future demand. Located below is a summary table showing the net demand for market rate rental apartments assuming the delivering of the eight proposed projects. Current Annual Cumulative Approved Net Year Supply Need Demand Units Demand 2012 2015 5,648 520 520 520 2016 5,648 629 1,149 1,149 2017 5,944 545 1,693 1,693 2018 5,944 610 2,303 1168 1,135 2019 5,944 675 2,978 1073 737 2020 5,944 741 3,719 375 1,103 2021 5,944 808 4,527 1,911 Assuming all of the proposed facilities are delivered to the market in a timely manner, by the end of 2021,there will still be a need for 1,911 market rate rental units.The increased demand is driven by the population growth and corresponding employment. The lack of vacant sites with adequate size and functional utility will continue to limit the development of new facilities, unless the repurposing of existing facilities are considered alternatives to help satisfythe future demand. Located below is a map showing the location of the proposed market rate rental facilites. ©2016 MIT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 38 PEDF Page 79 of 244 I Proposed Rental Apartment Supply t 13Y;' rts IOL= t r IAddison Place Naples Park. tmmokats. , d/ .. °Ae Maria Apts '"'r 15+/-Miles East p .al.te Petioan Bay ,h rias yeti. ar ltc a "uaAdeYisae North Naples =s IPine Ridge Commons M r-sra, .,I • ,a Golden Cate .x. awr Sate', 7 Brlawood Apartments = llegacy New Hope Ministries I fSprings at Sable Bay is Inspire at Lely Resort I Loy-.mt. Naples Manor et Journeys End we Legend — t • 1.5 0.75 0 1.5 Miles 4 sces.Esrt RERE Cetxre.cans Irtarrnap nuratrvnt p.IisCAN. Esri pa ETI.Esd Ci' ;Hs'ai l t Rladand) I Opo SI,mIM.p oxmb.Aas.and tF.e r 4axmm.'E, 9.o CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Magnolia Square Apartments Apartment site located on the Northeast corner of Goodlette Road and Pine Ridge Road in northern Collier County, FL. The site's size and functional utility are adequate for development of the proposed rental apartment community. The development site consists of approximately 12 +/- acres and is proposed for the development of 400 residential units. Currently the site is proposed for a mix of Studio,1, 2 and 3 bedroom units ranging in size from 600 sqft to 1,361 sqft.This proposed living area square footage is consistent with the existing rental apartments in the Collier County and is also consistent with the newly developing rental apartments profiled above. ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 39 PIF Page 80 of 244 9.1 Rental Rate Conclusions The rental analysis was prepared based on a survey of all market rental apartments in Collier County performed in September of 2016 and reflects the current rates and occupancy as of that date.The analysis started with a census of the rental apartments in Collier County and was then refined to include only the market rate apartments.The survey proved a significant undersupply of market rate rental units in the market area. Based on our analysis and taking into consideration the Magnolia Square Apartments location,quality of community and amenities,we estimated current initial market rental rates for each floorplan. Rate/ Monthly Unit Type Unit Count Size SQFT Rate Studio 20 600 $2.00 $ 1,200 1 Bed/1 Bath 145 850 $1.80 $ 1,530 2 Bed/2 Bath 158 1125 $1.75 $ 1,969 3 Bed/2 Bath 52 1,361 $1.70 $ 2,313 Total Units 375 Wtg Avg Size 1,023 Weighted Avg Rate $ 1.78 $ 1,806 The estimated initial rental rate averages$1.78 per sqft on a monthly basis which is consistent with the highest rate in the newest market rate rental apartment communities in the immediate market area. 9.2 Absorption Conclusions The three most recently developed rental apartment complexes to obtain lease up absorption rates are in the immediate area of the subject. Sierra Grand, located on Rattlesnake Hammock Road, has a total of 270 units that began pre- leasing in January of 2014 with occupancy starting in March of 2014 and full occupancy reached in March of 2015.This reflects a monthly lease absorption rate of 19 units per month. Aster at Lely Resort, located on Acacia Street in Lely Resort in south Naples, has a total of 308 units that also began pre-leasing in January of 2014 with occupancy starting in May of 2014 and full occupancy reached in May of 2015.This reflects a monthly lease absorption rate of 19 units per month. Orchid Run, located on the southwest corner of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway, has a total of 282 units that also began pre-leasing in January of 2015 with occupancy starting in July of 2015 and stabilized occupancy reached in August of 2016.This reflects a monthly lease absorption rate of 21 units per month. Sierra Grande and Aster at Lely are both located in South Naples and are the first new rental apartments developed in over a decade.Their location is 10 miles from the subject site in an area of lower land cost and has the highest concentration of rental apartments in the county. } ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 40 PDF Page 81 of 244 Orchid Run is the first market based rental apartment community developed west of 1-75 in more than 20 years.This community is closest to the subject at approximately 3.5 miles and is achieving the highest rental rates in the market and had the quickest lease up of any market rate apartment in the county. Its superior location,quality and amenities have proven the market demand exist for well-located rental communities. Considering the location and project quality that will be delivered at Magnolia Square Apartments, it is my option the monthly rental lease up will be consistent with the three project above and average between 18 and 20 units per month. ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 41 PIDF Page 82 of 244 UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS In conducting this market analysis,the Consultant has assumed,where applicable,that: a. Title to the land is good and marketable. 2. The information supplied by others is correct,and the revenue stamps placed on the deeds used to indicate the sale prices are in correct relation to the actual dollar amounts of the individual transactions. 3. There are no hidden or undisclosed sub-soil conditions. No consideration has been given to oil or mineral rights, if outstanding. 4. All general codes,ordinances,regulations or statutes affecting the property have been and will be enforced and the property is not subject to flood plane or utility restrictions or moratoriums except as reported to your consultant and contained in this report. 5. The party for whom this report is prepared has reported to the consultant no original existing conditions or development plans that would subject this property to the regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission or similar agencies on the state or local level. 6. No responsibility is assumed by the consultant for legal matters, nor is any opinion on title rendered herewith. 7. The consultant herein, by reason of this report, is not to be required to give testimony in court with reference to the property analyzed, unless arrangements have been previously made. 8. The consultant has made no survey of the property and assumes no responsibility in connection with such matters. Any sketch or identified survey of the property included in this report is only for the purpose of assisting the reader to visualize the property. 9. No environmental impact studies were either requested or made in conjunction with this study, and the consultant hereby reserves the right to alter, amend, revise, or rescind any of the opinions based upon any subsequent environmental impact studies, research or investigation. 10. Unless stated otherwise, no percolation tests have been performed on this property. In making the study, it has been assumed that the property is capable of passing such tests so as to be developable to its highest and best use,as discussed in this report. 11. Certain data used in compiling this report was furnished by the client, their counsel, employees,and/or representatives,or from other sources believed reliable. Data has been checked for accuracy as possible, but no liability or responsibility may be assumed for complete accuracy. 12. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in nature, nor is any opinion rendered herein as to title,which is assumed to be good and merchantable. The property is assumed to be free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, unless specifically enumerated herein, and under responsible ownership and management as of the date of this study. 13. The forecasts or projections included in this report are used to assist in the process and are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a stable economy. These forecasts are therefore subject to changes in future conditions. ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 42 pip F Page 83 of 244 14. The consultant has relied upon the demographic data provided by the Collier County Community Development Department in order to project population trends, housing trends,gross sales trends,and economic trends forthe subject area.The information relied upon is referenced within the applicable section of this report. The consultant does not warrant its accuracy. 15. The consultant has obtained data regarding building permits for single family and multi family products from the US Census. It is the consultant's understanding that multi family permits are those for condominiums and for rental apartment complexes. 16. The consultant has obtained data regarding building salesfor single family and multifamily products from the Property Appraiser's office for the county in which the subject is located or adjoining county Property Appraiser offices. This data includes Developer sales to end users and does not include on your lot sales or construction end loan sales.The consultant cannot warrant the accuracy of the data from this source.The consultant has segmented and amended the data based on market knowledge of the general market; however, no individual sales have been verified. The sales used from these sources reflect statistical trends,with larger samples of data providing a heavier weighting and smaller sample size results in less weighted percentage of the total market. 17. The consultant has obtained data from each of the projects outlined in this report. A physical inspection of each community was made, along with data for each community obtained from a representative of the owner. The data obtained for each project is assumed to be true and correct; however, the accuracy cannot be warranted or guaranteed. e, ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 43 PEJF Page 84 of 244 Appraisal Consulting I certify that,to the best of my knowledge and belief; • The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. • The reported analysis, opinion, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions and are my personal, impartial and unbiased professional analyses, opinions and conclusions. • I have no (or the specified) present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of the work under review and no (or the specific) personal interest with respect to the parties involved. • I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of the work under review or to the parties involved in this assignment. • My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. • My compensation is not contingent on an action or event resulting from the analysis, opinion or conclusions in this report or from its use. • My compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client,the amount of the value opinion, attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal consulting assignment. • My analysis, opinion and conclusions were developed and the review report was prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. • I have made a personal inspection of the subject of the work under review. • No one provided significant real property appraisal or appraisal consulting assistance to the person signing this certificate. Signature Date ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 44 PQF Page 85 of 244 COPYRIGHT,TRADEMARK AND LEGAL DISCLAIMER Copyright This report published by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. hereby referred to as""THE REPORT"", including, but not limited to,text,graphics, photographs,graphs, illustrations, data, images, are protected by copyright law. Copyright © 2012 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc. All rights reserved. All materials provided by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. shall be used by the subscriber (the "User") only for the User's own authorized purposes, and may not be modified, published, reproduced in any manner, sold, distributed or in any way transferred to any person, corporation, organization, subsidiary or branch, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. Possession of these materials does not carry with it the right of publication thereof or to use the name of in any manner without first obtaining the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. No abstracting, excerpting, or summarization of these materials may be made without first obtaining the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. These materials are not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities or other similar purpose where they may be relied upon to any degree by any person without first obtaining the prior written consent of MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. These materials may not be used for purposes other than that for which they are prepared or for which prior written consent first has been obtained from MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. Disclaimer THE INFORMATION IN"THE REPORT"IS PROVIDED ON AN"AS IS"BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. The materials and information provided in "THE REPORT"by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc.constitute raw data,factual materials and the opinions of MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc. Neither MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. nor any of its affiliates, employees or agents will have any liability of any kind to the user,subscriber or any employee,agent,or contractor of the subscriber or to any other person using the information and materials herein or for any error or omissions herein or for any opinions or conclusions expressed. Other than as set forth expressly herein,MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.makes no warranties,expressed or implied concerning the accuracy of the materials or information provided herein. ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 45 PAF Page 86 of 244 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF USE Your use of THE REPORT constitutes your agreement to be bound by these terms and conditions. THE REPORT is a service made available by MJT Realty Economic Advisors, Inc. (the "COMPANY")and all content,information and definitions provided in and through the Housing Demand Report ("Information") may be used solely by you (the "User") under the following terms and conditions("Terms of Use"): i.) Subscription. As an authorized user of THE REPORT, User is granted a nonexclusive, nontransferable, revocable, limited license to access and use THE REPORT and Information in accordance with these Terms of Use. Company may terminate this subscription at any time for any reason. 2.) Limitations on Use. The Information in THE REPORT is for authorized use only and not for commercial exploitation. User may not decompile,disassemble,rent, lease,loan,sell, sublicense, copy or create derivative works from THE REPORT or the Information. User may not copy, modify, reproduce, republish, distribute, display, or transmit for commercial, nonprofit or public purposes all or any portion of THE REPORT,except to the extent authorized by the Company. Any unauthorized use of THE REPORT or its Information is prohibited. 3.) No Solicitation. In no event may any person or entity solicit any Users with data retrieved from this THE REPORT. 4.) Intellectual Property Rights. Except as expressly provided in these Terms of Use, nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring any license or right, by implication, estoppel or otherwise, under copyright or other intellectual property rights. User agrees that the Information and THE REPORT are protected by copyrights,trademarks, service marks, patents or other proprietary rights and laws. For additional information see Copyright. 5.) Unlawful Activity. Company reserves the right to investigate complaints or reported violations of the Terms of Use and to take any action deemed appropriate including, but not limited to, reporting any suspected unlawful activity to law enforcement officials, regulators,or other third parties and disclosing any information necessary or appropriate to such persons or entities relating to user profiles, e-mail address, usage history, posted materials, IP addresses and traffic information. 6.) Remedies for Violations. Company reserves the right to seek all remedies available at law and in equity for violations of these Terms of Use including, but not limited to,the right to cancel THE REPORT. 7.) Modifications to Terms of Use. Company reserves the right to change these Terms of Use at any time. Updated versions of the Terms of Use will appear in THE REPORT and are ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 46 PDF Page 87 of 244 effective immediately. User is responsible for regularly reviewing the Terms of Use. Continued use of THE REPORT after any such changes constitutes User's consent to such changes. :--©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 47 PIDF Page 88 of 244 .......... 0,1.1.. CatIEP COVNTY PtfthUNENT 10116*1014 to.PROJECTIGNS--COVNIYWIbE alske igt 30110 A 2019.2034 1 00UN1035104 1 ..t` ....,,I 322,883 I 328,8l71 331,7941 338223 1 340.293 1 347.158 1 383,936 I 360,846 1 3978921 375,074 1 381,722 I 387.814 I 1 0014,1035188 I 294,00,11 400,2921 406.681 I 412,622 1 417.8001 423,746 1 42:7688 I 41.0401 438.1 50 I 143.8011 448,880 II AVM 1 akesi C018136 11691970 P£9.0408143 POPULATION ESTIMATES...I 18OJEC316/45--COUNIYWIOE arj 1.2905/I 2010-2035 c6952518*?4...,........i I 0648103541,11 I 201.1,11 321,6201 320,7551 325.5451 zu I 1:87,7831 I 943.8021 380,814 I 71358 I 3;435 I 371;48 I 378,700 1 384,744 I 390.808 I ... 1125 2. ?WO 4914 50' 488 ....y., x. , mt., 1114 mu 811 1 COWITYMOS I 907.1231 403,461 1 408,200 1 410,1441 420466 1 4252351 431,282 1 438.8001 441,510! 444.2881 461,104 1 455,978 j 480.900.1 ..... ft,.0,..T.C.Awn's,.fine*.haragt Skates II dr It Oklt --- 1,1 ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 48 PC)F Page 89 of 24-4 • LO es. 1 ACS Housing Summary Collier County,FL 2 Prepared by Esri Collier County,FL(12021) Geography:County 2009-2013 ACS Estimate Percent MOE(*) Reliability TOTALS Total Population 328,209 0 [[ Total Households 122,972 1,840 ti9 Total Housing Units 198,345 347 EEO OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY VALUE Total 91,073 100.0'% 1,422 [j)j Less than$10,000 890 1.09, 194 ID 510,000 to$14,999 594 0.7% 204 al $15,000 to$19,999 361 0.4% 109 ID 420,000 to 524,999 555 0.6% 173 ID $25,000 to 429,999 563 0.6% 177 EU 430,000 to$34,999 394 0.4% 106 )1J $35,000 to$39,999 296 0.3% 140 ELL 440,000 to 549,999 719 0.8!n 174 0i $50,000 to 959,999 1,216 1.3% 220 tui 460,000 to$69,999 1,414 1.6% 308 0] 470,000 to 479,999 1,991 2.2% 342 (, 580,000 to$89,999 2,089 2.3% 332 an 590,000 to$99,999 1,725 1.9% 248 $100,000 to$124 999 6,389 7,0% 614 151 $125,000 to$149 999 4,422 4.9% 485 i 5150,000 to 4174 999 6.934 7.6% 631 tat $175,000 to$199 949 4,068 4.5% 497 fit $200,000 to$249 999 9,167 10.1% 668 LLB 5250,000 to$299 999 7,665 8.4% 704 55 5300,000 to 8399 999 11,338 12.4% 663 Lill �„. 5400,000 to$499 949 6,757 7.4% 627 ini $500,000 to$749 999 9.,546 10.5% 615 tit 1750,000 to$999 999 4,126 4.5% 428 CIE $1,000,000 or more 7,834 8.6% 457 CIE Median Home Value $261,300 ri/A Average Home Vatoe $434,237 $14,504 ILI OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY MORTGAGE STATUS Total 91,073 100.0% 1,422 Housing units with a mortgageicontract to purchase:similar debt 47,924 52.6% 1,372 hi Second mortgage only 1.423 1.6% 297 Home equity loan only 10.452 11.5% 786 IL7J Both second mortgage and home equity loan 379 0.4% 108 (] No second mortgage and no home equity loan 35,670 39.2% 1,385 Lill Housing units witto.,t a mortgage 43,149 47.4'.3, 1,225 iiii AVERAGE VALUE BY MORTGAGE STATUS Housing units with a mortgage $396,803 $22,321 Housing units withosta mortgage $475,814 $31,288 au Source:U.S.Census bureau,.1009-2013 American Community Survey Reliability: LW high medium U low 3uly 29,2015 /I& ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 49 PQF Page 90 of 244 _...... • -, t esri. ACS Housing Summary Collier County,FL 2 Prepared by Esri Collier County,FL(12021) Geography:County 2009-2013 ACS Estimate Percent MOE(*) Reliability RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY CONTRACT RENT Total 31,899 100.0% 1,298 E With cash rent 29,548 92.6% 1,238 Lill Less than$100 280 0.9% 115 [[1 $100 to$149 89 0.3% 58 I $150 to$199 172 0.5% 86 111 $200 to$249 334 1.0% 119 Di $250 to 3299 249 0,8% 112 EB $300 to 5349 432 1.4% 145 [11 $350 to 5399 282 0.9% 123 E>:::1 $400 to$449 555 1.7% 170 Ell $450 to 5499 222 0.7% 89 ILI $500 to$549 788 2.5% 191 LI1 $550 to 5599 532 1.7% 182 L1;' $600 to$649 1,189 3.7% 275 t $650 to 5699 1,574 4.9% 294 E1 $700 to$749 2,024 6.3% 317 all $750 to 5799 2,097 6.6% 307 E3 $800 to 3899 4,878 15.3% 498 WI 3900 to 5999 3,232 10.1% 489 [ $1,000 to$1,249 4,275 13.4% 445 EEO $1,250 to$1,499 2,581 8.1% 420 ILO $1,500 to$1,999 2,006 6,3% 338 lir 32,000 or more 1,757 5.5% 317 it No cash rent 2,351 7.4% 377 E11) Median Contract Rent $881 N/A Average Contract Rent $1,020 $62 flii RENTER-OCCUPIED MOUSING UNITS BY INCLUSION OF UTILITIES IN RENT Total 31,899 100.0% 1,298 MI Pay extra for one or more utilities 27,489 86.2% 1,190 (`(U No extra payment for any utilities 4,410 13.8% 518 LIB HOUSING UNITS BY UNITS IN STRUCTURE Total 198,345 100.0% 347 1511 1,detached 80,616 40.6% 1,390 all 1,attached 10,440 5.3% 682 LW 2 6,081 3.1% 711 [III 3 or 4 14,891 7,5% 974 LITE S to 9 19,485 9.8% 979 LIB 10 to 19 20,474 10.3% 1,006 1311 20 to 49 18,109 9.1% 976 i 50 or more 17,313 8.7% 750 LID Mobile home 10,725 5.4% 697 E Boat,RV,van,etc. 211 0.1% 81 E11 Source:U.S.Census Bureau,20094013 American Community Survey Reliability: (111 high NJ medium lil low July 29,2015 19 ©2016 MIT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 50 Ri7,,I Page 91 of 244 &T) eyrie ACS Housing Summary Collier County,FL 2 Prepared by Esri Collier County,FL(12021) Geography:County 2009-2013 ACS Estimate Percent HOE(*) Reliability HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT Total 198,345 100.0% 347 LW Built 2010 or later 685 0.3% 194 [[ Built 2000 to 2009 47,671 24.0% 1,499 ill Built 1990 to 1999 61,784 31.1% 1,691 l Built 1980 to 1989 53,172 26.8% 1,488 WI Built 1970 to 1979 24,324 12.3% 986 IBI Built 1960 to 1969 7,454 3.8% 565 Lai Built 1950 to 1959 2,261 1.1% 291 WI Built 1940 to 1949 455 0.2% 154 IL Built 1939 or earlier 539 0.3% 151 (y Median Year Structure Built 1992 N/A OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR HOUSEHOLDER MOVED INTO UNIT Total 122,972 100.0% 1,840 EIB Owner occupied Moved in 2010 or later 8,651 7,0% 638 IL Moved in 2000 to 2009 49,287 40,1% 1,322 (jj) Moved in 1990 to 1999 23,554 19.2% 839 Ell Moved in 1980 to 1989 7,378 6.0% 540 ILO Moved in 1970 to 1979 1,778 1.4% 249 all Moved in 1969 or earlier 425 0.3% 132 0 Renter occupied Moved in 2010 or later 14,020 11.4% 991 ilL Moved in 2000 to 2009 16,127 13.1% 960 .."� Moved in 1990 to 1999 1,312 1.1% 284 [ii Moved in 1980 to 1989 327 0.3% 127 [€' Moved in 1970 to 1979 80 0.1% 51 EL Moved in 1969 or earlier 33 0.0% 35 1 Median Year Householder Moved Into Unit 2004 N/A OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY HOUSE HEATING FUEL Total 122,972 100.0% 1,840 ELI Utility gas 2,390 1.9% 280 Eral Bottled,tank,or LP gas 825 0.7% 175 [% Electricity 117,797 95.8% 1,849 ail Fuel oil,kerosene,etc. 86 0.1% 62 1 Coal or coke 0 0.0% 32 Wood 37 0.0% 32 fi Solar energy 5 0.0% 17 li Other fuel 32 0.0% 36 I No fuel used 1,800 1.5% 295 DM Source:U.S.Census Bureau,2009-2013 American Community Survey Reliability: IIII high [[medium I low 3uly 29,2015 I ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 51 i=z,c,F. Page 92 of 244 • err ACS Housing Summary Collier County,FL 2 Prepared by Esri Collier County,FL(12021) Geography:County 2009-2013 ACS Estimate Percent MOE(*) Reliability OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE Total 122,972 100.0% 1,840 Owner occupied No vehicle available 2,385 1.9% 346 ( j 1 vehicle available 36,380 29.6% 1,170 2 vehicles available 40,688 33.1% 1,104 (' 3 vehicles available 9,571 7.8% 761 4 vehicles available 1,533 1.2% 269 LLB 5 or more vehicles available 516 0.4% 137 Renter occupied No vehicle available 4,439 3.6% 522 (g 1 vehicle available 16,709 13.6% 1,027 (' 2 vehicles available 8,860 7.2% 832 ILO 3 vehicles available 1,445 1.2% 301 4 vehicles available 403 0.3% 168 5 or more vehicles available 43 0.0% 69 Average Number of Vehicles Available 1.6 0.0 fFsl Data Note: N/A means not available. 2009-2013 ACS Estimate: The American Community Survey(ACS)replaces census sample data. Esti is releasing the 2009-2013 ACS estimates, five-year period data collected monthly from January 1,2009 through December 31,2013. Although the ACS includes many of the subjects previously covered by the decennial census sample,there are significant differences between the two surveys including fundamental differences in survey design and residency rules. Margin of error(MOE):The MOE is a measure of the variability of the estimate due to sampling error. MOEs enable the data user to measure the range of uncertainty for each estimate with 90 percent confidence. The range of uncertainty is called the confidence interval,and it is calculated by taking the estimate+/-the MOE. For example,if the ACS reports an estimate of 100 with an MOE of+1.20,then you can be 90 percent certain the value for the whole population falls between 80 and 120. Reliability:These symbols represent threshold values that Esri has established from the Coefficients of Variation(CV)to designate the usability of the estimates. The CV measures the amount of sampling error relative to the size of the estimate,expressed as a percentage. High Reliability: Small CVs(less than or equal to 12 percent)are flagged green to indicate that the sampling error is small relative to the estimate and the estimate is reasonably reliable. _.- Medium Reliability: Estimates with CVs between 12 and 40 are flagged yellow—use with caution. 11 Low Reliability: Large CVs(over 40 percent)are flagged red to indicate that the sampling error is large relative to the estimate. The estimate is considered very unreliable. Source:t,.s.Census Bureau,20044013 American Community Survey Reliability: Lai high medium low July 29,2015 2016 MIT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 52 PE3F Page 93 Of 244 PHOTOS a 5 .r4 ,, z 4wv p, 4 ax FrooOktk****"'# , View of Existing Grocery Improvement from Premier Lane. d4 �' i.N _ • .4 y s R f asi : ., ,. ,, _,..._________ „..,...,, ... , ...._ _ _ ,,..„ „,, , .. View of Mid Access Point toward Goodlette Road. Subject to the right of Photo. Pig.::©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 53 PEF Page 9.4 of 244 .04‘1' JR ; t } {x Sled st .-,..