The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda 06/12/2012 Item # 9A61'12/2012 Itern S'.k EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to consider PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C- 4- BMUD -NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 40 residential dwelling units and up to 48,575 square feet of commercial land uses and a 350 seat theatre in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 17.89 + /- acres; and providing an effective date. OBJECTIVE: -To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) review staff's findings and recommendations along with the recommendations of the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) regarding the above referenced petition and render a decision regarding this rezone petition; and ensure the project is in harmony with all the applicable codes and regulations in order to ensure that the community's interests are maintained. CONSIDERATIONS: The Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD Ordinance proposes a maximum of 40 residential units, 48,575 square feet of commercial uses (including retail, office and medical office), 84,000 square feet of parking garage and a 350 fixed seat performance theatre and ancillary uses. The Conceptual Master Site Plan depicts limits of development (Tract A, C and D), a Preserve (Tract B), a Lake and Island (Tract E) and a Lake (Tract F and G). Tract A proposes 40 residential units; 35,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 350 seat performing arts theatre, 925 square feet of class rooms /studios, 1,650 square feet of administrative offices and 84,000 square feet of parking garage; Tract B proposes 1.18 acres of preserve; Tract C proposes 11,000 square feet of commercial /community building; Tract D proposes a community pavillion, recreation, community or public use, and pedestrian accessway/boardwalk, Tract E proposes recreation, community or public use, and pedestrian accessway/boardwalk; Tract F proposes recreation, community or public use, and open space; and Tract G proposes recreation, community or public use, and open space. Page 1 of 7 PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD May 15, 2012 Packet Page -26- J F7 The commercial use only buildings will have a maximum zoned height of 42 feet and will not exceed 3- stories. The residential use only buildings will have a maximum zoned height of 42 feet and will not exceed 3- stories. The mixed -use buildings will have a maximum zoned height of 56 feet, and will not exceed 4- stories. The site will be accessed by two ingress /egress points from Bayshore Drive and one ingress /egress point from Jeepers Drive. FISCAL IMPACT: The MPUD by and of itself will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development. However, if the MPUD is approved, a portion of the land could be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. The County collects impact fees prior to the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan as needed to maintain adopted Level of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of concurrency management, the developer of every local development order approved by Collier County is required to pay a portion of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project in accordance with Chapter 74 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Other fees collected prior to issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees. Finally, additional revenue is generated by application of ad valorem tax rates, and that revenue is directly related to the value of the improvements. Please note that impact fees and taxes collected were not included in the criteria used by staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO), and is in the Coastal High Hazard Area, all as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. In addition, the project lies within the Traffic Congestion Area (TCA), and as such one dwelling unit per gross area would be subtracted from the eligible base density of four dwelling units per acre. Relevant to this petition, the B /GTRO allows a mix of residential and commercial uses subject to various criteria. Comprehensive Planning Staff has reviewed this petition and has found it consistent with the applicable policies of the FLUE and the other applicable elements of the GMP. A detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the FLUE is contained in the attached Staff Report. Page 2 of 7 PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD May 15, 2012 Packet Page -27- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and no mitigation is required. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with the policies in Objective 6.1, 6.2 and 7.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME). A more detailed consistency review is contained in the attached Staff Report. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: The EAC heard this petition on February 1, 2012, and voted 5 -0 to approve this petition subject to the following stipulations: 1. Lighting shall be prohibited along the proposed boardwalk. 2. The applicant shall incorporate Low Impact Development standards into the design of the development where appropriate. 3. The applicant shall contact the Parks and Recreation Department or other appropriate County Agency to provide an overview of the proposed project and propose the concept of the County planting the necessary plants to improve the littoral zones of Sugden Lake on its westerly side to improve nesting habitat for birds. 4. Herbicide applications occur only during the dry months. 5. All required monitoring reports shall be submitted for a period of 5 years following the completion of construction. Staff is in agreement with all of the stipulations except 3 and 4. Staff is not in agreement with stipulation 3 because Sugden Lake is not located within the boundaries of the subject property and the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD property owner has no authority over other people's property. Staff is not in agreement with stipulation 4 because Herbicide Applicators must abide the conditions of their licensure and it is Staff's recommendation that they do so. Staff requested that the CCPC specify which EAC conditions they would recommend forwarding to the BCC for approval. The CCPC has recommended that all of the EAC recommendations be removed. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: This item was heard by the CCPC at the April 19, 2012 hearing, and by a vote of 8 -0 recommended to forward this petition to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions which have been incorporated into the PUD document: Page 3 of 7 PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD May 15, 2012 Packet Page -28- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 1. Extend the wall and buffer treatments to screen the service area at the performing arts center. 2. Deviation number 6 diagram references theater use and residential... remove the word "residential." 3. In Deviation number 6, clarify that the 42 -foot ceiling height is for interior ceiling height and not for roof height. Move dashed line on diagram from ridge of roof to ceiling. Change language in deviation from "less roof system" to "excluding roof system." 4. Add language to PUD document requiring a temporary use permit for festivals and outdoor musical events (there is a concern regarding parking capacity). 5. Reduce 40 dwelling units to 20 dwelling units. Revise language in Exhibit F, section 2.A. to state 20 dwelling units as opposed to 40 dwelling units. 6. Limit church functions to the theater and the surrounding area. Add language to Permitted use number 15 that says church uses will be limited to performing arts center and adjoining amphitheater and lawn; remove use from Tract C. 7. Boardwalk lighting shall be no higher than railing and shall be of low intensity 8. Strike staff recommendations. The recommendations have not been incorporated into the PUD document and Staff has stated the CCPC directive in the EAC section above. The following land uses have been removed from the PUD document as requested by the CCPC: 1. Homeless shelters - See Permitted Use number 30. 2. Offender halfway housing — See Permitted Use number 30. 3. Pawn shops — See Permitted Use number 41. 4. Tattoo Parlors — See Permitted Uses numbers 41 and 52. 5. Adult oriented sales and rentals — See Permitted Uses numbers 58 and 73. 6. Bottle clubs — See Permitted Use number 23. Because one letter of objection has been received, this petition has been placed on the Regular Agenda. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: [Quasi-judicial, Four -fifths vote for approval] This is a site specific rezone to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD. The burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for MPUD Rezones Ask yourself the following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. Page 4 of 7 PUDZ -PL -2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD May 15, 2012 Packet Page -29- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 1. Consider: 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. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed MPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: 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. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with MPUD 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. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan? 10. Will the proposed MPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? 11. Would the requested MPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Page 5 of 7 PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD May 15, 2012 Packet Page -30- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change 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? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: 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. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed MPUD rezone 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 [Code ch.106, art.II], as amended. 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the MPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? Page 6 of 7 PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD May 15, 2012 Packet Page -31- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. The proposed Ordinance was prepared by the County Attorney's Office. This item has been reviewed for legal sufficiency and is legally sufficient for Board action. -An affirmative vote of four is necessary for Board approval. (HFAC) RECOMMENDATION: Staff concurs with the recommendations of the CCPC and further recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the request subject to the attached ordinance that includes both the staff recommendation and the CCPC recommendation. PREPARED BY: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, Land Development Services Growth Management Division, Planning and Regulation Attachments: 1) Staff Report 2) Location Map 3) Site Plan 4) Application 5) TIS (Transportation Impact Statement) 6) EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) 7) Letters of Support 8) Letter of Objection 9) Ordinance Page 7 of 7 PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD May 15, 2012 Packet Page -32- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY Board of County Commissioners Item Number: 9.A. Item Summary: This item requires that ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Should a hearing be held on this item, all participants are required to be sworn in. Recommendation to consider PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592, Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C- 4- 13MUD -NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 40 residential dwelling units and up to 48,575 square feet of commercial land uses, up to 84,000 square feet of parking garage and a 350 seat theatre in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 17.89+/ - acres; and providing an effective date. Meeting Date: 6/12/2012 Prepared By Name: GundlachNancy Title: Planner, Principal,Comprehensive Planning 5/15/2012 2:00:22 PM Submitted by Title: Planner, Principal,Comprehensive Planning Name: GundlachNancy 5/15/2012 2:00:24 PM Approved By Packet Page -33- Name: PuigJudy Title: Operations Analyst, GMD P &R Date: 5/15/2012 4:28:17 PM Name: BellowsRay Title: Manager - Planning, Comprehensive Planning Date: 5/16/2012 7:03:29 PM Name: LorenzWilliam Title: Director - CDES Engineering Services,Comprehensive Date: 5/22/2012 10:40:09 AM Name: MarcellaJeanne Title: Executive Secretary,Transportation Planning Date: 5/30/2012 8:21:45 AM Name: AshtonHeidi Title: Section Chief /Land Use- Transportation,County Attor Date: 5/30/2012 1:13:34 PM Name: KlatzkowJeff Title: County Attorney Date: 5/30/2012 3:57:18 PM Name: FinnEd Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB Date: 5/31/2012 7:18:12 PM Name: OchsLeo Title: County Manager Date: 6/4/2012 9:15:40 PM Packet Page -34- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. AGENDA ITEM 9 -A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HEARING DATE: APRIL 19, 2012 SUBJECT: PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MIXED -USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owner: Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency 4069 Bayshore Drive Naples, FL 34112 Agents: Banks Engineering Pizzuti Solutions, LLC 10511 Six Mile Cypress Parkway, Suite 101 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 300 Fort Myers, FL 33966 Orlando, FL 32801 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a rezone of the subject 17.89± acre site from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C- 4- BMUD -NC), and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Home Zoning District (MH- BMUD -NC), to the Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) zoning district to be known as Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, to allow a mix of residential and commercial uses, comprised of a maximum of 40 residential units and 48,575 square feet of commercial uses, including retail, office and medical offices, 84,000 square feet of parking garage and a 350 seat theatre. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject PUD is located within the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District on the east side of Bayshore Drive, approximately 1,500± feet north of Thomasson Drive at 4265 and 4315 Bayshore Drive in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on following page.) Page 1 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -35- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 1 p ®del oE7 I�OMA IF E Q 8d.1 0� OQ' n ova a� °m � OB"'1 Oa OQ•7 o e aINM a ate] ® •. SE� a� 8 BBB 8 BQJ a�7 AQ7ii E CN -an i OVON NNW AIN•100 ® � o00A00 ONOM•1 3LMOd WMIIp, ESa3� O ^ I Hu3M6o 5 § p F D S aoanndrn en W O z 8$g C LL •{�= aron NOISONIM V g � X R n C � R R aroa oNnvwaaodenv zaz t e y Ru G6 { 3 9 b� $ 3Ntl0 3aoNSAre � l a a o€ eR 88& n a ff d Y 3lN NL005 a � .. (iss'a�o7 aroN HNra 3u3nooB "' 0 W Nooao 000 ©o " V - CULF OF MEXICO OWN 12 I NW.1 Law C3 =Kj ° OWN Ktdu a © mail :. .. � � . 13 im wo-.1 �► . 1 p ®del oE7 I�OMA IF E Q 8d.1 0� OQ' n ova a� °m � OB"'1 Oa OQ•7 o e aINM a ate] ® •. SE� a� 8 BBB 8 BQJ a�7 AQ7ii E 3NOS 01 LON CN -an i OVON NNW AIN•100 WHO 3aONSAVB ONOM•1 3LMOd WMIIp, ESa3� ^ I Hu3M6o 5 § p F D S aoanndrn en W O z 8$g C LL •{�= aron NOISONIM V g � X R n C � R R 3NOS 01 LON Packet Page -36- Q G cD z z O N 0— CQ G z O U O J O N J LL N D a vt z O H F W a- �p •�• °� i OVON NNW AIN•100 Oi ONOM•1 3LMOd WMIIp, ESa3� ^ I Hu3M6o 5 § i o�x F S aoanndrn W O z 8$g aron NOISONIM � a O � aroa oNnvwaaodenv zaz t e y Ru G6 { 3 9 b� $ 3Ntl0 3aoNSAre � l a a o€ eR 88& n a ff d Y 3lN NL005 a � .. (iss'a�o7 aroN HNra 3u3nooB "' 0 W " V - CULF OF MEXICO Packet Page -36- Q G cD z z O N 0— CQ G z O U O J O N J LL N D a vt z O H F W a- 0 z s _CA i y. t = m . z L rn EXHIBIT "C" MASTER PLAN CULTURAL ARTS VIi.LAGE AT BAYSHORE V id � ~s J � fj �s rr- r A7ur 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. a F� A apit E, - ✓ ! 11 W Y 1 a lqg ? A i ! ��5 4 fi�fi 1 r g!A au `1 i xi LM W� "z � +q��s;�ipoo�c m W ry+�y Y. A°Nyl1 m°� SCIS•m [�' 1 �� (/��J]+j FF o�Y a• �a IN 1v V✓ a F g € rn I F a I� 1 ---- i Y C aarse r _ 111 ro ® gil � ��IU!_� �� ' Z u� t7 ra - i { s E k3 F Zi D pp SQ gg r A7ur 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. a F� A apit E, - ✓ ! 11 W Y 1 a lqg ? A i ! ��5 4 fi�fi 1 r g!A au `1 i xi LM W� "z � +q��s;�ipoo�c m W ry+�y Y. A°Nyl1 m°� SCIS•m [�' 1 �� (/��J]+j FF o�Y a• �a IN 1v V✓ a F g € rn I F a I� 1 ---- i Y C r _ 111 ro ® gil � ��IU!_� �� ' Z u� t7 ra - ' { s E k3 F Zi D pp SQ gg m c� ^ R g y °P °4 y 3 w• 46! 4s r. x a 51 T r + F ,t- oQHy sAy n > S zar•�, Hp S m m bm''L Y 75 f'1'• N _ ° z Q Qm em� uW,- o v � • ytmssooN DATE: JANUARY 2S, 2012 PUDZrf'1-2010.592 Packet Page -37- cuL'WHAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSNORE PUO 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD Ordinance proposes a maximum of 40 residential units, 48,575 square feet of commercial uses (including retail, office and medical office), 84,000 square feet of parking garage and a 350 fixed seat performance theatre and ancillary uses. The subject site is currently undeveloped and approximately half of the site is a lake. Along the western edge of the site is a 25 -foot wide Florida Power and Light (FPL) easement. Along the eastern edge of the site there is a 30 -foot drainage and utility easement and then another 10 -foot drainage easement. Along the western portion of the northern edge of the site is a 35 -foot wide ingress /egress easement. The subject site is surrounded to the north, south and west mostly by mobile homes. To the east of the site is Sugden Park. Adjacent to the northwest corner of the site is a commercial property, across the street from the southwest corner of the site is a fire station. The subject site consists of Tracts A through G. Tract B is a preserve tract. For all of the other tracts, an interim use of community events such as festivals are proposed in addition to the principal uses proposed. The commercial use only buildings will have a maximum zoned height of 42 feet and will not exceed 3- stories. The residential use only buildings will have a maximum zoned height of 42 feet and will not exceed 3- stories. The mixed -use buildings will have a maximum zoned height of 56 feet, and will not exceed 4- stories. Seven deviations are being sought as part of this MPUD rezoning petition and they are described in detail in the analysis section of this staff report. (See page 16.) Furthermore, deviations are sought to provide portions of perimeter landscape buffers along the north, east and south property lines. These buffers will be 10 feet wide. Along the west property line, Bayshore Drive, landscaping shall be provided per the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District. The Conceptual Master Site Plan depicts limits of development (Tract A, C and D), a Preserve (Tract B), a Lake and Island (Tract E) and a Lake (Tract F and G). Tract A proposes 40 residential units; 35,000 square feet of commercial uses, a 350 seat performing arts theatre, 925 square feet of class rooms /studios, 1,650 square feet of administrative offices and 84,000 square feet of parking garage; Tract B proposes 1.18 acres of preserve; Tract C proposes 11,000 square feet of commercial /community building; Tract D proposes a community pavillion, recreation, community or public use, and pedestrian accessway/boardwalk, Tract E proposes recreation, community or public use, and pedestrian accessway/boardwalk; Tract F proposes recreation, community or public use, and open space; and Tract G proposes recreation, community or public use, and open space. The site will be accessed by two ingress /egress points from Bayshore Drive and one ingress /egress point from Jeepers Drive. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Developed with a commercial building, with a zoning designation of C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Neighborhood Commercial Page 4 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -38- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Subdistrict); and then a mobile home subdivision and lake, with a zoning designation of MH- BMUD-R3 (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Residential Subdistrict 3) East: Developed with the Sugden Park, with a zoning designation of Lake Avalon PUD South: Jeepers Drive, then a fire station with a zoning designation of C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and then single - family homes with a zoning designation of VR- BMUD -R3 (Village Residential District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Residential Subdistrict 3) West: Bayshore Drive, Moorehead Manor mobile home park with a zoning designation of MH- BMUD-R3 (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Residential Subdistrict 3); vacant land with a zoning designation of RMF- 6- BMUD -R3 (Residential Multi - family District 6, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Residential Subdistrict 3); and Windstar PUD entrance. AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict), within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B /GTRO), and is in the Coastal High Page 5 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHCRE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -39- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Hazard Area, all as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. In addition, the project lies within the Traffic Congestion Area (TCA), and as such one dwelling unit per gross area would be subtracted from the eligible base density of four dwelling units per acre. Relevant to this petition, the B /GTRO allows a mix of residential and commercial uses subject to various criteria. Specifically, the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay states: The Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. One or more zoning overlays will be adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay (applicable paragraphs are below, followed by staff comments): 1. Mixed -Use Development: Mix of residential and commercial uses are permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C -1 through C -3 zoning district uses; hotel /motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by the FLUE Policies. Mixed -use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access (vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle) to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. (1. The petition proposes a mix of residential and commercial uses and the PUD document contains language to insure that the proposed project is developed as a mixed -use. 2. The BIGTRO provides, with limited exception, that commercial uses are limited to C -1 through C -3. In addition, the recently adopted Ordinance No. 2011 -26 allows theatrical producers (a C -4 use as identified in the LDC), bands, orchestras, and entertainers. The PUD document provides for these uses allowed in the BIGTRO. 3. The PUD document and the Master Site Plan describe and depict a pedestrian oriented mixed -use project with vehicular and pedestrian access to nearby residential areas and with buildings located close to Bayshore Drive with some of the parking on the sides of these buildings.) 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Page 6 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 9, 2012 Packet Page -40- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Policies, except as provided below and except as may be limited by a zoning overlay. (Permitted density is 3 DU /A (dwelling units per acre) [base density of 4 DUTA less 1 DU /A for Traffic Congestion Area reduction], no additional density bonus is requested as part of this petition. Proposed density is less than 3 DU /A) 3. Non - residential /non- commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water- dependent and water - related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. (Criterion met.) 5. Properties with access to Bayshore Drive, are allowed a maximum density of 12 residential units per acre. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed -use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and must comply with the standards identified in Paragraph #7, below. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. (Project has direct access to Bayshore Drive. However, no additional density above the density per the Density Rating System of the FLUE is being requested as part of this petition.) Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses, densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. (A zoning overlay was adopted for the BIGTRO area.) FLUE relevant policies are stated below; each policy is followed by staff analysis. Policy 5.6: Permit the use of clustered residential development, Planned Unit Development techniques, mixed -use development, rural villages, new towns, satellite communities, transfer of development rights, agricultural and conservation easements, and other innovative approaches, in order to conserve open space and environmentally sensitive areas. (The petition is a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development that is designed to conserve open space.) 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. Page 7 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -41- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. (The Master Site Plan depicts direct access to Bayshore Drive, a collector road as identified in the Transportation Element.) Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. (The proposed Master Site Plan depicts a loop road with two vehicular access points to Bayshore Drive, as well as a third access to the south that connects the proposed loop road to Jeepers Drive.) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. (The proposed Master Site Plan depicts vehicular access to Bayshore Drive (west) and Jeepers Drive (south), a local street. Interconnection to the north and east is not possible due to existing development.) Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. (The proposed MPUD proposes a pedestrian oriented development that features a mix of residential and commercial uses, as well as civic uses. Exhibit A of the MPUD document allows for different housing types including single-family, townhouses, and two-family dwelling units.) Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses as set forth in the Land Development Code." It is the responsibility of the Zoning Services Section staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning Staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period.- The project is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. Additionally, the project is located within the County's TCEA (Transportation Concurrency Exception Area), and is subject to Policies 5.4, 5.5, and 5.6 of the Transportation Element. There are "significant" impacts identified that are above the applicable 2 % -2 0/o-3% threshold established in Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element. However, these impacts are not considered to be adverse, because each of the links found to be "significantly" impacted are within the boundary of Page 8 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -42- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. the East Central TCEA, and would not be considered to attain failure even if the minimum LOS (Level of Service) had been exceeded. Staff recommends that the project be found consistent with Policy 5.4. of the Transportation Element. Policy 5.43 applies, and the project is exempted from the transportation requirements of Capital Improvement Element, Policy 5.3. Therefore, no mitigation is required. Only those TDM (Traffic Demand Management) strategies defined in Policy 5.6 are applicable. They will become requirements of the future Site Development Plan (SDP) only if exception from concurrency is sought. Bayshore Drive Impacts: The first link that is impacted by this MPUD is Link 7.0, Bayshore Drive between Thomasson Drive and US -41. The p.m. peak hour, peak direction impact proposed on Bayshore Drive is 128 directional trips. This represents a 6.57 percent impact on Bayshore Drive. This segment of Bayshore Drive currently has a remaining capacity of 1,308 trips, and is currently at LOS "B" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR (Annual Update and Inventory Report). This roadway segment is located within the County's adopted TCEA. US -41 Impacts: Secondary impacts made by this MPUD are found on Link 91.0, US -41 between the Airport Road and Davis Boulevard. The p.m. peak hour, peak direction impact proposed on US -41 is 49 directional trips. This represents a 1.8 percent impact on US -41. This segment of US -41 currently has a remaining capacity of 989 trips, and is currently at LOS "D" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. This roadway segment is located within the County's adopted TCEA. Thomasson Drive Impacts: Secondary impacts made by this MPUD are found on Link 108.0, Thomasson Drive between Bayshore Drive and US -41. The p.m. peak hour, peak direction impact proposed on Thomasson Drive is 59 directional trips. This represents a 7.8 percent impact on Thomasson Drive. This segment of Thomasson Drive currently has a remaining capacity of 346 trips, and is currently at LOS "B" as reflected by the 2011 AUIR. This roadway segment is located within the County's adopted TCEA. No subsequent links are found to be significantly impacted by this project. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (COME): Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards." To accomplish that, Policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with Policies 6.1 and 6.2 regarding the selection of preserves. The property site contains 17.8 acres of which 2.20 acres is considered native vegetation. The proposed native vegetation preserve of 0.55 acres fulfills the minimum requirement of 0.55 acres or 25 percent of the Page 9 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -43- ,... : # . 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. existing native vegetation on site. A conservation easement dedicated to Collier County shall be placed over the preserve. As required by Policy 6.2.1, a wetland jurisdictional determination will be conducted by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) during the first development order. As required by Policy 6.1.4, prohibited exotic vegetation shall be removed from the site and maintained in perpetuity. As-required by Policy 7.1.2, a listed species survey was conducted on the property and is contained in the EIS. GMP Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the FLUE. ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the criteria on which a determination must be based. These criteria are specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13. The Staff evaluation establishes a factual basis to support the recommendations of Staff. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for the recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed and are listed under the Rezone Findings and PUD Findings on the proceeding pages of this Staff Report. Environmental Review: Environmental Services Staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD documents to address any environmental concerns. This petition was required to submit environmental reports and a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Commission (EAC) was required because active wading birds were found on the project site. The property contains approximately 2.6 acres of South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) wetlands. There are a total of 0.16 acres of proposed wetland impacts. The remaining 2.44 acres of wetlands are proposed to remain and 0.55 acres of those remaining wetlands will be placed under Collier County preservation. A listed species survey for this project has been conducted. Two listed wading bird species were observed on site, the little blue heron and the tricolored heron. No active stick nests were observed but eight inactive stick nests were observed in the Melaleuca in the freshwater marsh. An additional updated wading bird survey has been conducted. A total of 23 wading bird nests were observed during the survey. Of those 23 nests, 14 were unoccupied (species utilizing them could not be determined). The remaining nests were six active Anhinga nests and three active little blue heron nests. Little blue heron chicks were not observed in the nests but were observed in the southwest corner of the cattail marsh. Page 10 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -44- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. FWC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) was contacted by the applicant's environmental consultant to obtain their technical assistance. FWC staff stated that no permits or buffers were required to remove any inactive nests found onsite. The applicant has chosen to draft a Wading Bird Habitat Management Plan ( WBHMP) (EIS Exhibit J) which will result in no taking of any of the active wading bird nests. The goal of the WBHMP is to improve existing habitat and relocate potential wading bird nesting habitat to areas more compatible with the proposed development. The development is proposed to be located to the west of the wading bird habitat. The plan proposes to treat exotic vegetation in place with an EPA approved herbicide in the western portion of the project site. Then to enhance that eastern portion, the shoreline will be planted with pond apple and willow trees to encourage wading birds to nest in the those areas. In summary, this management plan will slowly "phase" out the exotic vegetation currently being used closer to the proposed development footprint while not disturbing or altering nesting activity. At the same time it should provide equal or more suitable nesting habitat to the east. Transportation Review: Transportation Department Staff has reviewed the petition and they recommend approval of the PUD Ordinance as revised on March 22, 2012. Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition, has no objection and notes the following: This project will tie into the existing 12 -inch force main along Bayshore Drive (PS 304.02). From PS 304.02, the existing flows go to PS 304.10, then to PS 304.00, and ultimately discharges to the South County Water Reclamation Facility (SCWRF). Based on a review of the County hydraulic model results, the downstream force mains, and wastewater reclamation facility have sufficient capacity to accommodate this connection. Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management Staff provided the following comment: "There are no issues with EMS." Zoning Review: Relationship to Existing and Future Land Uses: A discussion of this relationship, as it applies specifically to Collier County's legal basis for land use planning, refers to the relationship of the uses that would be permitted if the proposed zoning action is approved, as it relates to the requirement or limitations set forth in the FLUE of the GMP. The proposed uses, as limited in the MPUD Ordinance, are consistent with the GMP, as previously noted. The actual uses proposed, as limited in the MPUD Ordinance, should be compatible with the land uses that have been developed on adjacent tracts. Rezone Findinzs: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of 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" (Staff's responses to these italicized criteria are provided below): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. Page 11 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -45- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. The Comprehensive Planning Department has indicated that the proposed PUD rezone is consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) land use designation of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) and Transportation Planning Staff provided an analysis of the applicable objectives, goals and policies of the Transportation Element, and finds that the project is consistent with Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Zoning staff provided an analysis of other pertinent GMP objectives and policies, and recommends that the petition be deemed consistent with the overall GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern is characterized by developed commercial uses and mobile homes along with a lake to the north, a developed park to the east, a developed fire station to the south along with developed mobile home uses to the north, south and west. This project will be consistent with the existing land use patterns. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The currently approved C- 2- BMUD -NC (Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use - Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and MH- BMUD -NC (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District—Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict) project boundaries allowing commercial uses was deemed to be of sufficient size and did not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed MPUD does not change the projects consistency with the FLUE. Therefore, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed MPUD will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. 3. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The MPUD district boundaries are logically drawn and they are consistent with the Urban (Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict) on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The growth and development trends and changing market conditions make the proposed rezoning desirable for the applicant. The rezoning is not necessary, per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. 5. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The development standards and landscaping requirements contained in the MPUD document are intended to mitigate any adverse impact to the living conditions in this neighborhood if the proposed rezoning is approved. 6. 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 Page 12 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -46- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the proposed MPUD and has recommended approval of the petition based upon transportation related GNP policies. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The project will be required to obtain a permit from the South Florida Water Management District. Drainage problems should not be created when construction is done in accordance with the permit. 8. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. All projects in Collier County are subject to the development standards that apply generally and equally to all zoning districts (i.e. open space requirement, corridor management provisions, etc.) that were designed to ensure that light penetration and circulation of air do not adversely affect adjacent areas. This project will be subject to those same standards. 9. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning. However, zoning by itself may or may not affect values since value determination by law is driven by market value. The mere fact that a property is given a new zoning designation may or may not affect value. 10. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties around this property are already developed as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed rezoning should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 11. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the GMP, a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the 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. 12. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The property is presently undeveloped. The subject property could be developed within existing C- 2- BMUD -NC (Commercial Convenience District, Bayshore Mixed Use District- Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); C- 4- BMUD -NC (General Commercial District, Bayshore Mixed Use - Page 13 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -47- . .. h.. ...,h +WF OW06 � S #+b.xne.yx ;.n. rt. ....: +.<<- hry3,'�e- 956x.: >- >+Y —..:. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict); and MH- BMUD -NC (Mobile Home District, Bayshore Mixed Use District — Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict) zoning regulations. 13. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The PUD document and the allowable development has been found. consistent with the GMP.. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban - designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 14. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and Staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 15. 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 site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 16 The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in the LDC regarding Adequate Public Facilities. The project must demonstrate consistency with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities. This petition has been reviewed by County Staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the rezoning process, and that Staff has concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 17. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 1O.O2.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Page 14 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -48- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. The type and pattern of development proposed should not have a negative impact upon any physical characteristics of the land, the surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Furthermore, this project, if developed, will be required to comply with all county regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities pursuant to Section 6.02.00 Adequate Public Facilities Requirements of the LDC. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application provided satisfactory evidence of unified control. The MPUD document and the general LDC development regulations make appropriate provisions for the continuing operation and maintenance of common areas. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this Staff Report. Based on that analysis, Staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses and the use mixture within the project itself. Staff believes that this petition is compatible, both internally and externally, with the proposed uses and with the existing undeveloped land. Additionally, the Development Commitments contained in the PUD document provide additional requirements the developer will have to fulfill. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Although development of the project has not yet commenced, the timing or sequence of development in light of concurrency requirements does not appear to be a significant problem for this project based upon the transportation commitments contained in the PUD document. In addition, the project's development must be in compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Page 15 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -49- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Ability, as applied in this context, implies supporting infrastructure such as wastewater disposal system, potable water supplies, and capacity of roads, is supportive of conditions emanating from this MPUD development. 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. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this MPUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The development standards in this MPUD are similar to those standards. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking seven deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in PUD Exhibit E. The petitioners' rationale provided to support each deviation is provided in the Justification/Rationale for the Deviations document that is included in the application material. Deviations are a normal offshoot of the PUD rezoning process following the purpose and intent of the PUD zoning district as set forth in LDC Section 2.03.06 which states in part: It is further the purpose and intent of these PUD regulations to encourage ingenuity, innovation and imagination in the planning, design, and development or redevelopment of relatively large tracts of land under unified ownership or control. PUDs .... may depart from the strict application of setback, height, and minimum lot requirements of conventional zoning districts while maintaining minimum standards by which flexibility may be accomplished, and while protecting the public interest.... Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.161.2. which states, `Buffers are required between mixed use PUDs, BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts that abut residential property. A minimum 10 -foot wide landscaped area shall be required. This area shall include: a six -foot high opaque masonry wall; a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center; and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height, and 3 feet on center at the time of planting. Landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall." The alternative proposed is a 10 -foot wide alternative "A" buffer on Tract "A" and on Tract "C" adjacent to the MH- BMUD -NC zoned portion of the vacant property which abuts the internal loop road, as shown on the Master Plan sheet 2 of 6. (See Attachment C: Master Plan Set.) Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is requested due to the existing lake on the subject property which connects to the lake on the adjacent property that has frontage on Bayshore Drive. The adjacent property has split zoning with C -2- BMUD -NC along the portion abutting Bayshore Drive and MH- BMUD -NC on the eastern portion. This deviation is for the eastern portion only. Construction of a six foot high opaque masonry wall and landscaping of the intensity of the code is an impractical application with respect to the proposed conceptual Master Site Plan at the applicable location. This deviation enhances the proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development by providing a unified and seamless continuous buffering along the adjacent property since the entire property is designated as BMUD -NC in the Page 16 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -50- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. overlay. The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would. Approval of this deviation request is consistent with the aforementioned Board of County Commissioner and CRA resolutions. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliange with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Furthermore, the relaxation of the wall requirement would allow views into the existing lake. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.F.2. which states, "Buffers are required between mixed -use PUDs, BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts that abut residential property. A minimum 10 -foot wide landscaped area shall be required. This area shall include: a six -foot high opaque masonry wall; a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center; and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height, and 3 feet on center at the time of planting. Landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall." The alternative proposal will allow no buffer along the northern property line (portion of Tract "F ") and southern property line (Tract "G ") that is located within and adjacent to the lake for the area as depicted on Exhibit "C" "MPUD Conceptual Master Site Plan" and Exhibit "C" page 2 of 6. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is requested due to the existing lake on the subject'property which connects to the lake on the adjacent property to the north and the portion of the lake that is adjacent to the southeastern property line. This deviation enhances the proposed Mixed Use Planned _Unit Development by allowing the existing lake to remain. Alternatively, the lake would have to be filled in the northern area to provide a buffer, which is not a feasible option and would remove the adjacent properties' lake front view. To the south, the current view from the adjacent properties would be blocked as well. Further, installation of a wall in the southern area is not consistent with the natural environment and any wall or vegetation would be difficult, if not impossible to maintain. The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would. Approval of this deviation request is consistent with the aforementioned Board of County Commissioner and CRA resolutions. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.F.3 which states, "A shared 10 -foot wide landscape buffer with each adjacent property contributing a minimum of 5 feet is required between BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts abutting commercial zoned districts or abutting BMUD -NC or BMUD -W Subdistricts. However, the equivalent buffer area square footage may be provided in the form of landscaped and hardscaped courtyards, mini- plazas, outdoor eating areas, and building Page 17 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -51- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. foundation planting areas." The alternative will allow a 10 -foot wide alternative "A" buffer on Tract "A" adjacent to the commercial parcel to the north and on Tracts "A" and "C" adjacent to the C -2- BMUD -NC zoned portion of the vacant property as shown on "Exhibit "C" page 2 of 6. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is requested due to the existing lake on the adjacent property which has frontage along Bayshore Drive. This adjacent property has C- 2- BMUD -NC zoning on the portion of the property fronting Bayshore Drive, including a portion of the existing lake on the site which would require the shared buffer that is proposed through this deviation. The remainder of the portion of the property with the existing lake is zoned MH- BMUD -NC and is currently not buildable due to the lake. This deviation enhances the proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development by providing a unified and seamless buffer along the adjacent property. The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would. Approval of this deviation request is consistent with the aforementioned Board of County Commissioner and CRA resolutions. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 44 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A, Table 11 "Design Standards for the BMUD Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" which requires a waterfront setback of 25 feet, to allow a minimum waterfront setback of 10 feet (0 feet with bulkhead) as shown on Exhibit "C" page 2 of 6. Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Lake setbacks can be reduced from 10 feet to 0 feet subject to the requirements of Section 4.02.05 of the LDC. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is requested due to the odd configuration of the existing lake on -site and the proposed compact development of the site. The requested setback is consistent with some of the adjacent properties in the area. This deviation enhances the proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development by allowing the design flexibility necessary to construct a viable project within the existing conditions of the site. The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would. Approval of this deviation request is consistent with the aforementioned Board of County Commissioner and CRA resolutions. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.161.2. which states, `Buffers are required between mixed use PUDs, BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts that abut residential property. A minimum 10 -foot wide landscaped area shall be required. This area shall include: a six -foot high opaque Page 18 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -52- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. masonry wall; a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center; and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height, and 3 feet on center at the time of planting. Landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall." The alternative will allow a minimum 10 -foot wide buffer with no wall, same number of trees and shrubs; however instead of a single row of shrubs, shrubs shall be planted in groupings along the lake edge and around the building foundation along the northern edge of Tracts A and D. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is requested due to the odd configuration of the existing lake on -site, the proposed compact development of the site, and the existing conditions of the area. This deviation has been coordinated with staff and proposes an alternate buffer specific to the parameters of this project. This deviation enhances the proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development by allowing the design flexibility necessary to construct a viable project within the existing conditions of the site. The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would. Approval of this deviation request is consistent with the aforementioned Board of County Commissioner and CRA resolutions. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A, Table 11, Design Standards for the BMUD Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, which requires that the first floor ceiling shall be no less than 12 feet and no more than 18 feet in height from the finished floor to the finished ceiling and shall be limited to commercial uses only. This proposed deviation will remove the maximum height requirement to accommodate potential uses such as a theater, etc. and to remove the requirement for first floor to be commercial uses only. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is requested specifically for the requested theater use on site. As previously mentioned, CRA Resolution No. 08 -60 recommended the Collier County Board of County Commissions create by ordinance a Cultural District to encourage the creation, renovations and adaption of facilities for cultural arts activities. The proposed theater use is consistent with the Bayshore Cultural District Needs Assessment. Additionally, a staff initiated Growth Management Plan Amendment adopted on November 21, 2011 eliminates the one -story height maximum of 14 feet from the GMP. The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.133.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Page 19 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 9, 2012 Packet Page -53- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.03.A. Table 3, number 3 which requires a minimum building separation for multistory parking structures of "1 foot of accessory height =1 foot of building separation ", to allow a 0' building separation to allow for a commercial building to abut or attach to a parking structure. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is requested due to the proposed conceptual plans that have been developed for the subject property. The conceptual plans proposed for the site have been developed consistent with the previously mentioned Collier County Board of County Commissioners Resolutions and CRA Resolution No. 08 -60 regarding the Cultural District. The proposed design allows abutting/attached uses to the proposed parking structure. The proposed alternative plan accomplishes the purpose and intent of this Section in the same manner as the provisions would and additionally by providing flexibility to enhance Architectural design in the proposed Mixed Use Planned Unit Development. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3., the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.13.51, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: s The EAC heard this petition on February 1, 2012, and voted 5 -0 to approve this petition subject to the following stipulations: 1. Lighting shall be prohibited along the proposed boardwalk. 2. The applicant shall incorporate Low Impact Development standards into the design of the development where appropriate. 3. The applicant shall contact the Parks and Recreation Department or other appropriate County Agency to provide an overview of the proposed project and propose the concept of the County planting the necessary plants to improve the littoral zones of Sugden Lake on its westerly side to improve nesting habitat for birds. 4. Herbicide applications occur only during the dry months. 5. All required monitoring reports shall be submitted for a period of 5 years following the completion of construction. Staff is in agreement with all of the stipulations except 3 and 4. Staff is not in agreement with stipulation 3 because Sugden Lake is not located within the boundaries- of the subject property and the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD property owner has no authority over other people's property. Page 20 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -54- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Staff is in agreement with all of the stipulations except 3 and 4. Staff is not in agreement with stipulation 3 because Sugden Lake is not located within the boundaries of the subject property and the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD property owner has no authority over other people's property. Staff is not in agreement with stipulation 4 because Herbicide Applicators must abide the conditions of their licensure and it is Staff's recommendation that they do so. EAC Stipulations of Approval have been made conditions of approval of the Cultural Arts Village MPUD. Staff requests that the CCPC specify which EAC conditions they would recommend forwarding to the BCC for approval. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on January 18, 2012, at 5:30 p.m. at the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency), 4069 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida. In attendance were the applicant's team and county staff along with 37 people from the public. Please see Attachment B, Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis, prepared by Jean Jourdan, Principal Planner, Bayshore /Gateway Triangle CRA. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, revised on April 4, 2012. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ- PL2010 -0592 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Lighting shall be prohibited along the proposed boardwalk. 2. The applicant shall incorporate Low Impact Development standards into the design of the where appropriate. 3. All required monitoring reports shall be submitted annually for a period of 5 years following the completion of construction. Page 21 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -55- PREPARED BY: !WJ AA h 61 kv� W-/k NANCY GU!N L H, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER GROWTH NA MENT DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION n WILLIkM D. LORENZ, Jr., P.E., DIRECTOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION NICK CASALAT GROWTH MAN DIVISION Attachments: A. Ordinance B. Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis C: Master Plan Set (Sheets 1 through 5) D: Letters of Support E: - Letter of Objection 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. M" ) %[a DATE a yt 2-` , Z 012- DATE 4(4/fIL DATE DATE Tentatively scheduled for the June 12, 2012, Board of County Commissioners Meeting Page 22 of 22 PUDZ- PL2010 -0592, CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD April 5, 2012 Packet Page -56 MYOS Ol 1DN / 7 now � Utz. g MOa Ntl A Nnoo V.45w off 4 F Q i 9'.Ea B 0 �.� ew..�'- - �o0A00 99 0_r 0 tat�ii D u Da38N 1 M.Od —0 NE&3 s3MV1 ODONV3l ,°Jw Mimi sm �3 2m - um - a ° $ c woe NO1S•JNINI - d J �y ?�� `� �� "VA DtlOtl 9NITnd'1tlOd81Y IN � - �w� 0 < •� _ 3Nlu1 3tlo.s A ` 01. ee N< a� -� W5 �� s n a l0�ese lade �� Am 3LN NLIpS 0 - �• niti H ttsa'e'o) 0-O AN 31191OO " 0 oer� a� level IW`�tl1 OW ©cin r� ^ OWN v 8� oiiiiiiiiiiM °ate G - p off o arm aA e mill A B • 8�3 BED A81.7 E# I ® 01113= 8O B� O 8' SKE1 EM"-. Mw MYOS Ol 1DN / 7 now � Utz. g MOa Ntl A Nnoo V.45w off 4 F Q i 9'.Ea B �1 �.� ew..�'- 99 0_r tat�ii D u Da38N 1 M.Od —0 NE&3 s3MV1 ODONV3l ,°Jw ® sm �3 2m - um - a ° $ c woe NO1S•JNINI - d J �y ?�� `� �� "VA DtlOtl 9NITnd'1tlOd81Y � g �w� < •� _ 3Nlu1 3tlo.s A ` ee N< a� �� W5 �� s n a l0�ese lade �� Am 3LN NLIpS 0 - - niti H ttsa'e'o) 0-O AN 31191OO " 0 oer� a� level IW`�tl1 OW ©cin r� ^ GULF OF MEXICO v 8� oiiiiiiiiiiM °ate � - o arm aA e oowd aa:: B • 8�3 BED A81.7 E# I ® 01113= 8O B� O MYOS Ol 1DN / 7 now V6 wall Zl,0Z /Zl,/9 Q V Z z O N SQ L Z 0 U O J 0 0 N J d N O a 4t � g MOa Ntl A Nnoo off 4 F Q i 99 Db3e�H3l1NM �' tat�ii D u Da38N 1 M.Od —0 �y5 s3MV1 ODONV3l ,°Jw 2m - n w - a ° $ c woe NO1S•JNINI - d J �y ?�� `� �� DtlOtl 9NITnd'1tlOd81Y � g �w� < •� _ 3Nlu1 3tlo.s A ` ee N< a� �� W5 �� s n - 3LN NLIpS 0 - - niti H ttsa'e'o) 0-O AN 31191OO " u> snl level IW`�tl1 OW ^ GULF OF MEXICO V6 wall Zl,0Z /Zl,/9 Q V Z z O N SQ L Z 0 U O J 0 0 N J d N O a 4t M z W t Gi w .� n W)) m m q U o 1. 4 ;� -85- abed �aWi�Jed N z = z w pr y Z U p Q3 N N $$ U IJ < < < a a` w a N Q 5 J a IL Z a n w m cno 'm° C.4 n yO U N p Il C TWO 04 Yj W Q N w Q N V Nj j N x tn= C R ml SW F O Q N (W/) fW/1 a Z N S S a N W N 7 N C < w O > > 7 1� F 1a1 C� d p w o W M is I U F W Z� U U U M� 1- ? a avwi i 'ai' (4' . o CJC O O w m Z 00 mo m m �o mw m m r z13 8 Mw� a o P< a aK M IL KU W�Za Za `a �J am z Li vf�N O W �� OK .z6 o �'6 : m� g m Uw x Z FaF '� a :j 6 Z 2U a �Nw NUS tw9 Z �U"7' ZQ Z Z <Uol7' C <�U W < V ♦Y. g w < wit w °�o m > >o of > > <F sE �' 3 omo DmN � z <J 1`a1i � ° > = �'$ -Rog Jao 3w 2 2 �nW ;o= ! °Si 4� Y 7J C9 D ZMKN C9 O S OU O O �NOw F �K> > =9 z X O <�Fr F v o_ vv U U �N <ip F gym- N< g ,�„ NFL < a old oU 7dU I < <N< >wm m� < rpq iiz�o .).apI'?zZVii!''a��`avai:ea°J) a °W°WF!`' icy °wpOw az_W _J. E` z J o WW� 2 w W �7 N < W < ��o Zw m pF F I�IN/) -Y -i ��w FWN W FW KGZ >F�NS 000 �� p� -� F = k L)a N iai l41 �I wva� °<a1�X °v�c°�c°�a ��d�R$Piw$ pwa•is 2W.N�a p 9wo p. sZ w p m�Z wU Wp < W s ...,.,� .,�..n.,� z ? x ,. z o > a S ¢ Z Of e <Q N N J z @ ! Z N O �g�y M a a F a < N Riz z m ` V / o Z < Z W W c" z !! Z 6- mW e J < o w W N o K Z oO FQ m O Or> < N(L zN� ink cLLI o � � < o o J3Ow p p wF =�Qxr N< < 5;=, L) NO o Y a <m 5 -U 0 g zoLLjwZ=) a °< O wO�z< 3<f aOgOw oz- < �7mWMO< 'USQ Q N a Z Q w < 2F <m.=� d'W . a :3- U N <> W 4 Z .� Zm Z<W as Lj V 1S wr3z U <OQQ Lj 33 Z Z M -W J N<< U p 4 N N )o_Z <z �O NN 2 a w< o7 w'--w �o Lj uZS6aw= N o< Fl^ w w <w)�a i N n :r ui co n W CN, 051$¢ s S F 0-4 s bA a e .. 5 dO Z - „0„ ,L1fi1H)CA o o w A -6S- a ,9ed lal�ed m m H W'� I V) I .:... �. m a 12 O I K D NOV913S 0 3NIl NOV913S None 631VM O 3903 'o°N3 �l < QCs Z i., / W m � V s07 .N OW ly WJWI�.IW O� wm F maw W Y < r QUIn W mi b SOY W Wr m UW OQ WO m p'.: Ld z OOLm --O NJZD .:. �i O W W W W< •., �.Z '� Ml gpAg O =No QJUS° QZ o- ;'.' Ld Q U W = wL- ( Q li r O ? m o ¢ _ Z Ln W�¢J� NOV813S Ol °_: IL og�o <0Z 3NIl NOV813S oNlnne r$ mm wWNEO� m p w 7w Wlx- Y w �= rU in 5, Z r �rW.zWY Z W�O3 =�axO m Y 0 CL ��W (nOW3U Z Ir M (n W W N m N N MZ.@ 0 = FIn In ZIn Qr F-O w°x� <W ww O z i� il`. W w E. S NQaw000 ?J31VM30 9�oW°Q�I .� Q O 6�', bi N ON�O�YOOw O Z J UJw F2N J mQmW� aF W ' %. 30 �.�0 a <00 <xm<wz C? z �� ae� wWmo WV)0LLIW a 0 nr ��nwNm N° wz V a pag$R V o�e O V I O U m .. IZ = IW' W Q W N J >� U w O Q w O Li J y S w O N Q z I O' V 0 O .-O W a Q W 00 Q w j z QZ-wQ(n0° °mow <_ °WD U OO °�Z. F- W° g.. �Qw —ZOM< wzm Em Q�r� of ° W UU W U �xmQW J F- "..i: w<WO¢¢^OSK N<OUF -W�OOW J��d(nO0 .. �InJJ�O �p LLJ ��:. ��mOm°QWO azz>�OLIUOW Z �UN3�� wN O ¢� J0- O ZN70 H,1-_W�Z0 W�'•p w < } 0UQ �¢ r'J IW-�xQx J °^J viO 30�' QN a Iyi 07mOW QQd 0 J J r 0 o W Nj��z�WQdQ n Z ��wQOZ�r� aZ0(nHpOQZI o �w r -m°OQr x •• m�3 r0Zw xZ< 3Z�W(- Orr OJO° p- xUUUZp<�O W °Z= ¢w Wes^ a N W <,== Ij o ° 3am rxS? m U0 l -OJWQZ Ur�� -r J5� O wm C \S N U Uw °wliKr z OOZQ N q oWajO= �wQNpO'SOm ° °m O ¢¢ Z ��o0<z 3NIl ,11d3d0?Jd mzaE(Wjpw� °I «J0 F= ZO< n.m —vi I a — J -' itlfr€ 6m, 0:n Ow D woNNbN>SU oa33aQQr= 3Nn la3doad °aOZZUi�`r Q oaoc=WOQC�z ¢ z _� m p °Jo OW °pmal _ > OOH ZwZo Z W °WQ�< er<waz2 rx wO~ BUZZ }zrl -o a }Q Zr r OL�waF -w U Z0 ;0<F-xZE Z�mm «Qwr r l O °OOWr'l��w< oz = <r0� � 0 0-W Op UF- w Q °C= -w : zZL�Ww WW moxZ W °d _ ¢ ° O °r Uo ~ <4 W0.- (nNQ d.r U)mL,r WZ3Qw cnQUZra Q =m �mxQZ aili u o °UW « �Q ^OOU�r� UwzIOrcn <° 0mw =ro�o �I z Z Zmra x�wo S� 9,20=,w0Z xw W_ r 3rY z OW �OWF-OIZ 0�m0?°0Of OO �WZ-v, <WW F'< 0 WWZ OWZr< -<O' K° ZO -J< IlJ ....,, .. •�,L ,.. W =�WNL"(n0< ° <° I+7 > L, Iw,- <Z0Q wXI}- .J�W=JZr wmof QOC:0§ < W �UQOaww Jm3z<U< W mwwmmQmwwP -� W = Z _O mwON °ZZa _ S_ r O Yza LLI i''- F WWO- JwF -�mo YUOOw �ZCL d LIJ wcn W' l.. °<C°ro 0 (n3dwQN<0rw F wWJ <W rC.) UU < V)3Of<O C�� <Z (n°��WZ °Q o- Q wm QQCncn(nO << = 6 LU oQZ� �z Qd OQ_QW<OF W Z�WQ�<U'QO° s:a I V1 p FmwaWNZZv° F3- °<m?Z =� wW >° °ter to �w�WwnzzO O mom !'cam bdqd� wall Z l,OZ /Z i/9 ��o Q »o= < m�z SOH o S01 LLJ _InNWJm <Zr d' W�mW Ox JJ -j d OQ <�wU7 WQ �� We 5 .q0 E . - "0" ,LI HIHya } �e1 N LIJ W a Z o -09- aged laPed = 1' C�a v w y nO2Q b,I �+ = CoC oo if ♦✓i N IN M 2 w K 0 m 4 W c U :. � � G i Q m XO _O W p Q ` _ _Z 1. <z Mxap �v3~ �N om NC7 CO U p o V r W ¢ w 55 w N m M N Q H Z? Z�oQ z W U m < N Z ¢ N W 1 1 0 ul ul d U W W V W � O I¢ L f � w 1 f Qo m dO i1 ¢ o f o� o S ,,< zoa wl awl W' Lam' .- a < a< 41�00 Qp¢¢ °moo ' -- iz = l o� z o ; m D-1 L H 'W a (ny - NI N -V 1 M. GI (•" �^ C'4 -J Id zz 1 1 1 1 °LL J J iv �i O V s 3 000mD W m m UZw J 0W/ O LL na,� ;O Z; w Nf ypQ{ J 0 Z :• OU Z Fy Q IL w .:�:. a ::' Vj V g '7 ZZ� Y5 O 11 Z V-a w0U0 w Zw ~ 0��00�5 U W N1 Q :.N Cam, ..m U w m= W�¢ O O N W V 1 Q N d m V o i 6 O y O m O Fr > p V) 2 0 VI Q O¢ p W F W 0 Q S Z NN 0 LLJ U Q O d U V w Z J S y M ~a W 7 Z J N Q \_< Q > Z Z W ( S OOH V z io \ " W �kQ U Z m o a ,. �y1 Z .H O Z Q p LLJ W `5 N P Lo w O 0 5 d o a 1HOGH ONI011ne INMIXVW ,Zb Ix ww0W CL o m w V N = �CY " Q m m W Q O LLJ ib OLZ R _dam" OI- 1 Ow CEO J Z Z N r7m0 v� Z O �: x w �wV)QO3�oa o W W o oaoz ' W C` K Q d' W m Q Q Wa oQ o a U x U 0 J w- >>cn cn J Z O F- cn w�a W w w m w Q U W U) ;�zo¢ X1.;,.'.1.. UO �' W W O W Q Z miaow �zv -¢ F U d wao =aDWm o ? 1. ¢zv ~woo w0m cn0UJ¢ J Z O Z O Q Q� w W m 0 w U p U VI W O laJ i �'- W J Q L S O F- Ul l Z W W Q F Q F- W =�aww =w?U 0W vUCy°ww vU)�zw >a U O ccr) ~ J � W~ 0 Z v) Q Z3:0 Z m m QNUJ1+ - ~Z nQW O J-M O <vs U= U (n W xM (1HOI3H ONIl30 LU <, <z a= O - _ w a w HSINId 01 80013 HSINI3 301S NI) ~ x w m o - � _ = (N31S),S 3008 ManlOX3) (0 m = o =N�w� = Lo V l 1HOGH Z :):2 a o z Q ONIQlfB 3 SN2OOd 1S21p O N w oz,¢n in, Li WNcn O F Z� Z Q m 5; kktlkGk ¢ 0 0 V) V Z mLd~J M0 J OUw W�0 J Lp d VW Q u d '- O V L j O U < V) Z N m W E . . . F- N4 M- N F W � �1 Z 0 w Z o= w N o� 0 3NIl Ala3dOdd W O U Z¢ O Lo - Q W O i 1 V m a= w_ z v = O w w¢ wow - - -- a� - - - - -- ---- - -� - -- } - - -� Nz�O?=mWO a ��N ~�a OOl Z a1! 0 a Q Z� 0 0 d J 0= 0 Z J Z 0 0� 'o H J 0 O IS IS LJi1S Q 1 H�Z LL m O U 0 V) m O Q 0 U z ct DIV Z�Z Z wL OIL n_Z SI �tW Z � .CJ Q Q W Z Q J O W m o d W d' O w J I- 1.1 OIw W Zj Z U) J J J J w w m J Q O W o m W cn Q L)_ O J HIV 1 �1 1 1 - lL S U) QV)OU)~ F- O F- O �MQ= g ,XVW w0 }�OOQO WO=Nr� �xVzzo� ,91 �ao��z w� z z ao o Z nc�c�GoU - NIW,ZI 0ycw .0 =Q -0� F wwz NQ ¢ wZw=WO Oo z zzz�� 2 S O.O w O W O 5 0 U~ ~ w m o n µ` E pW xlj =O JZVV)< s�� v o °oo �Zw WZ QKC7 (Y zmow<Lj W OWJ Op= <��w° Lj ?a�°w �w 0 awl Z x�Z lba Wall Z �OZ /Z �/9 V) a x =wZ 0LlO =OW a oWWxoa� .. `� du V — ..J.. dAtL1ki2LJL W a N 1: i�8 Ld fx J U k R aq s a lay IE 1 R Z we Z y Z mW] M W 0 ug.:$ ~I -T9- aSed IaNOed m> ��:.. 1 ma Q t N> I Z� 1 I 1 W vZ o« mg C) c� a- EW Q I yr a a a .I n w a d XHVd NNUDAS d w W a N 1: i�8 Ld fx J U k R aq s a lay IE 1 R Z we Z y Z mW] M W 0 ug.:$ ~I m> ��:.. 1 ma Q t N> I V 1 I 1 W vZ mg c� I yr .I w V X C FPO Mg A77Zff yAxa "OH&MY9 �� Z n M � m zw ao ozw �Q ° o?w ma 4 o � cn m X = w w> m Q cn O m x °- = w w n a X -° w w i 4 f E �E - Z WZ /Z �/9 a ..d m i V6 Well ZlOZ/Zl,/9 --Z9- a2ed lalOed W c j, ZLU U ESA P1 I bd 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. COLUER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2604 NORTH HORSESHOE DRfVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 341u4 WWW.COLLlERG0V.NET (239) 252-2400 PAX (23g) 6or,&MG8 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR: t AMENDMENT D... ENT TO PUD (PUDA) 10 PUD REZONE (PUDZ) El PUTS TO FUD REZONE (PEJDZ -A) PETITION NO PROJECT NAME To be completed by staff DATE PROCESSED I APRUCAHT CNF0FUVfATP0 NAME OF APPLICANT(S) COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADDRESS 4069 SAYSHORE DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE fL ZIP 34112 TELEPHONE # 239 - 643 -1115 CELL # FAX # E -MAIL ADDRESS: DAVIDJACKSON@COLLIERGOV NET NAME OF AGENT BANKS ENGINEERING ADDRESS 10511 SIX MILE CYPRESS PARKWAY SUITE 101 CITY FORT MYERS STATE FL ZIP 33966 TELEPHONE # (239) 939 -5490 CELL # (2391770 -2527 FAX # (239) 939 -2523 E -MAIL ADDRESS: SHEWITTtWBANKSENG COM NAME OF AGENT PIZZUTI SOLUTIONS LLC ADDRESS: 300 SOUTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUPTE 300 CITY ORLANDO STATE FL ZIP 32801 TELEPHONE # (407) 841 -0000 FAX # (407) 833 -4670 E -MAIL ADDRESS: tharmcr@pizzuti.com i N. L .a°" T Revised Nov2009 Packet Page -63- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. rt r t� r; ...� DRIVE DEPT. O ZONING ! DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLO !, 34104 :: .fir`:' 252-2400 FAX 6' -» i. 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 htt : wwxa. olliercov.net/index.aspx?paae=774 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: NAPLES PLACE IV - APARTMENTS OWNER MAILING ADDRESS 4058 BAYSHORE DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE EL ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MOORHEAD MANOR MOBILE HOME PARK MAILING ADDRESS 4260 BAYSHORE DRIVE CITY NAPLES STATE LL ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: WINDSTAR MASTER ASSOCIATION, INC. MAILING ADDRESS 1700 WINDSTAR BLVD CITY NAPLES STATE EL ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: BOTANICAL PLACE HOMEOWNERS MAILING ADDRESS 2685 HORSESHOE DR., STE. 215 CITY NAPLES STATE EL ZIP 34104 NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: ABACO BAY HOMEOWNERS MAILING ADDRESS 745 12TH AVE. SOUTH, STE. AA CITY NAPLES STATE EL ZIP 34102 Rcwiscd Nov2009 Packet Page -64- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. COL..IER COUNTY GOVEf$KME €4T 2600 HORTH HORSESHOE DRS DF-PT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMERIT REVIEW RAPLES, FLORIDA 341114 WM.COLLIEFfGOV.NET (238) 262 -2400 FAX (236) 643 -6668 g. Date subject property acquired ® 08/01/2006 leased ❑ Term of lease yrs. /mos. .. 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. 31RC)PRI IL,1.,0CA.1'10A' Detailed/ legal description of the Property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum t" to 400' scale) if required to do so 0 the pre - application meeting. NOTE: 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. Section/Township /Range 14 / 50-S / 25-E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plot Book Page #: Property I.D. #: Metes & Bounds Description: See Attached - EXHIBIT "A" Size of property: 668± ft. X 1,264± ft. = Total Sq. Ft. 779.300± Acres17.89± Address /general location of subject property 4265 & 4315 BAYSHORE DRNE PUD District (LDC 2.03.06): Z Residential ❑ Community Facilities ® Commercial ❑ Industrial Revised No-v2009 Packet Page -65- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. . ftr y COLLIER DOUN GOVERNMENT 2WO NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZOWING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WAKE—*, FLORIDA 34104 b55 .LOLL , OV.NET (2291262 -2400 FAX (2361643 -MOS ADJACENT WRING AND LAKID USE Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). Section/Township /Range / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. M Metes & Bounds Descriptions IM17 -OK rEQIU.I'�'.�T This application is requesting a rezone from the G2 C4 & MH- BMUD -NC zoning distrid(s) to the Mixed se P D zoning distrid(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Mixed Residential and Commercial Uses as well as Recreation Original PUD Name: NIA Ordinance No.: Revised Nov2009 Packet Page -66- Zoning Land Use N 15-4- BMUD -NC, MH- BMUD -NC COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL S C- 4- BMUD -NC, VR- 13MUD -R3 FIRE STATION, RESIDENTIAL E PUD SUGDEN PARK W MH, RMF- 6- BMUD -R3, PUD RESIDENTIAL & VACANT Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject property? If so, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page). Section/Township /Range / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. M Metes & Bounds Descriptions IM17 -OK rEQIU.I'�'.�T This application is requesting a rezone from the G2 C4 & MH- BMUD -NC zoning distrid(s) to the Mixed se P D zoning distrid(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Mixed Residential and Commercial Uses as well as Recreation Original PUD Name: NIA Ordinance No.: Revised Nov2009 Packet Page -66- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A.. COLLMR COUNTY GOVE MERT 2800 WORT F1 HORSESHOE Dp.rVC- DEW. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW HAPLFS, FLORIDA W04 WVWV COL.L.IERGOV.14ET (238) 252 -2100 FAX (236) 643-6968 RVALU T ION CRITERIA Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staff's analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUP Rezone Considerations ILDC Section 10.02.13.111 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The subject property is within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overiav and the proposed PUD conforms to the standards for redevelopment within the overlay, demonstrating the suitability of the area for the type and pattern ofdevelopment proposed. The project is an infill development with access to existing facilities. Development conditions contained within the PUD document provide assurance that all Infrastructure will be developed consistent with County regulations 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed. agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained of public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. Documents submitted with the 002lication provide evidence of unified control The PUD document makes appropriate provisions for the continuing operation & maintenancp of common areas 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub - district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses /density, and fully explaining /addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub - district, policy or other provision.) The subject property is located within the Urban Mixed Use District Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict. The proposed density is 2.2 dwelling units per gross acre which is consistent with the maximum density-of 4 dwelling units per acre for this Subdistrict New rezones to permit t mobile home development within this Subdistrict are prohibited and rezones are recommended to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development The subiect request is consistent with these standards as it is rezoning property designated for mobile home development and reauesting a Planned Unit Development designation. The proposed PUD is consistent with Policy 4.7 as it proposes redevelopment within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan which was adopted by-the Board of County Commissioners on March 14. 2000. Revised Nov2009 The proposed PUD is consistent with the description of the Bayshoref oteway Triangle Redevelopment Plan. The 2ro0osed PUD is a Mixed -Use development that is pedestrian oriented traditional urban development wjth the buildings fronting on Bayshore an providjna access to Packet Page -67- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 4. acliamnt residential areas The non residential /non- commercial uses proposed are consistent with the description The existing zoning of a portion of the property is zoned for mobile home development inconsistent with the uses and development standards of the Overlay and the proposed PUD removes mobile homes from the permitted uses The r,r.,posea PUD is consistent with Policy 5.3 as the development is Zoposed within an area designated as Urban on the Future Land Use Mop that has access to existing public facilities and services discouraging unacceptable levels of urban sprawl. Consistency with Policy 5.4 as the proposed PUD 'implements the BovshoreIgzateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan vision and is complementary to the surrounding land uses with proposed access to Suaden Park nestled between two existing residential neighborhoods The proposed PUD is utilizing land presently designated for urban intensity. cansistent with Policy 5.5. The proposed PUD is consistent with Policy 5.6 as it proposes a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development including a live /work village component The proposed PUD conserves open sRace and provides on -site preservation of indigenous vegetation. The proposed internal access road creates a loop road with access provisions for the adjacent property and providing access to an additional roadway in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion consistent with Policy 7.2 and 7.3. The proposed PUD provides a walkable community and proposed to connect Boyshore Drive to Suaden Park. There ore _common open spaces, civic facilities and rive %work residential nits consistent with Policies 7.4 and 7 The internal restrictions of requirements. The PUD Master Plan has been coordinated with neighboring pr02erties & designed to optimize internal and extCrnpl land use relationships Access has been limited to a loop road system with 2 access points onto Boyshore Drive that will serve the subject project and the adiocent property with an additional access onto leeper's Drive The proposed Barking g rgge has been strate..,gically located to serve as g buffer to the formal lown/performance area The proposed buffers are consistent with the Boyshore Drive Mixed Use OveriaY standards with the exception oforroDosed deviations to enhance the lakefront edoes by requiring oIype "A" buffer along the proposed tracts that are currentlX buffered by the existing fake. Na buffer is proposed along the property line to the north since it is within an existing lake. A shared commercial buffer is proposed along the property along.Bayshore Drive that is not included within the request and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside by this project is consistent with the provisions of the Land Development Code Proposed is a boardwalk connecting to Suaden Park and useable waterfront areas A formal lown/performance area is also proposed. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Revised Nov2009 Packet Page -68- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. { y. COLLIER COURTY, GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH NORSESHOF DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMEWT REVIEW MAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 M� t.C" OLLIERC- Oy.MET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 There are cdeauate & available facilities for this project, Furthermore the timing or sequence of development m light of concurrency requirements is not an issue T. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The subiect property and surrounding areas are within the Bpyshort /Gateway Tnanale Redevelopment Overlay that has been ado tQ ed by the Board of County Commissioners The proposed PUD has been designed using the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use District Neighborhood Commercial standards and removes the mobile home zoning designation 8. Conformity with IPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed PUD utilizes the Sayshore Mixed Use District Neighborhood Commercial regulations as a baseline for the development The proposed deviations from these +andards are to allow special_ treatment of the buffering due to existing unique site circumstQncpt end proposed enhanced waterfront areas. The proposed regulations contained in the submitted PUD document meets public purposes by conforming to the Gateway /Triangle RedemLgl nt Plan standard and revitalizing the area Deed Restrictions: The- County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? Official Interpretations or honing Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been on official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, please provide copies. Revised Not2009 Packet Page -69- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2900 WORTH, HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW WAPLES, FLORIDA 341 14 NW. G0LLiE Ceti KET (239) 262 -PAGO FAX (E. %9,) 64"968 K10 1CF: This application will be considered "aper►" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been mode and the applicaf -ion is assigned a petition processing number. Tka application will be considered "clewed" when the Wi{iane:r withdraws the application through written notice or Ceases to seor�iy necesscxr� information to continue. orc�cc�ssing, or otherwise activeix Rums the rezoning, for a �riod of sip (6) man{ An application deemed "closed" will not receive further proccassing and an application "closed" (hrough lnactivify shall be deerned witINdra «n. An application deemed "closed" may be re- opened by £ubinii inn a nevie application, repayment of all application fees and granting of a determination of "sufficiency". ur"her review of the: prol.ed ill tre WbjC -et to Elie then current co — (LDC Section 10.03.C}5.0.) pxvistd Nov2009 Packet Page -70- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX. (239) 643 -6968 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 % of Ownershi COLLIER COUNTY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 100% b. If the properly is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address % of Ownership N/A C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Revised Nov2009 Name and Address % of Ownership N/A Packet Page -71- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Co er County COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34904 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 252 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the geherdl and /or limited partners. Name and Address % of Ownership N/A 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. N/A "' Name and Address I % of Ownership I 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. N/A rMWIT11s,n- WI:IU, Name and Address Packet Page -72- -,�,e A. COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REViE A111ML.L.IG.t` VJ41 . 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (23S) 252 -2400 FAX -3) 643 -6968 Well, the Collier County CofflMg &develeop ent,r�gency tCRAZ being first duly sworn, depose and say that well amlare the owners of the property described herein and which is the subject matter of the proposed hearing; that all the answers to the questions in this application, including the disclosure of interest information, all sketches, data, and other supplementary matter attached to and made a part of this application, are honest and true to the best of our knowledge and belief. Well understand that the information requested on this application must be complete and accurate and that the content of this form, whether computer generated or County printed shall not be altered Public hearings will not he advertised until this application is deemed complete, and all required information has been submitted As property owner Well further authorize Pizzuti Solutions. LLC and Banks Engineering to act as ourlmy representative in any matters regarding this Petition. James Coletta, CIRA Chairman Ted or Printed Name of Owner pprpved as to form JS legal sufficiency t-09. County Anorney Signature of Property Owner Typed or Printed Name of Owner o , , The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day f �..., , 200 t 0-_, by -)A me S F--T- F--T-T A who is personally known to me or has prod ` ed as identification. State of Korida County of Collier AN MlMEEMB M{ !MXi� {�EbbRlbbNM►Mblbt {MMb!{ { {{ WC��y� nui/i7d� W1 IF V10= EVhW 7f29fi 12 F0rftP &WyA AWL. Mc �! {• {NI ►►l►�n �f{f .RRMR. ►► ►{{►!►! ► {R R{R ►RRR!! Revised Nov.2009 (Signauurr 6f 166%y Public -State of Florida) (Print, ?ype, or Stamp Commissioned Name of Notary Public) Packet Page -73- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A g4ip -T cminty COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WW'W.COLLIER©OV.NET (2391 252 -2400 FAX (239) 6434968 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swen or of [i m that we am the fee simple titleholders rand o>.rriers of record of property commonly known as Cultural Arts Villageat Bayshort 4265 & 4315 Bayshm Drive, Ngglc& FL .141.1-2 (Street address and City, Stale and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is IN subject of an application for mixed -usc planned unit doveiopmont (M PUD) zoning. We hereby designate Pizutti Solutions. LLC and Banks Engineering. legal reptesentat ;vc thereof, as the legrl representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the cor:rse of seeking the ubmssary aprwavals to develop, 1leis authority includes. but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization or agents to assist in tee pn4miation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain arcing approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authoft development activity on the property until such lime as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County, The undersigned recogmUL the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of developmend of the prole; t: 1. The properly will) be developed and used in conformity with the approved mister plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in cormtction with the planned unit development rezoning. 