[i , .fix 3s .. � x. t£_ F # �"' '' roc' 's itr ` ':^' ,. ,—...,,,.......;,..,,,,t1, ;-----'': ,_- .'- ` .,, `' -e,------- cam ' « r„n- ' .k}. ,# 's. , _ v '1, ti a. aux �� " .- ;�.� �b s � ,}�� �t r„` i .�' • fI��. y`r a ale A f``i. View of subject site from Premier Way. 0 • A* i .;epic .,'# "47 . -tet �, ,; „,. ,"* } ;-� ., ea.. View of Panther Lane looking west toward Goodlette Road. Subject is left of Photo. tRi >-©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 54 PIDF Page 95 of 244 /'\ • _ , Mrnige' View of Goodlette Road facing south at the interchange of Panther Lane. Subject is left of photo. !'1, ©2016 MJT Realty Economic Advisors,Inc.All Rights Reserved 55 PIF Page 96 of 244 ...... (11.i.) TrellilcOck planninp•enpineerinu Traffic Impact Analysis Pine Ridge Commons Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Collier County, FL 12/05/2017 Prepared for: Prepared by: Barron Collier Companies Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2600 Golden Gate Parkway 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34105 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Review Fee—Small Scale Study—No Fee pc,F Page 97 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUD4—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Analysis has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J• Digitally signed by Norman ``01111111/11. J.Trebilcock P. .47116 `,•� ,• TR ',9'111, DN:cn=Norman J. N.,..• ��� Trebilcock P.E.47116, � v,. Trebiicoc •�Q, \,\G E N SF.,CSO i� o=Trebilcock Consulting C1 Solutions,PA,ou=Norman J. • No 47116 '• k P.E.Ctrebilcock, 117 *; * :* email=ntrebilcock@trebilcoc k.biz,c=US �'. STATE OF 141 47116 05'00'61k9017.12.0517:15:44 'till 10NA��▪�.• �•s` Norman J.Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Reglstratlon No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 12 PIDF Page 98 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Table of Contents Project Description 4 Trip Generation 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment 9 Background Traffic 12 Existing and Future Roadway Network 13 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis 14 Improvement Analysis 16 Mitigation of Impact 15 APPENDICES Appendix A: PUD Master Plan 16 Appendix B: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition 18 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 1 3 PrF Page 99 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUD4—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Project Description The Pine Ridge Commons project is an existing approved Planned Unit Development (PUD) pursuant to Collier County Ordinance No. 1999-94, as may be amended. The subject parcel has a total gross area of approximately 31 acres. The project site is located on the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Goodlette-Frank Road (CR 851) and Pine Ridge Road (CR 896), approximately 0.5 miles east of US 41, in Section 10,Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County. Refer to Fig. 1— Project Location Map, which follows, and Appendix A: PUD Master Plan. Fig. 1—Project Location Map Project Location • Cla ogie Map data®2016 Google 2000 icomesecesaasnasavennanweganongsasoa The Collier County approved ordinance currently allows the site to be developed for a maximum of 275,000 square feet of retail and commercial uses. Consistent with the approved Pine Ridge Commons PUD Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by Wilson Miller, dated August, 1999, the site is approved to be developed for up to a maximum 125,000sf gross leasable area of retail shopping and 150,000sf gross floor area of office financial institution space. The 1999 TIS is superseded because we are using current ITE trip generation standards and Collier County Transportation methodology standards, as applicable. The 1999 TIS had an unadjusted PM Peak Hour trip generation of 1,134 vph and in using current ITE trip generation and Collier County standards, the PM Peak Hour trip generation is reduced to 942 vph, which is the proposed trip cap for the project (Table 2B). Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 14 PQF Page 100 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 As this development has been under construction for a number of years, the built uses are as follows: Retail — 75,243sf, and General Office — 129,099sf (Office — 36,140sf, Valley National Bank—Out Parcel —3,600sf, Naples Trust—Out Parcel—6,000sf, Quarles & Brady office building —43,993sf, and Premier Executive office building—39,366sf). The Pine Ridge Commons PUDA— GMPA proposes to retain the option to develop as currently allowed by zoning and add a potential development option consisting of existing developed commercial uses and 375 residential multi-family dwelling units. In order to reduce impacts, the developer will reduce the commercial square footage by 200 sf for every residential unit. For 375 residential units, 75,000 sf of commercial would be eliminated, leaving 200,000 sf. Currently there are 204,342 sf of commercial, so 4,342 sf will need to be eliminated and this area will be eliminated from the shopping center portion of the commercial land uses (200,000 sf commercial = 70,901 sf shopping center+ 129,099 sf office building). The project provides the highest and best use scenario with respect to the project's proposed trip generation. For the purpose of this report, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Land Use Code 220 — Apartments is utilized for the residential portion of this project. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Development Program Potential Development ITE Land Use ITE Land Use Total Size Code Shopping Center 820 125,000sf Approved PUD(1) General Office Building 710 150,000sf Shopping Center 820 70,901sf Proposed PUDA Scenario(2) General Office Building 710 129,099sf Apartments 220 375 dwelling units Note(s): Ili per approved Pine Ridge Commons PUD TIS,dated August,1999.(2)Existing built to date conditions and proposed 375 apartments. Access to the site is approved from both Goodlette-Frank Road and Pine Ridge Road. For the purposes of this rezone application, no changes to the previously approved accesses are requested. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page IS PQF Page 101 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Trip Generation The project's site trip generation is based on the 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 B: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition. The residential associated common recreation amenities are considered passive incidental to residential use, and are not included in the trip generation analysis. 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 TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. For this project, the software program OTISS is used to generate associated internal capture trips. The OTISS process 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". The resulting internal capture rates 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. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational-access analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). 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 are assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis calculates Shopping Center LUC 820 pass-by daily rates at 15%and AM and PM peak hour rates at 25%. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 16 IQF Page 102 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 The new PUDA — GMPA development scenario trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A. The trip generation analysis based on approved conditions is shown in Table 2B. The net new proposed trip generation (Table 2C) shows total proposed conditions versus existing allowed (the difference between Table 2A and Table 2B). Table 2A Trip Generation (Proposed PUDA Conditions)—Average Weekday Development 24 Hour Two- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Way Volume Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Proposed PUDA111 9,421 322 226 548 412 511 923 Total Internal 1,498 17 17 34 66 66 132 Total External 7,923 305 209 514 346 445 791 Total Pass-By 705 17 11 28 50 53 103 Total Net External 7,218 288 198 486 296 392 688 Note(s): (1)Existing built to date and proposed 375 apartments. Table 2B Trip Generation (Approved PUD Allowed)—Average Weekday Development 24 Hour Two- AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Way Volume Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Approved PUD 9,638 344 100 444 376 566 942 Total Internal 550 4 4 8 18 18 36 Total External 9,088 340 96 436 358 548 906 Total Pass-By 1,136 27 17 44 82 88 170 Total Net External 7,952 313 79 392 276 460 736 In agreement with the Collier County 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 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for adjacent roadway network is PM. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 1 7 PQF Page 103 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUD4—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 For the purpose of this report, the potential project's traffic impact is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour net external trips generated as a result of the proposed PUDA-GMPA (as shown in Table 2C). Table 2C Trip Generation (Proposed Net New Traffic)—Average Weekday Development 24 Hour Two PM Peak Hour Way Volume Enter Exit Total Proposed PUDA (Net External Traffic) 7,218 296 392 688 Approved PUD (Net External Traffic) 7,952 276 460 736 Proposed New Net External Traffic (734) 20 (68) (48) Net Increase/(Net Decrease) As illustrated in Table 2C, from a traffic stand point, the proposed rezone development scenario is less intensive when compared to the maximum allowed under current zoning conditions. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements, as applicable. As requested by staff, additional trip distribution and assignment analysis is provided to better understand the project impacts. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 18 PIDF Page 104 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Trip Distribution and Assignment The total external traffic generated by the proposed PUDA project is empirically assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area. The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3A, Traffic at Build-out Conditions — Distribution for Peak Hour and is graphically depicted on the next page in Fig. 2 — Build-out Conditions—Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak Hour. Table 3A Traffic at Build-out Conditions— Distribution for Peak Hour Collier Distribution PM Peak Hour Project Roadway County Roadway Link Location of Project Volume* Link Link No. Traffic Enter Exit Goodlette- Orange Blossom to Pine 30% SB 104 NB—134 Frank Road 24.2 Ridge Rd Goodlette Pine Ridge Rd to Golden 30% 25.0 NB-104 SB—133 Frank Road Gate Pkwy Pine Ridge 64.0 US 41 to Goodlette-Frank 20% EB-69 WB-89 Road Rd Pine Ridge 65.0 Goodlette Frank Rd to 20%% WB-69 EB-89 Road Shirley Street Note(s): *Peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 19 PQF Page 106 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Fig. 2—Build-out Conditions— Distribution by Percentage and By PM Peak Hour 30% 11 .40 4rn ff u t ••"w I L 20% 4444, 20°,10 PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY 30% PERCENTAGE L70 gie Map data©2016 Google 2000 ft 1104 (134) (89) 69 69 (89) BUILD-OUT TRIP DISTRIBUTION BY PM PEAK HOUR (133) 104 r3-61Inbound Go gie (30) Outbound Map data©2016 Google 2000 ft1w.,.,,a,,e,. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 10 PAF Page 106 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 As illustrated in Table 3B which follows, concurrency analysis is calculated based on net new external traffic at PM peak hour period: trips generated at build-out conditions versus existing built conditions generated traffic (background traffic). Table 3B Trip Generation (Build out Net New Traffic)—Average Weekday* Development PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Proposed Built-out Conditions 296 392 688 (Net External Traffic) Existing Built Conditions 205 366 571 (Net External Traffic) New Net External Traffic 91 26 117 Net Increase/(Net Decrease) Note(s): *For trip generation calculations refer to Appendix B. The new net external site-generated traffic distribution is shown in Table 3C, Net New Traffic Conditions — Distribution for Peak Hour and is graphically depicted in Fig. 3 — Net New Traffic By PM Peak Hour. Table 3C Net New Traffic Conditions— Distribution for Peak Hour Collier Distribution PM Peak Hour Project Roadway County Roadway Link Location of Project Volume* Link No. Traffic Enter Exit Goodlette- Orange Blossom to Pine o Frank Road 24.2 30/ SB—27 NB—8 Ridge Rd Goodlette- Pine Ridge Rd to Golden Frank Road 25.0 Gate Pkwy 30% NB-27 SB-7 Pine aiddge 64.0 US 41 to GoRoddlette Frank 20% EB—18 WB—6 Pine Ridge Goodlette-Frank Rd to 20% Road Shirley Street 65.0 WB-19 EB—5 Note(s): *Peak hour,peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 111 PQF Page 107 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Fig. 3— Net New Traffic By PM Peak Hour (at Build Out) 27 (8) (6) � 18 18 (5) NET NEWTRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION BY PMI PEAK HOUR (7) 27 30 Inbound Go w,j (30) Outbound Map data 02016 Google 2000 ft9 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual traffic counts (estimated from 2008 through 2016), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2017 AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year 2022. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 112 PAF Page 108 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2017 - 2022) 2022 Projected 2022 2017 AUIR Projected Pk Hr,Peak Dir Projected Pk CC Pk Hr,Pk Traffic Background Hr,Peak Dir Roadway AUIR Roadway Link Dir Annual Growth Traffic Volume Trip Background Link Link Location Background Growth Factor w/out Project Bank Traffic ID# Traffic Volume Rate (trips/hr) Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) (%/yr)* Growth Factor** (trips/hr)Trip Bank*** Goodlette Orange Frank 24.2 Blossom to 1,550 2.0% 1.1041 1,712 0 1,550 Road Pine Ridge Rd Goodlette Pine Ridge Rd - Frank 25.0 to Golden Gate 1,890 2.0% 1.1041 2,087 0 1,890 Road Pkwy Pine US 41 to Ridge 64.0 Goodlette- 1,860 2.0% 1.1041 2,054 6 1,866 Road Frank Rd Pine Goodlette- Ridge 65.0 Frank Rd to 1,970 2.0% 1.1041 2,176 1 1,971 Road Shirley Street Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate-from 2017 AUIR,2%minimum. **Growth Factor=(1+Annual Growth Rate)5. 2022 Projected Volume= 2017 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2022 Projected Volume=2017 AUIR Volume+Trip Bank. The projected 2022 Peak Hour —Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation,which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5- Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2017 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA P a g c 113 PC)F Page 109 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Exist Peak Dir, Future CC AUIR Roadway Link Exist Min. Peak Hr Project Roadway Link Link ID# Location Roadway St LOS rd Capacity Build out Volume Roadway Goodlette 24 2 Orange Blossom 6D E 2,400(NB) 6D Frank Road _ to Pine Ridge Rd Goodlette- Pine Ridge Rd to Frank Road 25.0 Golden Gate 6D E 3,000(NB) 6D Pkwy Pine Ridge US 41 to Road 64.0 Goodlette-Frank 6D E 2,800 (EB) 6D Rd Pine Ridge Goodlette-Frank Road 65.0 Rd to Shirley 6D E 2,800(WB) 6D Street Note(s): 2U=2-lane undivided roadway;4D,6D,8D=4-lane,6-lane,8-lane divided roadway,respectively;LOS=Level of Service Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future year 2022. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the roadway network closest to the project. All analyzed roadway links are projected to operate above the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2022 future build-out conditions. As illustrated in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 6.02.02 — M.2., once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using Collier County TIS criterion, the development's impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 114 PIF Page 110 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) —With Project in the Year 2022 Roadway 2022 % 2017 Peak Vol Min LOS Min LOS CC Link, Peak Peak Dir, Roadway AUIR Roadway Dir, Peak Dir, Peak Peak Hr Capacity exceeded exceeded Hr Impact without with Link Link Link Location Capacity Hr(Project Volume by Project? Project? ID# Volume Vol w/Project Project Yes/No Yes/No Added)* Goodlette- Orange Frank Road 24.2 Blossom to 2,400(NB) NB—8 1,720 0.33% No No Pine Ridge Rd Goodlette- Pine Ridge Rd Frank Road 25.0 to Golden 3,000(NB) NB—27 2,114 0.90% No No Gate Pkwy US 41 to Pine Ridge 64.0 Goodlette- 2,800(EB) EB—18 2,072 0.64% No No Road Frank Rd Goodlette- Pine Ridge 65.0 Frank Rd to 2,800(WB) WB—19 2,195 0.68% No No Road Shirley Street Note(s): *Refer to Table 3C from this report.**2022 Projected Volume=2022 background(refer to Table 4)+Project Volume added. In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan — Transportation Element — Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. As illustrated in Table 6, the projected traffic impact is de minimis for the purposes of this PUDA application. The analyzed Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road (north of Pine Ridge Road) links are located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCMA5 designation is provided in Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element. In agreement with Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element, the TCMA concurrency is measured on a system-wide basis such that each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards. Based on the information contained in 2017 AUIR, the Northwest TCMA percent lane miles meeting standard is 98.9%. As illustrated in Policy 5.8(d) — Transportation Element, no impact will be de minimus if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA are maintained. As illustrated in Table 6, no LOS deficiencies are expected for the analyzed roadway network. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA P a g e 115 PIDF Page 11 1 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, the additional net new traffic is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. As illustrated in our analysis, the projected traffic impact is not significant, or adverse for the purposes of this application. The Northwest TCMA contains sufficient capacity to maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standard (as required in Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element). A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting to determine turn lane requirements, as applicable. Based on the results of this analysis, the development may be limited to 942 unadjusted two- way PM weekday peak hour external trips. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA P age 116 PLDF Page 112 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Appendix A: PUD Master Plan Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 117 PQF Page 1 13 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons-PUDA-GMPA-TIA-December 2017 NOTES: 2 , x. THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND IS SUBJECT o O n r NORTH NAPLES UNITED TO MINORMODIFICA/OTN DUE TO AGENCY PERMITTING i � > METHODIST CHURCH MPUD REQUIREMENTS. SPORTS FIELD i 3 - -_—e ®e-e-e PRESERVES: o 1> 'tel"_® " Native Preserve Required: tI ',v • 1 9.65acres ofexisting native vegetation x R •� �� ' d 15%-1.47 acres ,!I •'•fig.171 il /:.:•; <1::,:i:i:i:ii : Native Preserve Provided: C'7 O.95ac+O.O5ac+O.47ac=1.47 acres 1i :•�'•••' I- ;•C; PRESERVE .•:b>A::} •a (AREA 2) ''..:.:•.‘^.72 m NOR,;E R••.,�„�^ 0.05 ACRES . A a p o a ENIRA E"if`a�"'Y. y11 tin 0 i • •C*.. ,;�'© AN-THER-EANE •il I ,s i� 4// t 77pp p ,'�? ''' "i c, n tnN6 W N n •2�• i,. ' m •RERVE •'. �'' o I } ~ 0.47 ACRES ti HIczi-n z , ..%I = �/T.-t OR.3916,PG0682 EF n t A r ,'.1!.Z1 =; 8 t •.. t Ptd a z r, x .0 A m o 'R Z.z _ W , N K '" ��m A O� N t' im �m Ic c017 ri \� Ygc? n z 23 om Ee mZ M ij ` ® 6 ' z mo 'P 1 • �' AN" o tq z o I .oi.• 1 i i . ..t!i :T.' . , i fq. .., ' 1n W fix' zs CV' \`4.1! ' ‘Y! Q Si u N Z F� £ , o� � ,.i � ' 131i . o • ��- m z i. s4„,,,, i '.,..:: {1IC�t6 ...• D z 1 • iii, •;•.T. r 40 110411 1 A. _ • r PINE RIDGE ROAD S fl P o 1111 3r ■ -_ GOODLETTE CORNERS PUD �t moa 1 MOORINGS PARK ESTATES PUD g = O 100' 200' COMMERCIAL I�I I 7. RESIDENTIAL `d SCALE:1"=200' vsENPLOTTED0arx11 ®GradyMinor e. ;; PINE RIDGE COMMONS MP(ID '. """'~""C N IXHIBIT A REVISED cMI Bnahleen • L1a d$une e s • Planers • taadscape Arrl*ects 11/03/2017 .. OxteArYMt]I Oft area LSOXIMI rr0lcs®. PUD MASTER PLAN mow aBNYM:2:10.1147.11442:10.12:10.1147.1144.1trrr.SNOWAler.owe PI .N Wank Li/ o.a110 YET 1 Or 1 + o. Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 118 1=,Q1= Page 114 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Appendix B: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 9th Edition Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA P g c 119 PQF Page 115 of 24-4 - ' Pine Ridge Commons-PUDA- GMPA-TIA-December 2017 ...--.... S 2 o us OA .80 $ >, Z., 2 -Ls a fa , ca ca 5 :13 o rst V A XI o r 4 o A ll.,* o sr !,14 g CL , o f-- -, a) t 0 ,1) 4 +.0 a 14 a 0 . . rO- t g if ... EL 3 cr z• t u t 0 . g i-c• rt , 6 i. t 1 4 rzg" 0 ..o — R0 •" ais'I' 02g — t;-' ZOW "8 119 CL .73_ it cc ,- ...t' D D O (f) — >'` 92 WI sa,:2 ....) ,,_ - Lti 40 t 2 US Csi 2 IX I Q C C1) ,-, R E I *rn o t u) 0 & t: i 0 >.t 1 e 01 -8 iS e as = ! -0 ?g 0 -5 >. C.,..... t E co 0 .. - 1 g ,, g 4, . c g $ 2 -E, _ .. to - ›.. ffr 0 1 I si.. 0. ti ',1 -.9, l t ra .4 t a i 405 Z 8 2i ' St6 'iti3t II ° §§ Lo 0 s,',. 1 t il,, o z , re - a. zTcetaz g - ' zl -- r, •-• . 5 Is 1 1 1 1 I .a.'a. z ...- n. 0 ta 0 at E . .7: In In F. # Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA i- 0 8 e i 20 I=.C.F Page 116 of 24 4 Pine Ridge Commons—vuoA—sMPA—nn—December 20ur __ 7 F-- - - ------- - - -'-------- - -��� '�---- it 0 1.11 t ii re 0 a. �- ii Z k� � � .• , . ., LtA W. at ileiZ' aAioTor'§ or-.1a §' Iii 1 ga: ti i il i I a TrebHcock Consulting Solutions,PA P a g e | 21 p~o= p=o= ``7 "°244 Pine Ridge Commons—PLIDA--GMPA—TIA—December 2017 __. PERIOD SETTING yo DATA PROVIDED BY 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 0 Add Notes above. pg.0.1Er T NiAmE PINE ploGt commoNs-toNNG All.fwgri ANALY,:.'LS NAME (vvegickyy ) 1 C.r AL I WDLPENDEN'T LANE:r...1":. SIZE TIME RERIOU MENIOL, 1-11,Eki .1.-rr'r t VARIABLE Q 820-Sher/gong Center 1000 Sq Frrie-70-rTElis 125 . a Weekday 1 Best Ft(LOG) Ell 0 3926 3925 7851 ------ Ln T =0651n +593 Q,710-Gonotoi Off ice Building ri-o Feet Grostli 150 Weekday a Best Fit(LOG) Di.ii, 894 893 1787 ------ La )=0 76Ln(X)+36$ 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 torn the adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the previous section.To record any notes,click the ...icon above.For recommended values see the JTE Handbook or NCHRP 684 820-Shopping Center 710-General°Ince Bulkling Exit :N25 Demand Utz i3- 1% (118) Balanced 118 Demand Entry F5-1% (134) Entry 894 Entry 3926 Demand Entry (4 )% (157) Baia:IC(4d 157 Demand Exit (2.2.......Jo (196) Exit 893 820-Shopping Center INTERNAL Trd s ,......., I.)1 AL iRtc 3 Li,TLF ,A L f:• ,,:.:, TiO-General Office Balkans Total Entry 3926(100%) 157(4%) 157(4%) 3769(96%) Exit 39251100%) 118(3%) 118(3%) 73857067((9967%%))--- Total 7851(100%) 275 (4%) 275(4%) ______— 710-General Office Building INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TPIP..,:- ExTEPt,!At TR-t"-"S 820-Shopping Center Total Entry 894(100%) 118(13%) 118(13%) 776(87%) Exit 893(100%) 157(18%) 157(18%) 736(82%) Tata 1787(100%) 275 (15%) 275(15%) 1512(85%) 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 0-Add Notes above, The V icon preceding the Pass-by%i value indicates data provided by ITE.Clicking the icon changes a custom Pass-by%value to data provided by ITE. TR-17.(14 'MT, PAS5r-PY% PA..'V..-Bt,TPIP', IICC-PASS-E?TRIR, 820-Stropping Center ;"'.'','. EiTh 1136 6440 710•General Office Buileang '.I..-. ro '.,,, 0 1512 Trebilcock Consulting Solutioris, PA F a g a 1 22 FrQF Page 1 1 8 of 2'44. Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 ..--, PERIOD SETTING , DATA PROVIDED BY 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 i Add Notes above . SI-II CLE C.'I AANIE PINE EVA IET2MMONE-LOLLING ALLOWED ANAL'LIM Arne (1Fr167;ak Hour 16iDEPENL€N i . Dm:,F.EIP-0-3C, NIFITHOT, -P" VAR ABLE — i doe Best Fit(LOG) Di Nv co,820-91000Mg C8010r 1000 Sq Feet Grose 125 (Weekday.Peak Holl) „... , ,. 111 6$ 179 Ln(T)=0 61LntA)+224 Q 710-Geller&Office Biliding LiEgg scl Feet GnAP 150 [vvAekday.A to pe a Ei[—Best Fit(LOG) el) 233 32 205 — ' Ln(fri-70 6Lh()Q+1 57 Ur i ii.?mil,.c... ,015,:',A'NI MatCh TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of trips that occur betvveen 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 i icon above,For recommended values see the FE Handbook or NCHRP 684. 820-Shopping Center 710-General Orrice Building Exit ",-, Demand Exit m ) i Baienc.en 2 Demand Entry (31__j% (721 Entry 233 ,- - Entry ,i i Ziernand Baty L2pe (2; Balanced 2 Cernand Dot ffi--- )6 (7) Exit 32 I _._ 820-Shopping Center -P TAI in IL 8 EXTERNAL Ti 710-General Office Building Total Entry „ 111(100%) 2(2%) 212%) 109(98%) Exit J 6$(100%) 2(3%) 2(3%) 66(97%) Total 179(1Q0%) 4 (2%) 4(2%) 175 193%) — —-- -- ' 710-General Office Building INTERNAL TRir -----, MIF,„„ EXTERNAL TRIES 820-Shopping Center Total Entry 233(100%) 2(1%) 2(1%) 23109%) Exit 321100%) 2(6%) 2(6%) 30194%) , „... .„ Total 265(100%l 4 (2%) 4(2%) 261 198%) 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 1110 icon preceding the Pass-by%value indicates data provided by ITE Clicking the icon changes a custom Pass-by%value to data provided by 1TE ir,o.,,E. PASS Bi--•-rii , „ -.. -, „ - „ i„, i , 820-Shopping Center 175 2E3% 44 211 710-General Office Building 261 ......... .: Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page I 23 i=.c)F Page 1 1 9 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 PERIOD SETTING y DATA PROVIDED BY 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,dick , Add Notes above, PR,34CT NAME prE-140Ge C:Caaene 2Ni eau.ower MA YSiS NAme 1'M Peak Hour_. N(e ENC-ip LiCC El .F..' ,C�x AHirli6LE L. T:moi_PER,: '"ME—i'. Q 820-Shopping CentexC l' Sq.Feet Gros•t�t1 125 Weekday.Peau Hot�v Bei Ft(LOG) 1IJ) 334 362 696 Ln T =0671.n'X+3.31 ( 1 0,714-General Office Budding 1000 sq.Feet Grose 150 t Weekday,P.M Pe :0 !41 42 204 246 T=112(X)+ 8A *The trnen cf,not mh 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 634. 820-Shopping Center 710•General Offiee Building Exit +h• Demand Exit: �3 - , 1ill R4Isr ad11 Demand Entry: 1-1% (1.-.1) Entry 42Entry 33 (('2"�- Demand Entry (7) Balanced 7 Demand Exit 23 (47) Exit ?u4 ED._ 820-Shopping Center INTERNAL TRIPS ".. i'4t I`;-'F> E,'1 FthAL.rREF 710-General Office Building Total Entry 334(10(1%) I 7(2%) 7(2%) 327198%I f1i Exit 362 0%) 11(3%) 11(3%) 351(97%) Total `". :'. (3%) 18(3%) 1 678(97%) 710-General Office Building INTERNAL TAIrs TOTAL.TP P. EXTERNA)TpiPS 1120.Shopping Center Total Entry 42l1Cn0t%) 11(26%) 11(26%) 31174%) Exit 204(100%) 7(3%) 7(3%) 197(97%) Total 246(109%) 18 (7%) 18(7%) 228(93%) `z 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 4/icon preceding the Pass-by°%value indicates data prodded by ITE.Clicking the icon changes a custom Pass-by%value to data provided by ITE. i.i,,;' -F ENTcl7)iA, TI%"." €-^.v$SB:1, 1 a.2'-..-F2,1'(PIP), NOt, ,.=; .BY TPIPs 820-Shopping center 678 0125 171 i5(1 710 Genera!Off c4 Build (1 223 3a-n% 2211 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 124 PE3F Page -120 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—puoA—sMpA—nw—December 20o7 _ li a. � �--N, I i a a 13 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page | zs Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Analysis:Weekday Page 1 oft PERIOD SETTING ,p DATA PROVIDED BY 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 rwomegy -1 LAND USE SIZE SIZE LOCATION T1,3E PERIOD METNOD ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VA1Ac-1 E 620-Slopping Cerner 1000 Sq Owl Gros v 0.9 UOan/SGeneraWurl ha Weekday ttFil"e)) �,7718 2715 5431 •0.65LMX45.4.3 710-General Ona a Striding 1000 Sq Feel Gros vj29.1 tlrbatrralirharx Weekday" F10.Oo1 4797 797 1594 0761 .1t3.68 r6y 220 Apartment Dwe)ing Um% vi075 Oa nlr ee Weekday � _1'23 V=`rI98 1198 2395 — �6.06(X1 f 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 tots)number of trips that have been reduced from a particular Land Use.The total number of Internal Trips for each Land Use mil be deducted from the adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the prevsous section To record any notes,click the icon above.For recommended values see the ITE Handbook or NCHRP 684 r 820.Shopping Getter 718-General Office Building Exit 2715 Demand E.el.. 3 % (91) Balanced' 8/ Demand Entry- I _ 1S % 1120, Entry 797 Entry 2710 Demand Entry. 4 16 (1091 Ealanced. 109 Demand EAR 22 Jilt ((75) Exit 797 820-Shopping C ender 220.Apartment Exit 2715 Demand Ee9. 11 % (2991 Balanced. 299 Demand Entry: 173-3-141. 1395i Entry 1198 Entry 2710 Der,and Entry: 9 % (2441 85ancad244 Demand Exit '38 l% (4551 Exit 1198 710-General(rTce Building 220•Apartment '. Exit 797 Der•ar-d Ex4: 2 9 (161 Balanced 16 Deman Entry. I....:9----)91. 06) Entry 1198 Entry 797 Donand Entry 0 !% (0) Balanced. 0 Demand Exit AT-114 (0) Exit 1190 820-Shopptm i 0 anter • INTERNAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRITE 710•General OOlce 220 Building Aparlme°i Total Entry 2715010D%) 03 14 t 244,9%, 353(13%) 2363(67%) Exit 3715,00090 87,3'8! n9(7,90 380(14%) 2335(96%) 1054( 54311100 4 193 (331:0 643 1101.0 732,071.1 4698 067%1 710.General.3r to Sodding roTAl.TRIPS 1NTE7aJA1 TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS 820.Shopping Center 229-Apwbmw6 Tow Briny i 797)100%) 81(10%1 0(0%) (11110%) 794(90%) Gat j 797(100%) ! 10904%) 16(2%) 125(16%) 672(04%) Teal 1694(100%) 5 190 112%1 14 tI%t 206(13%) I 1394(47%I 220-Apartnistit TOTAL TRIPS INTERNAL TRIPS EXTERNAL.TRIPS htt s=!itetri .n org pro(ectstudylro'ectid I8783Rcxtudr 55730 11114/2017 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 126 PIDF Page 122 eDf 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Analysis:Weekday Page 2 of 2 120-Shopping Centel 718-GBuildenuainlg O1nce Total Entry 1190(100%) 299(2591) 1611°53 315(2656) 163(74%) Exit 1196()00%) 244(27%) 0(0%) 244(20%) 954(80%) Total 2396(100%) 543 (23%) 16 (1%) 559(23%) 1837(77%) EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass-by Traps 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 icon preceding the Pass-by%s value Indicates data provided by ITE Clicking Ii C icon changes a custom Pass- by'.value Sc,data provided by ITE LAND USE EXTERNAL TRIPS PA55aV% PASS•BY TRIPSRo ')'ASS-6Y TRIPS 820.5na7p1n3 Centel 4698 13 700 3993 710-Genefal Orate 6uudiraa 1380 f 0. t% 0 1366 270-Apadmer4 11370 0 1937 f ' ; h s:/litetri en.or f roectstudy?projectid 18783&stud =55730 11,1412017 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 27 PAF Page 123 c3f 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Analysis:AM Peak Hour Page 1 of 2 PERIOD SETTING ,, DATA PROVIDED BY 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 r Add Notes above , �,e .ra PG's:' c�'✓^+,<x: , - AM Peak Hour LAND I) iR.CJEP£etDEtJ7 S12E LOCATION I•dp t' R•n.^ METHOD ENTRY EX)7 TOTAL 020.Shopping<:e 4er i 1000 S9.Feet Gros80.9 thparvSubuGenerarOat(NWee'day Peak Hoy rBesi F8(L!O) . 1 79 48 120 -'CMT,=0 611.:01)!2��.24 710-General OECe But r Cwnerffi 1,3°51, .F0 ILDG) >•-atF 1000 sq.Feet Groa59,1 �flay0,u Weakary AM Pea, 3e 276 —eniTi 4.OTILnOtte 1.57 220-Apartment '..D 1Ming Un" Evi75 General ( Pell tea,.-@est Fd Real-i rv, m..-.1v3,9 150 187 .. - thaatVS�Atali,., .�._ ,{T 0.49(X1 a 3.�3 •The!else pedcdt do not melon. TRAFFIC REDUCTIONS INTERNAL TRIPS fl 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 r icon above.For recommended values see the)TE Handbook or NCH.RF r,� MO Shopping(Tarter 710•General Office Building -. Ext 46 Demand Ex t: 3 .5 (1) Balanced'. 1 Demand Eery. 31 % ,64} Entry 2C7 Entry 78 Demand Entry 2 % (2) Balanced: 2 Demand Ext 23 )0 Exit _o i. 820•Shopping C+nter 220•Apartment :I Exit 40 Demand 044: (12 J% (6) Balanced: 6 Demand Entry. 31 R, 1111 Entry 37 Entry 78 Demand Entry: (9 j% (7) Balanced 7 Demand Eel 63,_j% (601, Exit 150 710-General Mee Building 226.Apartment Exit 23 Demand 3,4 2 .er (1) Balanced: 1 Demand Entry-(2 )% (1) Entry 37 Entry 207 Demand Enty 0 % 10) Balanced: 0 Demand Exl. (-19r (0) Exit 150 020-Shoppinc 0.art, INTERNAL TRIPS U'-t-6-.-.:: EXTERNAL TRIPS 710-General Office " 224',worm* TM% Building Baty 78(100%) 213%. 7(9%) 9(12%) 69(66%) 106%) ( 1(2%I 6(13%) 7(1d%) 41(86%) _ Tete ,... 126(_... _......� ._.. __. 3 ( _..._....,_. _u _�.._..-0 - Edi _ 48( 1001%) 3 r2%, 13 (10%) 16(13%) 110—(87%) 710-General vimTe Building IOTA)-Min INTERNAL TRIPS EXTERNALTRIPS TIN 4 Illeeppleig Cent* 220.Apartment ITOY Entry ) 267(106%) 1(0%) 0(0%) �__.._- 1(0%) 206(100%) „W. set 28(100%) 2(7%) 114%) --- 3(11%) 25(89%) ..__ Tett 236t100%) 3 (1%) 1 (0%) j 4(2%) 231(98%) 228•Apartment lttt s ite.tn en or 'pro'ectstudy?pro ectid I87838cstudy-55731 11114/2017 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 128 PE)F Page 124 of 2,6.4 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Analysis:AM Peak Hour Page 2 of 2 INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS B20 BhepO6ty CN1hr 1 71a-General 014n Teti E%TFRrJAt TRIP Entry 3T(100%) 6((6%) 1(3%1 7(19%) 30(61%y ..r. Exit 154(100%) T(5%) 0(0%) 7(6%) 143(95%1 TMat ,-.167(100%1 13 (7%) > 1 (1%) 14(7%! 173193%! ]{' EXTERNAL TRIPS Specify the percentage of Pass-by Trips for each land Use.The rcentage will be reduced from the total number of External Trips from the previous section To record any notes,cehcp r 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 ETERNAL TRIPS PASS-BY% PASS ST TRIPS td011'PA3S'BV 7R1Ps 920 Shopping Sorter110 ((25 29 62 7t0-GtnerMC16s•8eItg 231OY 0 231 220-APMmMt 173 .._,p" 0 173 Print Report Save Analysis 1 • • • htt s.//itetripgen.org pyoiectsludv?pr<)jeetid' v�- 18783&stud -55731 11 14%2017 /'ti Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 129 PIDF Page 125 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons—PUDA—GMPA—TIA—December 2017 Analysis:PM Peak Hour Page 1 of 2 PERIOD SETTING ,, DATA PROVIDED BY 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 ... J.M Freak Figur { Lr•,D _ INDEPENDENT SIZE _ f rIr` nrvME PERIOD TT,1H''D ENTRY EXIT TOTAL VARIABLE ( General r st Fa(LOG) V i. 820.Shopping Carr=er i Sq Feat Gros�v 70 9 Weekday.Ptak Ftot•��° '226 218 476 r.. _ urtrsevsuhutban 'tire 0 67LmX1'+1,31®'�� ' General lest Fa U! L_I�38 105 223 i.. 710•Genera;Illi t.+Buil ng ;1000 Sq Feel Gros�v ji9.1 Weekday PM Peart•r ,__ 1 ,.—, UrbanlSUDurbarr.. -7-: T 1 12IX*7615 F 220•Apartment LOw.iSng 0091 . 76 G.MlXhn r ft/Weekday,Mak by alt FN Ct. 1b14S 70 224 .T=OSeiX)+17b5 9 RV,tare periods do not match. 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 Vie adjusted Entry Trips and Exit Trips from the previous section.To record any notes,click the= icon above.For recommended values see the 1TE Handbook or F+ICHRP 684 820-Shopping:ender 714-eanaral Orrice Braiding Exit 240 Demand Ed: (3 i% (7) Baeanced. 7 Demand Entry: j31 (12) Entry 38 Entry 228 Demand Entry: (2 (% (5) Batancet 5 Demand Ext (43) Eon 185 826-Shopping:enter 229-Apartment �. Exit 248 Demand Exn: 12 'X 130) Balanced_ 30 Demand Entry: 31 iiii (45) Entry 146 Entry 228 Demand Emily 9 %% (21) Belenced 21 Demand Eat 353 )s (41) EXIT 78 710-General Or15 0 Building 22$•Apartment Etat 185 Demand ETI ,2 1% )4) Balanced: 3 Demand Entry: (2 (% (3) Entry 145 Entry 38 Demand Entry 0.. -% (01 Dreamed. 0 Demand Ext 0 jli (0) Exit 78 820-Shopping Center INTERNAL TRIPS 1. TDTAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS 711.OartarY em.. 224-Apartment 1 Teel atiklIng Entry 226(100%) r 3(2%) _21(8%) _____126(11%) 202(09%) EM 246 000%) 7(3%) 30(12%) i 37 05%) 211(96%) Total�• 476(100%) tt f3%t 1 61 (11%) 63(13%) ( 413(67%) [. tl 710-General Once lading INTERNAL.TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS EXTERNAL TRIPS 820-Shopping Center, 220.Apartment 1 Tela! Entry 381100%) 7(18%) 0(0%) 7(46%) i 31(82%) Exit 1851100%1 5(3%) 312%) 4(4%) 1 177(96%) Total 223 t100%e 12(5%) I. 3 (1%) 15(7%) 208(93%) I' 228•Apartmer lilt s//itetririgen ory jrojectstudv?proiectid I87<3&studv 55732 11 14 2017 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 130 1=4=i Page 126 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons–PUDA–GMPA–TIA–December 2017 Analysis:PM Peak Hour Page 2 of 2 INTERNAL TRIPS TOTAL TRIPS EATERNAL IMPS i46• DCaNae 710.1"nrin OOks TNN Entry 116(106%! 30421%) 312%) 33(23%) 113(77%) 6x6, 76(166%) 21(27%) 4_ 0(0%) ! 21(2T%) 67(7311) TNN ( 224(100%) 61 (23%) 3 41%1 64(24%) ! 170(76%) 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,.r ANN Notes above. The icon preceding the Pas-by%value indicates data provided by ITE Clicking the icon changes a custom Pass- by%value to data provided by ITE LAND USG, EXTERNAL.TRIPS PASS-EY% PASS-SY TRIPS NON-PTR}PSSSR -ei' B2s-Shopping Center 413 0/2-5-134 103 310 716.Senora'orate sultana 200 C0 Ds' 0 200 220-Apartment 170 0 % 0 170 Pr 11.Report grAi Save Analysis ti htt•s://itetrilt_en.or /•ro•ectstud ? ro: tid 18783&study 55732 11/14/2017 1 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions,PA Page 131 PDF Page 127 of 244 3071405 OR: 3143 PG: 2466 I 000101/ is OP[ICUL Ut'0103 of COLLII1 00111111, 11 11/31/2112 at 14:1311 BIIQT 1. MCI, CNK COSS 171NN,N Tax ID No. _ uc m S1.0 RECORD & RETURN TO: IIMIN 2.11 Laura L. Casey DOC-.10 12311.H Cummings & Lockwood LLC luta: 3001 Tamiami Trail North WARRANTY DEED CI101 1tU3 2 Naples, FL 34103 YW1.13 K 34111 3132 THIS WARRANTY DEED, made and entered into this 7' day of Clie-Qq1) , 2002, by G-4 PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership, duly organized and authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida, KATHERINE G. SPROUL, JULIET A. SPROUL, AND JENNIFER S. SULLIVAN, as Trustees under that certain Trust created for the benefit of Juliet C. Sproul, under Article SIXTH C of the will of Barron Collier, Jr., deceased, and BARRON COLLL R III, (hereinafter called the Grantor), whose mailing address is 2600 Golden Gate Parkway, Naples, Florida 34105, to the GOODLETTE PINE RIDGE H, LLC, a Florida limited liability cc ripany (hereinafter called the Grantee), whose mailing address is 2600 Golden Gate Parkway,Naiades, Florida 34105. - ry ` !- ,R CO1� (Wherever used P ere.in the to �or" and"'Grantee" include all the parties to this instrument and thea-respective ►r4, gal representatives, successors and assigns.) ' i Ar._ � C �' That the Grantor, for an m con, >d ori �, o STEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and other valuable consideration,`fCpciereas hereby a , ed, hereby grants, bargains, sells, aliens, remises, release; ,nveys and confirms Auntai th&� antee, all that certain land situate in Collier County, Flori•. wit: l /� S tiaCliad Exhibit'-', i`ti�is incorporated,hereirr = - • . Subject to easemerr s, restrictions, and reservations of record. THIS IS NOT HOMESTEAD PROPERTY TOGETHER with all the tenements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereto belonging or in anywise apperaining. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same in fee simple forever. AND the Cn antor hereby covenants against all persons claiming by, through, or under the Grantor, that the property is free of all encumbrances, except as noted above, that lawful seisin of, and good right t o convey that property, is vested in the Grantor, and that the Grantor hereby fully warrants the title to said land and will defend the same against lawful claims of all persons claiming by,througi i,or under the Grantor. BARPoN COt.1H CO 1 alt NUM R �9�g PQF Page 128 of 244 OR: 3143 PG: 2467 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has signed and sealed these presents the day and year first above written. Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of: G-4 PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership GJ By: Ir'o_nCgAUuLibetS, Witness: li Frances G. Villere, es a Partner 6_41<oi-yAJ - c h44141 Print Name: 4 �f•Go o .�/ Gcs/ Witness: R COW, THOMAS L T EADNBLLA 70v '2 Print Name: 0 i STATE OF a1�' COUNTY OF .L.L.i q ... ,,nn The ego' instru '' ; as sworn to, sub •k ' acknowledged before me this day of , 2 e ' • CES G. I l , as a Partner of G-4 Partnership, a Florida general partnership, • ` _ sonall to me or who has produced asp , , .- .. v_LodAto kkazko Notary Public Print Name: StJS41v 1—•p1 14 raft!) My Commission Expires: SusanL Mauro ACoasJ_g_IMOMts7 OR MUM Atka Swift Or,Iss. t3Ar7IU ',L417 C;! ' r'�1..!i;1�1FER PDF Page 129 of 244 OR: 3143 PG: 2468 // G-4 PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership Witness: Gut y bettio.qas a� (z04.yA) A. SltAki Print Name: ite-.1.../4e_a_,_ Witness: 1BOIIASLMEADWEU4!R. Print Name: STATE OF / OR/0if' --'"tR Cp COUNTY OF CO a' `-- Ai,' The foregoing instru nt ., ... _..subscribed, ' ' acknowledged before me this 2�day of &6/34,i) , 00 , bi e !..- . , a Partner of 0-4 Partnership, a Florida general partnershi , ... ;1; L,t •;'M . • or who has produced 1r ''C''' i 1- Notary Pub' L 04, Print N.ji \ Mo J i.,/hATcll� 4-"Ay ,,' . Expires: d, Sum Like%7157 20)4 "440 Ms&base ISS Co-to I I i er,iL. iiiJ REF Page 130 of 24-4 OR: 3143 PG: 2469 G-4 PARiSAIP, a Florida general partnership %7 Y 0 Witness 0 P dl as a artner GARo(y Sm A I✓ Print Name: Q71�1 GIR-4—A -P /42 Witness: THOMAS L.TREADWELL,JR. Print Name: xtR ccs STATE OF 'L Og i(1i4 G ' COUNTY OF s L - ' The .� � "'r �'�''; � . fore:oing Inst r 0 ,L�;,y 7i knowledged before me this 7 day of (l plc., 9V , 2s ► by ' '#��7f c ;�, a artner of G-4 Partnership,a Florida general partnershi �• �,-,_ ,� t e or who has produced C as idents'cation. 0 t f/• /ltatu4A) SvS4i c.. (U)7Zjj€0 My Commission Expires: ,, r' SmL. Maturo Vaa arrimenett 967157 bite°Nisi 2054 , N9W Deft 126,Ise. BAANQN COLLIER 01 REF Page 131 of 244 VR. JL1J EV. &ZIV G-4 PARTNERSHIP, a Florida general partnership By: � Witness: Lamar ble,as a Partner Print Name: ,,, 4--soatal, Witness: THOMAS L.TREADWELI..ik Print Name: STATE OF kg/40A ^--- COUNTY OF MER Co The f regoing instrum t Q, sworn to, subscnUcand acknowledged before me this ( day of Uavtip , 2 2, +,A -GAB„, as a Partner of G-4 Partnership,a Florida general partnership, whti' • ► kno to `\me` or who has produced . I Notary •` ;► Print N /'t1#4 rwea My Co 01, Cil CI - . u.: ,�,,i\081=14..1V57 3 r a Oal ti,2004 bided Tin • , Admen ewe Cr,.bac 8aRR04 'OL.IER CQ Cyt PQF Page 132 of 244 OR: 3143 PG: 2471 By: KATHERINE G. SPROUL, JULIET A. SPROUL, and JENNIFER S. SULLIVAN, as Trustees for JULIET C. SPROUL under the Will of Barron Collier, Jr., deceased, and as confirmed by Change of Trustees dated January 1, 2002, and filed March 5, 2002, in, Official Records Book 2992, Page 2016 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida as a General Partner. O +) U ,i %cup—Witness Katherine G. Sproul,as Trustee (A45oOyu A S H-414" . 1,7;R Co Print Name Witness THOMAS L TREADULL 1111" 65 p Print Name '4iis STATE OF FLO R{D A J COUNTY OF eo L Lr El!'. 7I-r ' CA m_ The foregoing instrument v� wiexlged before me this 7 day of Ci�U , 2002, by KATHERINE G. SPROUL, AS TRUSTEE, for JULIET C. SPROUL under the Will of Barron Collier, Jr., deceased, and as confirmed by Change of Trustees dated January 1, 2002, and filed March 5, 2002, in, Official Records Book 2992, Page 2016 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, who_is,,, v known to or who has produced as identification. L14 £ix t Notary Public Print Name: SR/41 L.• thiel rle,o My Commission Expires: Ts" Susan L. Mature covimasionam NAF,iO�ON CCOOUIEA% 'Mkt O.La PDF Page 133 of 244 OR: 3143 PG: 2472 I - (IaJLAL , a „Nazi,- 11. , a _ 4" 1 Witness I ii et A. Sproul,as Trust' t 2oc.y Al 4 SµA +'✓ Print Name ✓/. 4# Witness THIS L TREADWELL,JR Print Name STATE OF 64,604N.)— � �� 2, COUNTY OF CO W./CX. tJ 4' �' " The foregoing'insfrru&Ieinl 'Was w • _ed fore me this I day of 626/0„ , 2002, by JULIET • . ' s s: '' r i'' : 5 `or JULIET C. SPROUL under the Will of Barron Collier, Jr., 11 .- ,,,:. . I. � irj -� a of Trustees dated January 1, 2002, and filed March 5, 200 a, 4 , -_ .t?,.. 2'. .r "1_, '116 of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, i is .•rsonally . .'1.vn to gli or who has produced • 1.enti ca ion. o 414A( i Atita4) Notary Public Print Name: &SJR L. ThArz, p My Commission Expires: . .sit, Sums L Matueo i�in a�..�.oa ia5 aac�uur ,s,.. ilk l� rr BARRON COLLIER Cd9 2 �91 PIF Page 134 of 244 OR: 3143 PG: 2473 0 ail.do..) a., Witness4,TferT as Trustee C Au.../AI 4. .s /Aw' Print Name 01**PN,-.". ..< ir-e-'t-0'41WO Witness 'MAS I. TREADWE1,JR Print Name �-.WA CO k) STATE OF t_. L.A' C� COUNTY OF i __ r►:r - The foregoi ', t 111711111"1114t, _: '` this 7 day of 6�",, �B g 0►, 2002, by JEN/s1 , �, SULL ;''A USTTE, for JULIET C. SPROUL under the Will of Barron ' „ . -m :, as 9 _ ;'by Change of Trustees dated January 1, 2002, and filed ?N..i 5, 2002, in, Official -.. q 2992, Page 2016 of the Public Records of Collier County, -ti, . who is • rso �;• i oto me or who has produced 'denti cation. CMC idtatiA 0 . kaitiAa Notary Public Print Name: & I-. /?Togt My Commission Expires: I"" Susan L. Mahn I 11 : 4.T*` widesribeilk>a 81P,RU UMBER ER CO _9.4.19_.._._ PIDF Paga 135 of 244 OR: 3143 PG: 2474_ / , �- OAAA444-.) 6. 4)f wv- By:� c am+ C+ 777- -Witness: u Barron Collier, III, Individually ROcy,✓ A. S +4 W Print Name: Witness: THOMAS L.TREADIEUA Print Name: STATE OF `LQhoA' MER co COUNTY OF C.491,4./A2. p,�' k� The fpreg9irs. instru ent • ,.h bed, and\acknowledged before me this day of , �IOO , by`- : ' • CO ► , Individually, wohis �rson y known to me or who has prdu•-• as identification. Notary , ca!! Print Name: •_ t P•-• 0 My Co ,� � f TI E Sawa I Mstaro ''N;% iamb seeks a.to LION COEo i` PAF Page 136 of 244 R Wil$iiMiller' New Directions In Planning Des4a?6 Fnptnwin g • EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2 Description of part of Section 10,Township 49 South.Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida (!rut"Building A"Pine Ridge Commons P.U.D.) (Revised 10-31-02) All that part of Section 10,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,Collier County Florida,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the southerly 1/4 corner of Section 10.Township 49 South,Range 25 East.Collier County,Florida; thence along the north-south 1/4 section line of said Section 10,North 01'18'35"West 69.79 feet to a point on the northerly Right-of-way of Pine Ridge Road(S.R.896); thence along said Right-of-way,South 89e0752"West 9.57 feet to a point of curvature on the easterly right-of-way of Goodlesto-Prank Road,100 foot right-of-way as recorded in Plat Book 13,Page 58 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida: thence northeasterly along said right of way 454.07 feet along the arc of a circular carve concave easterly,having a radius of 5679.65 feet,through a central angle of 04°34'50"and being subtended by a chord which bears North 04°43'49"East 453.96 feet thence continuing along said right-of-way 0 . ,•- to the Point of Beginning of the parcel herein described; r thence continuing along said right-of- 07°06'13"East 240. ee., thence leaving said right of way North '57"East 369.41 feet; thence South 00°53'23"East 235.82 f ,. . thence southwesterly 22.49 feet along the are of a: *j;r' - • curve•,,.- -westerly,having a radius of 62.00 feet, through a antral angle of 20°47'11" T •- South 09°30'13"West 22.37 feet; thence South 19°53'48"West 94.630 �' thence North 70°47'53"West 83';84'- thence northwesterly 164.02 feet it• ., o - .,,Oticrive southerly,having a radius of 1194.00 feet,through a central arigtoR 07°52'14"and being l ,, a- , which bears North 77°21'54"West O 163.89 few ` `' thence North 82°51'17"West 106.99 ry 1‘ , - thence northwesterly 39.25 feet along . •f a circular curve••,- y, having a radius of 25.00 feet, through a antral angle of 89°57'30" -,, ,-.by a-, ; * _o -, North 37°52.32"West 3534 feet to the - Point of Beginning; tfE C1RG w 4-1 -l'artel contame2.65 acrextniore or less. tat to easements,reitrictions and reservations of record are based on the easterly right-of-way line of Goodlette-Rank Road being North 07°06'13"East. y, r.,;`., , , the. cr i':? ,';, ."! .- Land Surveyors jNtiralir- '� /o-3/-OL e, re � 1, Q oney,PSM LS 93 _, ' . 'uthorization 3. •'t .` isles embossed with the Professional's seal. ,,,,ii , 41117 . 20-649A Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Tamp* Tallakassaa Panama City Renck 32010 Bailey lane.Suite 200 /Wolas.F1aida341(5 941-6494040 lir 941-643-5716 011 lam taut vr.*tsar nww.ncImptio ecsato was orgros1M•° "1.,°nM,°..me.—FL[.e.I LC-CO90l70 F L F Page 137 of 244 Ott \ ni LI ?Gt, 20 — ttt Ot 31-I soot tine 2 of 2 N ..- :.. A • . 4 R 1,A. GOODLETTE PRANK ROAD (PLAT BOOK 13, G5 8) , V 1 'a I . .• • t alt 1 1 " omit"isiroNr-var ": N"1‘47,4*. '‘ tit ' :-• logo - 1 b.. "Nb.'4.. '44. ''41C4k`.1%; OW ‘i., ' TrnSiti 1 1 •'•:,, ' ',iitIVII 1, 1 . - •.. .1:•,1;41,1fl'''' II\ lk t Iv % .1`1.11*-'. ::6)4.q.p.'''.15..› ., .:,..•?- *', tz 1 'VI;Y 14:',4;''..1.).. t S.'":,'.1r*/) li)li 1 .ktpr'.., j\V}1 CO UNip ' ,,.•2.. ..... Ni.. 1 • .] seyti„41:,. 1 11(11 tik l ...,.. . 4 0 IP'- ' - • • • INA . 1 , S•1‘ . ,,, lit %'` 1 V OP ,,Ak.. : .. , THE %.,, .-. - V ";' ‘,.,.. , r4 i '.. • 1 t14117,1 ik . yai ‘Igt- • W-It 1 lik ‘ $ ts- 1 _ • . Ilit 1 l''It . . ‘ .• . -I as c'f ptc, pa.OE'1; ------ V`t INSTR 4376949 OR 4522 PG 366 RECORDED 12/23/2009 10:52 AM PAGES 17 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $146.00 INDX $8.00 CONS $0.00 This instrument prepared by: G.Helen Athan,Esq. Grant,Fridkin,Pearson,Athan&Crown,P.A. 5551 Ridgewood Drive-Suite 501 Naples,Florida 34108 239.514.1000 (space above line for official use only) WARRANTY DEED ,..&,_THIS INDENTURE,made this .23QQda of 2009,between DOUGLAS E.BAIRD,BRADLEY A. BOAZ and AND W �N1EI LENBE G as Trustees of the Lamar Gable Revocable Trust dated Au & '8 : '•r. ,g9,-� 8, �. G. COLLIER III, FRANCES G. VILLERE, PHYLLIS G. Al ,'DONNA G. I1fi and JULIET A. SPROUL, KATHERINE G. SPROUL and J ,S. SULLIVA , as'F ustees of the Trust Under the Will of Barron Collier, Jr.,ifF'13 'J 'et-. . rou, ollect eli,the "Grantor") and TRAIL BOULEVARD, LLLP, a Floris a ' • . _'y• ,i e JI it•A . _ , nen hip (the "Grantee"), whose — mailing address is 2600 Golden 'a P. .p,- 0 WITNESSETH: TI a ",the said cantor, an4 n c«OMderation of the sum of TEN DOLLARS (S 10.00) and oth �v uable consideratid it t r nn hand paid by Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby ac edged, hereby grani�s pba ''7' and sells to the said Grantee, Grantee's heirs,successors and as i never,the folio . zescribed land,situate and being in the County of Collier,State of Flori !t --' 1 -` See attached Exhibit"A". SUBJECT TO conditions,limitations,restrictions,reservations and easements of record which are common to the subdivision in which the property is located and taxes for the year 2009 and subsequent years. AND the said Grantor does hereby specifically warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. The subject property is not the homestead of any of the Grantors, their spouses or any minor children. IN WITNESS'WHEREOF,the said Grantor has caused these presents to be executed as provided by law,on this,the day and year first above written. PElF Page 139 of 244 OR 4522 PG 367 Signed,Sealed and Delivered in th Presence of: czLA CCet-IL a..t.),.-. , Witness#1 '-' U D S E.BA • ; s Trustee of the ' A Lamar Gable Revocable Trust dated August �'1 ��Q -- 29,2008 Printed Name of Witness#I /1 �` � . , Witness#2 Di,ej A.F (. V/ ,,v i* Printed Name of Witness#2 WR Coux, V, STATE OF FLORIDA ) I37 COUNTY OF COLLIER ) (c (-,, \,... -4-) r .--, I HE• BY CERTIF, t the foregoing ink. m t .,z:cknowledged before me this +iSr. day of I i,,,.%4f 9,by DOUGLAS'.. BA • ►, .s Trustee of the Lamar Gable Revocable Trust dated August -: 08, who is person• own to me (Yes) (No) or who produced 0... idepgtEatio I \ 4,0,4• Art. (Seal) Notary Public,State of Florida SUSAN L.MATUROI da 'tinted Name of Notary Public :ova•od Nolan/Pubtic State of ctoci Susan L btaturo 9oraeMy Commission DP810666 Expires 10/75/2012 -2- PAF Page 140 of 244 OR 4522 PG 368 Mg: • Witness#ti w -TT-FF-0,A LA(,�' �'�•�. BRADLEY A.BO ,as T.. ee of e Printed Name of Withers#1 Lamar Gable Revocable Tru •• e• August xg J 29,2008 Witness#2 DiiJE L• i//6/V Printed Name of Witness#2 OyV RCOLT N STATE OF FLORIDA - - COUNTY OF COLLIER ) ` l' ,/ I HE '= EBY CERTI• : •' -truVw ,; know1edged before me this lcfday of 4• ,, ,% . '009,by BRADLE 'F1. :O • Trustee of the Lamar Gable Revocable Trust dated Au_ 2008, who is p-"' .ly S vn to me (Yes) (No) or who produced : identification. ®l .�, Yht,th (Seal) Notary Public State of Florida SUSAN L.MAT URO .►*''•W Notary Pu 1c State of Florida Printed Name of Notary Public ° Susan I.Maturo 08MPCrimtmto201010666 -3- PDF Paga 141 of 244 oR 4522 PG 369 / • Witness# audtt1 Fg�Y' u �(�' "C 6 k ANDREW R.11, E ENBERG, • rustee of Printed Name of Witness#1 the Lamar Gable Re ocable Trust Ted /�� Lit:6 !/ � •c_ August 29,2008 Witness#2 • Z7//9/1E• -. Printed Name of Witness#2 COu STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER ,) I HERE'4Y CERTIFY t Cthe o g i .:7111 "•n7w. a knowledged before me this .frday of / f ,lr! , 3 : .w • 1,4E NBERG, as Trustee of the Lamar Gable Revocable T rt, lated August 29, 2*'i , w,to • sonally known to me (Yes) (No)or who produced r as�ti�illaR�. oh (Seal) ctaryPublic,State of Florida dor w, Notary Public State of Florida SUSAN L.MATURO :aa �; Sun l+ aturo •a My saP-ommiss�on D!)970656 Printed Name of Notary Public ''f0,, Expires 10/150012 -4- PQF Page 142 of 244 OR 4522 PG 370 .� . ]T— Witness ! f BARRON G.COLLIER III,Individually a i4c.0-1-17 C Printed Name of Witness /1.9244.-6,e+' Na Witness#2 D/19/1.6. G // /141-4e/ Printed Name of Witness#2 STATE OF Ra,(a4' ) COUNTY OF CAL—Ltd„ ) I HERE:Y CERTIFt2 .t(ç(Øpyr for- otng 1 .� m w 4.1 knowledged before me this J1 y day of - , , 2009, by BA' 44.. t . ' ! IER III, who is personally known to me[ or who pres<',� 0 as identification. (Seal) -I E !` Notary Public,State of FLoA im4 SUSAN L.MAT URO o. Notary Public.State^t Florida Printed Name of Notary Public : 4; Susan L Maturo ack' ti1YCommissionDD910666 My Commission Expires: „o Expires 10/1512012 -5- PQF Page 143 of 244 OR 4522 PG 371 PI C1►`I. LAQ G.,..t_- inns c .Uai Witness -111w FRANCES G.VILLERE,Individually �1 C/01C a I,Y.. Printed Name of Wftness#1 • /1.97Y -6 1 .iit, .t_. Witness#2 bi,z?