2, The legal representative *ndirted herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made of the time of approval of the master plan, even if the proptaty Is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a now or amended covenant of unified tantrot is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3, A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. a. All terms and conditions of the planned unit dcvclopmcM approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the pienne=d unit development must be consistent with those terns and conditions. 5. 5o long as this covenant is in force, Collier county Cats, upon the discovery of noncompliant with the term&, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any pact of the planned unst opment and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the pnaject is brought into compliance it terms, conditions Vd safeguards of the planned unit development, Owner Printed Dame STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLILR) Sworn to (or affirmed) and who is personally known W me or has produced suhs:ribed before me this day of Ark tgk5 � Aa to lbrt'a & legal iqufficierrry Jcff� },',41 2Klatzkow County Atlorney 4 Notary'iblic? Packet Page -74- as iden�.t�caivan. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT li.. BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE r D (PROJECT NO. F1001.02) PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 13881 Plantation Road, Suite 11 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 -4339 (239) 278 -3090 February 19, 2010 Packet Page -75- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. CONTENTS L INTRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS III, PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IV. TRIP GENERATION V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VIII. CONCLUSION Packet Page -76- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. L INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for the proposed re- zoning submittal for the +/- 17.89 -acre Bayshore Cultural Arts Village site located along the east side of Bayshore Drive approximately 2,000 feet north of Thomasson Drive in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay area in Collier County, Florida. The project is NOT within the boundaries of the South U.S. 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). This report has been completed in compliance with the guidelines established by the Collier County Transportation Planning Division for developments seeking approval for re- zoning. The subject site is owned by Collier County and is under the authority of the Community Redevelopment Agency of Collier County (CRA). Figure I illustrates the approximate location of the subject site. The Bayshore Cultural Arts Village re- zoning as currently proposed would permit the development of a mixture of uses, including residential, commercial, recreational and entertainment uses. An "artist Eve/work village" is anticipated on the property that will have residential units on the top floors and retail /restaurants and art studio's/classrooms on the lower level. A public performance and participation area is proposed that will include a live theater with studios and classrooms as well as an outdoor amphitheatre. Finally, a Community Services Building is also proposed that will have various commercial and office uses that will serve the local community, such as post office, sheriff's substation, medical clinics, the CRA offices and services available to the area Seniors. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways. Trip generation and assignments to the area intersections will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections, Page 1 Packet Page -77- {+ 1 aYPAIISiiI' pfyre GARDENS N, k Gl.&IBIW z AvN IkSAI y � �N 1UII � .. A'vLF,! ft t� Pllr�• Lt94 5 � rT tot {';+ + rtGIIIIII. 9fC n ��Ut fit �J. S M t M - A st �� E !_ at ;, Isar j :.� t Clioa. 'GE vs I is ! ,. co.a1E Darr g A1) )s, MIN = � � MATHOUSE £ � � � � Z Kai Rd GOVIT COMPt6X I ROYAL BAY NnolMS Rd THE 4.. to 41 encl rlcour;r s f4ap s ss s� Fr, i'ti" rt a»t 91 45 ,GLA5 5 SHFirt j"s7.hTlCJ1W I. j. COWEA I Spy • �.... .. r 'VfrieksAr" � .� '� / 1 Thet Gt� d s � COUNrr Mustuo /Jj l K ' q 12/2012 Item 9.A. N W E / 5 th r k� d' a yp. "'I5�1 P, ,✓ 1t wt�..SHEi sn d Cc fi�r' stir Tj Ilk wt _ 11 Q Av .Yl 1 € Lek. ew roav eFxr r1 t t r.•�I� c ' t Hf iiiiJR ... t — Bisr4ltM . r sm. 1fa 41 s DI I st QUE Smr{erAV •, 45 PAR WINQS?AR + WnBurcnRV .... -.,�.. �G15I ( q Bola Dr ;" DAne D ..i 1!41iN� ., 1>trr ccr'3r� - `+ r TCWA4 t ..: iqwk ittp CABay Giioiihe+d�PQ4t t r.s ,.t Ctal. R1AITiiENE,,4C1 j MANOR �j Yt'kt4'i€' °f'r! ., SjA Lake t�eulFS sdkfl r/'I'# II T M jv EBY � _ � �A 5��4�GT PRO JECT SITE f "�srNaas tP1tIEVIEWIAMAir � 1 HOMES I 5 ESTAT 5 FhmldaAr 11 s 5qj, t juIlLAS RaseAr; ' 4.. j # t' u i� lh mason Dr 91 t } jJ' iwt i 1 Cow It" :: r 1Pf r r Co1pg.GlaeeAr f.,y 3 `! i ) P er4 ::e: :illll Df i !/ft 7�,Nhi4'1�41 '� '•� �. � . � � cserlrr Fi3Fit a � r a r ; f. � (k e`1MVTN� FrrCf ?r Cf Uu p I liPCl� 1 00 Jam!. 1 �rF,,;ynaP: L I ; ,j- Dc ._ 1I its, ,I Le ikZ' /1 AAMEW .s.. Biyit. ,, ColpidDr;l I Q .... , Aidlews M „liloodsidg Av f j{ say L- I «w 4 m _ 1 — _ Dollar ) Y TRANSPORTAMON SITE LOCATION CONSULTANTS, INC. BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Packet Page -78- Figure 1 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. �y TRANSPORTATION P� CONSULTANTS, INC. U. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site currently contains vacant land. The site is bordered to the north and south by residential uses. To the east is Sugden Park and to the west is Bayshore Drive. Bayshore Drive is a four -lane roadway to the north of the Thomasson Drive and a two - lane roadway to the south of Thomasson Drive. The intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive is unsignalized and currently operates under four -way stop control conditions. Bayshore Drive has a posted speed limit of 35 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Thomasson Drive is a two -lane roadway in the vicinity of the subject site. Thomasson Drive extends east to U.S. 41 and west to the Bayview Park. Its intersection with Bayshore Drive is currently unsignalized and operates under four -way stop control conditions. Thomasson Drive has a posted speed limit of 30 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Jeepers Drive is a two lane local street serving a residential area to the east of Rayshore Drive. Jeepers Drive borders a portion of the site to the south and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. In order to gain a better understanding of the traffic conditions in the vicinity of the subject site, AM and PM peak hour turning movement counts were performed at the intersection of Bayshore Drive with Thomasson Drive. The turtling movement counts were the adjusted by the appropriate peak season factor as obtained from the 2008 Florida Traffic Information CD. Figure 2 illustrates the resultant 2010 peak season turning movements at the subject intersection. Page 3 Packet Page -79- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. I LEGEND 4- 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4— (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TRANSPQRTAMN 2010 PEAK SEASON TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS INC. SAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Figure 2 Packet Page -80- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. III. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The Bayshore Cultural Arts Village re- zoning as currently proposed would permit the development of a mixture of residential, commercial and recreational uses. Table 1 summarizes the land uses proposed as a part of this re- zoning application for the Bayshore Cultural Arts Village. Table 1 Bayshore Cultural Arts Village MPUD Pronosed Use Land Use Pra used Uses Multi-Family 40 Units Commercial Uses 35,000 s . ft. Community Buildin g 11,000 s . ft. Classroom/Studios 925 s . ft. Theatre 350 seats Admin. Offices Access to the subject site is proposed to Bayshore Drive via two connections and one connection to Jeepers Drive, a public roadway bordering the site to the south. IV. TRIP GENERATION The majority of the uses proposed in the subject development are unique in nature when compared to data contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report titled Trap Generation, 8"' Edition. In working with County staff; a majority of the uses were assigned a Land Use Code (LUC) from the ITE report in order to estimate the peak hour impacts the project will have on the surrounding roadway network. It is agreed that the trips generated as part of this report most likely overestimates the weekday peak hour trip generation the subject site will actually generate should it be developed as envisioned on the Master Concept Plan as a Live/Work Artist Village and local' community services facility. Page 5 Packet Page -81- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. For the residential units, Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse) was utilized. For the office uses, Land Use Code 710 (General Office) was utilized and for the commercial retail uses (including any restaurants), Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) was utilized. By utilizing the Shopping Center Land Use Code, it is understood that this would be a "catch all' land use code in terms of trip generation to account for the various commercial retail uses that are proposed as part of the Arts Village. The Community Building was split 50150 between retail (Shopping Center) land uses and general office uses. The Classroom/Studio use was combined with the floor area of the general office uses (including the Administrative Offices). It was agreed with County staff that the 350 seat indoor theater would not have a substantial impact on the peak hours of the adjacent street as most activities surrounding this use occur in the evenings and mostly on weekends. Therefore, no trips were assigned to this use for the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. Table 2 summarizes the floor areas (unit count) and the ITE Land Use Code that was utilized to generate trips for the project. The trip generation equations utilized to calculate the trip generation can be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. Table 3 then identifies the trip generation associated with these uses. Table 2 Bayshore Cultural Arks Village MPUl7 Frnnnsad TTcrr, & 1W. Land Hw. Code Land Use Proposed Uses ITE Land Use Code Multi - Family 40 Units LUC 230 (Res. CondoiTownhouse Commercial Uses 40,500 sq. fG LUC 820 (Shopp ng Center General Office 8,075 sq. ft. LUC 710 General Office Commercial Uses include 35,000 sq. ft. from Artist Village & 5,500 sq. ft. from Community Building General Office Uses include 5,500 sq. ft. from Community Building 1,650 Admin. Office & 925 sq. ft. Classroom/Studio space Page 6 Packet Page -82- TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Table 3 Baysbore Cultural Arts Village MPUD Trin r' pmPrafinn 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Land Use A'M' PRAk i1buir, P.M. Peak Hour Daffy Retail 44,500 s . ft. 55 35 90 170 177 4 . 347 ! 3,774 Office (8,075 sq. 8. 22 3 25 2 10 1 12 192 Multi - Family 4 21 25 19 9 j 28 290 (40 Units Total 1 81 1 59 140 1 191 196 387 4,256 Based discussions with the CRA and County staff, there will be a certain amount of internal capture associated with this project. It is being developed as a cohesive development with shared parking and other shared elements to encourage residents and visitors to experience more than one of the uses while on the site. The residential units on the upper floors are anticipated to be owned/leased by artist, etc. that work in the lower floor studios and retail establishments. Visitors to the site will be encouraged to visit more than one use while on -site and the shared parking/pedestrian connections will crake that possible. For these reasons, an internal capture reduction of 15% was proposed and agreed upon by County staff in evaluating the trip generation of this unique project. In addition, since the Shopping Center Land Use Code was utilized for the retail uses, ITE estimates that a shopping center use may attract a significant amount of its traffic from vehicles already traveling the adjoining roadway system. This traffic, called "pass- by" traffic, reduces the development's overall impact on the surrounding roadway system but does not decrease the actual driveway volumes. Collier County allows a maximum "pass -by" traffic reduction of 25% for shopping centers. However, in this case, the pass - by percentage was limited to a maximum of 10% of the adjacent street traffic (Bayshore Drive), which calculates to an approximate pass -by reduction of 19% for the retail uses only. Page 7 Packet Page -83- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Table 4 summarizes the pass -by and internal capture reduction percentages utilized. Table 5 summarizes the development traffic and the breakdown between the total project trips and the net new trips the development is anticipated to generate after the internal capture and pass -by reductions are applied 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. Table 4 Internal Capture and Pass -by Trip Reduction Factor ita..�f,...•o t"vvitivvai Arts Villstve MPi7D — - land Pe rcentage Trip Use $eductia►n Shopping Center 19°!0 Internal C tore 15% Table 5 Trip Generation — New Trips Bayshore Cultural Arts village MWufr Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) In Out Tow In Out Total 81 59 140 191 196 387 4,256 Total Trips Less 15% for Internal Capture -12 -9 -21 -29 -29 -58 -638 Total Driveway Volumes 69 S0 119 162 167 329 3,618 Less Retail Pass -by (19% s -b -10 -7 -17 -32 -32 -64 -717 New Traffic i3sivowa Tri — Pass-by Traffic 59 43 102 130 135 265 2,901 The roadway link Level of Service analysis and the intersection analysis performed at Bayshore DrivefMomasson Drive within this report are based solely on the new trips generated as a result of the proposed re- zoning of the subject site. The intersection analysis at the intersections surrounding the subject site was performed based on the total trips. Page 8 Packet Page -84- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The new trips based on the proposed re- zoning request indicated within Table 5 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based on the anticipated routes the drivers will utilize to approach the site. The project traffic distribution, illustrated on Figure 3, was agreed upon with Staff as a part of the methodology meeting process. Based on the traffic distribution indicated within Figure 3, the development traffic was distributed to the surrounding roadway network. As a result, Figure 4 reflects an assignment of the total site traffic to the site access drives. VI. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table 1A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 2 0/o-2 % -3% Significance Test. The new project related traffic from Table 5 was compared with the corrected 10 -month Level of Service Standard for Peak Hour — Peak Direction traffic conditions as contained in the 2009 AUIR provided by County Staff in order to determine the project impact percentage. Based on the information contained within Table IA, Bayshore Drive from U.S. 41 to Thomasson Drive, Thomasson Drive from Bayshore Drive to U.S. 41 and Shadowiawn Drive north of U.S. 41 are shown to experience a significant impact as a result of the added project traffic associated with the Bayshore Cultural Arts Village NTUD in accordance with the Collier County 2 0/o-2 % -3% Significance Test. Therefore, Level of Service analysis is only required on these roadway links as a result of the proposed development. Table 2A reflects the off -peak direction of flow on the impacted roadway links. Page 4 Packet Page -85- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. --ft. _ LEGEND 46.2{} 0/6-0p, PERCENT DISTRIBUTION TMNSPOIITATION TRIP DISTRIBUTION CONSULTANTS, INC. BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Packet Page -86- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. E —(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT CONSULTANTS, INC. BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Figure 4 Packet Page -87- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table IA also includes a buildout consistency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The Collier County TIS Guidelines require analysis of the adjacent roadway network based on the buildout of the project or the five (5) year planning window, whichever is longer. Therefore, it was necessary to analyze the surrounding roadway network based on the 2015 traffic conditions. The 2009 Collier County Concurrency Spreadsheet (2009 AUIR) was referenced to determine the current remaining capacity on the adjacent roadway network. The remaining capacity was subtracted from the 10 -month service volume on each roadway in order to determine the 2009 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume on the adjacent roadway network. The appropriate annual growth rate for these roadways was taken by comparing information from the 2006 AUIR report to data in the 2009 AUIR report. Arrexample of the calculations to determine the annual growth rates can be found within the Appendix of this report for reference. These annual growth rates were then used to factor the 2009 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume to 2015 peak season, peak hour, peak direction background traffic conditions. The resultant 2015 peak season, peak hour, peak direction traffic volume was subtracted from the Level of Service Standard in order to determine the remaining capacity in the year 2015. The project generated traffic was then subtracted from the remaining capacity in order to determine the remaining 2015 capacity after the Bayshore Cultural Arts Village traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. Figure 5 illustrates the results of the capacity analysis along Bayshore Drive, Thomasson Drive and Shadowlawn Drive. Page 12 Packet Page -88- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION 2015 BUILD -OUT CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS CONSULTANTS, INC. BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Figure 5 Packet Page -89- rr - .. u 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. VI. PROJECTED CONSISTENCY AND IMPROVEMENTS Based upon the information contained within Table lA and Figure 5, no roadway deficiencies are expected in 2015 with the proposed development traffic. Al three roadways analyzed reflect substantial capacity available in 2015 with the project traffic added to the roadway network. Intersection analysis was performed as a result of the added Bayshore Cultural Arts Village traffic. Analysis was performed at the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive as well as the two full access locations (the main site access and the Jeepers Drive intersection). In order to perform the required intersection analysis, it was necessary to determine the 2015 background peak hour turning movements at these intersections. Therefore, the 2010 peak season turning movements indicated within Figure 2 were factored by the appropriate annual growth rates over a five (5) year period The calculation to determine the background turning movements is indicated below: 2015 Turning Movement = (2010 Turning Movement)* (1 + AGO 2015-2010) 2015 Turning Movement = (142 veh)* (1+ 0.02)(5) 2015 Turning Movement= (142 veh)* (1.10) 2015 Turning Movement =157 vehicles The above illustrated calculation was applied to all of the turning movements indicated within Figure 2 in order to determine the 2015 background turning movements. The resultant 2015 background turning movements are illustrated within Figure 6. The site traffic indicated within Figure 4 was then added to the 2015 background turning movements in order to determine the 2015 buildout turning movements at the area intersections. The resultant 2015 buildout turning movements are illustrated within Figure 7. Page 14 Packet Page -90- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. LEGEND ♦ DOD WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TMNSPORTATION 2015 BACKGROUND TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Figure 6 Packet Page -91- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. r 4 —(000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC TPANSPORTATION 2015 BUILD -OUT TURNING MOVEMENTS CONSULTANTS, INC. BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Figure 7 Packet Page -92- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. The appropriate lane arrangements and the turning movements indicated within Figures 6 and 7 were inputted into the HCS+ software in order to perform the necessary intersection analysis at the previously mentioned intersection. The lane arrangements utilized in this analysis can be found in graphical format in the Appendix. The results of the intersection capacity analyses can be found within Table 5 below. Table 5 Intersection Analysis Results Rnvchnre Cultural Arta Villasse MPTM Based on the results of the intersection analysis listed above, all intersections and turning movements at the subject intersections are shown to operate acceptably. Based on the access plan analyzed as part of this report, the main site access driveway to Bayshore Drive was analyzed as a full median opening. Bayshore Drive is classified as a Class 5 roadway in the Collier County access ordinance (Resolution 01 -247). Spacing requirements for Class 5 indicate that median openings should be spaced 660 feet with a posted speed limit under 45 mph. Page 17 Packet Page -93- :A I'eakHour :FM�eal�,8u>ter Intei�ect1a1u1Aprch Ba4kgxound $ulldout' Bael4grae[nd Buiiout. EB Approach LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A 8.88 sec 9.00 scc 9.29 scc 9.70 sco WB Approach LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B Bayshore Dr. r. Thomassan Dr. (8.38 sec) 8.65 sec (9.20 seo 1 0.22 sec NB Approach LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS A (8.60 sco) (8.78 sea ) (8.91 sec ) (9.42 sec SB Approach LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B (938 we ) (9.73 see (10.19 sec E 1.60 sec WB Approach LOS A LOS A 7.87 sx) 8.62 sec Bayshore Dr. Q NB Approach LOS A LOS A Jeepers Dr. 8.40 sec l o sec SB Approach LOS A LOS A 8.71 sec 99 scc WB Approach LOS A LOS A 7.84 sec Bayshore Dr. @ NB Approach LOS A Main Site Access 8.43 scc R35 SB Approach LOS A 8.61 sco Based on the results of the intersection analysis listed above, all intersections and turning movements at the subject intersections are shown to operate acceptably. Based on the access plan analyzed as part of this report, the main site access driveway to Bayshore Drive was analyzed as a full median opening. Bayshore Drive is classified as a Class 5 roadway in the Collier County access ordinance (Resolution 01 -247). Spacing requirements for Class 5 indicate that median openings should be spaced 660 feet with a posted speed limit under 45 mph. Page 17 Packet Page -93- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. s TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Due to the property boundaries of the subject site, it is not possible to align with an existing median opening to the north (Moorhead Manor) or to the south (Moorhead Manor). The distance to the northern Moorhead Manor from the proposed median opening would be approximately 312 feet and the distance to the southern Moorhead Manor opening would be approximately 239 feet Median openings on Bayshore Drive in this area do not meet the current County standards for Class 5. Going north from Thomasson Drive, median openings are spaced in the range of 160 feet to approximately 555 feet. The average median opening spacing between Lakeview and Shoreview along Bayshore Drive is approximately 167 feet. So, the access spacing being requested for the subject site is not out of character for Bayshore Drive between U.S. 41 and Thomasson Drive and in fact is greater than the spacing between many median openings provided along this roadway. It is not anticipated that the requested median opening would create a hardship or endanger the health, safety and welfare of the motoring public. Without the median opening, a significant amount of turning movements would be relocated to the intersection of Jeepers Drive, which is a local roadway that currently serves approximately 41 manufactured home lots. Should the County desire, there is sufficient room available in the median to provide a southbound left turn lane into the main site access where the full median opening is being requested. Due to separate ownership of property along Bayshore Drive and the location of the access drive, there is insufficient right -of -way to provide a northbound right turn lane at the site access drive intersections. The lack of turn lanes on Bayshore Drive between U.S. 41 and Thomasson Drive is not uncommon and the road functions at an acceptable Level of Service due to the lower speed limit and minimal through traffic volume. The HCS summary also indicated that the intersections would function acceptably without the addition of left and right turn lanes at the site access drive. The adequacy of the median to acconunodate a southbound left turn lane will be further investigated at the time of the site development permit process. Page 18 Packet Page -94- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. VII. CONCLUSION The proposed Bayshore Cultural Arts Village development is located along the east side of Bayshore Drive approximately 2,000 feet north of its intersection with Thomasson Drive in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay area. The projected traffic volumes on those roadway links anticipated to be significantly impacted by this project indicate that there will be sufficient capacity to accommodate this project, making it consistent with Objective 5 and the specific Policies in the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan of Collier County as well as Section 6.02.03 of the Land Development Code. Intersection analysis was performed as a part of this report assuming a full access would be provided along the frontage of the project on Bayshore Drive. The analysis indicates that all intersections, including the intersection of Bayshore Drive and Thomasson Drive, will operate at an acceptable Level of Service in 2015 with the project traffic added to the roadway network. A more in depth turn lane analysis will be performed in depth at the SDP phase for the proposed development. K:\201 Q\U 1 \t12 Bayshore Cultural Arts village2.19,1 d. Report.doo Page 19 Packet Page -95- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -96- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. CHECKLIST Packet Page -97- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. INITIAL MEETING CHECKLIST Suggestion: Use this Appendix as a worksheet to ensure that no important elements are overlooked. Cross out the items that do not apply. Date: / U-1 I f y Time: Location: V i c- People Attending: Name, Organization, and Telephone Numbers T-9 y-aAS �o�S. cr�3�i� �7� - 1©21 L) 2) 3) 4) Study Preparer: Preparer's Name and Title: %� � � - ?O-e-$ LID en Organization: -r-4 rr n,, o tt S Address & Telephone Number: Reviewc sl• Reviewer's Name & Title: Collier County Transportation Planning Department Reviewer's Name & Title: Organization & Telephone Number: Applicant: Applicant's Name: _ Address: Telephone Number: Proposed Development: Name: Location: o ' 9. Land Use Typ : ,Xg o Ose. ITE Code #: Se- o,6(.6 Proposed number of development Other: 0 27 Packet Page -98- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Zoning Existing: �, Z ! ta!'►'1 yD Comprehensive plan recommendation: Requested: Findings of the Preliminary Study: Study Type: Complete Traffic operations ❑ None ❑ Stud 'ea: Boundaries: Additional intersections to be analyzed: 2 &ALP _ 1�o Q ss oVt 6A y Horizon Year(s): 701 Analysis Time Period(s): Future Off -Site Developments: Source of Trip Generation Rates: Reductions in Trip Generation Rates: None: _ Pass -by trips: o r- LV U SGS ort �7 Internal trips (PUD) :�� Transit use- Other: Horizon Year Roadway Network Improvements: it Methodology & Assumptions: j Non -site traffic estimates: S afi A-6P_ �,�} _ G rou I Ccamo"r1 . Site -trip generation: Trip distribution method: MrjAj& r eta. Traffic assignment method: M Traffic growth rate: 7_9"D b 4 2 28 Packet Page -99- Special Features: (from preliminary study or prior experience) Accident locations: Sight distance: Queuing: Access location & configuration: Traffic control: Signal system location & progression needs: On -site parking needs: Data Sources: Base maps: Prior study reports: Access policy and jurisdiction: Review process: Requirements: Miscellaneous: SIGNATURES Study Preparer Reviewers .Applicant 29 Packet Page -100- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Bayshore Cultural Arts Village Proyosed Uses and Trio Generation Source Residential — Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominiums/Townhouse) - Approx. 