/J/:= L. 1///NV_•e/. Printed Name of Witness#2 STATE OF Df� ) /CAVA?,; COtN COUNTY OF COLUE L ) '�—^ T)_,, 1 • I HEREBY CERTIFi t foc__. • . •-ttis a knowledged before me this _kir[day of P I_.i ' Os' b, • • 1 1AV ERIE, who is personally known to me ✓✓JJ or who resente.' _ r as identification. (Seal) 7-" 4 . / a [/ 1 No ary Publ.. 8ta of FG.o iM- ok „of•Le, Notary Pubic Sta!e of Flcrida 1 1. ^ Notary Publit M t , Susan l Ayanna 1ommission Expires: Aly Commission 00810665 y h '4,7„.cfc Expires 10n5.2012 -6- PC3F Page 144 of 244 OR 4522 PG 372 1.,f, 11 / Witness#1. PHYLL 4111 .AL N,Individually CLn M � Printed ame of Wi ess#1#1 • Witness��/� J//9,(1.. L. v/6/ir . Printed Name of Witness#2 4 STATE OF E6ki4R— ) Q" R C 't COUNTY OF C4/1.16--e_ 7 _ I HER :Y CERTIFY t the +o t-g,i t_ 1 (was a knowledged before me this Tdaofs,r'• �.� . _- , ,•�� � S who is personally known to me[ r who presented ` as identification. (Seal) Cit;, _ /' l� wW T(lio ufil c,.'gtate of F2 oQ,(2v— SAN L.MATTIR° 0.030 NY, Notary Public Sta'e of Florida Printed Name of Notary Public Susan 1_Maturo Z. My OMy Commission 00 8105',5 My Commission Expires: 01 M1p Expires 10/15/2012 -7- PDF Page 145 of 244 OR 4522 PG 373 MJ �n,. _• . ._J fay � ►-- n v ..0,_ Witness .15 • DONNA G.KELLER,Individually Mc teau. Printed Name of Wilesss#1 Witness#2 L7r,9/.i. L. t//C^/ • Printed Name of Witness#2 STATE OF • .0e,( ) COUNTY OF C L44 . ) �� I R CO Ik� C 'w I HER :Y CERTIF , th. as acknowledged before me this dmf da f 1 -•a i• e, SER who is personally known to me[ or who presented �� fi ��� as identification. (Seal) ._. � .,� Notary P 4grf SUSA►,tAVa : I 444t. .I . Public at 4e NSuOWsaryn rtge State of Floods ' ;TJC41. 14. on Expires: My Commissio0D n 810665 or � Expires/0115/2012 _8- PLF Page 146 of 244 OR 4522 PG 374 Art/ (gd ci-, . es#� L/` - J IET A.SPROUL,aa . k e ofthe Trust Iif(' udder the Will of Barron Collier,Jr.,FBO �� ►`'` �— Juliet C.Sproul Printed Name of Witn ss#1 fps#2 Witness#2 • Di/1/JE L. V/j�, c/ Printed Name of Witness#2 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER ,) I HE' BY CERTI t the o eii ti T w. acknowledged before me this iSr day of � _ ;. , ';,i .4 SP'.3 "-rustee of the Trust under the Will of Barron Collier,Jr., [9 uliet C. Sproul,wp rs.. • I known to me(Yes) (No)or who produced as identific; .n 7-11 �r• (Seal) arcpu cState of Florida SUSA L.MATURO as w, Notary lxPuRnblicuSta'e o Fda Printed Name of Notary Public = f: o bn .a My Commission 001310655 ?p„e4 Expires 10/15'2012 -9- PIDF Page 147 of 244 OR 4522 PG 375 4.u. kett- _. Vii. 44,2 411. Witness# • • THERINE G.SP'017-as Trustee of the Trust under the Will of:�i on Collier,Jr., L—ir H r __ FBO Juliet C.Sproul Printed Name of Witn •s#1 Witness#2 Di9i✓F- C. V/6/t/ Printed Name of Witness#2 O �£R CC} r STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER I HE' BY CERTIFrY tt he o i : ?. w. acknowledged before me this jcr day of // ' :' P' 4.« b : • - 'IN ..- tJL, as Trustee of the Trust under the Will of Barron Col r.,FBO Juliet C.Seoul, h. its g/ersonally known to me(Yes) (No)or who produced as ik ti •�L . _... , . L. (Seal) Mary-Public,State of Florida SUSAN L.MATURO Printed Name of Notary Public ;oart"'ae. Notary Public State of Florida Susan L Maturo My Commission 00510666 'm cosT Expires 10/15/2012 -10- PEF Page 148 of 244 OR 4522 PG 376 •i . >,.. A . _ t n n�u. S c,(_Q l.weitAA ) Witness#11 `' 4 JYNIFE).SU IVAN,as Trustee of the a Trust under the Will of Barron Collier,Jr., - 1A +�! _ - FBO Juliet C.Sproul Printed Name of Wi.�ss#11/� • Witness#2 • Z/4/✓E L. 1//6/1/4/e/ Printed Name of Witness#2 C)Q STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER I HER BY CERTI t i• _ w:s a knowledged before me this isr ' he ore r day of l'1 W R S . WAN, as Trustee of the Trust under the Will of Barron Col r.,FBO Juliet C.Si oul, h. ersonally known to me(Yes) (No)or who produced as ti tc. U (Seal) •. 'u lies iegy URO .►•�i'w Notary Public Stale of Florida a rinted Name of Notary Public =if-. -. Susan l Maturo c My Commission DD610666 •4.0„,Oc Expires 10/152012 r.data`wd_crorp tail blvd corp'warranty deed to trail.doca -11- PDF Page 149 of 244 OR 4522 PG 377 Exhibit A 10C. kg Legal Description Units 102, 103, 104 and 105,of Vanderbilt Condominium,according to the Declaration of Condominium,recorded in Official Records Book 2239,Page 1412 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida;as amended by Certificate of Amendment and Restatement of Declaration of Condominium of Vanderbilt Commercial Condominium,recorded on April 9, 1998,in Official Records Book 2407,Page 2712 of said Public Records. • and Lots 1,2 and 3,Block A,Pine Ridge 2nd Extension Replat,as recorded in Plat Book 12,Pages 57 and 58 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. `pctO Lots 4 and 5,Block A,Pine Ri ea;Extension Replat,a T do ed in Plat Book 12,Pages 57 and 58 of the Public Records f C• "•arety,E152ri••. ECOPY E~ Opo G ?WECIRC PC/F. Page 160 of 244 OR 4522 PG 378 r vunm.v;%I L•. FCE kUr�PC11 "Fachibit B" (1 of 2) (Bonita Beach Road) 4 (p The North 300 feet of Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, lying South of C.R. 865 and West of the westerly boundary line of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the NW 1/4, less tho West 660 feet thereof; less the lands described in O.R. Book 2007, Page 3797, and less the lands described in O.R. Book 2442, Page 3186; subject to easements recorded in O.R. Book 1282, Page 881, O.R. Book 1136, Page 119, Public Records of Lee County, Florida, and less the lands described as follows: A parcel of land lying in Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Lee County, Florida, being sore particularly described as follows: • Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 3, Run South 00.45'38" East along the West line of said Section 3 for a distance of 427.49 feet; thence run North 88.27'40" East for c a distance of 664.08 feet to the Point of Beginning of lands vv herein described; thence continue North 88.27'40" East for a N distance of 540.00 feet; thence run South 01'32'20" East for n a distance of 57.70,fee yy un South 88.27'40" West for co a distance of 54. '. iet- T. - North 01.32'20" West for a distance of11 ' -- o + of Beginning, 'o J' , no V and \ Cn to A parcel • 1-- d ng - - 3, T. _ ip 48 South, Range C' 25 East, -e oun , orida bei . ore particularly describe. as !• • s '' Commenci g ., he N v- R• n '! =ai Section 3, run South 00 4 '. : 1 g. • --Westi a . :aid Section 3 for a distan 8o . est', • - p0' - •n 'southerly right- of-way 1 •f Bonita Beach R•16 (.• 8 a thence run North 88'27'40" 4/set along said sout ('grly r f-way line of CR 865 for a i5tance of 1550.00 feet • . e. nt on the easterly right-of-w AJze of Spanish Welllr). �v , S.W., as recorded in the plat ! S,panish Wells Unit, p', in Plat Book 32, Pages 137 th o., n the Pybl oords of Lee County, Florida; thence n ?(2 ant along said easterly right-of-way line'f4rt 1404 twer 300.00 feet to the Point of Beginning of lanae--herefrr described; thence run North 88.27'40" East for a distance of 756.62 feet; thence run South 00.40'28" East for a distance of 57.70 feet; thence run South 88'27'40" West for a distance of 755.75 feet; thence run North 01.32'20" West for a distance of 57.70 feet to the Point of Beginning. i PIDF Page 151 of 244 OR 4522 PG 379 Exhibit A 3 DC Cs WilsanMiller New Oirrctnns N Nated.Cetgrt d Erip'een'u • Description of part of Scction 10.Township 49 South.Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida (Tract"Building B"Pine Ridge Commons P U 0) • All that part ofSection 10,Township t9 South.Range 25 East.Collier County Florida, being more particularly described as follows' • COMMENCING at the southerly 1/4 corner of Section 10.Township 49 South.Range 25 East•Collier County,Florida, thence along the north-south 1/4 section line of said Section 10,North 01'13'35"West 69.79 feet to a point on the northerly boundary of Pine Ridge Road(S.R. thence along said boundary.South 89'07'5 qqf� f et, nt,of curvature on the easterly right-of-way of Goodlette-Frank Road,.100 foot right-o >ly , .' •. r(�',�Qage 58 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida. V,- 1. thence northeasterly along said rig 454.08 feet along the arc o cireu curve concave easterly,having a radius of 5679 65 feet,through a centra angl 4' "and being ubtend •by a ord which bears North 04.43'43"East 453.96 feet; • — thence continuing along said riht-o-wa North 0 • 13 6, ' _ thence leaving said right•of-way sou tangential circular curve concavenortheasterly, having a radius of r t cot, ro 4 ce • • 7' 0"skid being subtended by a chord which bears South 37.52'32"East 3 2.#,.4, (. C_ thence.South 32°5E17"East l 6. e_, • thence southeasterly 164.02 fe al the arc of a non-tang:nti cave southerly,having a radius of 1194 00 fest,through a central >�1� 07°52'14"and beings by tl{o • which bears South 77.21'54"East 163 39 feet; '1 thence South 70'47.53'East 33.82 t Point of Beginning of • '# • erein described; thence North 19°53'43'Ea.. cell thence northeasterly 22.49 feet (j31 lar curve concave westerly,having a radius of 62.00 feet,through a central angle o 1 t _ • :subtended by a chord which bean North 09'30'13"East 22.37 feet; thence North 00'53'23'West 235.82 feet; thence North 89'29'57"East 230.34 feet; thence South 00'46'24"East 412.76 feet thence northwesterly206.11 feet along the arc of a non-tangential circular curve concave northeasterly,having a radius of 756.00 feet,through a central angle of 15'37'14..and being subtended by a chord which bears North 73'35'45"West 205.47 feet; thence North 70°47'53'West 70.66 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING of the parcel herein described; Parcel contains 2.1 acres more or less. Subject to easements,restrictions and reservations of record. Bearings are based on the easterly right-of-way line of Goodlette-Frank Road being North 07°06'I3'East. WILSON, 'LLER.BARTON&PEEK,INC. Regist _d .gsneers andel d Surveyors By' (Gf/r' D Z/ LOeo Andrew B Beck,PSM a 6065 Certificate of authorization LB-443. Not valid unless embossed with the Professional's seal BAHP.OY COWER CO. • Ref 20.645 qt-6r ulg W 0.02335.007.000-PYE00 Date- OECEmBER 6,2000 CO{IBIT "A'• Naples Fort Myers Sarasota Bradenton ramps 3f'00.iikytine Sue?CO Penal 34Ia5-4507 941.649.4040^: 941'643-57 I 5• PC3F Page 152 of 244 OR 4522 PG 380 POOR QUALITY ORIGINAL Exhibit A ' Li of Cr, • 14 s2yf ja !k 11 !C ii qa (I j0 C rya 1- !I N Ie; ;1g it 1 l Iv Y C a y a.Q $ Y o it.e t prig: { }@ PI g"@ a ppl iia i gut 8!1L • Il°a5q 4 ,11, II fag 1 5e 1; Ise ill °t 1 S-12 I 'blit R r 84lini aten4 IVa a " ti . ita '' 1-014111101 hg _! ipg qii -0 }g; a lt411:411101s!git 1111112 ae°$ Wg 1U 0011 . ihnt5affigfigninliOnnith iiii digi I a 1... .) ir: z If 81 q- 4 �:E:x�t a - ilmiptopo„ f twig ee `i1rso � # Y I Eivai 441, AV ! 4#4 1 'alb yr en iv 4 ivm - • lit / = 4 !I 1 ! gt�tt y i `+ Ix Is $ss a ` IP !t an 1 -Vifil j(f /r PP if s6 wnliql . Ad ... ,.._. 0 ,14;;;.0. �4 r `i xi n L., t 3 MI •r•c • Vail • V meet. .D.A. yy4 It:: a / 7 g X _ X 'q / 11 q ' �K 'O Q rr $ BAflA�l7 VIZ CA 1 a 1 w iA"tii� �'\aa rlLE IlPubZ 1 : t i l (a t ° • . ..A 9 J z v PDF Page 153 of 244 OR 4522 PG 381 s4c4 D$SC►r',p �+r•nvi Dr A ar-1-r'D% 7I neoper +Y 7' � PROPERTY DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS• COALIMWCE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA; THENCE RUN S0109'43" E, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4t R C-pL OF SAID SECTION 27 FOR A DIST4,, ►' ,090.50 l. • +1 INCE RUN S 8948'50" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 594.85 FEET TO 1H '0 0 OP BEGINNING PARCEL HEREIN DESCRIBED: THENCE RUN S 423846" W F A PIKE ' Er; . GE RUN S 5040'23" W FOR A DISTANCE OF 24.41 FEET, ENScR 4 • `r► DI TANCE OF 58.72 FEET; _.._ THENCE RUN S 0055'14"E FOS A Illi 4 G: �. ' ,9 ' , , 6,E RUN S 66'42'59" W FOR DISTANCE OF 1723 FEET' EN - 'l�',' l n E s'; A �TANCE OF 301.69 FEET THENCE RUNS 9000 0 W FO l- '(STANCE OF 40i. FET PO/NT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GOOD 'ANK RD. (CR. 'i _ -.T .00 FOOT H4DE • RIGHT--OF-WAY, AS THE SAME IS - '0'..; ON THE PLAT O/ .., K BOULEVARD ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN Pb .Bpi, : ' , • , OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF • COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RU I .U5( % ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WA Y LINE OF GOODLETTE -FRANK.RD., FOR A 0ISTANCE OF 134.59 FEET, THENCE RUN N 0728'04" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 5310 FEET, THENCE RUN N 05'35'39- W FOR A DISTANCE OF 16379 FEET - TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGEN17AL CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY,• THENCE RUN • NORTHEASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'01'44", SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 70.73 FEET AT A BEARING OF N 3925'13"E, FOR A DISTANCE OF 78.57 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN N 8426'05" E FOR A DISTANCE.OF 391.04 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENTIAL CIRCULAR CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHERLY; THENCE RUN EASTERLY, ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 150.00 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE • OF 17'17'5.4; SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF 45.12 FEET AT A BEARING OF N 75'47'08" E FOR A DISTANCE OF 4529 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING'; CONTAINING 3869 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PrDF Page 154 of 244 *** oR 4522 PG 382 *** • • 1i71er • EXHIBIT ."A" .• • DESCRIPTION OF PART OF SECTION 127,TOWNSHIP ad SOUTH,aA GE 25 EAST, COWER.cOUNTY.FLORIDA. (6.0 ACREPARCEI.) ALL THAT PART OF SECTION 27.TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 27: THENCE ALGNG THE EXIST LINE OF SAID SECTION 2t SOUTH 0I.09'4"EAST 1314.62 FEET: THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE SOUTK 119'4850'WEST 67735 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 05'3539'EAST 229.90 FEET TO THE PONT OF BEGINNING OF THE P.ARCEL HERM DESCRIBED; THENCE SOvfi OS'35'39'EAST 656.12. ----. TI11 SOVIH!9'47'5O'W'.;ST %vial • i•r•.ONTHE EASTERLY R.nGIOrOFWAYIINtOF GOODLETTEFRANF.ROADASRE!• ' Tl,PAGE5l,PUBLIC RECORDS OFCOUIER. COUNTY,FLORIDA; -j\_�\ THENCE ALONG SAID LW!, 05•35.39*WEST 651. mac; - •IHF:,VCG LEAVING SAID LINE NORTH 9O'0700'EAST 400.1?FF.ET TO THE.POINT OF EEGrNNNO OF THE WILIt.3ffRELND ffi: ',._ __..___I, \ CONTAINS 6.0 ACRES I trE ,-- SURIECTTO EASS EN1 AND• •YYj r� •.,, BRINGS ARE ASS1, 13,AN .ems • ga I' r I DEENC SOUTH 01'0413-EAST. vALSONM,ILiXt. REGT$LF3•ED EVGINEut{ '!! `.• �, �- CP1Yi3r• ZUrtiF-AUTHC: :r T(+ :1.11-43. • • ARCUS L.BERRI N, r' NOT V-AuD UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH •1. mum 'S EOL. Ret. 2L-674 •• a'.O•:02118.002.001-CSUDA Dur. AUGUST 15.1999 - • • • • • • • t(AflPAR. y3 OXI1:.4 CQ 1 PDF Page 155 of 244 INSTR 4505279 OR 4632 PG 2055 RECORDED 12/13/2010 3:20 PM PAGES 8 DWIGHT E. BROCK, COLLIER. COUNTY CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT DOC@.70 $0.70 REC $69.50 INDX $3.00 CONS $0.00 This instrument prepared by: G.Helen Athan,Esq. Grant,Fridkin,Pearson,Athan&Crown,P.A. 5551 Ridgewood Drive-Suite 501 Naples,Florida 34108 239514.1000 (space above line for official use only) WARRANTY DEED '1X,R COU THIS INDENTURE, .' i is It) day of b 2010, between G-4 PARTNERSHIP,a Florida g- era ...""- ,ip,BARRON G:COLLIER,III,and KATHERINE G. SPROUL and JENNIFER S. `fl ..•1 .N;as ees of th *st Under the Will of Banton Collier, Jr., FBO Juliet C.,Spi]6 -- .1 -,.,;el • -• • + , aid TRAIL BOULEVARD, LLLP,a Florida limited liability i : _ = • p,jv t li g address is 2600 Golden Gate Parkway,Naples,FL 341051 - a e G . t`, . WITNESSETH: * e said Grantor, ford i eration of the sum of TEN DOLLARS ($10.00) and oth able consideratioi(� n hand paid by Grantee, the receipt whereof is hereby ackn , Ie ed,hereby grants,b ,and sells to the said Grantee, Grantee's heirs,successors and as ,r ' , Grew the f� escribed land,situate and being in the County of Collier,State of Florida, vl�i. ljZ See attached Exhibit"A". SUBJECT TO conditions,limitations,restrictions,reservations and easements of record which are common to the subdivision in which the property is located and taxes for the year 2010 and subsequent years. AND the said Grantor does hereby specifically warrant the title to said land, and will defend the same against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. The subject property is not the homestead of any of the Grantors, their spouses or any minor children. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the said Grantor has caused these presents to be executed as provided by law,on this,the day and year first above written. BARRON COLLIER CO FILE NUMBER IISyU Documentary stamp taxes on this deed are based on the fair market value of the subject property in the amount of 5100. PEF Page 156 of 244 OR 4632 PG 2056 Signed,Sealed and Delivered G-4 PARTNERSHIP, in the presence of: a Florida general partnership C (i1 ,a Clap— By. Witness#1 Bradley A.Boaz s Aut ' ed Ant CAROLYN A.SHAW Printed Name of Witness#1 G i4 " t.. ip. IA Witness 2 LI Tiffany Matteau ci\).8 C{�U 1. Printed Name of Witness#2 STATE OF FLORIDA ) 4101 CC !j) COUNTY OF COLLIER I HEREBY� CERTIFY ...: foregoing instrument • • owledged before me on this 0 day of ,'.LeO,?1 b 1 ,2i Cr radley A.Bo. orized agent of G-4 Partnership, a Florida general partnership,on bens of't t ett .t'+ho is personally known to me�P (no)OR who produced --. Y as identification. Nota Pub i y (Seal) C�/L 2 I7 Typed,stamped,or Printed Name of Notary tf,`:.14, My Commission Expires: /d1 Slly.r"y..,fi��- KATE_,, •olON/FE 032178 4 ,'`+5...:..��' ExriQES'Oc;obet5.2014 ! .,t.t,..•. 9coded TAT Nctay PubSc U dormers BARRON COLLIER CO FILE NUMBER _2- /Jc o PDF Paga 157 of 244 OR 4632 PG 2057 Signed,Sealed and Delivered G-4 PARTNERSHIP, in the presence of: a Florida general partnership (, a By: c_ Witness#1 Lamar Gable,as Authorized Agent CAROLYN A.SHAW Printed Name of Witness#1 t--Ia.r. Wifiess Tiffany Matteau r, Printed Name of Witness#2 Cpt A l STATE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) C 1101 1, If itI HEREBY CER t the foregoing ins. ent • • owledged before me on this day of , , 0,by Lamar Gable':.; a t agent of G-4 Partnership,a Florida general partnership,o e • of such partners i•, -personally known to me es)) (no)OR who produced (4 •• identification. NotayPub c (Seal) {Q t e') Typed,stamped,or Printed Name of Notary My Commission Expires: 1015)1 1.1*3 KATEZEro MYCOINISSbWAEEM2178 V4)-16.‘-esy EXPIRES:October 5.2(114 ^lay Put 1:c U.x'enrtte:s BARRON COLLIER CO -3- FILE NUMBER 1)510 PEF Page 158 of 244 OR 4632 PG 2058 0 a/1—UL? G.„4-1.4,- c: ..-, , ',..f Witness#1 BARRON G.COLLIER III,Individually CAROLYN A.SHAW Printed Name of Witness#1 Witness# Tiffany Matteau Printed Name of Witness#2 O\'vxf,R COtik STATE OF Flo d c` (' COUNTY OF en/h.( r ) _ in 1. I HEREBY CER 1` TPYforegoitmL. . owledged before me this 1 ' day of _ , .,VIII 2010, by B. • •'?N c. I IER III, who is personally known to me[ or whop Ik-� •,. M as identification. 0 (Seal) `T' _ `r`a to Ar•ub is State of FI d Cdr` t k -r-4-1, Printed Name of Notary Public IKATEZFr0 My Commission Expires: +• .n MY tX)AIMola/P t 032178 i W.,��W EXPIRES:October 5,2014 '%?„Pf.i�a;;: Baled Tluu Nola/ uDFe Underwriters BARRON COLLIER CO FILE NUMBER -4- _ u PID Page 'I 69 of 244 OR 4632 PG 2059 04),-44.,) G. , Ad tip/ Witness#1 .THERINE G.SP'0 as Trustee of the CAROLYNA SHAW Trust under the Will of:� on Collier,Jr., FBO Juliet C.Sproul Printedr� Name of Witness#1 11 .�.� `mime Witness#2 Tiffany Mattead Printed Name of Witness#2 WR CO0 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER /) ,/ I HEREBY CERTIFY a at the o ging . acknowledged before me this P'S day of `,,,,h. -ty"\ t #, t , P•@L, as Trustee of the Trust under the Will of Barron Co ,Jr.,FBO Juliet C. a s ul, :ho sli5irsonally known to me es (No)or who produced as'.X '`ea 1:4?-.) (Seal) µ' 116,State of Florida !tl 7—(41-7 Printed Name of Notary Public �.' KATEZEIO ';. myWMMISSIONtEE032178 EXPIRES:Odober5,2014 '%?,,'ayµL,,o•' Banded Tku Nctxy Pubic U derwdters BARRON COLLIER CO FILE NUMBER -5- 11510 PDF Page 160 of 244 OR 4632 PG 2060 0 a/143J •,),d1 ve-g/' Witness#1 'NIFE .SULLAN,as Trustee of the CAROLYN A.SHAW Trust under the Will of Barron Collier,Jr., FBO Juliet C.Sproul Printed Name of Witn s#1 Witness#2 cJ t—+) Printed Name of Witness#2 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER ) '�j I HEREBY CER I a . the o g in: i ,h '� ac. owledged before me this )t day of _ . . .— t t . II • S.\ 1 I • , as Trustee of the Trust under the Will of Barron Co litr,Jr.,FBO Juliet C. _ 'ill, ho;li.• onally known tome italib (No)or who produced �' as',: i ca^ : ( , �, U At (Seal) '0I'N"'1 F'S,State of Florida Printed Name of Notary Public 10;N t„,",-, MY cOMM SSi EION t EZEi0 E 82176 •.4.r1 EXPIRES:October 5.2014 f°a fid' Bonded Puy Notary Pubic Um:Imacfu .�� BARFIOEN IEERR CO -6- )j —CR) PIDF Page 101 of 244 OR 4632 PG 2061 WilsonMiller Exhibit An a Stantec 3200 Bailey Lane,Suite 200 Naples,FL 34105 Tel:(239)649-4040 Description of part of Section 10,Township 49 South,Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida (Water Management&Preserve Area-Pine Ridge Commons P.U.D.) All that part of Section 10,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,Collier County Florida,being more particularly described as follows: COMMENCING at the southerly 1/4 corner of Section 10,Township 49 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida; thence along the north-south 1/4 section line of said Section 10,North 01°18'35"West 69.79 feet to a point on the northerly Right-of-way of Pine Ridge Road(S.R.896); thence along said Right-of-way,South 89°07'52"West 9.57 feet to a point of curvature on the easterly right-of-way of Goodlette-Frank Road, 100 foot right-of-wa_y as recorded in Plat Book 13,Page 58 of the Public Records of Collier County,Florida:,- -, t {) thence northeasterly along said right of, 3)7feet-eet' of a circular curve concave easterly, having a radius of 5679.65 feet,thro}J9* tral angle of p0�� t'end being subtended by a chord which bears North 04°48'49"East 4536'feet; thence continuing along said right-of-way;Nrsrth 07°Q61.3"Etast 861. 9 feet; thence leaving said right-of-way fine,souttie tterly •25 feet-long :are;a circular curve concave to the north having a radius of 25.00 fed +_ • _"• —, 30" nd being subtended by a chord which bears South 37°5232" 'a- 3 � et; thence South 82°:11'17"East 1q6 9 fe:t; f / thence easterly 164.02 feet alonfthe e a r • co t t outh having a radius of 1194.00 feet through a central a 'le.f 07°52'14"and bein Tbt= • bir chord which bears South 77°21'54"East 163.89 feet; thence South 70°47'53"East 154. : • 1c. thence easterly 206.11 feet along th t bf a circular curve co - •the north having a radius of 756.00 feet through a central angle of 7"14"a0d being-s •,ed-• by a chord which bears South 78°35'45"East 205.47 feet to the Point of t3,et refit parcel herein described; • thence North 00°46'24"West 412.76 felt;------- • thence North 89°29'57"East 183.91 feet; thence South 00°46'25"East 413.78 feet; thence South 89°15'23"West 149.97 feet; thence westerly 33.99 feet along the arc of a circular curve concave to the north having a radius of 756.00 feel through a central angle of 02°34'34"and being subtended by a chord which bears North 87°41'39"West 33.99 feet to the Point of Beginning; Parcel contains 1.75 acres more or less. Subject to easements„restrictions and reservations of record. Bearings are based on the easterly right-of-way line of Goodlette-Frank Road being North 07°06'13"East. WILSONMILLER,INC. Registered Engineers and Land Surveyors By /Z7'4t 4d Al 6546,00, Michael H.Maxwell,PSMILS#4650 Certificate of authorization LB-#43. Not Valid unless embossed with the Professional's seal. Ref. 2G-832 ti1A IRLIN COLLIER CO FIL--t NUMBER 10/71102.1115:2 Vr.02•U.Wx _-- iSC1 0 w1 V 02EE5006004.0 PDF Page 162 of 244 *** OR 4632 PG 2062 *** Exhibit`A' 6 x v i 3• 5 P 2 menti 'f 2 D * N A�'1 Aqr `� Co, Ae. .....,.. a „,. (7) p,AdE BOOK BANK ROAD y 55�� NJ£ WAGE 58) i `o o e�\ F fd A 700'FGOR%DA o o s £AS£N£NT L7G!(L .11 p z.Si D6 JO PAG£27 • 2. j -L � H h r - L : % I c t lie,g `�-/ 2 �nn:- `oo tg (C) N 371� I a � � �� ; ror V 1.tf 0 ,' e:. (n gal I g, IN eep rn , gj airEr 4,0,4 tz 1 M ti\.\\& N.'.. n z,-F. '"!$ o <-, .earlt asz000s m i mc Q a c n R v~ g?IPL' i t R . 3 ? i.R f� 1 i � psi=1 q{',�N"i a S� a n g ~ N 0 a R$ CIig� s as Si Xi al i,w'q,, S8 ink,. ,:a ,C /� M y { yy �` Na n Mkt. E coN O PLF Page 163 of 244 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE Petitions PL20160002360/CP-2016-3,Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Will Subdistrict(GMPA)and P120160002306,Pine Ridge Commons PUD(PUDA) I hereby certify that pursuant to Ordinance 2004-41, of the Collier County Land Development Code,I did cause the attached newspaper advertisement to appear and I did give notice by mail to the following property owners and/or condominium and civic associations whose members may be affected by the proposed land use changes of an application request for a rezoning, PUD amendment,or conditional use,at least 15 days prior to the scheduled Neighborhood Information Meeting. For the purposes of this requirement, the names and addresses of properly owners shall be deemed those appearing on the latest tax rolls of Collier County and any other persons or entities who have made a formal request of the county to be notified. The said notice contained the laymen's description of the site property of proposed change and the date,time,and place of a Neighborhood Information Meeting. Per the attached letters, property owner's list, and copy of newspaper advertisement which are hereby made a part of this Affidavit of Compliance )±y(______ Sharon Umpe our, Senior Planning Technician State of Florida County of Lee The foregoing Affidavit of compliance was acknowledged before me this 10th day of April, 2017 by Sharon Umpenhour as Senior Planning Technician of Q.Grady Minor and Associates, P.A who is personally known to me or who has produced as identification. itir Int i • (Signat e of Nota A Pub 'c) (Notary Seal) oanne Janes a°:,0. JOANNE JAMES Y POB Printed Name of Notary * _\ itMY COMMISSION#FF 090820 u < EXPIRES:March 14,2018 gr oFF,Oe. Bo,dedThru Budget Notary Services G:\NIM Procedures/Affidavit Of Compliance.Docx PDF Page 164 of 244 10 GradyMinor Civil Engineers • Land Surveyors • Planners • Landscape Architects April 7,2017 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting(NIM) Petitions PL20160002360/CP-2016-3,Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict (GMPA)and PL20160002306,Pine Ridge Commons PUD(PUDA) Dear Sir or Madam: Formal applications have been submitted to Collier County, seeking approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD)Amendment and Growth Management Plan (GMP)Amendment, by Trail Boulevard LLLP, represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq.of Coleman,Yovanovich and Koester, P.A.,for the following described property: The subject property is comprised of approximately 31± acres, located near the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County,Florida. Trail Boulevard LLLP is asking the County to approve these applications, which propose to amend the previously approved PUD, PUD Master Plan and Growth Management Plan to permit up to 400 multi- family/townhouse residential dwelling units to be developed on the property. These units will be in addition to the previously approved commercial development. You are invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting hosted by the applicant to inform nearby property owners, neighbors and the public of the proposed amendments for the subject property. The NIM is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing, and will be held on Monday,April 24, 2017,5:30 pm at Naples Area Board of Realtors,1455 Pine Ridge Road,Naples,FL 34109. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed to Sharon Umpenhour: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. Sincerely, Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. Ph.239-947-1144 Fax.239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs,FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com PEDF Page 165 of 244 RE: Neighborhood information Meeting (NIM), Petition PL20160002360/CP-2016-3, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict(GMPA)and PL20160002306,Pine Ridge Commons PUD(PUDA) April 7,2017 Page 2 of 2 Project Location Map: 2 z IR E cr PROJECT w 0 z LOCATION J 14 CI D rt a. cr SEAGATE DR ,z Z PINE RIDGE RD \- C4 I- 4 PQF Page 166 of 244 ^ ^ / 8 7 m x MN224224NNN2N2422nNNNNNNN2224«N44NN22P42222N g 7t rer,444 o.4a4a000 .4roerrvIrr rerarr E S I 8 e OIL R ii- 3 _ S c E oa E. g 3 C 3 ud € g 3 _ 8 F g, Sad z S w o ,,,-,-i 8 $o G q 2 22 - n Ex,T a N M o 8 00 $ 0 : = - 3r'im. . 0 2 $ M# 3 3g9 a o zm 39 -opo �� t E3b E m om2" 2 oEdg ii Q.4 a-3oo`o n£gRo "90M m m°o_o>3oo^$9A o9t..3 Sa °` ..°?Ir'9-A GGB ;G� 'EagrgW'c°0992 G99@G,^va .§.i ,cs9 tm m„5ogwa9 `E9om EC ,.§'229 2 9>ti” g,1S2 >o m�2m2.t't 310Ek'O.,___°�__ _ t3oPottttj „ttttt tttct„_ sss„aos°i33O33g3W »sssss4asssssssEssa3° �3333ss iWm'seiN's sss�ss; ini, >sswss's'sm's's�s IE..� s�sss's's ° w oWm <<`m« <8;, '"cc '""""'” WWaWW'�mo <8<a<<< N`301EOL^ ig5 `31" �3�`33 ,gi33330`3`3 332`gi�3 ho = c== W�€ � a €: �� €p� �: W=W€�€ � �. ..zsz5AAzezzzzszz..zaz..ss..ziigissgiigiszi9iz.,zv4o:..zz:z: RR R $o oid aoioagoi $iiiAA.Aviii§O d�=° did 993999 .1,7,AAA3939339AA AAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAA9999>,AAAAA-A 9gggggWg''<s'ssnggg �zi=sHsa2a2aataavo =" E E V $ a 5 F W O 5 V aRg 0: CN E a giit; ?C p 3oa oif d; 6 so =o a E6 v f E 3 W of 3 Ili. w t.`c ff A c W :: og c5 inn o ,Qo 0 3 g L1, Gw Ww ��� :G `k inn W�9«G o '.a« a4 �zzGa zGoa `W3aGGziy luRP `< Ggfasi �` 4'"i W00Eilignigiiofl �iignk ooto" a ,v411'fW ^l'oa:az- 2 I$EoeIEaE$iegM;A3gE ng ggEggig3i3„'RolgOgg «vngrigE^N O :y: <pai , G o- .actio 3 aE 8 a V-' m E iaoa -p�= S O!,E Q ';'4 xo 0 81:-.,'2i2! 025 &osg20,1 o sccf <ii,1 1"21 $ 009 9€a3'z919 €y, .Wo90 U '€ pWos a� s6 W �,r....\ „o m�z= 1glIr SosSC genIgg!g5!e`o3 � W, 'o8si= Agg Es U' ig $ 8«". 1111ndi888 $Id ^sBR14"1IIIA Wi"Weia"aaEalillmsfimisl$ias$$il � Imvism $ilin emaFimEmmeememleeea"eeeeeme «e, ;', emmem °' NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petitions PL20160002360/CP-2016-3, Goodlette/ Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict (GMPA) and PL20160002306, Pine Ridge Commons PUD (PUDA) The public is invited to attend a neighborhood meeting held by D.Wayne Arnold, AICP,of Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.and Richard D.Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing Trail Boulevard LLLP on: Monday,April 24,2017,5:30 pm at Naples Area Board of Realtors,1455 Pine Ridge Road, Naples, FL 34109 The subject property is comprised of approximately 31±acres,located near the northeast quadrant of Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette-Frank Road in Section 10,Township 49 South, Range 25 East,Collier County, Florida. t z r a EC PROJECT 0 LOCATION 3 G a. SEAGATE DR PINE RIDGE RD)ei 111 r w , Trail Boulevard LLLP is asking the County to approve Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment and Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment applications, which propose to amend the previously approved PUD, PUD Master Plan and Growth Management Plan to permit up to 400 multi-family/ townhouse residential dwelling units to be developed on the property. These units will be in addition to the previously approved commercial development. Business and property owners, residents and visitors are welcome to attend the presentation. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,it is not a public hearing. Project information is posted online at wwwgradyminor.com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail,phone,fax or e-mail to: Sharon Umpenhour,Senior Planning Technician Q.Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.,3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Phone:239.947.1144 Fax: 239.947.0375 sumpenhour@gradyminorcom April 7,2017 ND-1559293 0 PROOF O.K.BY: 0 O.K.WITH CORRECTIONS BY: PLEASE READ CAREFULLY•SUBMIT CORRECTIONS ONLINE ADVERTISER:Q.GRADY MINOR&ASSOCIA PROOF CREATED AT:4/3/2017 8:07 PM SALES PERSON: Ivonne Gori PROOF DUE:- PUBLICATION:ND-DAILY NEXT RUN DATE:04/07/17 ND-1559293.INDD SIZE:3 col X 9.25 in PDF Page 168 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 1 IN RE : PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUD NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 2 CASE NO. : N/A 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUD 10 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 11 APRIL 24 , 2017 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page -169 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 2 1 (Thereupon: ) 2 MR. ARNOLD: We ' re gonna go ahead 3 and get started. Sharon, are you ready? 4 We have to record this meeting per the 5 county rules, so we have to create a 6 transcript of the meeting so we can let the 7 county staff know what comments were made 8 k:y the attendees . So Sharon will be 9 recording the meeting tonight . 10 So I 'm Wayne Arnold, and I 'm with 11 Grady Minor & Associates . I 'm a 12 professional planner that ' s helping the 13 property owner go through the rezoning and 14 planning in the process . So we ' re here for 15 two applications . With me tonight is 16 Sharon Umpenhour who is with our office, 17 and she ' s recording the meeting. 18 David Genson is with Barron Collier 19 company. David is here to answer any 20 questions that you may have . We have Norm 21 Trebilcock who is a local traffic engineer 22 who prepared our traffic analyses, and Mike 23 Timmerman who ' s a local economist who is 24 helping us with some market analysis for 25 the project . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 170 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 3 1 So with that, I ' ll get started. 2 We ' re here to deal with a zoning 3 application and a comprehensive plan 4 amendment allocation that we filed with 5 Collier County. This area that ' s known as 6 PINE RIDGE COMMONS, it ' s about a 31-acre 7 site partially developed with retail and 8 office facilities today. 9 We are proposing to amend the 10 documents that relate to the plan, comp 11 plan, and the zoning designation to add -- 12 for an opportunity to add up to 400 13 multifamily dwelling units . 14 We 've asked for both multifamily 15 which could be rental and town homes that 16 would be for-sale product, and we ' re going 17 through the process to amend both of those 18 documents and the local master plan to go 19 ahead and make provisions for that 20 residential component . 21 The project was previously approved 22 for 275, 000 square feet of retail and 23 office space, and we ' re proposing to add 24 the 400 multifamily dwelling units to the 25 project . And obviously, the site has been U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PC)F Page 171 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 4 1 partially developed. You can see some work 2 to -- to actually construct the multifamily 3 dwelling units . A portion of the existing 4 retail would have to be demolished in order 5 to make room for those . 6 So in our documentation we 've added 7 residential development standards for the 8 multifamily units, and so we put in the 9 typical building setbacks and height and 10 things like that . We ' re asking for a 11 55-feet zone height or 60 feet maximum 12 height, and the county considers the 13 maximum height to be kind of the tippy-top, 14 the highest point of any of those . Right 15 now the project has approvals for 50 feet 16 commercial building, just so you' re aware . 17 So we ' re in the process of amending 18 these documents . We 've submitted the 19 applications to Collier County. 20 We received initial feedback and comments 21 from -- we ' re in the process of amending 22 our submittal to address some of their 23 comments , and we ' re required to hold these 24 neighborhood informational meetings before 25 we can hold any public hearings before the U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 172 cf 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 5 1 Collier County Planning Commission. 2 So this process is still likely a 3 few months off for being -- for any public 4 body for public hearing, but these meetings 5 are helpful to both us and staff by 6 allowing us to get some feedback from the 7 community, if we need to make amendments to 8 our submittals to accommodate things that 9 you've asked and we can do, then that ' s a 10 good time for us all to do that, so there ' s 11 still plenty of time in the review process 12 for staff to analyze those changes . 13 I should introduce a couple of the 14 Collier County staff people who are here . 15 Sue Faulkner is with the comprehensive 16 planning section for Collier County, and 17 she ' s the reviewing person for Collier 18 County that ' s looking at our application, 19 too. 20 And then in the back of the room is 21 Ray Bellows . Ray is the zoning manager for 22 Collier County, and he ' s kind of filling in 23 for one of the employees that ' s been 24 assigned to our case, but Ray has been 25 around the county a long time and can U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PtDF Page 173 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 6 1 answer any questions . 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 3 MR . ARNOLD: So we can try to answer 4 any questions that you may have . Our 5 applications from the procedurally 6 paperwork standpoint are pretty simple . 7 We are simply adding the multifamily 8 residential component, and with that, 9 though, we have to do an economic analysis 10 to demonstrate that there ' s a market for 11 additional multifamily residential . 12 We have to, of course, do a traffic 13 analysis to demonstrate that we don' t have 14 negative impacts on the surrounding road 15 network. 16 Sc) both of those components have 17 been completed, and based on our analysis, 18 we don' thave negative impacts to the 19 surrounding roadway, and Mike Timmerman, 20 who did the economic analysis, believes 21 that there ' s plenty of supply opportunities 22 for more residential in this location. 23 Its -- its time has come . Things 24 are changing in our community. There ' s 25 more infill opportunities, and this is a U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PEDF Page 174 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 7 1 very (Inaudible) and highly sought after 2 location for residential as most of you 3 know, because you probably live close by. 4 So with that, that ' s in a nutshell 5 our presentation. I 'm happy to answer 6 questions you may have . I know it ' s not a 7 lot of details . I know David is here . 8 We don' t have architectural details of the 9 buildings designed yet and things of that 10 nature, so we ' re dealing with a conceptual 11 plan that ' s on the left, and that ' s the 12 zoning plan that ' s been approved with some 13 additional notations to reflect the 14 multifamily dwellings . 15 So I ' ll just try to take questions 16 in the order I saw them come up. The 17 gentleman standing in the back. 18 MR. KEETING: Hi, my name is George 19 Keeting. I live in pine ridge . My 20 daughter goes to Seagate Elementary, and 21 she ' ll be going to middle school next year. 22 I just wanted to understand what are the 23 estimated impact fees that will be paid by 24 the developer to the school district . 25 I assume they' ll be some load on the U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PC)F Page 175 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 8 1 schools, and I just want to make sure that 2 the schools are protected. So how much 3 money are the schools getting? 4 MR. ARNOLD: I -- I don' t know off 5 the top of my head the impact fee 6 calculation for the school impact fees, but 7 we ' re also required to do an impact 8 analysis for the school district so they 9 can get an estimate of how many school-age 10 children might actually reside here so they 11 can accommodate future growth of their 12 schools in that regard, and I believe they 13 indicated they don' t have a (Inaudible) 14 school district to date . 15 MR . KEETING: When will we know that 16 information? 17 MR. ARNOLD : Well , I can give you an 18 estimate on the impact fees based on the 19 400 dwelling units . If you provide me an 20 email address or somewhere where Sharon and 21 I can do it, there ' s a calculator on the 22 county website . You plug in the number of 23 units, and it tells you what your impact 24 fees are (Inaudible) fees . 25 Ma ' am? U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 176 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 9 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I 'm trying to 2 understand the traffic flow pattern. You 3 said you've done an analysis, you figured 4 out that it ' s -- all will be good. How do 5 you know that? You ' re going to put 6 probably 800 new cars on the road 7 (Inaudible) Pine Ridge Estates, and traffic 8 is already a nightmare on Pine Ridge 9 Estates . How -- how do you know? Can 10 someone explain that to me . 11 MR. ARNOLD: Well, Norm Trebilcock 12 prepared that analysis, and as I indicated, 13 part of the square footage of commercial 14 will go away to accommodate the new 15 multifamily residential , so there ' s a 16 tradeoff here . Norm' s prepared that 17 analysis, and I ' ll let him address it . 18 MR. TREBILCOCK: Thank you. For the 19 record, my name is Norm Trebilcock, and I 'm 20 the traffic engineer that prepared the 21 traffic study for the project, and so what 22 we looked at in the analysis is there ' s 23 about 275 , 000 square feet have commercial 24 that ' s approved for the property from a 25 zoning standpoint, they built about 204 , 000 U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 177 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 10 1 square feet of commercial property, so 2 there ' s a fair amount of additional 3 commercial being built and developed there . 4 So when you compare that potential 5 build out versus what ' s there today and, 6 say, adding 400 units, it ' s a -- it ' s 7 basically a wash or it ' s actually a slight 8 lesser impact from a traffic standpoint 9 there . 10 When you go into actually develop, 11 though, we have to look at specific impacts 12 of the development itself and get into more 13 detail, :.t ' s called, "linked analysis, " and 14 take care of any mitigation of impacts at 15 that time, but from a zoning standpoint, 16 comparing it to what ' s -- what ' s currently 17 allowed on the property versus what we ' re 18 proposing as a development scenario, 19 it ' s -- it ' s a wash or slightly less of an 20 impact . 21 Yes, sir. 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well, if it ' s 23 something that ' s currently allowed, what ' s 24 the present traffic pattern? Not that it ' s 25 allowed, you know what I mean? U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 178 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 11 1 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes . 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Because you' re 3 going to put 400 residents there with one 4 or two cars per home . That ' s going to be 5 there, but right now there ' s very little 6 traffic . 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I can' t hear the 8 question. 9 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So what do you 10 think it really is now. 11 MR. TREBILCOCK: The question was 12 regarding what the impact is now, and 13 really what we ' re looking at (Inaudible) is 14 really like what they call a "build-out 15 scenario" as a comparative . 16 We weren' t looking at look like 17 specifically the existing condition of the 18 land itself . We did a comparative, what 19 we call the highest and best use of the 20 zoning standpoint of comparing it, but part 21 of what we do when you go to develop is 22 exactly what you' re saying, you take a 23 snapshot of what the capacity is of the 24 roadways and make sure what you' re 25 proposing doesn' t create, you know, a U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PAF Page 179 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 12 1 negative impact on there or something you 2 have to mitigate for, and you would pay, 3 you know, impact fees for the roadways as 4 well for any impacts . 5 Yes, sir. 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: You know, but as 7 the gentleman said -- my name is 8 (Inaudible) Pine Ridge Estates . There ' s -- 9 there ' s a difference between your 10 projections of what the commercial current 11 PUD allows and the current reality, and 12 if you add 400 dwelling units, if those are 13 occupied, that adds a definite 600 , 800 14 more vehicles, not to mention the fact that 15 you have a fire station right around the 16 corner. 17 Now, minutes and seconds count . I 'm 18 a retired physician, so I know that . It ' s 19 bad enough when firemen and ambulances get 20 stuck behind traffic now with the major 21 intersection at Goodland Frank and Pine 22 Ridge Road, there ' s no way that can be as 23 good as it is now, which is not that good 24 to begin with. 25 I mean, you got a fire station right U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 REI Page 180 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 13 1 around the corner. I don' t see any other 2 fair stations being located in high-density 3 residential areas . They' re all in areas 4 that have more scattered residences, you 5 know, so to say that the current proposal 6 would be a slightly lower impact than what 7 might be involved with the existing PUD 8 defies the reality of what we actually have 9 now. 10 We know what kind of traffic we have 11 now. You add 400 residences, there is 12 going to be a zoo . 13 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: You' re making an 14 odd comparison here with what it would have 15 been had it -- had you built out to the 16 maximum compared to what you' re suggesting 17 now. We ' re trying to compare with what 18 we 've got now compared to what you want to 19 do. 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: There is no -- 21 there is no way that this intersection can 22 handle 400 more families, number one, 23 number one question. Second question 24 I have : Do they intend to knock down the 25 buildings that are -- that are on the U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 181 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 14 1 property now? 2 MR , ARNOLD: That ' s really something 3 that they would -- they would look at and 4 evaluate . 5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And you saw the 6 traffic, the way it is on Goodland and Pine 7 Ridge -- 8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) now. 9 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- I can' t believe 10 that it can handle -- no way can it handle 11 another 400 families . No way. 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well , it could be, 13 but it would come to a stand -- traffic 14 would come to a stand still . 15 MR. TREBILCOCK: Just -- just so you 16 know, I mean, I 'm also present of Autumn 17 Woods, and I 've lived in the area for a 18 while, so I 'm familiar with the roadways as 19 well , and, you know, I understand. One of 20 the key things is when you do go to 21 develop, you have to -- whether -- whether 22 it ' s what we can currently do or a proposed 23 different idea, you have to make sure that 24 there ' s not a capacity -- capacity issue or 25 you have to mitigate for that and resolve U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 REF Page 182 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 15 1 it, yeah. 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I think as I -- 3 I was a builder -- 4 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes . 5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- and I see 6 what ' s going on down here . If I see that 7 going on, I see them building an overpass 8 here to handle the traffic . That ' s the 9 only way they' re going to handle it, and 10 that will drive down -- I -- I live right 11 across the street in North Gate Village, 12 and that will certainly drive down the 13 value of the property. All right? 14 It can' t handle 400 more families . 15 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Yes . 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Hi . I live in the 17 area . My kids go to Pine Ridge Middle 18 School , and aside from the added traffic 19 concerns compared to what they are now, 20 understanding that it ' s based on the 21 current zoning -- 22 MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure . 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- my concern is 24 has the traffic taken into account there 25 are two driveways with oversight by Collier U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PAF Page 1133 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 16 1 County Public Schools, those are children 2 driveways , those are not Corals and Brady 3 and (Inaudible) and Sweet Bay driveways, 4 those arECollier County Public School , 5 which is Panther Lane, and I forget the 6 name of the other one -- Pine Ridge 7 Driveway, Pine Ridge Middle School 8 driveway, those are going to be affected, 9 and those are school safe passage for 10 children . 11 MR. TREBILCOCK: Right, and that ' s 12 what Wayne had mentioned. One of the 13 things that the school folks will look at, 14 what they see as impacts of the project for 15 them, and we ' ll work to, you know, resolve 16 any -- any issues there as far as that to 17 make sure, like you said, you know, there 18 aren' t issues being created with the 19 proposed development . 20 Yes, sir, I 'm sorry. 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 22 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Two quick 24 questions . One is what ' s the current 25 zoning there right now? U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 184 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 17 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Flood zone . 2 MR. ARNOLD: You can answer. 3 MR. TREBILCOCK: Zoning, it ' s a 4 P & E zoning that allows the commercial 5 uses that are there . 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And the density 7 that is permitted now is? 8 MR. TREBILCOCK: Wayne . 9 MR. ARNOLD: The current PUD permits 10 no residential dwelling. That ' s the 11 essence of our amendment . 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. So there ' s 13 no residence -- resident permitted now, so 14 you' re going from a zoning change to change 15 it, correct? 16 MR. ARNOLD: That ' s correct . 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. Now, that 18 was one point I wanted to make . Number 19 two, in light of traffic study, Goodland 20 Road right now goes up to where Arthrex is 21 going to change -- going to close the road. 22 In addition to that, the Arthrex traffic 23 hasn' t even begun yet, and Arthrex is going 24 before the planning committee to request a 25 hotel to be built there now that was turned U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 185 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 18 1 down on the original Arthrex. 2 So you are going to have a disaster 3 on Goodland Road, and Goodland Road goes to 4 two lanes . It may be six lanes out here, 5 but it goes to two lanes before it gets to 6 the hospital . 7 MR. ARNOLD: That ' s correct , and -- 8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 9 MR. ARNOLD: That ' s correct . Yeah, 10 Norm actually did the traffic analysis for 11 the Arthrex building that he and I were 12 both involved in that PUD amendment, and 13 Norm is well aware of the traffic impacts 14 on Goodland Road. The modelling efforts is 15 a little different . They' re in a different 16 segment of (Inaudible) road where you 17 distribute traffic for zoning cases, but 18 we ' re well aware of the traffic impacts 19 associated with (Inaudible . ) 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I don' t know how 21 you measure the traffic now when the 22 Arthrex complex has not been built . So 23 that ' s going to be added to it, and what 24 everybody here is concerned with is the 25 traffic on Goodland Road, and this is -- U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 186 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 19 1 I don' t know if it ' s the worst 2 intersection. Maybe Airport and Pine Ridge 3 Road is the worst, but this ranks up there 4 as the second or third worst in all of 5 Collier County. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma ' am. 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Have you already 8 done traffic studies? I live in Pine Ridge 9 as well . Have you already done traffic 10 studies? And if so, are those results 11 public, and are there times of day that you 12 used them more in one day of the week in 13 the year? 14 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, at this point 15 we prepared a traffic impact statement , and 16 that ' s -- that ' s available . That ' s public 17 record, and -- 18 MR. ARNOLD: Sorry to interrupt . 19 For any of you who would like, there ' s a 20 link on our Grady Minor website to all the 21 application submittal documents that are 22 being evaluated by the county, and those 23 will be continually updated by Sharon as 24 we update those and make submittals back to 25 the county. U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 RED Page 1 87 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 20 1 So if you left your email address on 2 the sign-in sheet or you didn' t and you 3 want to leave a business card or email 4 address Lo make sure we send you those 5 links, we ' ll be happy to do that . 6 MR. TREBILCOCK: What the county 7 does when -- when we go to develop -- like 8 at this point what we ' re doing is we ' re 9 really doing a comparative to show that 10 there ' s no net increase over what -- what ' s 11 permitted, but when you actually go to 12 develop, what the county requires, they -- 13 they have a -- kind of a -- they keep track 14 of all the roadways and the conditions of 15 the roads and monitor the traffic volumes, 16 and they look at future developments as the 17 gentleman had talked about , and they' ll -- 18 they' ll start to add those trips on from a 19 planning standpoint, add those on. 20 So that we when we go to do the 21 actual development itself, we ' ll then need 22 to add our traffic onto, say, a given 23 roadway link to make sure that there ' s not 24 a failure and what we say a "significant 25 impact . " So then if that ' s the case, then U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 1138 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 21 1 we have to do some other measures to 2 address that . 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible. ) 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) Autumn 5 Woods, you have an exit out on Airport Road 6 and an exit out on Goodland Frank. These 7 people have one entrance and one exit, and 8 that ' s on Goodland. 9 MR. TREBILCOCK: For -- 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: To get in and out 11 of this place you' re proposing, which is 12 ridiculous . 13 MR. TREBILCOCK: For outside . 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 15 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, we have 16 several accesses in the development . 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well, I live on 18 Pompeii -- 19 MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- and they 21 changed Goodland Frank. 22 MR. TREBILCOCK: Right . 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: We used to be able 24 to shoot across into North Gate . 25 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 189 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 22 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: People still do 2 that . 3 MR . TREBILCOCK: Right . 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So what -- I mean, 5 you' re talking -- you' re going to create a 6 nightmare, not you personally. 7 MR. TREBILCOCK: I understand. 8 Yes, ma ' am. 9 MR . TREBILCOCK: I 'm sorry, back to 10 my original question. 11 MR . ARNOLD: Yes, I 'm sorry, yes . 12 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) 13 traffic study, can you give us the days , 14 the weeks, the times . I mean, is 15 it multiple days, multiple weeks? Is 16 it one day, one time (Inaudible . ) 17 MR. TREBILCOCK: No, this study, as 18 Wayne had mentioned, there ' s a study that ' s 19 available . We looked at it as a trip 20 generation of the development versus what 21 is existing out there, and then when we go 22 to do the final development where you do 23 the more detailed analysis of existing road 24 links, and what the county does there is 25 they look at in their -- their road -- each U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIF Page 190 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 23 1 of the roads, they look at what they call 2 is the peek capacity of road, and they 3 determine, you know, highest peek level of 4 traffic as they exist today, and then they 5 add on what it being planned out in the 6 area that they know. 7 It ' s kind of -- they call it kind of 8 a checkbook concurrency thing where they -- 9 they add on the planned future developments 10 and add that on so that way when we look at 11 our development, we -- we make sure that 12 there ' s not a break of link of roadway. 13 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. So if -- 14 if we have concerns about the data in the 15 study, is there an avenue for us to express 16 those concerns having had a chance to look 17 at the information. 18 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, no, that ' s a 19 good point . The county has traffic 20 transportation planners on staff that would 21 definitely receive that information and 22 then they' ll identify any concerns that 23 they have as well to us, too. 24 So that -- you know, so you' re able 25 to take a look at the reports and voice any U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 P1JF Page 191 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 24 1 concerns you have with that information or 2 concerns you have, you know, like -- 3 because you do know the area well , you can 4 identify the specific areas of concern such 5 as an intersection here and there, so that 6 way you make sure it does get addressed for 7 you, so yes, ma ' am. 8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you. 9 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes . 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And in addition to 11 that, there ' s two churches, and they had to 12 have police to let people get in and out of 13 those two churches every single Sunday 14 morning. You' re talking about putting 400 15 apartments in. Who is going to direct the 16 traffic to get these people in and out of 17 the complex? 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: God. 19 MR. TREBILCOCK: Well , that, again, 20 that ' s a an important thing that we can 21 address specifically, but you know -- yes, 22 Ray, back in the corner. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Hey, what is the 24 reduction you can take for having mixed use 25 development with the residential? U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 192 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 25 1 MR. TREBILCOCK: As far as what 2 we do is we look -- you just look at what 3 you call internal capture between the 4 development . 5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And what ' s the 6 internal capture rate? 7 MR. TREBILCOCK: I ' d have to look. 8 It ' s in the report I have, I don' t have 9 that off the top of my head, but it ' s -- 10 the county has accepted standards that they 11 permit for that . 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. 13 MR. TREBILCOCK: So we won' t go 14 above those accepted standards or anything. 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I 've got another 16 question. On your proposed 17 (Inaudible) traffic analysis -- 18 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes . 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- it talks about 20 the existing square footage . 21 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes . 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Would the intent 23 of this report indicate that the existing 24 commercial square footage is going to 25 remain as is or is that just the allocated U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PAF Page 193 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 26 1 square footage to date? 2 MR . TREBILCOCK: That ' s -- what -- 3 what we did is, from a conservative 4 standpoint , is we looked at if -- if in a 5 situation where we had built the 400 units 6 and the existing square footage was not 7 removed, what that impact would be as 8 compared to the 275 , 000 square feet that ' s 9 allowed. 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. 11 MR. TREBILCOCK: So, you know, as 12 I said, realistically, they would probably 13 see some existing building being 14 demolished, but if that weren' t the case 15 and they could put those on, then that ' s a 16 situation where we, like I said, basically 17 have a wash in the traffic compared to 18 what ' s allowed. It just allows just a 19 mixed use of development . 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Just a follow-up, 21 and this might be a question for Wayne, 22 just for the record, I 'm Ray (Inaudible) , 23 I 'm a resident of North Gate Village, and 24 I 'm also a board member of North Gate . 25 What is the extent or can the owner U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PEDF Page 194 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 27 1 elaborate on what they' re demolishing and 2 what will remain? 3 MR. ARNOLD: Let ' s see if David 4 Genson from Barron Collier can take a shot 5 at that . I know they've done some 6 conceptual planning. 7 MR. GENSON: As you' re all aware, 8 we 've had Sweet Bay vacant for many, many 9 years . All right? So we ' re looking -- 10 we 've had people trying to get in there and 11 look at that space, see if we can rent 12 it out or lease it out, I should say, and 13 there hasn' t been a lot of interest in that 14 corner from a commercial perspective . 15 So -- 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) out of 17 Germany. 18 MR. GENSON: Excuse me . 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) 20 Germany. It ' s a grocery store . 21 MR. GENSON: Okay. Well -- 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 23 MR. GENSON: I ' ll tell you we 've -- 24 we 've talked to at least 25 different 25 groceries around that -- national grocers . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 195 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 28 1 All right_? 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 3 MR . GENSON: So there hasn' t been a 4 lot of interest because of the density 5 around there, because Pine Ridge Estates is 6 very -- it ' s not as dense as some of the 7 other things . They look at it from -- from 8 how many homes are within a certain radius 9 and where other supermarkets are in 10 proximity to them. 11 We are not planning anything 12 definitive right now. We want the option 13 if we -- if -- so be it, that we get 14 someone from a residential perspective that 15 wants to do something, then we would -- 16 we could do it, because we have the zoning. 17 Right now if we had to do -- 18 if we did 400 units there, the old Sweet 19 Bay -- from Sweet Bay north, that would be 20 demolished, and we would be putting those 21 units in that area. 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. 23 MR. GENSON: Let me just finish. 24 You know , the other thing that you got to 25 keep in mind is you' re all talking about U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 196 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 29 1 the traffic today. Keep in mind that that 2 traffic today doesn' t include Sweet Bay. 3 It doesn' t include a large grocer, so 4 you' re all maybe used to that grocery, but 5 we have the entitlements for 275, 000 square 6 feet of which we have just over 200, 000 7 built right now. 8 So we can be putting that up there 9 which would, you know, to what Norm is 10 saying, we already have that right and 11 we already have that, and what I wanted to 12 make sure is what we did, and it ' s part of 13 this proposal, is not to do anything more 14 than what we are entitled to do. 15 I didn' t -- I understand your 16 concerns . I drive home, I live in Mill Run 17 off of Orange Blossom. I drive home 18 Goodland Frank Road everyday, and I 'm 19 struck behind three signals at Pine Ridge 20 and Goodland. It ' s the most frustrating 21 thing, but that ' s why -- and being that 22 it ' s -- 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It ' s not getting 24 better. 25 MR. GENSON: And it ' s not getting U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 197 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 30 1 any better, but there are other options as 2 far as why make it Goodland Frank and why 3 make it north of (Inaudible) , but that ' s 4 not in our purview. That ' s not what 5 we address . We address the impacts that 6 are identified by our project . 7 And I made it clear to our 8 consultants that I did not want to increase 9 the traffic on Goodland Frank Road or Pine 10 Ridge more than what we were previously 11 entitled for back in 1999 or 1998 , whenever 12 we did the original entitlements . So -- 13 yes, sir .. 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Have you thought 15 about putting 30 houses there similar to 16 the zoning across the street in Pine Ridge 17 and having much less of an impact and being 18 more of a hero with the community and 19 having a little bit of good will as opposed 20 to a lot of developers -- 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It ' s all about 22 money. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- who are just 24 overpopulating this place . 25 MR. ARNOLD: Well , I appreciate U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 198 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 31 1 that, but, you know, we have -- we haven' t 2 been around for 111 years as a company by 3 making bad financial decisions . We ' re 4 going to do what makes most sense, and 5 we ' re very cognizant of our presence in the 6 community and want to do the right thing. 7 We really do. I -- 8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 9 MR. ARNOLD: -- I hear -- trust me, 10 I ' ll tell you right now, I 'm hearing every 11 one of you, and I ' ll take your concerns 12 back, and we ' ll talk about them, and we ' ll 13 see how we can address most if not all 14 these concerns . 15 Yes, sir. 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: How many of those 17 400 units would be government subsidized 18 housing or low-cost housing? 19 MR. ARNOLD: None . 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: None . What would 21 be the retail prices you propose on those 22 units, then, a ballpark? 23 MR. ARNOLD: A ballpark, I couldn' t 24 say. We talk about what the market rent is 25 right now. Market rents are going for U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 199 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 32 1 around here about 60 about 70 a square foot 2 for -- for rental apartments is what you 3 see . So we would have a mix of anywhere 4 between x'00 square feet for, you know, a 5 one bedroom to 1, 500 square feet for three 6 bedrooms , so yeah. 7 You ' re next . 8 MS . CHENEY: I 'm Ellen Cheney, I 'm 9 with the Parkinson Association. We just 10 four months ago rented a unit in what 11 you' re proposing to take down. If you take 12 it down, how much warning are we going to 13 get that we have to leave that . We have a 14 three-year contract . 15 MR . ARNOLD: You rented a unit in 16 where? 17 MS . CHENEY: In Sweet Bay, between 18 Sweet Bay and (Inaudible . ) 19 MR . ARNOLD: We ' re not taking that 20 down. 21 MS . CHENEY: Oh, you' re not? 22 MR . ARNOLD: No. 23 MS . CHENEY: You' re leaving that 24 section. 25 MR . ARNOLD: We ' re not taking that U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 200 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 33 1 down. 2 MS . CHENEY: (Inaudible . ) 3 MR. ARNOLD: Everything -- 4 everything from the south of Sweet Bay 5 would still remain. (Inaudible . ) 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. (Inaudible) 7 north unit (Inaudible) , so I 'm right on the 8 end of Sweet Bay, and I 've been trying to 9 acquire the space next to me since 10 November. 11 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And I 've been 13 given the runaround since November that 14 nobody knows who holds the lease on that to 15 the point where I went from Sweet Bay to 16 (Inaudible) to Southeastern Groceries, and 17 I even contacted CEO of Southeastern 18 Groceries -- 19 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- to find out 21 about subletting that space . 22 MR. ARNOLD: Sure . 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And nothing. I ' d 24 like to be able to expand my business -- 25 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 RIDF Page 201 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 34 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- but you' re now 2 telling me that my business is one of the 3 ones that: -- 4 -4 MP. . ARNOLD: Potentially, 5 potentially. 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So I 've got a 7 ten-year lease . 8 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 9 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And I 've only been 10 in there a year. I just spent almost 11 200, 000 on my buildout . What happens to 12 me? 13 ME. ARNOLD: Well, we would make 14 certain provisions to either relocate you. 15 There are other opportunities to be in that 16 development . We certainly are not going to 17 sit there and do anything at that would be 18 detrimental to you or your business . 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: When? Like what 20 am I looking at? 21 MR . ARNOLD: Ma ' am, I don' t know. 22 Again, folks, we don' t know if we ' re even 23 going to do this . Okay? 24 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Right, a 25 hypothetical . U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 202 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 35 1 MR. ARNOLD: So tomorrow, Lucky' s 2 could come to us and say, hey, we want 3 Sweet Bay. We ' re doing Lucky' s, we ' re not 4 doing residential . We ' re just wanting the 5 flexibility, and whatever impact we would 6 have on existing retail customers, we would 7 make sure that we would treat you fairly 8 and right . 9 Ma ' am in the back. 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: A similar 11 situation with people that have come 12 through me for reasons of proximity and 13 questions about pursuing the sublets lease 14 or exchange of the Sweet Bay space under 15 the zoning allowances currently. 16 And whatever signs are in that 17 window to call , they gave the same 18 information that is not available . We are 19 paying out our lease, and we ' re finding 20 somebody, we 've got somebody in mind who ' s 21 one response . It ' s inconsistent with what 22 you' re saying is what I 'm tell you. 23 MR. ARNOLD: We don' t handle the 24 lease . Whatever is there, that ' s a 25 long-term lease by Sweet Bay, and that is U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PAF Page 203 Of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 36 1 something that they have to deal with. 2 They' re - - they' re still paying us for that 3 space . 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And that ' s -- that 5 was said , and in the response to contacting 6 people that they relayed us to in the 7 county and said that the space is not 8 available, because I guess by your 9 statement, they are . They' re getting 10 their -- they' re getting their money from 11 Sweet Bay at the moment, so there is 12 nothing available because there ' s a tenant 13 in there at the moment, but I 'm interested 14 to fill the space . That message has not 15 been available . 16 MR. ARNOLD: It ' s in the best 17 interest of Sweet Bay to make that space 18 available, and what they' re doing we don' t 19 control , because they -- they' re the ones 20 that have signed on the lease . 21 I appreciate what you' re saying. 22 Yes, sir. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: What other 24 considerations have you given for the space 25 besides housing. U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 RQF Page 204 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 37 1 MR. ARNOLD: We have not given any 2 other considerations . 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Nothing else? 4 MR. ARNOLD: I mean, just other than 5 retail and office that ' s already permitted 6 in there, so -- 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) you 8 already said you were pursuing a number of 9 different things, you didn' t get any 10 interest . What did you pursue? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh, like I said, 12 we pursued other supermarkets that would 13 maybe be interested in this space . 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Would you be 15 interested in hearing something other than 16 something that ' s going to bring a lot of 17 traffic such as your 400 units? 18 MR. ARNOLD: Sir, you know, again, 19 I can' t -- I have to speak by what my 20 consultants are telling me with respect to 21 the traffic and what I told them that 22 I wanted there to be no net increase in the 23 traffic over what ' s previously (Inaudible) , 24 so -- 25 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Sweet Bay hasn' t U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PCJF Page 205 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 38 1 been in there for years -- 2 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- so we really 4 don' t ha«e a good measure of how much 5 (Inaudible . ) 6 MR. ARNOLD : That ' s why we use -- 7 that ' s why they use models to do 8 everything . So I -- I appreciate what you 9 guys see today. 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: There ' s been a lot 11 added since Sweet Bay -- in the area since 12 Sweet Bay' s closed. So if you open even 13 Sweet Bay again, it would be a whole 14 different matter than it was five years 15 ago. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Understood, but again, 17 to the point of that goes -- that ' s 275 , 000 18 square feet of uses that are already 19 approved, they' re already accounted for in 20 the county' s models . 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That was approved 22 before there was a lot of additional stuff 23 going around. 24 MR . ARNOLD: And that all has been 25 added into the model, and so now the new U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PAF Page 2OG of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 39 1 model that we ' re using already has those 2 approved uses since we were approved in 3 there . 4 The gentleman in the black t-shirt, 5 sure . 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: If I understand 7 this correct, the general consensus of most 8 people here is there ' s plenty of traffic 9 out there that -- already (Inaudible . ) 10 MR. ARNOLD: Right, and I concur 11 with that . 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So we have the 13 33-acre piece of land, and it ' s just really 14 not doing very well commercially, that ' s 15 the (Inaudible . ) 16 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. So 18 (inaudible) here is thinking what ' s the 19 highest and best use? Well , it looks like 20 it might very well be residential would be 21 the highest and best . 22 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: What you' re 24 saying, you got 275, 000 square feet 25 approved, you've only done 205 , 000 , you U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 207 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 40 1 said? 2 MR . ARNOLD: Right . 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So you could build 4 another 60 , 000 foot of square -- of retail . 5 Why do that when you haven' t rented out the 6 rest of it anyway, so that ' s not going to 7 happen. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 9 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So what you' re 10 saying, then, is if you were successful in 11 building that out with retail and filling 12 it up, which doesn' t look like it ' s going 13 to happen, the amount of traffic that would 14 then be generated by a completely full 15 33-acre retail spot would be actually less 16 than doing what you are planning, which is 17 adding more -- or could do, you know, 18 it would actually be less . That ' s what 19 you' re saying. 20 MR. ARNOLD: No, I 'm saying -- 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 22 MR . ARNOLD: -- 400 units plus the 23 200 , 000 square feet we have built here 24 today. 25 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Right . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PC)F Page 208 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 41 1 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Right . 3 MR. ARNOLD: Is actually about -- 4 is a wash, and I can tell you right now the 5 205 , 000 would actually be less, because 6 we would have to demolish part of that -- 7 part of that center to put 400 units . So 8 in reality the traffic would be less from a 9 build out standpoint . 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It would be 11 less -- it would be less if it was built 12 out . The problem we have here is that 13 we ' re used -- we ' re used to dealing with 33 14 acres that ' s not hardly built out at all . 15 MR. ARNOLD : Right . 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That ' s generated 17 very little traffic . 18 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And we still think 20 it ' s too busy. It is too busy. So when 21 you do this, there ' s just no getting around 22 it . 23 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 24 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It ' s going to 25 generate a lot more traffic . U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 209 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 42 1 MR . ARNOLD: Yeah, yes, sir. 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Just from an 3 understanding perspective, is this 4 basically approved and we ' re tweaking it, 5 or is it not approved and it can be killed? 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That ' s what I want 7 to know. 8 MR. ARNOLD: It is -- the 275, 000 9 square feet that we ' re allowed today is 10 already approved. There ' s no killing that . 11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So what does it -- 12 what does that mean? What ' s approved? 13 I mean, the housing is approved? 14 MR ARNOLD: No, the 275 , 000 square 15 feet -- 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: What ' s there now? 17 MR . ARNOLD: -- of retail and 18 office . 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: What ' s there now? 20 MR. ARNOLD: No, not even what ' s 21 there now. We have vacant parcels that 22 we can still build on in there . The -- 23 what ' s not approved right now is the 24 additional 400 units . That ' s the -- that ' s 25 the one thing that we ultimately have to go U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PtF Page 21 0 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 43 1 before the Collier County Planning 2 Commission as well as the board of county 3 commissioners on. 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: How many more 5 square feet is that, the residential part? 6 MR. ARNOLD: We haven' t done that 7 kind of analysis of how much square footage 8 that adds . I would have -- again, 9 we really -- we ' re doing this to look out 10 into the future and provide flexibility. 11 I can' t -- I can' t say for certain with any 12 degree of certainty of how much -- 13 if we are even going to do it . 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: My point is that 15 right now you have -- you have the right to 16 do 270 square feet, 270, 000 square feet 17 that you can build commercially, but 18 we don' t know how many square feet you can 19 build that you' re going to try to go and 20 build. You don' t know how much square 21 footage of those 400 units would be . 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well , sir, the county 23 doesn' t measure the intensity of 24 residential by square feet . They measure 25 it by the type of dwelling unit . So Norm U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PEW Page 21 1 of 24-4 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 44 1 has prepared his traffic analysis based on 2 the number of units . That ' s 400 units, and 3 that ' s how the county -- 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Well , I believe 5 that the 270 , 000 square feet of commercial 6 would be -- would be a lot less traffic 7 than 400 families moving in. 8 MR . ARNOLD: Well , that ' s the point 9 that David was indicating, that the traffic 10 analysis that Norm has used which utilizes 11 the IET traffic standards as well as the 12 county' s methodology for zoning is that 13 it ' s neutral what we ' re proposing to do 14 regarding traffic . 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 16 MR . ARNOLD: Can you -- can we have 17 some questions from folks that haven' t had 18 an opportunity yet . This woman back here . 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) you 20 don' t have a conceptual layout of what 21 you' re proposing or where you' re actually 22 proposing it at this point in time . My 23 question is the properties, the (Inaudible) 24 properties that were (Inaudible) at this 25 point in time, you' re talking about only U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 212 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 45 1 demolishing things north of Sweet Bay; is 2 that correct? 3 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 4 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So that 5 the -- the bank and then Starbucks shopping 6 center and then the building that ' s on the 7 corner, those are all going to stay where 8 they are? 9 MR. ARNOLD: Correct . 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I think my concern 11 is, part of it is the height of the 12 building, and we live in North Gate 13 Village, and having those buildings really 14 close to Pine Ridge Road at that height 15 would be having them look directly into our 16 backyard kind of thing. 17 How far north would you actually set 18 these buildings? I think for our area that 19 would be one of the -- one of the things 20 that (Inaudible) to look at . 21 MR. ARNOLD: Well , here ' s an aerial, 22 and can you see here ' s where the -- where 23 the Sweet Bay -- I 'm sorry, and here ' s 24 where Sweet Bay was . So we were looking at 25 doing -- doing it in here as well as a U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PEF Page 213 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 46 1 portion over here in this vacant lot . So 2 not -- nothing closer to Pine Ridge . 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So the higher 4 buildings that you' re talking about putting 5 in there would not -- 6 MR. ARNOLD: They wouldn ' t -- 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 8 MR. ARNOLD: You know, from my hand 9 above . 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: 100 units plus 11 your commercial areas . 12 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 13 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: If (Inaudible) 14 building and those -- the other buildings 15 stay? 16 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. All right . 18 MR. ARNOLD: (Inaudible . ) 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So the only 20 entrance, then, going into those commercial 21 areas is going to be off Pine Ridge Road? 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: No. 23 MR. ARNOLD : No. 24 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 25 MR . ARNOLD: We ' re going to maintain U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 214 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 47 1 all the access points . 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 3 MR. ARNOLD: School Road. This 4 gentleman' s had his hand up for a while . 5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: With what you ' re 6 proposing, does that essentially open up 7 the door for a Mercado on a smaller scale 8 type development where you have the mixed 9 use, you have the retail on the bottom and 10 then apartments, condos, rentals on the top 11 where you have this commercial (Inaudible) 12 kind of concept, is that what the ultimate 13 goal is, that is what is going to come in 14 there or is it going to be an apartment 15 complex, gated apartment complex or senior 16 living, assisted living with the retail 17 commercial that ' s already existing and 18 there. Like what ' s -- what ' s the -- what ' s 19 the grand scheme or is this what you' re 20 trying to push through? 21 MR. ARNOLD: Well , what we ' re 22 proposing is to make this a true mixed use 23 right now. The county considers it mixed 24 use because it has retail and office, but 25 the insertion of residential would make U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 REF Page 215 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 48 1 it true mixed use, and whether that meant 2 there would be some lighter retail 3 buildings below some of the multifamily, 4 we don' t know. Nothing we ' re doing is 5 precluding that from occurring, but I 'm not 6 sure it ' s going to be Mercado like in that 7 instance, but it will be truly mixed use 8 if the residential component is built . 9 Anybody not asked their question 10 yet? Yes, ma ' am. 11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: What will the 12 price of these units cost? 13 MR. ARNOLD: I think it ' s a little 14 too early for us to say. I mean, it ' s -- 15 it ' s proposed to be market rate, so 16 whatever the market is going to be when 17 they would come out of the ground with 18 this, at the earliest, it ' s going to be a 19 year plus, something like that , so whatever 20 the market is going to be in 2018 , perhaps . 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So it wouldn' t be 22 (Inaudible) by people (Inaudible) but 23 people who visit here? 24 MR . ARNOLD: Well , it ' s -- it ' s all 25 whatever the market will bear for the real U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 I E I Page 216 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 49 1 estate market for anything else in the 2 community. 3 Yes , ma ' am. 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: When you talk 5 about you' re zoned right now for 275 , 000 6 square feet and of commercial use, and then 7 you -- but you don' t measure residential 8 400 units by square feet, then is there in 9 your proposal a plan to cut that number of 10 275 down to something lower, so some lower 11 number, I don' t know, 100 plus 400 units, 12 is it some proposal like that? 13 MR. ARNOLD: That ' s not exactly how 14 we 've structured it . 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Or is it 275 plus 16 400? 17 MR. ARNOLD: Let me let Norm address 18 how (Inaudible) analysis . 19 MR. TREBILCOCK: Right, the -- what 20 I did on that traffic analysis is 21 conservatively said if the existing -- all 22 the existing buildings stayed, which is 23 about, say, 205, 000 square feet, and then 24 we add the 400 units, so that would be that 25 development scenario. So that is, in fact, U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 217 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 50 1 70 , 000 square feet less of commercial than 2 what ' s currently there . 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) the 4 county is we cut back to 205 plus 400 5 units? 6 MR _ TREBILCOCK: Right, they' re just 7 looking to have an alternative way to 8 develop the property is really what they' re 9 looking at, as -- as Wayne would say, in a 10 true mixed use, not just office and 11 commercial , but office, commercial , and 12 residential , if that would in fact be a 13 better way to develop the property, uh-huh. 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I 'm not sure -- 16 I 'm not sure who would answer this 17 question -- 18 MR. ARNOLD: Ask. 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: But I guess we all 20 would be interested in knowing, this is an 21 informational meeting, I guess, is there 22 something we can do to prevent this density 23 from happening? What -- what are we here 24 as residents in the area entitled to object 25 to and what can we push through on our own? U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PEIF Page 218 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 51 1 What -- you know, what kind of a say do 2 we have here? You ' re telling us what 3 we think is going to happen, what can we do 4 to prevent it? 5 MR. ARNOLD : Well, a project of this 6 type requires two public hearings which are 7 advertised in notes publicly, and every 8 person who appears at those meetings has 9 the right to tell the planning commission 10 and/or their county commissioners what they 11 think about the project . 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And then what 13 happens? You say, oh, that ' s very 14 interesting, now we ' ll just go ahead and do 15 what we planned. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well , that ' s obviously 17 up to them. I mean, we have to gain their 18 approval to build any of the residential 19 units we ' re talking about . So the planning 20 commission makes a recommendation to the 21 board of county commissioners . The 22 ultimate decision rests with the board of 23 county commissioners . 24 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Hey, Wayne, is 25 there any meeting been scheduled yet? U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PCW Page 219 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 52 1 MR. ARNOLD: We do not have any 2 public hearing date scheduled yet . We ' re 3 very likely a couple of months away at 4 least from the first meeting. 5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) a 6 couple of months so it ' s not during the 7 summer where people (Inaudible . ) 8 MR. ARNOLD: We really don' t have 9 control over when those meetings occur. 10 The county -- 11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 12 MR. ARNOLD: I wish I can make them 13 work that: way, but it never seems to 14 happen. 15 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 16 MR . ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I want to answer 18 your question a little bit, and you need a 19 change of zoning. Right now you can' t 20 build any residential here; is that 21 correct? 22 MR. ARNOLD: That ' s correct . 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: You need to change 24 the zoning. In order to change the zoning, 25 the coup},y commissioners need a U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PcF Page 220 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 53 1 supermajority, they need four votes to 2 change the zoning. If they get three, this 3 doesn' t happen. Okay? So for all of you 4 people to go to meetings, that ' s what you 5 need. You need two county commissioners to 6 vote no. 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Do you keep this 8 (Inaudible) not exactly centrally -- well , 9 centrally involved, but do you keep us 10 informed as to the projection of the 11 meetings in different places? 12 MR. ARNOLD: We can. Sharon is 13 going to create a link on our website, 14 GradyMinor. com website that will link you 15 to the submittal documents that are under 16 review by Collier County. 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Is that the only 18 place, the only announcement you' ll have? 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 20 MR. ARNOLD: Well, this - - this is 21 our meeting. All the future meetings are 22 Collier County' s meetings . This is an 23 informational meeting for the developer. 24 All the following meetings will be publicly 25 noticed county meetings . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 REI Page 221 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 54 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. 2 MR. ARNOLD: So if you received a 3 notice for this meeting, you should receive 4 a notice for that through the newspaper 5 ads, and when it goes to the zoning and 6 hearing schedule for planning commission 7 and the board, you' ll see the 4 by 8 poster 8 boards that will probably have several 9 fronting Pine Ridge Road and Goodland Frank 10 Road noticing the dates and times for those 11 public meetings . 12 Yes, ma ' am. 13 MS . MARTINO: Yes, sorry, I didn' t 14 introduce myself before . My name is 15 Caroline Martino, I 'm president of the Pine 16 Ridge Civic Association at the moment, and 17 I want to go on the record with the tape 18 with two concerns that Pine Ridge residents 19 have voiced. One is water. We ' re on 20 wells . 21 MR . ARNOLD: Okay. 22 MS . MARTINO: And they' re already -- 23 because we ' re obviously in a drought, 24 however severe you consider it, we ' re in a 25 drought, and some people are already U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 222 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 55 1 starting to experience with the older 2 wells, failure in their wells . So we have 3 a real concern about the amount of water 4 that 500 or 400 new residences would use, 5 which surely would be more than commercial 6 space because of, well, I 'm won' t go into 7 that but anyway. 8 And the other is concern, I think, 9 that we all should at least take 10 (Inaudible) of the build height . 11 Permission is 50 feet . You' re talking 12 about asking for 55, probably 60 . That ' s 13 an extra 10 square -- 10 feet . So how high 14 would the buildings be, how many stories 15 are you thinking, because 10 feet is quite 16 a lot of extra to what ' s permitted now, 17 so -- 18 MR. ARNOLD : (Inaudible) zone height 19 and actually height of 60 feet would allow 20 us to do five stories . The -- to the 21 gentlemen' s question before about this 22 being a mixed use, we did have intentions 23 for some of the buildings have to 24 commercial on the bottom floor with then 25 the residences above it . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 223 0f 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 56 1 Sc, yes, we are looking at this as a 2 true mixed use . It ' s not going to be 3 Mercadoesque, trust me, because we ' re not 4 going to sell them for $1 million, that ' s 5 for sure , but it is going to be more of 6 that type . 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That ' s even more 8 traffic if there ' s commercial density 9 (Inaudible . ) That place is a mess . 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Can' t hear the 11 question. 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Not just 13 residence . 14 MR . ARNOLD: Ma ' am, do you have a 15 question? 16 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I was asking about 17 the size . You said that they' re going to 18 be market value, but how about the size, 19 what would be the smallest unit you would 20 build and the biggest unit? 21 MR . ARNOLD : I think the minimum 22 square footage we have for an apartment 23 single, we have one-bedroom apartment is 24 700 square feet , and then typically you' re 25 seeing, you know, 13 -- 1 , 300 square feet, U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 224 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 57 1 you know, 1, 400 square feet for a 2 three-bedroom. Mike, maybe you know 3 better, but -- 4 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So this would be 5 rental units? 6 MR. TIMMERMAN: (Inaudible . ) 7 MR. ARNOLD: What ' s that? 8 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, that ' s pretty 9 typical . 10 MR. ARNOLD: That ' s pretty typical , 11 so 13 to 1 , 500 square feet . 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So that would be 13 the rental , and then you said you' re going 14 to have also residences for sale? 15 MR. ARNOLD: We have the option. 16 Right now we haven' t looked at anything for 17 for-sale products . It ' s all been rental . 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. 19 MR. ARNOLD: Ma ' am? 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I have a question 21 about traffic . 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Repeat the 23 question. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Yes . 25 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: A few days ago U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PEF Page 225 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 58 1 I -- I live in Pine Ridge Estates, and 2 exiting on Pine Ridge Estates most of the 3 streets you have to make a right turn. 4 If you want to go the opposite direction, 5 you make a right turn, and then you have to 6 make a t. -turn. It took me, I think, over 7 ten minutes before traffic -- I got into 8 the lane, and it took me over ten minutes 9 before traffic cleared and I could make 10 that u-turn. 11 And -- and I don' t know if you were 12 aware of that problem, people trying to go 13 this the opposite direction to make u-turns 14 with 400 more residents coming, you' re 15 going to be waiting very long to make a 16 u-turn to go where you' re going . And also 17 a lot of the snowbirds do not (Inaudible) 18 Florida, u-turn has right-of-way over right 19 turn, I believe, and you ' re making a u-turn 20 and a right turn is cutting you off, and 21 this is a safety issue, so are you aware of 22 that? 23 MR . ARNOLD: Yeah, one of the 24 things, especially when you go to do like 25 detailed development plans and things is U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 226 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 59 1 what we have to always look at is look at 2 any impacts on like you' re saying, our 3 traffic, we do a circulation of it, and 4 if we add what they call a "queue" to a 5 turn lane, you have to extend that turn 6 lane to accommodate that or -- 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 8 MR. ARNOLD: -- or make -- well, 9 that we haven' t gotten into those specific 10 details for the uses , because you've got to 11 put those into -- into play, but all 12 that -- just from my own experience out 13 there, that would really be some, you know, 14 manageable items . 15 The area that you've identified is 16 kind of going the opposite direction. 17 I mean, there ' s some benefits . There is a 18 signal there that is -- is available . 19 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: There ' s no signal 20 in the (Inaudible . ) 21 MR. ARNOLD: Right, no, exactly, 22 but -- but the traffic from this 23 development would be not directly going out 24 to, say, Center Street itself . It ' s -- you 25 know, they have a full median opening U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 227 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 60 1 available right there at the access road, 2 you know, Panther Lane right there . So 3 anybody that wants to go, say, in the 4 opposite direction to head southbound can 5 go to that, they don' t need to go up to, 6 say, Center Street to make a u-turn to go 7 back, because you ' re already there. 8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 9 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: We ' re talking 10 about Pine Ridge Estates, if you want to 11 go -- if you' re exiting on Center Street at 12 Goodland Frank -- 13 MR . ARNOLD: Yes . 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: -- you have to 15 make a right turn, which is southbound. 16 MR. ARNOLD: Yes . 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: But then if you 18 want to go north, then you have to make a 19 u-turn (Inaudible . ) 20 MR. ARNOLD : Yeah, no, and you' re 21 right, yeah, and I remember that being put 22 in. It used to be a full median opening 23 there, and they had, unfortunately, some 24 accidents and stuff that really 25 necessitated the need to put that in, but U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 228 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 61 1 that ' s something that would need to be 2 addressed. 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Your issue about 4 Panther Lane was not addressed (Inaudible) 5 because there ' s much more traffic there . 6 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It will be more 7 traffic . 8 MR. ARNOLD: Right, but we really 9 wouldn' t be adding the traffic that you' re 10 saying on that Center Street . That would 11 be the key thing. 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 13 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: One at a time 15 please . Please, we have to record this . 16 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. Yes, ma ' am. 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I am a Pine Ridge 18 Estates resident . 19 MR. ARNOLD: Yes . 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I 've lived there 21 18 years . 22 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: When I first moved 24 there, I could make a left off of Pine 25 Ridge . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 229 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 62 1 MR . ARNOLD: Correct . 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Then I could 3 make -- you know, I couldn' t -- you 4 couldn' t make a left, you couldn' t make a 5 left anymore . I had to go down to the next 6 one, very hard. Then 41, no more u-turn. 7 I have to go across to make a u-turn to get 8 out of - - to get out of most places now you 9 have to snake a u-turn or do something. 10 MR . ARNOLD: Right . 11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. Also I work 12 at Pine Ridge . There ' s no empty classrooms 13 in Pine Ridge . I 'm not speaking as a 14 representative of the school , but I work 15 there . 16 MR ARNOLD: Right . 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: And I know there ' s 18 already no room. 19 MR. ARNOLD: Gotcha. 20 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: So that ' s going to 21 have a huge impact along with Panther Lane . 22 MR. ARNOLD : Uh-huh. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: There ' s already 24 traffic there . I 'm going there three days 25 a week. U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PCIF Page 230 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 63 1 MR. ARNOLD: Right . 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I can tell you 3 morning, the afternoon, and so forth, and 4 I don' t really even see that there ' s 31 5 acres . Are you going to like take that 6 lake and fill it in, because, I mean, 7 there ' s really not much land. I was 8 looking at it today when I was at Pine 9 Ridge Middle . There ' s not that much space . 10 You' re talking about a lot of people, and 11 I know you did your study, but I also think 12 there ' s common sense . 13 MR. ARNOLD : Right . 14 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: When you look at 15 this traffic out here, it ' s horrendous . 16 How can -- it ' s going to have an impact . 17 It ' s going to impact . 18 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. No, there is a 19 site plan that can kind of help you. 20 It outlines the property, it may be helpful 21 to you. 22 Yes, sir, in the back. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It ' s obviously 24 that everyone ' s concern is the traffic . 25 MR. ARNOLD: Yes . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 231 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 64 1 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: This is probably 2 the worstdevelopment you can put in here 3 is 400 units, so unless you come back with 4 something else, people aren' t satisfied. 5 So are you going to have another meeting 6 with an additional -- some other plan, an 7 alternat.E.! plan? People are not going to 8 accept the traffic that comes out of 400 9 units . u:t ' s not going to work. 10 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: In addition to the 11 (Inaudible . ) 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Yeah. 13 MR. ARNOLD: Well , we appreciate 14 your comments, and as Mr. Genson indicated, 15 he ' s going to take the feedback 16 (Inaudible . ) 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: How do you get to 18 this point without considering some 19 alternative? 20 MR. ARNOLD: Well , we ' re here 21 tonight discussing our proposed plans with 22 you. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: But you didn' t -- 24 you didn ' t present us with anything other 25 than 400 units . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 232 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 65 1 MR. ARNOLD: Well -- 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: It doesn' t appear 3 as if you've given any other alternative 4 any consideration. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Well , the alternative 6 is that he continues to build out all of 7 the commercial development that ' s currently 8 unbuilt which has an additional traffic 9 impact, but you get no say in it, sorry 10 (Inaudible . ) 11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: But there ' s a 12 reason why that retail failed. It ' s 13 because it ' s a lousy place to get into and 14 out of . 15 MR. ARNOLD: (Inaudible) economics 16 of why it failed (Inaudible . ) 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 18 MR. ARNOLD: I 'm going to try to 19 wrap up . Anybody who hasn ' t asked a 20 question that would like to that didn' t get 21 a chance to? 22 Yes, ma ' am. 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: I think the main 24 concern that everybody has is the traffic 25 patterns for residential is totally U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 233 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 66 1 differentthan the traffic patterns for 2 commercial . At eight o' clock in the 3 morning, I don' t care where you go in this 4 town, there aren' t 400 cars in a grocery 5 store, people shopping at the same time . 6 So when I 'm trying to get to work and 7 there ' s a Sweet Bay up there, that never 8 interfered with me . 9 New you' re changing the pattern of 10 traffic . You' re putting residential . Now 11 they' re competing with me when I 'm trying 12 to get to work early in the morning, 13 they' re competing with the kids trying to 14 get to school . 15 Most stores don' t open up -- well, 16 grocery stores open early, but all the 17 other adjacent stores, a lot of them don' t 18 open until ten o ' clock. So it ' s a totally 19 different traffic pattern here, and I think 20 that ' s what everybody' s griping about . 21 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: We don' t want to 23 compete with that . 24 MR . ARNOLD: No, we appreciate that 25 feedback: , and Norm and David are going to U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PC/F Page 234 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 67 1 go back and discuss all of your feedback. 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That ' s the bottom 3 line . 4 MR. ARNOLD: Any -- any topic 5 we haven' t covered yet that somebody wants 6 to make sure we hear from? 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) you' re 8 saying that you' re going to destroy 9 commercial and build residential , but then 10 you also mention that the first level will 11 be commercial , so you basically are not 12 losing much commercial space, you' re just 13 adding residential . 14 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, in our -- in 15 our -- again, the (Inaudible) to be 16 conservative or high on impacts and things 17 in looking at it, so what we did is we made 18 the broad assumption that none of the 19 commercial would -- would change and that 20 we add the residential to it . What they' re 21 talking about that they anticipate is more 22 of a practical matter, they would 23 anticipate reduce -- you know, eliminating 24 some of that commercial , but -- but in 25 reality, in terms of the analysis I looked U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PAF Page 235 of 244 Pin Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 68 1 at , at least, I compared the 275 , 000 that ' s 2 allowed by right and compared it to what ' s 3 there on the ground today plus 400 units, 4 and it ' s , you know, basically a wash. 5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: But in addition to 6 the 400 units you ' re saying you' re going to 7 add others first level also commercial . 8 MR. ARNOLD: No, it really just -- 9 what they' re saying is it potentially would 10 just be replaced. You know, you can' t like 11 build, say, the units on top of the 12 existing structures, because they weren' t 13 designed for that, so if they redeveloped, 14 they would -- they would kind of maintain 15 that same amount of square footage and put 16 the units on top above that if that makes 17 sense . Okay? 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Are you also doing 19 studies on infrastructure like the 20 Walgreens on 41? I go to the Walgreens on 21 41 and it ' s ten people already just because 22 the snowbirds are here, and I have to wait 23 for my prescription. I know you know that, 24 because you probably do the same 25 (Inaudib Le . ) U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 236 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 69 1 MR. ARNOLD: I live here too, 2 uh-huh. 3 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: You' re going to 4 add 400 more people there? Where -- where 5 are those people going to go to get their 6 prescriptions? Where are they going to go 7 to get their groceries? Where are they 8 going to go? Where are they going to go? 9 MR. ARNOLD: That ' s part of the 10 whole (Inaudible . ) 11 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) give 12 us any studies (Inaudible . ) I got traffic, 13 I got the square footage, but that ' s it . 14 That ' s it . Is that going to be on your 15 link -- your link to the city, because 16 I bet a lot of us would like to know that . 17 MR. ARNOLD: Any other comments? 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) 19 contract lease expire? I understand 20 they' re paying for the Sweet Bay 21 (Inaudible) as the parent company, they' re 22 paying for that? 23 MR. ARNOLD: Dave, do you have any 24 idea? 25 MR. GENSON: I don' t remember. U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 237 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 70 1 I think :it was a 30-year lease . 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Okay. 3 MR . GENSON: So it ' s quite some 4 time . 5 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: 2027 . 6 MR. GENSON: 2027 . 7 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible . ) 8 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: They own the lease 9 until 207 . 10 MR . GENSON: Yes, someone else could 11 come in and do that, yes . 12 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Do you own the 13 (Inaudible) building now? Does Barron 14 Collier cw:n the two buildings across 15 Panther. 16 MR. GENSON: We own the (Inaudible) 17 building. 18 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Right . 19 MR. GENSON: And then it ' s JV for 20 the executive offices, joint venture, 21 sorry. 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Right , I knew what 23 that meant . Thank you, though. 24 MR. GENSON: (Inaudible . ) 25 MR . ARNOLD: Anything else from U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PQF Page 238 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 71 1 anybody? 2 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: How big of a 3 project is this? Let ' s assume you got 4 through all of the hurdles and all the 5 requirements and all the meetings, once 6 dirt started to fly, how long do you expect 7 that to take to get to that point when dirt 8 starts to fly, and how long would the 9 project be? 10 MR. ARNOLD: Well , not knowing 11 whether or not the residents are going to 12 occur or not -- 13 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Right . 14 MR. ARNOLD: -- we ' re not through 15 zoning probably until late summer, fall , 16 so -- 17 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: If everything goes 18 as planned, if you get everything you want, 19 because there ' s Collier' s on the board as 20 well , so that ' s kind of a (Inaudible . ) 21 MR. ARNOLD: Probably be late 2018 . 22 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Late ' 18 we ' re 23 starting, and then -- 24 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: That ' s for your 25 demo. U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PCDF Page 239 of 244 Pin.?_ Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 72 1 MR . ARNOLD: It ' s probably another 2 years, don' t you think that, David? 3 MR . GENSON: Easily, probably two 4 years, yeah. 5 UN;E'NOWN SPEAKER: Two years . 6 MR . GENSON: Yeah. 7 MR . ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 8 MR. GENSON: Three years . 9 UNENOWN SPEAKER: (Inaudible) I 'm 10 the president North Gate Village . Before 11 the next meeting, you know, this is my 12 suggestion. There ' s been a lot of comments 13 here about impacts, you know, on lifestyles 14 and such, but I really want to have a 15 better understanding, if you do move 16 forward with the multifamily, is there 17 apartment structure involved, okay? More 18 of (Inaudible) on how many buildings, how 19 many five-story buildings, you know, start 20 getting into a (Inaudible) design, 21 something that we can visually take back 22 and absorb and really, really think about 23 this . 24 We do all understand that the Sweet 25 Bay is empty, there ' s no traffic there . U.S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PDF Page 240 of 244 Pine Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 73 1 We all understand that the pattern of , you 2 know, traffic might impact , you know, at 3 eight o ' clock in the morning, but at ten 4 o ' clock in the morning it might be less 5 traffic because of the residential , but 6 it ' s just that issue of what are the 7 options, what ' s going to happen with the 8 existing buildings that (Inaudible) has, 9 are you going to keep that architecture? 10 You know, what is the noise impact 11 to North Gate Village, to the Pine Ridge 12 Village . Not necessarily noise, but even 13 air pollution with all these vehicles 14 around. 15 MR. ARNOLD : Well, we appreciate the 16 feedback and we ' ll look into the details . 17 I appreciate that very much. So everybody 18 thank you for the feedback. We appreciate 19 you coming out and taking your time, and 20 like I said, if you are emailable, let 21 Sharon know, we ' ll be happy you have a link 22 to our website . 23 UNKNOWN SPEAKER: Absolutely. 24 MR. ARNOLD : Thank you very much. 25 (End of recording. ) U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PAF Page 241 of 244 Ridge Commons Neighborhood PUD Meeting April 24 , 2017 74 1 CERTIFICATE 2 3 - - - 4 5 I , Matthew J. Haas, Court Reporter and 6 Transcriptionist , do hereby certify that I was 7 authorized to and did listen to and 8 stenographically transcribe the foregoing 9 recorded proceedings and that the transcript is a 10 true record to the best of my professional 11 ability. 12 13 14 15 Dated this 5th day of May, 2017 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 MATTHEW J. HAAS Court reporter 23 24 25 U. S . LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 PIDF Page 242 of 244 SIGN POSTING INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8,COLLIER COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s)must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of fifteen(15)calendar days in advance of the first public hearing and said sign(s)must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent through the Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs,however these guidelines should not be construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC.For specific sign requirements,please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter 8 E. 1. The sign(s)must be erected in full view of the public,not more than five(5)feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s)must be securely affixed by nails,staples,or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post,or other structure. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage. 3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s)in place,and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered.If the sign(s)is destroyed,lost,or rendered unreadable,the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (10) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST HEARING DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY,PERSONALLY APPEARED SHARON UMPENHOUR 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 PL20160002360 Goodlette/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict and PL20160002306 Pine Ridge Commons PUD Amendment. �� ; ) j Q.Grady Minor&Associates,P.A. J OL l< t-tv tie �'�� 3800 Via Del Rey SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O.BOX Sharon Umpenhour,Senior Planning Technician Bonita Springs,Florida 34110 NAME(TYPED OR PRINTED) CITY,STATE ZIP STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me this 25th day of April , 2018,by Sharon Umpenhour,personally known to me or who produced as identification and who+#i4'did not take anoath. IRA ignat re of Notary Pu Joanne Janes tfl1AP.tMme of Notary Public ;,:r°" JOANNE JANES My Commission Expires: :,= MY COMMISSION#GG 187425 (Stamp with serial number) EXPIRES:March 14,2022 eonaea rnN Not�y Publ'a undernners Rev.3/4/2015 PDF Page 243 of 244 M ai n p $ fpUBLIC HEARING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND .„......,\ REQUESTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT[PUG)AMENDMENT APPROVAL PE11110Nk; PL20160002360 SOODLETTE,POLE REOOE COMMERCIAL IMfILL SUEOISTRICT An F00A•PL20100001.306 NNE RIDGE COMMONS POO ti..,.,,,,,.... e,00 +w+Nixawaamr .p a .. 4� wna. T +�Gw.Gum n .s4.,a r«u OM wniwar rr:fi.a { Ku tK 9a.al4 Ma UMW.a$ffi t 44,, 151'44.$1. x,,,..W.,a, 40, 1Ms,Gwna"'''.a*pre¢I.Aw�tneatw Ilan VA 45P1r#.t s.I m i5*ttemrM Ylb"'"'l"'" M1i/p NA teaif 4n MM44 La,..:.01.60 an a4,1,�..p M.4te i' ._ }... t�9is'''slpi4eNw1 ta4M44aa•Spt.ttIL 04,00<a 00015 00Rr Rpau.t9 0 xrc" a mua ab»r . . ti:0.00 w+w[w++ . M Po 11M4W ..W.... yxttittmM44Ya455 LU LUSS...„' t ..Yu.. .40000,000. 4 '' 1.4WtK,4A:is't0>iu 000:0, apRW+iiR(waft, is a44Se4i.4aN 5 Ta+ 4x T"'"MeM00.VV,MMM.p4 tM16 Mit(waft, Mutt akS.M 1lx.<4,1:7 M'4t.4r uaaif..i G15RL1M1 P,+Y tpM0:M.51C.bt r4 nw4dwM4Y W4.t*+'.t S.l15t.tb�N4 n4.4d, .SpWN.a44..4.at9A"""'' of.F.Tatt hMCMt:144,,2.41,tpip',..T..a44 C KII Am 4%1611 996.M *LS $54FgTJWM GMilp,,,.......,. tC,..Ca43,$6114%?416 4...A.1 ST41 ibi$0 5# y4 rii.so iE9C9ut$44n 167 I.F.F.550E i6 31 03551 it 702 40A40 p4 01N41Y C5W44*Ck244 0 5*55 554 715040 SUN*C0U$tCWAT1 i $CYSNtN[4i C2NT£4 7344 1Aia*40 Mit 2Ai?:MAT.241f1P400.mra 04/25/2018 ly&s'1 ,•• . TH COf 'HEI HV LA AND I „ �� '1 ,- 5511.i DI EL €SME 1:04.1D),A. o0VNT OVAL 11ITI.3},= ELflI6L29:31 GC-DOL€1TE.PIE RIDGE COMMERCIAL IN-ELI4U801STRLC9 �� AND PUDA-PL2OIGDOG13OR PINE RIDGE COMMONS PUG-.,a4...r.,,ea aA ;; r wi .51 *1'5 i55*5 5Re 9514&@ ps£Nlu2Y ASffi9f51 Vtc.. A4 9 5*10*'t9 a 41x5155 5155 55*55*, 555 tl3YAitk 0.a4Y ipas pi#d0ali•.ilk$aced#!�t'et±'PoorttlS eicp9 1'fUk ...H.o1,..... d,;.F.I..,,.4i4YE Art418%5$Il4k4ri.dFY,o..,.SpafiNy HPS4 tiaKhpx ffi.BSz.ontao;..7[ a 'e6 otAti;dlgKut100.'i 4Np t$A44T�4004.'0,00101:000/03:0011t1TyT.tt i 91R�4t64+i7Nk ip At„,c.p1,,,,,,:::*„ k ' tt11f tt`Ir.Juekr R£S>Mxn.r:Mats 6855!Alk 01100000 7t[1#Ykp4 tFA4A4y4 6314 b0,0,..„.1.0.0.„,c... Y.lP4414_W - r a-0 0,5 ximt.00.a ra + r fA i.N44.A 4ArRtR Ik 1taNwS0,14,;0010.1=1......0* µ$Uva 1......0 p __ ' .. P 4GUk1iG�!}N44p,.17,P 415%7:a.P...07 rtEWffiM# t�K4kome*RINYla442.4 MkiMtWN4GY1sral.... ! '11'''.4""w 85455-Tt"i m{kyr.�actor a szPrp0#001t"F i 4 Nms, ....na.0,00Rattt#ot.„, t tt OWN 00000.+sww0Sa4 asuap,. _____________.0.00$ t dc+uttut4,now r i g 1'44'I.7't'''44'''""*kt47�btlMNC"107:7417 YYLStlCAR-MRp6Rt40FAtl1f4M4[Ntt11}t iR4EXp9LM'7 40000 0 100M 00 OR 1000,00-FORR7 iR,,,.,,RTA Ap ldtll+4•igK,,4lG$E',,..,„tWRi.l44 .. t .1va,.xa.4tosAnwo an. sopa "c taurrwiw1€'a . } .tke nate w14 n,30T1-k:oo A. : .s{t ssx�past+ ++�C#�'� h.6� � 0t0 054£ 455414 25 2551.10044k ,5751. ,PRAINEOi ' n i mux,r To 3E otto I.Tot wow a fl oyst pootwotBS14AEA8'0,):55 8E�3.MDfiACR,C .UE14 Ul Y 41 1.1 k1Fski CENTER.324$TARIMA1'IRA&frA57 NAPUIR EL*KM 301112 Y "a 7 �t 1 04/25/201 8 a £a - . ,, -.L.,,,,Fi`''It 4,,,,,e,er,r er,1115,;',..,... :417 rr'r,'':,,i,r,;',:,,,:?5,,,,,FV:r,7,'rrr r :'',,].),',;J:14.1,4 :',,'' ''','!,,....k.i,tae': ; r55557sC s N tz I „1,: S y g { r "$.St I ':t'I .i 1,1`1`1 t ,. k, „tp; as 8,= 1 F .d�.�`'0ii u € ,� "ET rink 4, P1.20160'502360 GEO,LETrE P1„LL RiO&61 LO MERG 11 .I LL SUBDISTRICT AND BUDA- 12O16E002.3O PINE FUDGE LOMNIONS POD x, ,.._ ,,...,,, A : Lt, 1,,,,,.,...0.,-,..,'4,0.S.....IR 15 _J,..aSrv.,55 , Y>1..«. I:{ D s 155331.#*;515}755 C. *5 5 L s 59 4¢k ftt Y 01 P ff C t 6 5 .510 F 51555 4 .i5 5,..P 1_sa 2..R 55._I 55 8x• x 5.•,.5 f. _ S 55=.,.e.., >_;'15 1 .4 55 F 1x€§m 455 5550 51 3 C h .• f si4 at 9 1 Sgt 544 6,f, E Y as ffi 3l 5 9 .. "55 3„. t i'.t34S I# 1* §1n.E.4M.;,. R i>;.'l5 .. s, . : . 0...,`,1.&SY 9 h S R 41 E9: i 5 P 55 4 # 55 5511 R „.55 S F:„, 4 55 51 1,.. 5.5555*51*0 P➢( to v6 :i':`Li4 ••4'i;of kk 14 G ",8'F 9 1;SC 4 F*55 tf4:€.A=U',�`€T*1E GSi?Y st} 'i 5=.e ;3?& H f'' Ak .PR .LF?.5_'II c3„1 F i,. S,-.0 4,*5 595451& SUEf51*5.k$k',51t5_750*51,01s1S100`1015 , 'i E VP.PiP�`O PL 55(•A?,_SCLF__YuP COPPNTe f a�aa.S.,..,,,',41,'-'5- .NE_^T ..CLP O_ILJC1 C_I_0s r 4T R*ME#T C 4_ 323R X51*10.TRAIL EAR, Id'.,,, f 0S -, . rn'k le imag44 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on May 17,2018 commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN,SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES TO REMOVE THE GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT FROM THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND TO ADD THE GOODLETTE/PINE RIDGE MIXED-USE SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT,TO ALLOW UP TO 375 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RENTAL DWELLING UNITS AND 275,000 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS LEASABLE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT,AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 31 ACRES AND LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 10,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH,RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. (PL20160002360) & AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA,AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 99-94 THE PINE RIDGE COMMONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT(PUD),TO ADD 375 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS PERMITTED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IN THE AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE MASTER PLAN; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES;BY PROVIDING A CONVERSION RATE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL;BY REVISING EXHIBIT A,THE PUD MASTER PLAN AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 31 ACRES AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF PINE RIDGE ROAD AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD IN SECTION 10,TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA. )PL20160002306) ZPROJECT , CI ¢¢ � Z- 0: LOCATION Z tY � u- 1 Z W 2 PINE RIDGE RD ~ Q O p Q a a Iw+� I ? All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S)will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr., Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 PM.,Monday through Friday.Furthermore,the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office,Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Tamiami Trail,Suite 401 Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to May 17,2018,will be read and considered at the public hearing. If a person decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to i 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 I and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 101,Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning Commission April 27,2018 ND-1993080 I 0 PROOF O.K.BY: 0 O.K.WITH CORRECTIONS BY: ,.1 PLEASE READ CAREFULLY•SUBMIT CORRECTIONS ONLINE ADVERTISER:BCC_COMPREHENSIVE PLANNI PROOF CREATED AT:4/20/2018 10:56 AM SALES PERSON: Ivonne Gori PROOF DUE: ND-1993O8O.INDD PUBLICATION:ND-DAILY NEXT RUN DATE:04/27/18 SIZE:3 col X 9.25 in ORDINANCE NO. 2018- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY REVISING THE CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH OR PLACE OF WORSHIP. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AND COLLIER BOULEVARD IN SECTION 11, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 6.25 ACRES; AND FURTHERMORE, RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20160002584] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan;and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans;and WHEREAS, Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples, Inc. requested an amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map to revise the Conditional Use Subdistrict to allow a church or house of worship; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or an area of critical economic concern; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning _Commission (CCPC) on considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and [17-CMP-00982/1411506/1]96 Words underlined are added,words strusk-thfeugh have been deleted. Grace Romanian Church GMPA PL20160002584 5/7/18 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan on ; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small scale amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text and map amendments are attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. [17-CMP-00982/1411506/1]96 Words underlined are added,words struck eugh have been deleted. Grace Romanian Church GMPA PL20160002584 5/7/18 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this day of , 2018. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Deputy Clerk ANDY SOLIS, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legality: `t l*a: Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text and Map Amendment [17-CMP-00982/1411506/1]96 Words underlined are added,words struough have been deleted. Grace Romanian Church GMPA PL20160002584 5/7/18 EXHIBIT A GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** A. Estates-Mixed Use District *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning district within the Golden Gate Estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional uses, one of the following four sets of criteria shall be met: a) Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** c) Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** d) Transitional Conditional Uses: *** *** *** d.** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. Conditional use permits for the purpose of extending the time period for use of the structure as a model home shall be required, and shall be subject to the provisions of Section 5.04.04B. and C. of the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No.04-41, as amended. Such conditional uses shall not be subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. Page 1 Row of asterisks(*** *** ***)denotes break in text. 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 3. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97. 4. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates Zoning District is allowed on the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area. 5. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates Zoning District, is allowed on Tract 16 and the west half of Tract 15, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 4 (see map titled Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Collier Boulevard Special Provisions). *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center lmmokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades—Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Collier Boulevard Special Provisions Ex.A_PL2016-2584 GraceRomChurch G:\C BES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA`Comp Plan Amendments\2017 Cycles&Small Scale Petitions\2017 Small Scale petitions\CPSS-17•l Grace Romanian Church PL2016-2584`Exhibit A text&maps revised aid/5-4-18 Page 2 Words underlined are added;words struck through are deleted. EXHIBIT A PETITION PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 �� CONDITIONAL USES SUBDISTRICT: COLLIER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS __ 1)----- COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ___ ( N. ..._. [ ISLANDWALK UR AMBROSIA LN I __ VANDERBILT BEACH RCLJ 7TH AVE NW 7TH AVE NW 5TH AVE NW _z 5TH AVE NW 0 J m I w w SUBJECT SITE w 3RD AVE NW CPSS-2017-1 -� 1ST AVE NW N 1ST AVE NW .' GOLDEN GATE BLVD W m 1ST AVE SW 0 1ST AVE SW c z x m ca _�— z w 3RD AVE SW 3RD AVE SW —w D- m c o 0 a w J o J m J J 0 co 5TH AVE SW m _w 5TH AVE SW U U w W J O 0 7TH AVE SW 7TH AVE SW B m • PINE RIDGE RD LL __ WHITE BLVD w .. z Lo OPTED-XXX rd.No.XXX LEGEND PREPARED BY:BETH YANG.AICP CONDITIONAL USE$SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 0 750 1,500 500 3,000 Feet Y�4 COLLIER BOULEVARD SPECIAL PROVISIONS FILE:CPSS-2817-1 SITE LOCATION MAP.mtd I I DATE:32812818 I + I EXHIBIT"A" PETITION PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1 I IRRAN OFSIGNATON FATATFB DESIGNATION. AORIOULTURAL/RURALDFSCNATIOR NXED USE DISTRICT MONO DEE DISTRICT 11111 1.2 =urmn xa.wv O nweNer.Nb9wp.n �bOxnert Pre.DFM nY.pH.,9rs.e.m5�rmmv 0101 oraiuMa 9NdR.M e �-- on . ..Gr.Su...., Ea:=TUrNP;:rlk BVI GOLDEN GATE AREA COMM9RCML DISTRICT -I omm. G F em .2., PN.9�.9.N� 1111=7446 salesem �� °� p FUTURE LAND USE MAP CO � ®3 Barts. ,....rNRR.. ====-. 1 ® : 9; -r in�R W�.p .r',...,. .p c.. ^p we 1pi IMMOKALEE RD /' , F e COWAERCIAL DrsTRCT \ IN mh.,.u..��.,.Nm.r.. wo. oww....n sumo.. \ ES 044.1. .Y.e.WOT.ArNr.. 9.R.. \ 11.1 itantloll ea Jew.etartetetel.tO.,.M • w 1001Mme.rw O.9wmw,11410Cu9 ONECTWS ntrCILSAttlIttt.01..wurrtimuc*800M.00.,.c.0001 Z ICilO N WQ I __ J d I 1 W 1 W OIL WELL RD 7 CO > CO • m I- I RANDALL BLVD E IMMOKALEE RD 'r-- I 1 z p m 3 O E ill _ ._' W VAN.:RBILT Li— : •el ___._.. ` Cc w GOLDEN GATE BLVD r-' GOLDEN GATE BLVD R ti N CO GREEN BLVDi m aco W m \ti o a o W W SUBJECT SITE C W :' CPSS-2017-1 _ DPINTERSTATE 75 • • , -_ INTERSTATE 75 DAVIS BLVD / bi/%%JJ�rtot //f/ / �% S.R.Ra rc z-, //��'%,�l fr � d d //,�r / /i/ = U Y /� !/ �/ f N RATTLED .,MOCK RD / /(,,,,,/,?y/ ."?;"/,,/ . ix) ��j ii ! i GOLDEN GATE �;;� FUTURE LANG USE MAP / %i it • AMENDED-DECEMBEAa 2007 � / ADOPTED-FEBRARY,Nom (ORO.NO,2091-T71 // .-/ 1/!,.1'''''W,,./4 AMENDED-MAY 10.1892 AMENDED-OCTOBER 112009 i '' "/ IORD.N.200838) AMENDED-MAY 25.1983 AMENDED• JULY 26.2010 AMENDED-JULY 27,1888 (NDE NO.2010.31)-]11 AMENDED JULY 28.2010 -AMENDED-.APRIL 12-1988- ___.___ - --'ORD-NO.-2010.32 0 AMENDED-SEPTEMBER12.2011 I AMENDED- DAD.NO. 011-28 OCTOBER 27.1097AMENDED-NOVEMBER 18.2011 W A 88 MENDED-APRIL 11.19TEDD.NO.NOVEMBER 10.2018 N JO AMENDED-SEPTEMBER 8.7909" (ORD.NO 2.15621 U AMENDED-MAY 10.2010 N AMENDED-FEBRUARY 23.1900 (ORD NO 2019.121 14- AMENDED-MAY9.2000 AMENDED-JUNEIS.IO17 IVR. ED.917.231 AMENDED-MARCH IS.2001 � AMENDED-%%%%% + ORD ND.%X%X / \ ENDEAMENDED•E TO A.2002 j, AMENDED-SEPTEMBER 10.2003 0 WENDED-OCTOBER 20,2008 /�' 0 0.5 1 2 3 (ORD.NO.200-711 MACS AMENDED JANUARY 25.2005 / // ORD NO.2005-3 %//� �/ AMENDED-JANUARY 25.2007 rARP i .rMsxrmrw MN,Vm ORp.NO.2001-18 P99i R26E R27E I R28E 1 R29E KendallMarcia From: Jan Lopata <JL240z@hotmail.corn> "gent: Saturday, May 05, 2018 12:43 PM o: McDanielBill; FaulknerSue Subject: RE proposed zoning change on Weber Blvd S. Sir: I am a resident in the area between White Blvd and Golden Gate Blvd. off South Weber Blvd. The zoning is residential estates and has been since before I moved here over 15 years ago. I have lived in Naples since 1957. I selected this area as it was nice and a basically rural area compared to the down town area that was, even 15 years ago, getting to be over built and crowded. I know that this is just normal growth but it gets old after awhile so I chose to have a bit more elbow room and here is where I chose to build and retire and want to stay. I am sure you are aware of the proposed church that is planned to be built on the corner of Weber Blvd S and Golden Gate Blvd. Also fronting on Collier Blvd as well. Since it requires a zoning change to conditional use or whatever allows it I think the proposal still requires approval of the County commissioners by vote. The planning commission seems to be in favor of the change at this point. Weber Blvd has seen a huge increase in traffic thru this residential area and it gets worse every year. The daily traffic by parents bringing their children to and from the Cypress middle school and the people who use it to short cut the traffic on Collier Blvd. The owner of the property for the proposed church, to my knowledge isn't a resident here. That property has been for sale the whole time I have lived here and the owner has tried several times to get the zoning changed. He was denied all those times. The residents have spoken and made themselves clear that they do not want the zoning changed. The owner is not vested in this community because he owns property e cant sell for whatever profit he wants. I am sure there is more history behind that, but its not fair for the owner to make the people who live here 24/7 pay for his mistakes. The proposed entrance on Weber will make traffic on Weber a significant daily increase.The entrance should have been planned off Collier Blvd. regardless of the cost to the developer. It is possible it cant be done due to the proximity to Golden Gate Blvd. , so they figured its ok to dump all the traffic generated by the church into the neighborhood. The statement that it will only increase on Sunday is wrong as it also has proposed a day care center and there will likely be many events especially on all the holidays as well. This will likely add traffic in the evening hours as well. They even propose a farmers market. The proposed drain field is adjacent to wells and would be a health issue. When that was pointed out to the Commission at the meeting, one of the commissioners made a joke about it. I was told Collier County also purchased land near enough to it for a planned well. At the planning commission meeting they also tried to add other uses beyond the original plans hoping to get them added without documents including a residence for the pastor. There are probably even more changes the Weber Blvd. and area residents aren't aware of yet that will somehow find a way in if the zoning change is approved. What isn't included could be approved just by doing an insubstantial change to the documents once the zoning change is done. This is a residential area and should stay that way. The zoning change should not be allowed as the church would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. They even used the argument worst case scenario by using which would you rather have a 7-11 or a church. They already tried to get a 7-11 type store once before and it was denied! I don't remember what other zoning changes were attempted but they were denied as well. If you would like I can find out for you. I will also forward copies of this email to the other Commissioners and ask for their support. There was a comment made at the meeting that we would be hard pressed to stop a church. That makes it sound like its already approved. We are not anti church, we just )n't want any zoning changes that will make negative changes to our neighborhood. This is not a win/win situation. The land owner wins but the residents loose. The church comment would be valid if the zoning was already in place but its not and shouldn't be. I haven't found out if a church gets any reductions in permitting 1 and impact fees or property taxes and zoning fees either. So I wonder how much revenue the county loses if it does get built. With in about a 2-3 mile radius there are 3 or 4 churches already. The one on the corner of Vanderbilt and Collier often hires off duty cops on sundays to direct the traffic so the religious attendees can —get out of their parking lot. At this proposed site the access/exit on Weber will likely cause a traffic jam on ,veber when they all leave. The access/exit on Golden Gate Blvd can only turn right and go east or turn onto Weber where they will encounter the Weber exit. Its going to be like when the people exit a movie, they all leave at once. I think all I have said is just the tip of the iceberg. Its only going to get worse. The county principle planner is Sue Faulknersue.faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov. The petition number is SSGMPA- PL20160002584/CPSS-2017-1, and CU-PL201600002577. We the residents of this area need your support to defeat the zoning change to allow the church. Thank you for your attention and help. Jan Lopata Naples Fl 2