35 Units Commercial/Retail within the Artist's Live/Work Village — LUC 814 — Specialty Retail — Appox. 30,000 s.f. Specialty Retail is being used in this area of the project due to the unique nature of the retail buildings in that it is designed as a small "village" atmosphere with boutique type shops and restaurants on the ground level with live /work units on the top floor Performance Theatre — 350 seats - This use is not a peak hour generator and will only generate a small amount of trips during the weekday peak hours. It will be assumed that this use will generate approximately 20 total trips during the peak hour to account for staff/service personnel that arrive prior to performances, which typically begin after 6:30 PM on weekdays Classrooms/Studios — Approx. 840 square feet — Ancillary uses to the artist's live /work units and not a peak hour generator. Admin. Offices — LUC 710 — General Office — Approx. 1,500 s.f. Community Building — This building will contain a mixture of commercial goods and services that are open to the surrounding neighborhood. Uses contemplated include a small post office, a sheriff's substation, the CRA offices, etc. The total building size is approx. 10,000 s.f.. For trip generation purposes, it was assumed that 5,000 square feet would be retail uses (LUC 820 — Shopping Center) and the remaining 5,000 square feet would be general office uses (LUC 710). Due to the integrated design of the site and the shared parking and pedestrian features, an internal capture of 15 *19 was assumed to occur within the project. This includes patrons of the commercial uses visiting the office and or residential uses. The majority of the uses contemplated for the Bayshore Cultural Arts District will be off -peak uses, meaning very little traffic will be generated during the typical weekday commute hours (7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4 :00 to 6 :00 PM). The trip generation estimates reflected above will generate a "worst case" assignment of trips for this project to evaluate the impacts on the County road network. In addition, to satisfy the requirements of the TCEA, various pedestrian and non - motorized features will be integrated into the site. Packet Page -101- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Ted Treesh From: PodczerwinskyJohn p ohnPodczerwinsky @colliergov.netj Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 5:49 PM To: Ted Treesh Cc: GreeneMichael Subject: RE: Bayshore Cultural Arts Village (Metho notes) Attachments: methodology form - bayshore CRA Cultural Village.pdf Ted, A few things I can now address better than I could have prior to the meeting: 1. Don't neglect to consider the existing zoning. What we're looking for at this stage is to compare the maximum potential trip generation possible with the existing zoning, to the maximum potential trip generation with the proposed zoning. I'm told at the pre -app meeting that C2 and C4 uses are allowed (you'll want to double check), and as far as I know this may end up being a net reduction in trips when comparing zoning to zoning. The analysis you're detailing here will be necessary later when we get to the SDP (or plat?) stage of development. 2. The agents at the pre -app stated they wanted to retain flexibility in the design, and tome that meant flexibility in the total square footage/seats/etc. of each use. The best way for us to look at that is by establishing maximum two -way trip generation during PM Peak hour. I recommend asking the developer to estimate the maximum square feet/seats/etc. for each proposed use, and look at the resulting trip generation as a `not -to- exceed' number. This might take extra work, but will be well worth it in the end for your client. 3. I do not personally endorse use of LUC 814, Specialty Retail, for any of the proposed zoning (though it's arguable that it might be applicable). I recommend using instead LUC 820. That way, if LUC 820 is introduced into those portions of the site that you are proposing LUC 814 for, it can be accommodated under the trip generation cap instead of exceeding it. The difference won't be too great anyway. 4. Distribution- I recommend dropping -off a greater percentage at the shopping center at the intersection of 41/Bayshore. I recommend 10% instead of the 5% you show. Also, I recommend sending 10% straight up Shadowlawn, taking 5% away from both directions east and west. This should result in a distribution of 30% westbound, 25% Eastbound, 10% northbound, and 10% drop -off at the shopping center (to total 75% that leaves the site northbound). 5. Even though it's high, I'm satisfied with the 15% internal capture, but will need to get agreement from Mike Greene. 6. You mentioned the TCEA. Is the project seeking an exemption from concurrency? If so, you'll want to discuss the TDM strategies that are being employed. I've pasted the entire LDC section below that details the responsibilities that projects within the TCEA must meet 7. Driveways: During the pre -app, we discussed driveway locations displayed on the Master Plan, and also an alternate location on Jeepers as well as a potential alternate location on the North side of the site. I think any of these scenarios will be allowable, but if two driveways are proposed then we need to be sure to provide access to the remaining parcel that is surrounded by this project. Either way, this might have a significant impact on how we view certain median openings and/or turn lane requirements. 8. Growth- No issues. Use 2009 AUIR that's currently available. Nothing else I can think of at the moment I've copied Mike G. to get his response when he has time. Thanks, John M. Podezerwinsky Development Review Project Manager, Transportation Planning LDC 6. 02.02 L Transportation Concurrency Exemption Area Designated Pursuant to Policy 5.5 of the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, the South U.S. 47 Transportation concurrency Exception Area ('TCEA) is designated development located within the South U.S, 41 TCEA (Map TR -4) shall be exempt from transportation concurrency requirements, so tong as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using the procedures below. 1. Any proposed development within the concurrency exception area that would reduce the LOS on Florida Intrastate Highway System (F7HS) roadways within the County by more than 5% of the capacity at the adopted LOS standard must meet the 2/24/2010 Packet Page -102- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. transportation concurrency requirements specified in Rule 9J- 5.0055(3)(0)1 -7, F.A.0 2. Any proposed development within the concurrency exception area that would reduce the LOS on FIRS roadways within the County by less than 5% of the capacity at the adopted LOS standard and meets the requirements identfed below in (3) below are exempt from the transportation requirements of 9J- 5.005(3)(c)1 -7, F.A.C. 3. Commercial developments within the South U.S 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requirements for transportation will provide certification from the Transportation Division that at least 4 of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies will be utilized: Preferential parking for carpools and vanpools that is expected to increase the average vehicle accupancy for work trips generated by the development. b. Parking charge that is expected to increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development and/or increase transit ridership. . Cash subsidy that is expected io increase the average vehicle occupancy for work trips generated by the development and/or increase transit ridership. d Flexible work schedules that are expected to reduce peak hour automobile work trips generated by the development e. Compressed work week that would be expected to reduce vehicle miles of travel and peak hour work trips generated by the development f Telecommuting that would reduce the vehicle miles of travel andpeak hour work trips generated by the development. g Transit subsidy that would reduce auto trips generated by the development and increase transit ridership. h. Bicycle andpedestrian facilities or that would be expected to ?seduce vehicle miles of travel and automobile work trips generated by the development. I, Including residential units as a portion of a commercial project that would reduce vehicle miles of travel. Residential developments within the South U.S. 41 TCEA that choose to obtain an exception from concurrency requiremena for transportation shall obtain certification that at least 3 of the following Transportation Demand Management (TD* strategies will be utilized, Developments within the South U.S 41 TCEA that do not provide certification shall meet all concurrency requirements. Whether or not a concurrency exception is requested, development applicants must submit a Trq ffic Impact Statement and are subject to a concurrency review for the purpose of reserving capacity for those trips associated with the development and maintaining accurate accounts of the remaining capacity on the roadway network concurrency analysis will be conducted utilizing the significance tests contained in section 6.02.02 N. below. An applicant seeking an exception from concurrency requirements far transportation through the certification mentioned above shall submit an application to the Transportation Division Administrator on forms provided by the Division. Binding commitments to utilize any of the above techniques relied upon to obtain cert (cation shall be required as a condition of development approval. Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b. Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). C. Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to adjacent commercial properties. d Including affordable housing (minimum of 2S% of the units) within the development. Vehicular access to adjacent commercial properties with shared commercial and residential parking. From: Ted Treesh [mailto:tbt fttrans.netj Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 1:36 PM To: PodczerwinskyJohn Subject: Bayshore Cultural Arts Village John, take a look at this methodology (especially the trip generation). They are having their Pro -App next week and the CRA wants the 2/24/2010 Packet Page -103- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. applicatior submitted the following week, so time is critical. Let me know if you have any questions. 'tanks As you car see, this project is unique, I don't want to way overestimate the trip generation based an some wild ITE numbers. We need to do what is reasonable for the site. Let me know your comments. Ted B. Treesh President TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 13881 Plantation Road, Suite 1.1 Fort Myers, FL 33912 -4339 PA: 239- 278-3090 FAX: 239 - 278 -1906 CELL: 239- 292 -6746 E-mail: tbt@trtrans.net From: Podczerwinsky3ohn [ mailto: lohnPodczerwinsky @colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:57 AM To: Ted Treesh Subject: ,iahn M. Podczerwinsky weiopment Review Project Manager, ransportation Planning Quarterly tips to help us give you better customer service: - Please reference your application number in the subject line of every email. As afApril 1, 2009, all new ffic Studies must be submitted using ITE 8th Edition trip generation numbers. -Avoid rejection comments on your traffic study by following the TIS Guidelines and Procedures, found at the following link: TIS Guidelines. TIS Review fees are listed In exhibit A at the back of the book. -Did you know the County now requires a current, itemized, and notarized report of what PUD commitments are met? Refer to LDC 10, 02.02, as amender in the 2008 Cycle I LDC amendments (Ord 08 -63). You can find it here: LDC Amendments As always, all methodology mid project review meeting requests should be made through Jeanne Marcella. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses arc public records. lfyou do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records requcsi, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2/24/2010 Packet Page -104- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TABLE • # ♦; Packet Page -105- vi Q 4 F t C us ui C L � � J .0 lu m =� o CD Q to I n. a gg CL Qo Co Packet Page -106- n z r z z z z yr S p„ •a ed .p n o n1 j LL pair pp�� tg N O IL d � n 55 4 O G D Y p i n m o a m� m p ME n n o CD Q I n. a gg CL Qo Co Packet Page -106- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ui ci a a o f r c r r V P 4 e, 1l1 f1e r I� r C r q( d .. y 99 Z un N tOy Ypf v < N Q } v o U O � m 5 Z O �a m 0 0 0 0 F J z S w uj I- � t- ro �^ V a 0 0 N N N b WW 7 O Q x V d rA Co 6 W ? a m chi `r e°a ni i? oAi 0 h b R 0 A O J t�l l+T N W li F ful� �g W mw r r N Cp V u.. V LL O _ O .a c LL AL E Q Q A = W _� w _ mcc && a a ui �oaa $ uJ u1 ui z Q> S 2 Y Y IL M ~ a O E a g fA d 6 Packet Page -107- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -108- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRANSPORTA-n ®N LANE ARRANGEMENTS CQNSULTANrs, INC. BAYSNORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE Figure A -1 Packet Page -109- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -110- El TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. DATE: Fobtumy 18, 2010 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 7:00 AM . 8:00 AM TRAFFIC: ALL TRIPS Packet Page -111- PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS TH&MASWN DRIVE INTER - BEGIN THBOUND SOUTHBOVND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND i 3ECTI0N LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT BAYSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE I TOTAL 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL T00AM 11 1 50 22 1 73 1 122 29 32 1 183 j 34 15 1 1 50 11 15 13 97 BAYSHORE BAYSHORE DRIVE THOMASSON DRIVE INTER - HOUR INTER - 15 MIN NOMBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND LEFT WESTBOUND R! HT SECTION BEGIN LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU MONT TOTAL LEPT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 70 AM 0 12 4 16 21 2 6 20 8 1 0 9 3 3 11 17 71 7:15 AM 1 8 11 20 22 6 9 37 2 2 0 4 3 2 18 23 84 700 AM 0 17 8 26 40 7 4 51 11 7 0 i8 4 3 23 30 124 7:45 AM 0 12 9 21 28 8 10 46 5 3 0 8 4 2 34 40 115 8 :00 AM 0 4 2 6 29 5 7 41 8 4 1 13 0 4 17 21 81 8:15 AM 1 17 3 21 25 0 11 45 10 1 0 11 7 4 23 34 111 8'..10 AM 1 10 2 13 31 7 3 41 14 1 1 18 2 1 16 19 89 645AM 0 9 3 12 'a 6 4 39 9 3 1 13 7 4 24 35 99 TOTAL 3 89 42 134 220 49 54 329 1 67 22 3 82 3D 23 100 219 774 Packet Page -111- PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS TH&MASWN DRIVE INTER - BEGIN THBOUND SOUTHBOVND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND i 3ECTI0N LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT BAYSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE I TOTAL 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL T00AM 11 1 50 22 1 73 1 122 29 32 1 183 j 34 15 1 1 50 11 15 13 97 BAYSHORE DRIVE THOMASSON DRIVE INTER - HOUR NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION BEGIN LEFT THRU R! HT TOTAL LEFT THRU HT TOT LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOT l TOTAL 790 AM 1 49 32 82 111 23 29 1 B3 26 13 0 39 14 10 86 110 394 7:15 AM 1 41 30 72 116 26 30 175 25 18 1 43 11 11 92 114 4D4 700 AM 1 50 22 73 122 29 32 183 34 15 1 50 15 13 97 126 431 TA5AM 2 43 16 61 113 20 31 173 37 9 2 48 13 11 90 114 396 8:00 2 40 10 62 116 26 25 166 Al 9 3 53 16 13 60 109 380 Packet Page -111- PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR MDHORE DRIVE TH&MASWN DRIVE INTER - BEGIN THBOUND SOUTHBOVND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND i 3ECTI0N LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGFIT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL 0 LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL T00AM 11 1 50 22 1 73 1 122 29 32 1 183 j 34 15 1 1 50 11 15 13 97 125 1 431 Packet Page -111- TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 46 go 22% 50 34 15 W* 1 Nit Nate: pww is (%) rdpresm movement va mes dhAd w by ft tDw kftMsdw" tc BAYSHORE DRIVE 364 84% t 183 1 t 29 122 14 DATE: DAY: COUNT TONE: PEAK HOUR: TRAFFIC: INTER$E Mb 161 t WWWW"Ii Packet Page -112- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Febm" 10, 2010 THURSDAY 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 7:30 AM -9:30 AM ALLTRIPS . I: BAYSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE L97 13 4r 15 126 284 68% 159 1 5D 22 t 46 73 11$ 27% Packet Page -112- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Febm" 10, 2010 THURSDAY 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM 7:30 AM -9:30 AM ALLTRIPS . I: BAYSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE L97 13 4r 15 126 284 68% 159 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. DATE: FebroW 19, MO DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM - 8:00 PM TRAFFIC: ALL TRIPS Packet Page -113- PEAK HOUR SUMMARY 15 MINUTE SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS THOMASSON DRIVE INTER- SEWN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBp SECTION LEFT THRU RK.I1T BAYSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RK#{T TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT IINTR- TOTAL 430 PM 3 38 25 68 148 05 38 �+ DIED RIVE THOMASSON DRIVE SAW DRIVE 1 581 HOUR BEGJIN THOMA980N DRIVE SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND INTER - i6 MIN LEFT WR—U—RIGKT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOT LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 44W PM 6 49 32 86 160 63 34 247 35 21 1 67 39 8 BEGIN 167 NORTHBOUND 4:15 PM 3 SOUTHBOUND 32 85 EASTBOUND 11 124 173 WESTBOUND 430 PM SECTION 38 LEtT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RJOHT TOTAL TOTAL 4:00 PM 2 12 9 23 41 13 10 64 18 6 1 20 14 3 36 52 169 4:16 PM 0 19 0 28 33 15 6 53 9 4 0 13 0 3 18 27 121 4.30 PM 1 7 4 12 38 16 10 04 8 7 0 16 7 0 38 43 134 4:45 PM 2 11 10 23 38 19 9 66 8 4 0 9 12 2 31 46 143 5A0 PM 0 13 9 22 1 26 19 13 58 12 6 2 20 13 6 39 53 166 5:15 PM 0 7 2 9 44 11 6 61 13 6 D 18 8 3 27 38 128 5:30 PM 0 5 11 18 47 9 9 85 7 3 1 11 8 3 33 41 1 133 5:45 PM 1 13 10 24 38 17 6 68 8 3 0 9 7 6 30 49 140 TOTAL 6 87 84 1 157 303 119 67 488 T3 38 4 115 72 26 255 1 353 1114 Packet Page -113- PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR SAYSHORE DRIVE HOURLY SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL MOVEMENTS THOMASSON DRIVE INTER- SEWN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBp SECTION LEFT THRU RK.I1T BAYSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RK#{T TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT IINTR- TOTAL 430 PM 3 38 25 68 148 05 38 �+ DIED RIVE THOMASSON DRIVE 1 62 1, 40 11 133 1 184 1 581 HOUR BEGJIN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND SECTION LEFT WR—U—RIGKT I TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOT LEFT THRU RIGHT I TOTAL TOTAL 44W PM 6 49 32 86 160 63 34 247 35 21 1 67 39 8 120 167 557 4:15 PM 3 50 32 85 135 08 37 241 34 21 2 57 38 11 124 173 556 430 PM 3 38 26 66 146 05 38 249 38 22 2 82 40 11 133 184 551 4K5 PM 2 36 32 70 155 58 37 250 37 18 3 68 38 14 130 182 560 5•W PM 1 38 32 71 163 58 33 242 38 17 3 58 33 18 135 186 657 Packet Page -113- PEAK HOUR SUMMARY HOUR SAYSHORE DRIVE THOMASSON DRIVE INTER- SEWN NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBp SECTION LEFT THRU RK.I1T TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL LEFT THRU RK#{T TOTAL LEFT THRU RIGHT TOTAL TOTAL 430 PM 3 38 25 68 148 05 38 249 38 22 2 1 62 1, 40 11 133 1 184 1 581 Packet Page -113- TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. -Note: PerwNs rranavot volume dwlded by the bDWl k 6etaeoWn trafda BAYSHORE DRIVE 468 82% t 249 1 1 65 146 107 t 2w 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. DATE: February 18, 2010 DAY: THURSDAY COUNT TIME: 4:00 PM • 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 4:30 PM • 3:30 PM TRAFFIC: ALL TRIPS INTERSECTION: BAYSHORE DRIVE & THOMASSON DRIVE R 3 38 25 Total Intersection Traffic 561 1 68 173 31% Packet Page -114- TIITI*b3 JW44V 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. I 1 0 .1 0 1 Packet Page -115- 2008 Peak Season Factor Category Report - Report Type: ALL Category;.0300 COLLIER COUNTYWIDE MOM 0.85 Week Dates SF PSCF �1 01/01/2008 - 01/05/2008 1.01 1.19 2 01106/2006 - 01/12/2008 0.97 1.15 3 01/13/2008 - 01/19/2008 0.92 1.09 * 4 01/20/2008 - 01/26/2008 0.90 1.06 * 5 01/27/2008 - 02/02/2008 0.87 1.03 * 6 02/03/2008 - 02/09/2008 0.85 1.00 * 7.__..,.02110/2,008. - 02/16/20084 - 0.83__. 6 02/17/2 - .8 0.97 008 - 03/01/2008 0.02 0.97 *10 03/02/2008 - 03/08/2008 0.62 0.97 *11 03/09/2008 - 03/15/2008 0.82 0.97 *12 03/16/2008 - 03/22/2008 0.83 0.98 *13 03/23/2008 - 03/29/2008 0.84 0.99 *14 03130/2008 - 04/05/2008 0.86 1.02 *15 04/06/2008 - 04/12/2008 0.87 1.03 *16 04/13/2008 - 04/19/2006 0.88 1.04 17 04/20/2008 - 04/26/2008 0.91 1.07 18 04/27/2008 - 05/03/2008 0.94 1.11 19 05/04/2006 - 05/10/2006 0.96 1.13 20 05/11/2008 - 05/17/2008 0.99 1.17 21 05/18/2006 - 05/24/2008 1.01 1.19 22 05/25/2006 - 05/31/2006 1.03 1.22 23 06/01/2008 - 06/07/2008 1.05 1.24 24 06/08/2008 - 06/14/2008 1.07 1.26 25 06/15/2008 - 06/21/2008 1.10 1.30 26 06/22/2008 - 06/28/2008 1.11 1.31 27 06/29/2008 - 07/05/2008 1.11 1.31 28 07/06/2008 - 07/12/2008 1.12 1.32 29 07/13/2008 - 07/19/2008 1.13 1.33 30 07/20/2008 - 07/26/2008 1.14 1.35 31 07/27/2008 - 08/02/2008 1.15 1.36 32 08/03/2008 - 08/09/2008 1.16 1.37 33 08/10/2008 - 08/16/2008 1.18 1.39 34 08/17/2008 - 08/23/2008 •1.1Q,. 1.39 35 08/24/2008 - 08/30/2008 1.1'9 1.41 36 08/31/2008 - 09/06/2008 1.20 1.42 37 09/07/2008 - 09/13/2008 1.21 1.43 38 09/14/2008 - 09/20/2008 1.22 1.44 39 09/21/2008 - 09/27/2008 1.20 1.42 40 09/28/2008 - 10/04/2008 1.17 1.38 41 10/05/2008 - 10/11/2008 1.15 1.36 42 10/12/2008 - 10/18/2008 1.13 1.33 43 10/19/2008 - 10/25/2008 1.11 1.31 44 10/26/2008 - 11/01/2008 1.09 1.29 45 11/02/2008 - 11/08/2008 1.07 1.26 46 11/09/2008 - 11/15/2008 1.05 1.24 47 11/16/2008 - 11/22/2008 1.04 1.23 48 11/23/2008 - 11/29/2008 1.04 1.23 49 11/30/2008 - 12/06/2008 1.03 1.22 50 12/07/2008 - 12/13/2008 1.02 1.20 51 12/14/2008 - 12/20/2008 1.01 1.19 52 12/21/2008 - 12/27/2008 0.97 1.15 53 12/28/2008 - 12/31/2008 0.92 1.09 * Peak Season Page 1 of 7 Packet Page -116- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. t Packet Page -117- AGR (Bayshore Dr.) = -9.08% Packet Page -118- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ANNUAL. ACTUAL GROWTH GROWTH RATE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE CALCULATIONS 2.00% - 948% BASED ON AUIR HISTORICAL DATA - 9.08% 2.00% 2008 2009 100% 46.87% CURRENT AUtR AUIR YRS OF OA A ME Q1 VOLUME VO_ LUME GROWTH Bayshare Dr. U.S. 41 to Site 7 757 569 3 Site to Thomasson Dr. 7 757 569 3 Airport Pulling Rd. N. of U.S. 41 6 1,768 1662 3 Thornasson Dr. E. of Bayshore Dr. 108 4D 6D 3 U.S. 41 W. of Bayshore Dr. 91 1,890 1731 3 E, of Bayshore Dr. 91 1,890 1731 3 E. of Airport Pulling Rd. 92 2,670 2471 3 E. ofThomasson Dr. 93 1,960 2053 3 Shadowiawn Dr. N. of U.S. 41 144 292 259 3 • AN traffic volumes were taken hom the 2008 & 2009 Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR) •• In Instances whore the historical data Indicates a reduction In tratsc or growth was less than 2% per year a rdnlnwm annual growth rata of 2.0% was assumed. SAMPLE GROWTH RATE CALCULATION 2009 AUIR A(lNrs or Growth) Annual Growth Rate (AGR) _ _1 7006 AUIR 569 AGR (Boyahore Dr.) _ 1 757 AGR (Bayshore Dr.) = -9.08% Packet Page -118- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ANNUAL. ACTUAL GROWTH GROWTH RATE RATE 2.00% - 948% 2.0VA - 9.08% 2.00% - 4.05% 100% 46.87% 2.0D°% - 2.89% 2.00% -2.89% 2.00°% - 2.55% Z00% 1.50% 2.00°% -3.92% 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. m0) W ZR OtD ` N mMO N d.4 co cV M V) S' e- O C; LO " O r '- Of p ° to ° N CY Ln O O °LO O� y rtO M p dLo ° N N Mr e- Guj CO NO N CLn N ON W c N W o N m w Wc�oN $LO dR E C3 N [V tM W t+�O� M O°9 CD c`7O `� O� Q Opt C S C W 2 N �Y{ m y m C � a � ti 3Q a o 2CMrnM a� o 5 CO O N U) ci N O l YQ l0 CaCV O N OD o (N t� mtCC to t`-o OO Ca CO C; L � ` m a V pc/3�C °� r �- N�a o'a 0 ' N N wN 7i R +� m i ® O (� m�ta N rJ ©� �`� dN �! X10 d N OO tra it ON d! Z O N Z O N E CL 0 t� � V O�� i~p ti Z M O tYf p i a W � 'd' ey" ��pp�� C G7 Z hl N r C w W` 0] r� Z O� r d r CO i'l d� t0 M d tai N d tV 3X7 U. fO1t N 0l w L O E H C O 3 a up E > o m E > C.) U- 2 CD 6 O aci o > c 7 3 W .M a> EaE. E•� c E Ed E c j N tail F- C t �1 �a a F- t O O �UCO .+ 3� Q a >� '- a a L) « 3 C ° C ° mQ aN sc O�D n,3 of CO C O 3 5 2 1713 `2 C] Ewa rr� O �'�` E ma. �M u 5 y 32 E- v1 c m �' m H CO c ° M Ln U M C7 in a 7 IL U L tpd (9 tv fad iL C4 O 3 Q U t4" 0 >- N OT' N n. Packet Page -119- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. IV 1 40 # 4p Packet Page -120- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 113 111 vj-*, Packet Page -121- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -122- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information rM Information iEasdlAtest Street Thomesson Dr. iNorltdSoulh Street: Batrshae Dr, 1 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Wastbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Lt L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 of guratton L TR LT R LTR L 7R HF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Flow Rate (vahth) 41 20 35 120 89 151 75 Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Na,Lanes 2 2 1 2 ametry Group 5 5 4b 5 ratbon, T 0.25 aturation Headway Ad ustment Worksheet rop. teft Turns 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 rop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 Prop. Heavy vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -tLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 T-adl -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 -0.6 1 -0.6 1 -0.7 -0.7 tiv -ad) 1.7 1.7 1.7 L 7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 ad). computed 0.5 1 -0.0 1 0.3 -0.7 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 re Headwa and Service Time alue (a) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.13 0.07 lue (s) r7a'VV1'a'CqPr!1't!'y 600 5.46 5.68 4.70 5.15 5.6,3 4.77 ue 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.16 0.13 0.24 0.10 me, m (s) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 e, % (s) 3.7 3.2 3.4 2.4 2.8 33 2.5 and Leve l of Service F_asibound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L7 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (vehlh) 291 270 285 370 339 4{)1 325 Delay (sleets} 9.14 6.34 8.71 8.28 8.60 10.07 8.00 LOS A A A A A B A Approach: delay (stveh) 8.88 8.38 8.60 9.38 Los A A A A ntersectlon May (s/veh) 8.90 Intersection LOS A Copyright 0 2008 University of Florida, Ali Rights Reserved HCS +TN Version 5.4 Generated: 212412010 2:22 PM Packet Page -123- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Copyright m 2008 University of Florida, AR Rights Reserved MCS +TV Version 5.4 Generated: 2124/2010 2:23 PM Packet Page -124- ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Hera{ Information ISIte Information lAnslyst en lCo. Perfomred 8 Time Perid iDFi001.02 -WIMP ole CortauRa 0 rloft� !b! - 2015 T rsecuon dedictlan Year anhow7hoMeMn ter County 0i5 -1 3e round stMiest Street Thomeaaon Dr. orth/South Street; Beysh" Qr. olume Ad ustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound Viteatbound vement L T R L T R otume (vetdtt) 41 23 2 43 12 142 Thrus Lett Lane roach Northbound Southbound eM L T R l T R Blume (vehfi) 3 41 26 157 70 41 Thrums ss Left Lane Eastbound Wastbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 1-1 1.2 guratlon L TR LT R LTR L TR VHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Rate (veh1h) 47 28 62 165 80 182 128 avy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 2 Geometry Group 5 5 4b 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Ad'ustment Worksheet Prop. Left Tums 1.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 11-rap. Right -Toms 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 jp. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 JILT -adl 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT -a4 -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV -sd) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 had), computed 0.5 41 0.4 -0.7 -0.2 0.5 -0.3 pe arture Headwa and Service time itial value (a) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 ial 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.15 0.07 0.16 0.11 nal value (a) 6.34 5.78 6.06 4.95 5.46 5.88 5.12 l value 0.08 0.04 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.30 0.18 11,n up time, m (a) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 ce Time, (s) 4.0 3.5 3.8 2.7 3.2 3.6 2.8 acl and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 11 L2 Li t2 1-1 L2 Capacity (vehth) 297 278 312 415 330 432 378 my (slveh) 9.61 8.76 5.46 9.10 8.81 11.05 8.96 OS A A A A A B A Approach: Delay ("11) 9.29 9.20 8.91 10.19 LOS A A A 8 intersection Delay (stveh) 9.62 intersection LOS A Copyright m 2008 University of Florida, AR Rights Reserved MCS +TV Version 5.4 Generated: 2124/2010 2:23 PM Packet Page -124- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -125- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS neral Information ite Information A st f MereeeHon shore?homsason /Co. TR Trait ►tattin ConsuAantS uriedic8on Comer' Cou Pertonned 4/2090 Y 15 -Nit Pro WOWS Time Period M Peak kour- 2015 ID F1001.02 - WIM of MPS Street Thomesson DV: orfh/South Street 8ayahore Dr. oluma Ad Lmusiv s; and Site Characteristics - Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R otume (vehlh) 36 17 1 17 -+ 14 125 Thrus LeR Lane Northbound Southbound avemer►t L T R L T R olume (vahfh) 1 57 23 145 1 33 34 Thrue Left Lana Eadbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 oniguration L TR LT R LTR L TR HF 0.86 0.66 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 low to (vehlh) 41 20 35 145 93 168 77 Heavy vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Lanas 2 2 1 2 eorneby Group 5 5 4b 5 oration, T 0.25 aturation Headway d ustrnent Worksheet p. Left Tums 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 ap. Right -Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.5 op. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT -adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 RT-adi -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -a 7 -0.6 I -0.6 -0.7 1 -0.7 HV-adj 1.7 11 1.7 1.7 1.7 1 1.7 1.7 1.7 dj, computed 0.5 -0.0 0.3 -0.7 -ft 2 0.5 -0.4 e rture He,dway and Service Time d, Irdliat value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.15 0.07 d, final value (s) 6,11 5.57 5.76 4.78 5.25 5.71 4.85 tinai value 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.19 0.14 0.27 0.10 time, m (a) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 ervlce Time, to (s) 3.8 3.3 3.5 2.5 3.0 3.4 2.6 a ci and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound 1-1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 . Li L2 Capacity (vehth) 291 270 285 395 343 418 327 Delay (arveh) 9.27 8.45 8.80 8.62 8.78 10.47 8.12 OS A A A A A 8 A Approach: Delay (shveh) 9.00 8.65 8.78 9.73 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay (slveh) 9.17 Intersection LOS A Copyright 82008 University of Florida. All Rights Reserved HCS +lm Vsrslon 5.d ueneraiec: zrzRreuiu i:sr rm Packet Page -126- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS 161to Information Knew l00 t TR Tranapoltawn Consuttenta Performed w4mo a sis Time Period IPM Peak Hour - 2015 J�estAAlost Street Thomaason Dr. INorth/South Street: Bayshore Dr. - otume (vehfh) 41 23 2 43 12 191 lane ch Northtound Soutt�ound pollutslt ent L T R L T R (veh/h) 3 49 26 207 78 41 hrus Left Lene Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 Li L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration L TR LT R LTR L TR HF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.66 (vehrh) 47 28 62 222 89 240 137 4H, avy VehiGe s 0 0 0 0 0 Q p rRate anes 2 2 1 2 metry Grasp 5 5 4b 5 tion, T 0.25 aturation HeadwaX Ad ustment Worksheet rop. Lefi_Tums 1.0 0.0 a 8 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 rop. Right -Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 p. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 LT-wj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 RT-adj -0.7 -0.7 1 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -66 -0.7 -0.7 HV-ad) 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 had), computed 0.5 -0.1 0.4 -0.7 -0.2 0.5 -0.2 i)e arture tieadw and Service Time initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial 0.04 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.08 0.21 0.12 , final value (s) 6.69 6.13 6.31 5.21 676 6.08 5.34 final value 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.41 0.20 ova-up time, m (6) 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 ervice Time, tB (s) 4.4 3.8 4.0 2.9 3.5 3.8 3,0 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 t2 1.1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (velA) 297 278 312 472 339 490 387 Delay (shah) 10.03 9.14 9.78 10.35 9.42 12.86 9.39 LOS B - A A B A I B A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.70 10.22 9.42 11.60 LOS A B A B interse Lion Delay (stveh) 10.72 r tarsectlon LOS B Copyright 0 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.4 Packet Page -127- Generated: 2P2412010 1:39 PM .01 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. I Packet Page -128- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS noral Information ISK9 Information IV ntemeoflon n lCo. TR Performed ConsuHants uredicflo e Count /10 we Year Of 5 - K" p1gect na st3 Time Period M Peak Hour - 2015 ro act ID (1001.02 - w/M P TO" et/UVest Street Jeepm orMouth Street Beyshons Dr. alums Ad us rants and Site Characteristics Eastbound Westbound ovement L T R L T R gloms (vehlh) 11 23 15 6 12 6 Thrus left Lane Norttdround Southbound ant L I T R L T R gloms (vatt/h) , 3 1 208 10 25 206 41 Thrua Lett Lane 65 1 65 Eastbound West mnd Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 1.2 Configuration LR T TR LT T PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 taw Rate (vehlh) 17 1 156 95 183 84 Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 a. Lanes 0 1 2 2 Geometry Group 1 5 5 oration, T 0.25 aturation Headway Ad ustment Worksheet p. Lett -Turns 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Prop. Right -Turns 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 rop. Heavy VaNde 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-aft 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 hRT -adJ -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adJ 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 ad1, computed -0.2 0.0 arture H!! and Service Time d, lnlitial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial 0.01 0.14 0.08 0.16 0.07 hd, final value (a) 4.79 4.73 4.65 4.79 4.71 final value 0.02 0.20 0.12 0.24 0.11 e up time, m (a) 2.0 2.3 2.3 entice Time. i (s) 2.6 2.4 7, 3 2.5 2.4 Ga ac and Level of Service Eastbound Westhound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 1.1 L2 L1 L2 :;a1actty (vehm) 262 406 i 345 433 334 Delay (shreh) 7.87 8.64 8,00 9.03 8.00 LS A A A A A Approach: Delay (slveh) 7.87 6.40 8.71 LOS A A A ntersection Delay (stvah) 8,54 Intersection LDS A Copyright 0 20DS University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +TM Version 5.4 Generated: 2124/2010 2:01 PM Packet Page -129- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site information rim sia rsecfion � e tCo. lit Tra consullenls rfadial;orr Bar Cou Performed 412010 a� Year 15 - WIN► act Waslyela Time Period JPM Peak Hour- 2015 1.02 -Wflh uN 7' t deopea rMouth Street: 8ayahore Dr. ustments and Site Characteristics Eastbound vveamamd EThruBLet L T R L T R 11 23 15 20 12 10 e Northbound Southbound L T R L T R Volume (vehm) 3 266 15 40 1 306 41 %Thrus Lett Lane 65 65 Easbound westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L! L2 L1 L2 uration LR T TR LT T rRow 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 ate (vehi'h) 34 199 126 276 925 vy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 0 1 2 2 Geometry Group 1 5 5 Duration, T 0.25 aturation Headway Ad 'ustment Worksheet Prop. Leff Turns 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 3p. Heavy vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT -adl 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 hRT -ad) -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0. T -0.7 -0.7 Hv-adJ 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 dJ, computed -Q 1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.0 e amore Headway and Service Time tMaal value (e) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Initial 0.03 0.18 0.11 0.25 0.11 hd, fine] value (a) 5.34 4.93 4.84 4.95 4.86 final value 0.05 0.27 0.17 0.38 0.17 ve.up time, m (s) 2.0 2.3 2.3 mice Time, is (a) 3.3 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 aci and Level of Service Eastbound Moll and Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (vehm) 284 449 376 526 375 Delay (atveh) 8.62 9.47 8.52 10.64 8.55 LOS A A A B A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 8.62 9.10 9.91 LOS A ; A A Intersection Delay (stveh) 9.55 intersection LOS A Copyright 0 2008 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +z m version 5.4 c+aneratea: zrrarzut u z:ot FM Packet Page -130- 53 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. , ACCESS Packet Page -131- ca 6/12/2012 Item 9.A ALL -WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS Venar, e ral Information he information fte Access IV /Co, TR Tran tofn Consuffents ter Cou eats Performed P402010 Is Yaer 12015 - Mh Prgied a a% Tir.re Period M Beek Now - 2015 ct ID F1001.02 - K th PnD d TIfPs NOW Street Primary Ste Aoaess t=uth Street: Boyshore Dr. alums Ad ustments and Site Characteristics roach ovement olume (Vewh) Eastbound L T R 11 23 15 Westbound L T 11 12 15 eThrus Left Lane h ovement Northbound L T R Southbound L I T R olume (Vehlh) 3 1 212 8 20 1 220 41 Thrus Lott Lane 50 1 50 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 1-1 L2 n5puration L R T TR LT T PHF 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 Flow Rate (vehtr) 12 17 123 132 150 127 Heavy vehicles 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 No. Lanes 0 2 2 2 Geometry Group 1 5 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Ad ustment Worksheet rop. Left -rums 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 rop. RightTums 0.0 1.0 0,0 0.1 0.0 0.0 op. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0, 5 0.5 T -adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 HT-Wj V -adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 dj computed 0.2 -f.0.0 -0.0 0.1 0.0 e arture Headwa and I Service Time initial value (s) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 initial 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.11 , final value (a) 5.21 4.42 4.79 4.74 4,84 4.77 final value 0.02 0.02 0.16 0.17 0.20 0.17 Move -up time. m (s) 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time, to (s) 3.2 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5 Capar,Mand Level of service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 paclty (vehth) 262 267 373 382 400 377 39lay (afvah) 8.31 7.51 8.42 8.44 8.77 8.43 os A A A A A A proach: Delay (sfveh) 7.84 8.43 8.61 Los A A A intersection Delay (sNeh) 8.49 Intersection LOS A Copyright 0 2008 Llnhtersity of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS +' * Version 5.4 venerawa: ztzarzu i u z:uz rm Packet Page -132- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS e Information its Information t nhraectfon a orelSlte Acoeas TR Tra ortaiatn Consuffants uriediction Cow rformed 412010 eta Year 12015 - 4t71h P ct lroe Period M Prick Hour - 2015 F1001,02 - Wfth P T a Street: Prinsary Site Access South SUeet i3ayatiwe tk Ad ustments and Site Characteristics rThrusLeftLene Eastbound Westbound L T R L T R h1h) 38 23 75 38 12 75 ne Northbound southbound L T R L I T R Volume (v") 1 3 258 24 65 308 41 %Thrus Left Lane 65 65 Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 on L R T TR LT T 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 (vehlh) 44 87 194 13 2 307 125 ehicles KHF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 Group 5 0,25 on Headwa Ad'ustment Worksheet rop. Left-Tume 1.0 0.0 i 0.0 D.0 0.2 0.0 Right-Turns 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 eavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 LRT-adl, -0.6 -0.6 -0, 7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 r�uted 0.2 -0.6 0.0 -0.1 0.1 0.0 ture Head! a and Service Time hd, Initial Value (S) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 Mai 0.04 0.08 0.17 0,12 0.27 0.11 hd, final value (s) 5.74 4.94 5.29 5.14 5.30 5.18 final value 0.07 0.12 0.28 0.19 0.45 018 Move -up time, m (s) 2.0 2.3 2.3 Service Time, 4 (s) 3.7 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.9 GapacU and Level of Service Eastbound Wastbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (vetch) 294 337 444 362 557 375 Delay (stvah) 9.17 8.61 10.08 9.04 12.30 9.01 OS A A B A B A Approach: Delay (stveh) 8.80 9.66 11.35 Los A A B Intersection Delay (s1veh) 10.35 Intersection LOS B Copyright 0 2003 University of Florida. AN Rights Reserved HCS +fM Version 5.4 Generated: 2/2412010 2:03 Pfd Packet Page -133- '0." IV • 1, I I Q Packet Page -134- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. a i 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -135- IN Pi M COUNTY BARN RD QK0.Y oo c U O rn � M Q NCq `� }a}a O IM µVS 4 A 06 .a. cV u m J., 44 o� c J Irv, � .'� °z 'f O CIL oo t Mr alp AIRPORT PULLING RD W Cq 6 BAYW E DR V G O 0 d s IL Ln 0 Packet Page -135- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -136- 6/12/2012 Item 9:A. aaccr�rtrxn xavr :r�anns awY7"n r` - -- it.: :w wl•xaV . ., ... :+'. `. �.'� _ r -- - --- �RRjm I I S!jj' g FF o of If ot oil I P11 wo F. M t a9 I�(aIs ; p}} 'y fiQ i i • a �� a i F' ='lmi �•(i4i+li Eli. oil lie a WSJ J. H Smile I I ! �F i I jam..: i ' I I- -I-• -{ ' I , 6 — _.�. �� Y r �G,.. n I � i•tn,••' ' (: ,`,- ',.a –a ' . Imo},,; .f,� • h .....,i ^' 1�1= �• r .r!"}�'.'k rd i'Ij . I , Li pl 'gad ; iail i,'ii! ti @$ lr II' '�I h� a; t~ *f y loll 11 .4 rill Packet Page -137- 6/1 2/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -138- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS BAYSHORE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 8' EDITION Land Use Weekda AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Dart 2 -wa Shopping Center Ln ('1') = 0.59 Ln (X) + 2.32 Ln (T) = 0.67 Ln (X) + 3.37 UC 820 61 % W39% Out) 49% In/51 % Out) Ln (T) = 0.65 Ln (X) + 5.83 T = T s X =1,000's of s uare feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA Residential Condominium/Townhouse = 0.80 Ln + 0.26 f� o fX) Ln (T} = 0.82 Ln (X) 0.32 Ln (T) = 0.87 Ln (X) + 2.46 (LUC 230) (17% W83 /o Out) t {67% In/33 /o Out) T = Lrial X = Dwellingg Units General Office Building Ln (T) — 0.80 Ln (X) + 1.55 T =1.49 (X) UC 710 88% In/12% Out 17% In183 %Chit Ln (i� = 0.77 Ln (x) + 3.65 I T = Trips, X = 1,000's of square feet of Gross Floor Area (GFA) For the P.M. Peak Hour equation under the General Office Land use, the average trip rate was utilized rather than the trip generation equation. By utilizing the trip generation equation for the General Office use, the number of P.M. peak hour trips are over three times the number of A.M. peak hour trips. The data contained in the rM report for the weekday P.M. peak hour is based on 216 studies with an average size of 235,000 square feet. Therefore, when a small office development is proposed and put into the equation (in this case, 8,075 square feet), the straight line equation for the P.M. peak hour gives an abnormally high result due to the constant contained in the equation. Comparing the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation for a much larger office development (say 200,000 square feet), a more even trip generation between the two peak hours exists. And generally, the P.M. peak hour trip generation is lower than the A.M. peak hour trip generation. It is for this reason that the average rate was used for the weekday P.M. peak hour for the General Office use. Packet Page -139- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Request for Exemption Packet Page -140- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE Environmental impact Statement Exemption Request The proposed Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore property is located within a portion of Section` 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The 17.8± acre site is west of Bayshore Drive and north of Thomasson Drive. The property is bordered on the north and south by existing residential development, to the west by Bayshore Drive, and to the east by the County owned Sugden Regional Park. The entire site has been significantly disturbed. Based on historic aerial photography the site was cleared and the borrow pits were excavated between 1952 and 1962. Aerial photography of the property and surrounding lands from 1962, 1975, and 1985 are attached. The portions of the borrow pits that were shallowly excavated have become colonized by wetland species while the deeper areas are currently open water. The remainder of the site has either become dominated by exotics, is maintained as an open mowed field, or was used for some type of development. The property is not located within an ACSC or ST zoning overlay. The majority of the site (15.2± acres, 85 percent) consists of uplands dominated by exotics, an open mowed field, and the open water borrow pit. The rem_ aining 2.6± acres are state jurisdictional wetlands which have been colonized in the shallowest portions of the borrow pit. A survey for state and federally listed species was conducted on -site on July 8, 2009. No nesting or denning of listed species was observed within the uplands on the property. Two state listed wading bird species, little blue herons (Egretta caerulea) and tricolored herons (Egretta tricolor), were observed within the wetlands on -site. The little blue herons were observed perching in melaleuca and willow within the exotic invaded freshwater marsh and the tricolored herons were observed in the mixed wetland hardwoods. While no active wading bird nests were observed on -site, a total of eight apparently inactive wading bird stick nests were observed in the melaleuca growing in the exotic invaded freshwater marsh. It is likely that these stick nests were utilized by wading birds during the previous nesting season. Please see the attached Protected Species Assessment for additional information on the listed species survey and for a description of current site conditions. A Collier County Preserve Area Management Plan is also attached. According to a review of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission listed species database (updated in August 2008) there are no known state or federally protected species occurring on or in the vicinity of the site. The Community Redevelopment Agency proposes to construct and operate a multi -use cultural arts village at this location. Please see the Master Concept Plan for the site plan. Packet Page -141- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A Section 10.02.02.A.7 of the Collier County Land Development Code lists the types of projects which are exempt from preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Section i0.02.02.A.7.d lists the five criteria for "non-sensitive areas" which are exempt from an EIS. Each criterion, as it pertains to the subject property, is discussed below. The property was cleared and a borrow pit was excavated in a majority of the site between 1952 and 1962. A majority of the existing open water of the borrow pit as well as the majority of the borrow pit that has since become vegetated by native wetland vegetation will be preserved as part of the county and /or state permitting process. The proposed development activities will be focused on the non - ecologically sensitive portions of the property (e.g. the mowed field and exotic monocultures). The vast majority of the higher quality wetlands (99 percent) will be preserved and enhanced via exotic species control. A state approved water management system will treat all stormwater runoff from the developed portion of the site. As such, the proposed project will not further degrade the environmental quality of the site or surrounding areas. ii. All of the naturally occurring flora was cleared from the site over 40 years ago. The majority of the site has since been either maintained as a mowed field, become a monoculture of exotics, or is open water. In the absence of a future development plan, it is unlikely that additional ecologically useful areas would naturally regenerate. Conversely, it is probable that exotic species will continue to invade the wetlands located within the shallow portions of the borrow pit. Therefore, the proposed project will not preclude reasonable regeneration of native communities of a useful ecologic purpose on the property. iii. The natural drainage pattern of the property and the surrounding lands was permanently altered when the borrow pit was excavated over 40 years ago. The proposed project will discharge its treated stormwater runoff into the existing borrow pit pursuant to all applicable South Florida Water Management District regulatory criteria. Therefore, the project will not further degrade existing drainage and recharge capacities of the site. iv. The proposed project will result in an eradication of invasive exotic plant species from the site. This will improve the habitat quality of the wetlands on -site. v. No structures currently occur on -site and therefore the development of a multi -use cultural arts village will require the construction of new buildings. However, as documented above, the site was dramatically and permanently altered over 40 years ago, the proposed project will not degrade existing drainage and recharge capacities of the site or F Packet Page -142- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. surrounding lands, and the project will result in the removal of invasive exotic plants from the property. Based on the information provided above, it is clear that the 17.8± acre property is a non - sensitive area having minimal ecological functions or values and that the proposed development will not have a substantial negative impact on the environmental quality of the site or adjacent lands. Therefore, the proposed Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore qualifies for an exemption from the Collier County EIS process. WABRNK- 9631EIS Waiver_doc Packet Page -143- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -144- — 11 — I— —A - .. Packet Page -145- low,: i 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -146- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Protected Species Assessment Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida Prepared For .L Prepared By-, W. Dexter Bender & Associates, Inc. 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 In Conjunction With: 01"Noft 041" A. VAUnks =219tivelert PrOfeSsiOtial EtfgblecPs, Plarthers & Laoid Sutrveyo R9 Packet Page -147- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A INTRODUCTION The 17.6± acre project is located within a portion of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The parcel is bordered to the north, south, and west by existing development and to the east by the County owned Sugden Regional Park. SITE CONDITIONS The entire site has been significantly disturbed. Based on historic aerial photography the site was cleared and the borrow pits were excavated between 1952 and 1962. The portions of the borrow pits that were shallowly excavated have become colonized by wetland species while the deeper areas are currently open water. The remainder of the site has either become dominated by exotics, maintained as an open field, or used for some type of development purpose. VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS The predominant vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2008 digital 1" = 100' scale aerial photography. Eight vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). The approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations are shown on Figure 1 and the acreages are summarized by FLUCCS Code in Table 1. A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is also provided below. T bl 1 Acres in Summar by FLUCCS Code a e �LUGCS CODE DESCRIPTION , AGREAGf= 450 Mixed Exotic U land Forest 4.1 617E1 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods invaded by Exotics 10 — 25% 0.2 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 0.1 641 Freshwater Marshes 0.1 6412 Cattail Marsh 0.3 641 E1 Freshwater Marshes invaded by Exotics 10 — 25% 1.9 740 Disturbed Land 4.3 742 j Borrow Areas Total 6.8 17.8 FLUCCS Code 450 Mixed Exotic Upland Forest The forested uplands on the property are dominated by exotics. Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) is the dominate canopy species. Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), lead tree (Leucaena leucocephale), and carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) are also common. Very Packet Page -148- 77r , i 1 r ! A z"Tin I fl{ i 41 r-11 P q 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. widely scattered slash pine (Pious elliottil) and cabbage palm (Saba/ palmetto) are present. The midstory consists primarily of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and melaleuca. Widely scattered cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco) is also present. The ground cover stratum varies across the site. in many areas, the ground cover consists of Australian pine needle duff or bare ground. Several areas are dominated by wedelia ( Wedelia trilobate) or air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera). Additional ground cover species occurring in this vegetation association consist of periwinkle (Catharanthus sp.), Caesar weed (Urena lobata), cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), grape vine (Vitis sp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Piles of spoil, rock, and debris are common throughout the area. FLUCCS Code 617E1 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods invaded by Exotics (10 — 25 %) A small portion of the old borrow pit has become dominated by pond apple (Annona glabra). Melaleuca and scattered willow (Salix caroliniana) are also present. These species are growing primarily on small hummocks. Ground cover consists of leather fern (Acrostichum sp.), open water, and scattered cattail (Typha sp.). FLUCCS Code 619, Exotic Wetland Hardwoods Exotic dominated wetlands form a narrow fringe along much of the upland — borrow pit interface. Australian pine, melaleuca, and Brazilian pepper are the dominant species. Scattered pond apple and very widely scattered cocoplum, willow, and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) are also present. The ground cover consists of species such as leather fern, saw -grass (Cladium jamaicense), wedelia, swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), swamp lily (Crinum americanum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindriea), and loosestrife (Lythrum sp.). FLUCCS Code 641, Freshwater Marshes A freshwater marsh is located in the southeast comer of the site. This area is vegetated by leather fern and widely scattered willow. FLUCCS Code 6412, Cattail Marsh One of the freshwater marshes on -site is dominated by cattail. Scattered pond apple is also present. FLUCCS Code 641 E1 Freshwater Marshes invaded by Exotics (10 — 25% The majority of freshwater marshes on the property has been invaded by melaleuca and scattered Brazilian pepper. Small willow and pond apple are also present. The ground cover consists primarily of leather fern with scattered cattail and stinkweed (Pluchea sp.). FLUCCS Code 740, Disturbed Land The uplands in the western portion of the property are being maintained as open fields via periodic mowing. Widely scattered cabbage palms, slash pine, and non - native landscape species are present. Ground cover consists of species such as beggar tick (Bidens sp.), fingergrass (Eustachys petraea), flatsedges (Cyperus spp.), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), whitehead broom (Spermacoce verticillata), frog Packet Page -150- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. fruit (Phyla nodiflora), pusley (Richardia grandiflora), smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), crow's foot grass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), southern sida (Sida acuta), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and pepper -vine (Ampelopsis arborea). The southwestern comer of the site appears to have contained two structures. These buildings have been removed and only a concrete slab remains. FLUCCS Code 742 Borr6w Areas The majority of the eastern portion of the site consists of a borrow pit. The pit is of an unknown depth and extends off -site in several directions. The borrow pit appears to connect to Haldeman Creek to the north via a man made canal. SURVEY METHOD Based on the general habitat types ( FLUCCS Codes) identified on -site there is a potential for a limited number of species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to potentially occur on the subject parcel. These species include gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais coupen), and a variety of wading birds (little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), limpkin (Aramus guarama), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), white ibis (Eudocimus al /bus), and wood stork (Mycteria americans)). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which has been recently delisted by the FWS and the FWC, is still protected by other regulations and guidelines and was therefore also included in the survey. In order to comply with FWC /FWS survey methodology guidelines, each habitat type was surveyed for the occurrence of the protected species including those listed above using meandering belt pedestrian transects. The meandering belt pedestrian transects were spaced approximately 50 to 100 feet apart depending on habitat conditions. Observations were also made at selected points along the perimeter of the borrow pits and by kayak. The approximate location of direct sighting or sign (such as tracks, nests, and droppings) of a protected species, when observed, was denoted on the aerial photography. The attached 1" = 100' scale aerial Protected Species Assessment Map depicts the approximate location of the survey transects and the results of the survey. The protected species survey was conducted during the mid -day hours of July 8, 2009. During the survey, the weather was sunny and warm with an intermittent breeze. Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a search of the FWC listed species database (updated in August 2008) was conducted to determine the known occurrence of protected species in the project area. This search revealed no known protected species occurring on or immediately adjacent to the site. 4 Packet Page -151- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. SURVEY RESULTS Wading Birds Two listed wading bird species, little blue herons (Egretta caerulea) and tricolored herons (Egretta tricolor), were observed on -site. Both of these species are listed as Species of Special Concern by the FWC and are not listed by the FWS. The little blue herons were observed perching in melaleuca and willow within the exotic invaded freshwater marsh (FLUCCS Code 641 E4 ). The tricolored herons were observed in the mixed wetland hardwoods (FLUCCS Code 617E1). While no active wading bird nests were observed on -site, a total of eight apparently inactive stick nests were observed in the melaleuca growing in the exotic invaded freshwater marsh. it is likely that these stick nests were utilized by wading birds during the previous nesting season. Additional surveys, conducted during the nesting season, will be required to confirm the species of birds that constructed these nests. Other Listed Species No other species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey. There is the potential for periodic opportunistic foraging by additional listed and non listed species of wading birds as well as wading bird nesting within the marshes. It is also likely that American alligators are periodically present within the site's open water areas. PROTECTED SPECIES MANAGEMENT PLAN A total of eight apparently inactive stick nests were observed in melaleuca growing in a 0.1± acre area of exotic invaded freshwater marsh. This area will be preserved as part of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) permitting process but is not designated as a Collier County preserve due to its small size. The SFWMD permit will require that all exotics within the preserves be treated. Exotic trees containing stick nests will be treated in place during the non nesting season and left standing. Applicable authorizations will be obtained from the FWC prior to treatment. The native trees and shrubs preserved in the 0.55± acre Collier County Native Vegetation Preserve, as well as the other SFWMD required preserves, will allow continued nesting opportunities for these species on the property. WABANKAOZounty PSA.doc Packet Page -152- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Environmental Packet Page -153- m h,',•,,�. '+. e. .,^ S ?,. ',�., ra Kati � s a -11. W a a x U) m W Css0J9 �j N J V E € I� s 4 Lf1 Q1 W to a 4- v Y U (0 CL ( �; i Z W Ji MU L I ' '4 _ o,�z W O ^•� .yam! `1 I 1 N 1 hµ Nat / - i .♦ Qi / 11 I 1 I 1 7 1 1 t1 / a 1 a -11. W a a x U) m W Css0J9 �j N J V E € I� s 4 Lf1 Q1 W to a 4- v Y U (0 CL ( �; i Z W Ji MU 6/12/2012 Item 9.A Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Wading Bird Nest Survey A wading bird nest survey was conducted on the proposed Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore parcel on May 19, 2010. Temperatures during the survey were in the low to mid 80's F, winds were light, and skies were mostly clear. The vegetated shorelines of the existing water bodies located on the subject parcel were visually inspected from a kayak and any nests observed during the survey were documented. For nests that were currently active, the species utilizing the nests were also denoted. The attached wading bird nest survey map depicts the approximate route of the survey and the locations of the nests observed during the survey event. A total of 23 wading bird nests were observed during the May 19, 2010 survey. Of those nests, 14 were unoccupied and the species potentially utilizing the nests could not be determined. The remaining nests consisted of six active anhinga (Anhinga anhinga) nests and three active little blue heron (Florida caerulea) nests (see attached photographs). The nests were observed in areas mapped as exotic invaded mixed wetland hardwoods (FLUCCS Code 617E1 ), exotic invaded freshwater marsh (FLUCCS Code 641 E1), and cattail marsh (FLUCCS Code 6412). In addition to the observed nests, several little blue heron chicks were observed in the southwest corner of the cattail marsh. It could not be determined if the chicks were within nests. 11 Server\documents\BANK- 1531Wading Bird Nest Survey.do= Packet Page -155- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Anhinga Nest (May 2011) Little Blue Heron Nest (May 2011) Packet Page -156- a+.ro:.,. a s 1 ! 0 -, a 'T-4 ` $.r -f j 2 tY 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Cultural Arts Village at Bayshare Wading Bird Habitat Management Plan Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida Prepared For: R % t 0 t bf S In Conjunction With: Natthis rte` Professional Engineers, Pla ers & Land Surveyo - I Packet Page -158- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. INTRODUCTION The 17.8± acre project is located within a portion of Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The parcel is bordered to the north, south, and west by existing development and to the east by the County owned Sugden Regional Park. SITE CONDITIONS The entire site has been significantly disturbed. Based on historic aerial photography the site was cleared and the borrow pits were excavated between 1952 and 1962. The portions of the borrow pits that were shallowly excavated have become colonized by wetland species while the deeper areas are currently open water. The remainder of the site has either become dominated by exotics, maintained as an open field, or used for some type of development purpose. VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS The predominant vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2008 digital 1" = 100' scale aerial photography. Eight vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCCS). Exhibit A depicts the approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations and Table 1 summarizes the acreages by FLUCCS Code. Table 1. Acreage Summary bv FLUCCS Code FLUCCS CODE < ;, - DESCRIPTION :... - . ACREAGE 450 Mixed Exotic Upland Forest 4.1 617E1 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods invaded by Exotics 10 — 25 %) 0.2 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 0.1 641 Freshwater Marshes 0.1 6412 Cattail Marsh 0.3 641 E1 Fresh -water Marshes invaded by Exotics 10 — 25% 1.9 740 Disturbed Land 4.3 742 Borrow Areas 6.8 Total 17.8 A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is provided below. FLUCCS Code 450, Mixed Exotic Upland Forest The forested uplands on the property are dominated by exotics. Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia) is the dominate canopy species. Melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), lead tree (Leucaena Packet Page -159- 6/12/2012 item 9.A. leucocephala), and carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides) are also common. Very widely scattered slash pine (Pinus eliottit) and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto) are present. The midstory consists primarily of Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) and melaleuca. Widely scattered cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco) is also present. The ground cover stratum varies across the site. In many areas, the ground cover consists of Australian pine needle duff or bare ground. Several areas are dominated by wedelia (Wede/ia trilobata) or air potato (Dioscorea bulbifera). Additional ground cover species occurring in this vegetation association consist of periwinkle (Catharanthus sp.), Caesar weed (Urena lobata), cogongrass (Imperate cylindrica), grape vine (Vitas sp.), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Piles of spoil, rock, and debris are common throughout the area. FLUCCS Code 617E1 Mixed Wetland Hardwoods invaded by Exotics (10 — 25 %) A small portion of the old borrow pit has become dominated by pond apple (Annona glabra). Melaleuca and scattered willow (Salix caroliniana) are also present. These species are growing primarily on small hummocks. Ground cover consists of leather fern (Acrostichum sp.), open water, and scattered cattail (Typha sp.). FLUCCS Code 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods Exotic dominated wetlands form a narrow fringe along much of the upland — borrow pit interface. Australian pine, melaleuca, and Brazilian pepper are the dominant species. Scattered pond apple and very widely scattered cocoplum, willow, and bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) are also present. The ground cover consists of species such as leather fern, saw -grass (Cladium jamaicense), wedelia, swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), swamp lily (Crinum americanum), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and ioosestrife (Lythrum sp.). FLUCCS Code 641, Freshwater Marshes A freshwater marsh is located in the southeast corner of the site. This area is vegetated by leather fern and widely scattered willow. FLUCCS Code 6412, Cattail Marsh One of the freshwater marshes on -site is dominated by cattail. Scattered pond apple is also present. FLUCCS Code 641 E1 Freshwater Marshes invaded by Exotics (10 — 25 %) The majority of freshwater marshes on the property has been invaded by melaleuca and scattered Brazilian pepper. Small willow and pond apple are also present. The ground cover consists primarily of leather fern with scattered cattail and stinkweed (Pluchea sp.). 2 Packet Page -160- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. FLUCCS Code 740, Disturbed Land The uplands in the western portion of the property are being maintained as open fields via periodic mowing. Widely scattered cabbage palms, slash pine, and non- native landscape species are present. Ground cover consists of species such as beggar tick (Bidens sp.), fingergrass (Eustachys petraea), flatsedges (Cyperus spp.), St. Augustine grass (Stenotaphrum secundatum), whitehead broom (Spermacoce vertic(llata), frog fruit (Phyla nodiflora), pusley (Richardia grandiflora), smutgrass (Sporobolus indicus), torpedo grass (Panicum repens), crow's foot grass (Dactyloctenium aegyptium), southern sida (Sida acuta), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and pepper -vine (Ampelopsis anborea). The southwestern corner of the site appears to have contained two structures. These buildings have been removed and only a concrete slab remains. FLUCCS Code 74-2 Borrow Areas The majority of the eastern portion of the site consists of a borrow pit. The pit is of an unknown depth and extends off -site in several directions. The borrow pit appears to connect to Haldeman Creek to the north via a man made canal. WADING BIRD NEST SURVEY A wading bird nest survey was conducted on the proposed Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore parcel on May 19, 2011 at the request of Collier County Environmental Services staff. Temperatures during the survey were in the low to mid 80's F, winds were light, and skies were mostly clear. The vegetated shorelines of the existing water bodies located on the subject parcel were visually inspected from a kayak and any nests observed during the survey were documented. For nests that were currently active, the species utilizing the nests were also denoted. The attached wading bird nest survey map (Exhibit B) depicts the approximate route of the survey and the locations of the nests observed during the survey event. A total of 23 wading bird nests were observed during the May 19, 2011 survey. Of those nests, 14 were unoccupied and the species potentially utilizing the nests could not be determined. The remaining nests consisted of six active anhinga (Anhinaa anhinga) nests and three active little blue heron (Florida caerulea) nests (see attached photographs). The nests were observed in areas mapped as exotic invaded mixed wetland hardwoods (FLUCCS Code 617E1), exotic invaded freshwater marsh (FLUCCS Code 641 E1), and cattail marsh (FLUCCS Code 6412). In addition to the observed nests, several little blue heron chicks were observed in the-southwest comer of the cattail marsh. It could not be determined if the chicks were within nests. Packet Page -161- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. STATUS The little blue heron is listed by the State of Florida and is not listed federally by the Endangered Species Act. The anhinga is not listed by the State of Florida or federally by the Endangered Species Act. The birds and their nests are, however, protected by'the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC 703) from direct harm. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) has stated that inactive, unoccupied wading bird nests are not protected and no buffers to inactive nests are required. FWC has also taken the position that the inactive nests of bird species listed by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act may be removed without state or federal permits. BIOLOGY Little blue herons and anhingas usually nest in short trees and tall shrubs in colonies with other herons, ibises, and anhingas. Both species' nests are made of sticks, reeds and grass. The eggs hatch in about three weeks. Little blue heron chicks fledge when they are 36 and 40 days old. Anhinga chicks fledge at approximately 6 to 7 weeks. After fledging the nests are abandoned and fall apart over time. Each season's nest can be in a different location within a site or a different site year to year. The proposed mixed use development is to the west of the wading bird habitat which currently contains dense cattails and Brazilian pepper as well as scattered pond apple and Australian pine along the shoreline. in order to create additional buffer between the proposed development and proposed enhanced nesting habitat, this plan will minimize the potential for future nesting in close proximity to the proposed development and will create more nesting opportunities in the eastern portion of the site near Sugden Regional Park. All exotic vegetation including trees, shrubs and ground cover located along the west shore of the open water borrow area as shown in the attached Wading Bird Habitat Management Plan Map (Exhibit C) will be treated with herbicide. Additionally, the native trees and shrubs that exist in these locations will be treated. The dead vegetation will be allowed to stand in place for a period of at least three years from treatment. After three years, the dead debris may be cut down and removed if there are no active wading bird nests in them. The 0.2 acres spoil island in the eastern portion of the site is currently dominated by a dense growth of Brazilian pepper. Brazilian pepper does not provide suitable nesting habitat for wading birds. In order to enhance this area as potential nesting 4 Packet Page -162- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A habitat the exotic vegetation will be removed from this island concurrently with the treatment of exotictnative trees and shrubs described above. Upon completion of the exotic removal the following native tree /shrub species shall be planted along the shoreline of the easternmost island and southeast shore of the parcel on 10' centers (Exhibit C): Species Container Size Min. Height Number Pond apple 10 gallon 6 feet 33 Willow 10 gallon 6 feet 33 All other exotic vegetation will be removed or treated in place prior to site development per the requirements of Collier County development regulations. MONITORING PLAN Monitoring of the wading bird habitat will be conducted annually. Monitoring will be conducted once during the nesting season (February — April) from a canoe or kayak in the open water areas. Any wading birds and their nests or chicks will be noted and mapped. Additionally, a qualitative assessment of the planted shorelines will be included in each monitoring report. Success criteria will include 80% survival of planted material. The wading bird habitat will be maintained as described in the above exotic removal and native vegetation replacement plans. All monitoring data will be analyzed and compiled into report form to be submitted to the county annually within 60 days of the monitoring event. This Wading Bird Habitat Management Plan has been designed to improve existing habitat and relocate potential wading bird nesting habitat to areas more compatible with the proposed development. The proposed development is not anticipated to negatively affect the attractiveness and /or viability of the wading bird habitat. Furthermore, this plan provides for the long term protection and responsible management of this habitat in an area of intense urban development. Packet Page -163- .4 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. REFERENCES Frederick, P. C., and D. Siegel- Causey. 1993. In The Birds of North America, No. 522 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Kale, Herbert W (1990). Florida's Birds. A Handbook and Reference Pinneapple Press, Sarasota Florida. 0 Packet Page -164- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 7 Packet Page -165- t 1 'q a i 7' 7'1w4 'g y f I W+ap� OrL4, j NJ u i 5i, u t , wl x q'' ii.. II y�IWiI i�� I w' a 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Packet Page -167- � fly r�� ♦ ! fry^`,. -:� � 1 1 ! 6 �' y, . . i f xj �a y fir,. ,� lo IR w q 7 da � � rg `. �•�• ` F p, {g S 1 J v Y r t,• 4 ti* ,.r r'�1f �i k cG .'un � mss, B` 1' w w �' '� '•.�qt �i yi aks5 "'f�- y^�,t� k i 1'`�,'�m 2..,p� .x. V ,� z °�,- 9 c ate. e + s c `` 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 0 Packet Page -169- r^� It N ry 0 +i h p 1 1 ['C�VAp4 I 1 1 W p CSS � 1 1 h zi� ♦ ♦1 � U I I 0 0 ��d..J ♦ 1 g � r• I 1 1 i v N Q Ul I Uj � O v I gg ° 1 0 4 v 3t °intd o t C3 to m � 1 m u Ear o 0 Cr o c 1 M 1 W rn w 1 1 1 1 M W W py U� U O v tZ +J Y U Cd ['yam �1 a 4fill pi g cmd$�t$ ` mil a� m5 a Nit R I lit �i�� `��S��m� �m m•�1 S' 4Zi�s �� ' �Be�� . �� .� a �� e�� •� �� n� r) x y w N <Ap:AOq AIM1 n'ti+"mmb"C V m � K K •m j a�aC<i�m,c � °�•ll, cqpae 1 1 cd 1 N 1 1 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m / 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 r 1 1 1T t p]' 4 I • Fool, a $ b a (n S p o pC VQ� 5 I E zEn mu�,S S Hb? NA 1 1 1 1 1 t I 1 1 1 1 t 1 t 1 ! j 'Ib C " 3 �} A Am w� p o < � y 0 s N n bzggo g�eySF myna °� &n,p zro < zz � � n m ♦ / J. { _ 1 JI 1 1 cd 1 N 1 1 1 J 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 / 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 r 1 1 ✓ v t .Fi W I j .... ws�imrIQ CH Ctd ral Arts VOVe at Beyshore ENVIRO NTTAL & M WSE COO i1LNTCilVG 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL -2010 -592) subject to the condition lighting be prohibited along the proposed boardwalk. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 5 - 0. -- Chairman Hushon movbd-to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL -2010 -592) subject to Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 5 - 0. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition: With respect to the easterly buffer proposed for Tract A. the exotics be treated for removal, with the dead species remaining in place until the time when the final landscaping plantings are placed on site. Chairman Hushon moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition the applicant contact the Parks and Recreation Department or other appropriate County Agency to provide an overview of the proposed project and propose the concept of the County planting the necessary plants to improve the littoral zones of 5udgen Lake on its westerly side to improve nesting habitat for birds. Second by Ms. Downs. Carried unanimously 5 - 0. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL- 2010 -592) subject to the condition that on site herbicide applications occur only during the dry months. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 - 0. Ms. Downs moved to recommend the Board of County Commissioners approve the Petition (Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore (PUDZ -PL -2010 -592) subject to the condition that all reouired monitoring reports be submitted for a period of 5 years following the completion of construction. Second by Mr. Sorrell. Carried unanimously 5 - 0. Packet Page -172- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: kalbertini@vedzon.net Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 12:21 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms.. Gundlach, My husband and I live in Windstar Country Club, adjacent to the subject property above. We would like to issue our support to this PUDZ. It would certainly add value to our Community. The Community Activity Center would avail everyone to services we need at the present time. As you may know, Windstar is an Audibon Preservation community and this new village combining art, commercial and residential living is a great combination to interface with ours. Kathleen and Guy Albertini, 1762 York Island Drive, Windstar, 34112. Packet Page -173- 0 V0 , 4-L-LI/A AI Packet Page - 174 --�' .'ZAt 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundfachNancy From: Aubshort@aol.com Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 1:45 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms Gundlach: The rezoning of the 17+ acres of land on Bayshore Drive for the Cultural Arts Village is a needed action to move the project forward (PUDZ- PL2010 -592). Other organizations have committed to being part of the Village and are actively supporting the project. The development of this land into the Village is the best use and will add value to the community. The natural lakes on the acreage preclude it from being used as a mobile home community and it would be best to preserve this for the wildlife that presently occupy these wetlands. The Naples Botanical Garden is less that a half mile south of the proposed project it makes sense that the Village be near to that cultural icon. Its proximity to Sugden Regional Park and the plans to connect the 17+ acres with a path will make Sugden more accessible for many residents on Bayshore Drive - a positive for rezoning. My wife and many of our friends in Moorhead Manor (154 families who are real property owners and taxpayers) ask that the rezoning be approved so that the Cultural Arts Village on Bayshore Drive can be brought to fruition. I am sure that your expertise as a comprehensive planner will recognize that this is good for our community and Collier County. Thank you very much. Aubrey and Diane Short 98 Moorhead Manor Naples, FL 34112 239 774 -0851 Aubshort(a)aol.com Packet Page -175- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Rick Dobson [rtdobson @aol.coml Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 2:54 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore: PUDZ -L2010 -592 In the matter of rezoning the above property as a Cultural Arts Village, I want to express my whole hearted support. I am a resident and tax payer in Windstar on Naples Bay at 1733 York island dr Naples 34112. The bayshore area needs development of its land for the highest and best use. Having a community center and Cultural Arts center in our neighborhood would add allot of value to the area. We are very close to the said property and would be very happy to have it developed this way. It will enhance the community and hopefully spark additional development here. it also preserves a natural lake area in an attractive way. hope the county approves this rezoning. Thank -you. Regards, Rick Dobson Naples 239 - 793 -6937 Packet Page -176- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Tina Riccio [airiccio1 @comcast.net] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:11 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore Re: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 We are property owners who live on Bayshore Drive. We support the CRA's rezoning of the 17 acres of land on Bayshore for a Cultural Arts Village. We feel that in addition to Naples Botanical Gardens, a culture center would bring an additional improvement to our neighborhood. We would like to see educational and (if connected to Sudgen Park) nature activities flourish in our community. We think this would also benefit all residents of Naples. Please consider our request. Thank you. Al & Tina Riccio 4430 Botanical Place, Apt. 402 Naples, FL 34112 1 Packet Page -177- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: David Ball [ballpoint2 @embargmai1.com1 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:37 PM To: GundlachNancy Cc: David Ball Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms Gundlach, We are homeowners in Windstar and have been for 15 years, so we have witnessed the steady improvement in the Bayshore area from seedy and 'not nice to be out at night' to its present attractive transformation and continuing state of improvement for the benefit of all the people who live in this wider Bayshore community ,and perhaps particularly the young people who need, a safe, secure and pleasant environment in which to develop their talents and personalities. Following the trail blazed by so many hard working and public minded citizens to bring more and more desirable activities to Bayshore to complement the Botanical Gardens and the various makeovers of formerly run down premises to attractive and useful businesses, this Arts Village project will undoubtedly continue the recent excellent work and create a real village atmosphere with all of the social benefits that come everyone feeling that they have a stake in the Community. We are also keen supporters of the arts and performing arts in Naples and have already given practical support to this initiative, which we thoroughly commend. We do hope that this Project will receive assent and support because it is worthy and practically useful for the wider community and will additionally bring about an improved environment to complement the wider work in adjacent neighbourhoods. Yours sincerely, David & Patricia Ball. 3852 Clipper Cove Drive Windstar, Naples 34112 Packet Page -178- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundtachNancy From: rwmouncevt @aol.com Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 3:42 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms. Gundlach; I am a homeowner in Windstar on Naples Bay, which is located directly across Bayshore Drive from the proposed site of the proposed Cultural Arts Village. I would like to register my STRONG SUPPORT for this proposed development. The redevelopment along Bayshore Drive over recent years has done so much to improve this area, to the clear benefit of residents, visitors, and business owners in the area. The expansion of the Naples Botanical Garden has been very beneficial and approval and development of this proposal would have the same kind of beneficial effect Not only would it likely be positive for local property values, it would add to commercial possibilities and, like the Botanical Garden, would do so in a way that is environmentally - friendly to the entire area: very much a win -win -win in my view. Thank you for your consideration, Best regards Richard W. Mounce Packet Page -179- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNanc From: Sharon Benjamin [sharonbenjamin8@gmail.coml Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 5:16 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore. PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms. Gundlach: My name is Sharon Benjamin and I have been a property owner offBayshore in Windstar for over 12 years. I have watched the Bayshore Area improve at a slow pace over those years. Now, that the Botanical Garden is anchored in the East Naples Area, bringing local residents and tourists, the Bayshore Area again has an opportunity to see a surge in positive land use development. I anZ writing to state my support for the re- zoning of the 17 acres off Bayshore Boulevard Drive from mobile home usage to mixed use Cultural Center. This is the most compatible land use scenario with the additon of the Botanical Garden in this area. Much of Naples is high end retail and high density housing and the amount of Public Space is limited. A cultural center would improve Naples's long term vision of being a most Livable City. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Sharon Benjamin 1757 York Island Drive Naples, Florida 34112 Packet Page -180- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: JForsman90 @aol.com Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:26 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Ms Gundlach My wife Kathleen and I are full time residents of Collier County residing at 5025 Marina Cove Drive- Unit 103. We are aware that the CRA is rezoning 17+ acres of land on Bayshore Drive from mobile home to mixed -use cultural center. We are writing to express our support for this proposal for the following reasons: • Value -added to community • Develop land into highest and best use • Community (local) activity center • Additional neighborhood commercial uses • Cultural and educational activities for the community • Preserving the natural lake -area for eco- tourism (bird and natural life observation) • Future connection to Lake Avalon (Sudgen Park) Sincerely, John A. Forsman, Jr Kathleen A. Forsman 1 Packet Page -181- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: William C. Mears [wcmears @comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:42 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultaal Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ -Pl 2010 -592 Consideration is being given to rezoning the seventeen acre parcel of land owned by the CRA on Bayshore Drive from mobile home use to mixed -use cultural center. I am enthusiastically in support of the proposed change. This property should serve as a cornerstone for the renaissance of the Bayshore Redevelopment Area. The proposed zoning change will permit its development as major asset to the community. Thank you. William C. Mears 3B04 Clipper Cove Drive Packet Page -182- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundiachNancy From: Richard Owen ldchard.dot @dsl.pipex.com) Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:51 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE; PUDZ - PI-2010- 592 Dear Ms Gundlaclt,. Since 1996 we have been property owners in Windstar on Naples Bay, now owning 2161 Paget Circle, although we are citizens of Great Britain. We are writing now to voice our strong support for the rezoning of the property on Bayshore Drive. Particular reasons for this support are - We understand the rezoning could result in the local lake being enhanced; we have travelled extensively to experience and enjoy natural parks and waterways and know that any increase in visitor flow will benefit suppliers of local goods and services. - if it also improved access to Sugden Park that would be a definite improvement for the local community, enabling both areas to be used more for observing and photographing Florida wildlife. As keen amateur photographers we know the power of the right environment in attracting nature loving tourists from within the USA and from abroad. Regards, Richard Thorold Owen and Dorothy Elizabeth Owen Sent from Richard's iPad 1 Packet Page -183- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNanc From: Richard Owen [richard.dot @dsl.pipex.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:51 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE; PUDZ - PI-2010- 592 Dear Ms Gundlach, Since 1996 we have been property owners in Windstar on Naples Bay, now owning 2161 Paget Circle, although we are citizens of Great Britain. We are writing now to voice our strong support for the rezoning of the property on Bayshore Drive. Particular reasons for this support are - We understand the rezoning could result in the local lake being enhanced; we have travelled extensively to experience and enjoy natural parks and waterways and know that any increase in visitor flow will benefit suppliers of local goods and services. - if it also improved access to Sugden Park that would be a definite improvement for the local community, enabling both areas to be used more for observing and photographing Florida wildlife. As keen amateur photographers we know the power of the right environment in attracting nature loving tourists from within the USA and from abroad. Regards, Richard Thorold Owen and Dorothy Elizabeth Owen Sent from Richard's iPad 1 Packet Page -184- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Gund(achNancy From: Hansen Long [long254@a comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 4:43 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Nancy, My name is Stewart Hansen Long. I am a resident of Windstar on Naples Bay, and registered to vote in Collier County. I am writing in support of the Cultural Arts Village Site which has been proposed by the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA. To achieve this objective the CRA seeks to rezone 17+ acres of land it owns on Bayshore Drive from mobile home to mixed -use cultural center. I am in favor of this rezoning action because I believe the Cultural Arts Village would be a valuable asset, providing cultural and educational activities not only to the Gateway Triangle area, but to all of greater Collier County. In addition such a Village could be connected to Lake Avalon (Sudgen Park) and help preserve and enhance the natural lake- setting for birds and wildlife. Thanks you for your consideration, S. Hansen Long Packet Page -185- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Joan Callahan Doancallahan @mac.comj Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012.11:44 AM To: GundlachNancy Cc: mcallahan @callahansign.com Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms Gundlach, We understand that the CRA is rezoning 17+ acres of land on Bayshore Drive from mobile home to mixed -use cultural center. We are writing to express our support for this project. As local residents with a home in Windstar on Naples Bay, we believe that the planned cultural center will add value to our Bayshore community; the land will be developed land into its highest and best use; it will provide a local community activity center; encourage additional neighborhood commerce; it will provide cultural and educational activities for the community; preserve the natural lake -area for eco- tourism (bird and natural life observation); and, allows for the area's eventual connection to Lake Avalon - Sudgen Park. Thank you for moving foward the rezoning necessary to advance this project. Joan Gregg Callahan 3308 Lookout Lane Naples, Florida 413- 441 -7129 Sent from my iPad Packet Page -186- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Michael Sherman [msherman48 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 12:45 PM To: GundlachNancy Cc: Michael Sherman Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore: PUDZ- PL2010 -592 My name is Michael Sherman. I am a resident of the Bayshore area at 4535 Lighthouse Lane. I own 5 lots on 7eepers Drive adjacent to the parcel noted above, where I hope to develop hew homes in the future. I think the rezoning is good step in the improvement of the Bayshore Drive area. The development of a community playhouse /cultural /activity center will be a very positive addition to what I call the art scene at Naples Bay Village. Most importantly, it should facilitate a pedestrian connection to Sugden Park which cannot be accessed from Bayshore today! Please pass on that this kind of thing is what is needed there today. Thank you 1 Packet Page -187- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Elizabeth G. Quam [ebetsy2 @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 2:59 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore David Jackson, Executive Director Bayshore Gateway Triangle and Bayshore Beautification Nancy Gundlach at Collier Government Dear Nancy, My name is Elizabeth Gerhardt Quam a resident of'Windstar since 1985 and domiciled in Florida. My address is 4402 Yacht Harbor Drive, Naples, Florida 34112. My late husband passed away in 1991, long before Bayshore Drive came alive with groups interested in encouraging an arts district to be built along this drive. This vision was wonderful to read about and as plans developed to see and watch it's progression. It has come to my attention that the zoning for such beautification may be challenged or compromised with yet another trailer park in this area. My husband and I had both an Air Stream trailer and a motor home at different times in our life and found lovely transient parks where ever traveled; however another permanent modular home park in this Triangle region is not necessary nor will add to the beauty or help hold the permanent residents land values. The Bayshore Bridge marks the Bayshore drive entry way with the newly renovated Marketplace 360, of such culinary delight, and the beautiful and educational Botanical Gardens anchors the drive; everything in between if connected to food, arts, and the bay would make a beautiful presentation and statement for the east side of the Gordon river. The amphitheater for community use would be a big plus. A tie in to the Sudgen Park area is a natural with all it's lakes in between. My husband and I enjoy bicycling there and would enjoy more lakes to ride or walk around which are part of the rezoning area. Attracting more bird life would come naturally. The cultural events now held at Edison Community College could be held along Bayshore and Thomassen Drive if the new village would build a unique look, perhaps going back to the Old Florida style of buildings with wrap around porches and ceiling fans. Last year I snapped photos of decorative metalsails attached to lamp posts in Scotland. I thought they would make an attractive statement along Bayshore Drive lamp posts. I brought them into you office across from Windstar's entrance as an idea. Let's give the rest of Naples something to come to! Sincerely, Mr and Mrs Donovan and Elizabeth Quam Packet Page -188- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Nancy McDonnell [nm2psu @hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 5:57 PM 7o: GundlachNancy; Nancy McDonnell Subject: Cultural Village at Bayshore; PUDZ -PL- 200 -592 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: As a property owner, resident and tax -payer in Collier County, I urge you to support the rezoning of land on Bayshore Drive to facilite the development of a mixed -use cultural center. Studies have been done throughout the United States that document the positive economic and social benefits for local areas that are generated by cultural centers. It is known that arts and cultural organizations' activities within a community create jobs and increase household incomes and local government revenues directly as a result of the expenditures of these activities as well as indirectly as a result of the opportunities for others that are generated by cultural developments. Significant numbers of related businesses are drawn to locations where cultural development has taken place, thereby generating indirect benefits and multiplier effects that DOUBLE OR =LE the impact of the direct expenditures. AND, they too generate substantial taxes or revenues for local and state governments; the latter should be of some reassurance tq those Commissioners who are questioning whether or not the land should be sold or rezoned. If it is sold, the opportunity will be lost to revitalize East Naples and consequently to stimulate economic and social development to benefit all the residents of the Bayshore area and to create spillover benefits for schools and other social institutions and the quality of life in general. A trailer park does NOT represent the highest and best use of this property. To quote from a study by the city of San Diego Commission for Arts and Culture ...... A vibrant arts and culture community provides benefits throughout the region and it_ enhances our quality of life; draws positive attention to the area; attracts visitors who stay longer and spent more; creates jobs; provides a competitive edge by attractng and retaining businesses and skilled workers; as a catalyst for revitalizing enighborhoods and community development; builds opportunities for youth and education; and, helps generate civic and community pride. If this is possible in San Diego, it certainly should be possible in East Naples! Sincerely, Nancy McDonnell 3538 Haldeman Creek Drive Naples, FL 34112 Packet Page -189- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundiachNancy From: Marilyn [marilyngail @rogers.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 7:14 PM To: GundlachNancy Cc: 'H.J. Schneider Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 ImportancQ: High Dear Nancy, We would like to take this opportunity to express our opinion on the upcoming Bayshore Cultural Arts Village. Not only are we pleased to hear that this project will soon reach the development stage, it is particularly exciting to see what will encompass this valuable piece of land. The most value added aspects to the community, in our opinion, would be the Community Services, especially the senior services, and the cultural and educational activities. The most exciting aspect is the preservation of the natural lake area for bird and natural life observation, and the future connection to Lake Avalon (Sudgen Park). We have just purchased a home in the Botanical Place Circle development on Bayshore Drive and it would be very beneficial for us to access this park and lake area from where we live. The view from our home backs onto this beautiful park and lake and we would be most pleased if this could be preserved as such. Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to express our opinion about the upcoming village, and are looking forward to seeing development occur as soon as possible. Sincerely, Mr. H. John Schneider and . Mrs. Marilyn G. Schneider 4455 Botanical Place Circle, Unit 107 Naples, Florida 34112 239 -300 -7889 Johns49(a�rogers.com m2rilyngail(a)ro4ers.com Packet Page -190- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Nancy Quinter [nsparky33 @aol.com] Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2012 11:37 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE FROM Nancy Quinter April 2, 2012 Dear Nancy, I have lived in Windstar since 1993 and have seen many changes in the Bayshore area. The county got the street going with the road, bridge, sidewalks, lighting, etc. in place and many of the businesses and residential areas have been improved. The addition of the Cultural Arts Village will add a wonderful unique growth prospective to not only this street but to the southeast area of Naples. The Botanical Garden is also a key factor to the cultural and educational growth of our area. I serve on the ARC architectural review committee for Windstar Club and have reviewed the plans and have attended the events for this effort. I am especially excited about this project. I would be in favor of the rezoning of this site. Regards, Nancy Quinter Packet Page -191- 6/12/2012 item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Mitch Latva (mitch @latva.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 7:04 AM To: GundlachNancy , Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Nancy Gundlach, As a local property owner off Bayshore Drive I encourage the support of the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 project I believe the addition on this project will not only enhance the general area but will complement the Naples Botanical Garden just down the street With thoughtful long -term planning this can be incorporated and still maintain the local character. Thank you for your consideration. Mitch Latva 3554 Haleman Creek Drive Naples Florida 34113 Packet Page -192- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Carl L Knutson [cad[knutson @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 9:51 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Re: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 My husband and I are area residents and property owners in Windstar across from the 17 + acres currently zoned mobile home to be rezoned to mixed -use cultural center. We are writing this letter as a Letter of Support for the project. We feel this rezoning would add value to the area, would develop the land into the highest and best use, would provide a Community activity center and cultural and educational activities for the community, and preserve the natural lake -area for e4co- tourism and provide a future connection to Lake Avalon. Thank you. Marilyn and Carl Knutson 3535 Windjammer Cir.k, #20901 Naples, F: 34112 1 Packet Page -193- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Zachary Paap [z _paap @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:22 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 LETTER OF SUPPORT Dear Nancy, My Name is Zachary Paap. My Wife and I own a condo at Compass point in Windstar on Naples Bay. I am writing in support of the proposed project. We have been looking forward to improvements to Bayshore Drive for sometime now! This project will offer many things that are very well needed and will raise the standard of living for many. I feel this is an extremely great use of the land. It will offer many activities for the residents. It will add culture to Naples. Bayshore will appear more attractive and attract locals and tourist to many of the planned and existing businesses. Please feel free to contact us if further support is needed. Kindest regards, Zachry and Alana Paap Zach Paap Personal Cell: +1.954.778.0322 Packet Page -194- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: robertblu @comcast.net Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:31 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Nancy Gundlach, We the undersigned,who are Florida residents and property owners @ Windstar support designation of several acres o Bayshore Drive for the purpose of initiating a cultural arts village on Bayshore In our view this will provide added value to the community and offer an activity center for the arts and cultural purposes. This also may have the potential for application for commercial purposes. It will also contribute to nature preservation with the future possibility for connection with Sugden Park. We urge you to look favorably on this project. Yours Sincerely, Robert M. Blumenberg M.D. Gayle E. Blumenberg Packet Page -195- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Mark and Kirsten Stevens [markirst @sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:53 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms. Gundlach, My name is Mark Stevens. My wife, Kristen, and I have owned a residence at 3840 Clipper Cove Drive in the Windstar on Naples Bay development across the street from the proposed Cultural Arts Village since 2008 and were excited to hear that the project may be moving closer to approval. In fact, we feel so strongly about the importance of moving forward with the project that we wanted to send this letter of support and share with you why we believe the project to be so important to the community. Currently, our full -time residence is in Chicago, Illinois. We decided to purchase a home in Naples to use during the winter months and to eventually be the place that we spend most of our time after I am done working in a year or two. We selected Windstar on Naples Bay for many reasons but the one serious hesitation we had was due to the appearance and lack of development along Bayshore Drive as it would serve as our connection to Route 41 and the rest of Naples. We eventually decided to purchase the home in Windstar and "place a bet" that the development along Bayshore would come. We've been disappointed in the lack of progress along Bayshore since we purchased and have recently been discussing moving to different parts of Naples or even considering alternative cities. When we have brought family and friends to visit us in Windstar, the one critical comment we always get is the appearance and lack of development along Bayshore. We recognize that this slow development has, in large part, been due to the unfortunate stretch we are going through in the general economy and building industry and we were extremely excited when we saw the sign for the Cultural Arts Village go up on the lot. While we enjoy the entire Naples experience, we try very hard to support the businesses, parks and cultural attractions that are in our immediate area around Windstar and welcome the Cultural Arts Village and any additional development that may eventually accompany it. We feel that approval of the rezoning that would allow completion of the Cultural Arts Village project would be a major benefit to the community residents and would be a real impetus to additional community and commercial uses over the next several years and is a wise use of this particular land that would likely have to await additional development along Bayshore before other types of uses would be viable.. In addition to believing strongly that the Cultural Arts Village is a wonderful concept as a stand alone development, we feel that it could eventually lead to an even more interesting "cluster" of cultural and community attractions due to its proximity to Sudgen Park and the recently finished Naples Botanical Garden. While the wonderful night life and beaches in Naples are appealing, when we spend extended periods of time at our home, we feel that the availability of convenient cultural and community activities could be be better in our area and we think this project addresses that directly. As you can see, we are strong supporters of the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore project and strongly encourage the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners to approve the requested zoning changes and to support prompt completion of this project in any ways that they can. Sincerely, Packet Page -196- Mark & Kristen Stevens 3840 Clipper Cove Drive Naples, FL markirst@sbcglobal.net Packet Page -197- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Elizabeth Cappelletti [betsycappelletti @yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 11:04 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 We have been owners at Windstar on Naples Bay since 1986 and have watched the man manV changes occur on Bayshore. I think it's development as a cultural corridor is good for everyone on Bayshore and the surrounding areas. The nice thing about it it seems to have the blessing of everyone. CRA has done a wonderful job initiated the beautification of the entire area. It will enhance the value for everyone. It will be an asset to Naples, the Naples we all love. It will be like a jewel in the ring around Naples Bay. Thank you for your kind consideration in this matter. Dr Richard and Elizabeth Cappelletti 4400 Yacht Harbor Drive, Naples 34112 Packet Page -198- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Rollin Teare [theroliste1 @hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:33 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Nancy, We, as Windstar residents, wholly support this rezoning as another step in the improvement of this street & the surrounding areas. Sincerely, Rollin H Teare & Patricia A Teare 3845 Clipper Cove Drive Naples, FL 34112 Packet Page -199- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundiachNancy 0 From: roger purdie [roger. pu rdie@sympatico. ca] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:47 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village At Bayshore PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms. Gundlach, My name is David Roger Purdie; I and my wife, Linda Purdie are property owners and residents at 4753 Yacht Harbor Dr. in the Windstar community. We are aware of the pending re- zoning proposal for the above potential development and we can't express how strongly that we feel this will be a very positive long -term development for the community in the vicinity of this property. We would urge approval of this application as promptly as possible to allow the developers the maximum lead time to make this venture a reality. Thanks for your consideration. D.R. Purdie . :x Packet Page -200 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Agnese Meehan [aj.meehan @verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:20 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Nancy: I am a full time resident here in East Naples and like the direction the CRA is accomplishing. Please note that I am in agreement with rezoning the 17+ acres of land on Bayshore Drive from mobile home to mixed =us cultural center. Please keep up the good work, we all look forward to seeing the area upgrade. Sincerely Agnese J Meehan 3284 Lookout Lane Naples Fl 34112 1 Packet Page -201- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Jim Frost amfrost19 @comcast.net] . Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:36 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore: PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms. Gundlach My wife and I are owners /residents in the Bayshore area and are pleased with the progress being made to our neighborhood. From the Botanical Gardens to the recently opened Three60 Market, there are signs of life and energy along Bayshore. We understand that there is a 17+ acre parcel on Bayshore that is currently zoned for mobile homes, for which a proposal has been made to change it to mixed -use cultural center. We are strongly in favor of such a change and urge the County Commissioners to take actions to approve that change in zoning. We believe that such a change would create a positive environment for the neighborhood and would clearly be value- added. Moreover, it would assist in implementing the long -held strategy Of converting the Bayshore Triangle into a cultural center for Naples. Sincerely, James M. Frost 4551 Yacht Harbor Drive Naples, FL 34112 Packet Page -202- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Whynot 1 [whynot 1 @msn.com] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:41 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Rezone Hi Nancy. I am a resident ,and voter jn Windstar cc on bay §hore. I am very much in favor of the rezoning proposal for our area_ A cultural arts and mixed use developement would greatly help our wonderful community. Thank You. Thomas 1 Watts. Sent from my Samsung EpicTM 4G Touch Packet Page -203- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Donald Padgitt [donpadgitt@comcastnet] Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 11:55 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: PUDZ- PL2010 -592 As a property owner and full time resident of Florida living in East Naples I want you to know that I full support the Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore. I will add much needed life, activity and interest to what has been over the past years, a wasted area of East Naples. My wife and I look forward to the activity that will be generated by the proposed Center. The Center will also revitalize the area and create a healthier neighborhood which should generate revenue for Collier County. There are no negatives to the proposal. Thank you, Don and Barbara Padgitt [239] 732 -5910 1 Packet Page -204- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: johnswede @comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:14 PM To: GundlachNancy FROM DR AND MRS JOHN H ESBENSHADE 3868 CLIPPER COVE DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34112 WE ARE YEAR AROUND RESIDENTS OF WINDSTAR ON NAPLES BAY WE THINK THIS IS A FANTASTIC PLAN FOR OUR WHOLE AREA AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY APPROVE. IT WOULD NOT ONLY ADD VALUE TO OUR PROPERTIES BUT ALSO GIVE BAYSHORE ANOTHER GREAT ADDITION, WHICH WOULD BE ARTISTIC AND WONDERFUL TO LOOK AT EVERY TIME WE DRIVE BY. AND FOR ALL OF US HAVE THIS IN OUR BACKYARD WITH ALL IT WOULD OFFER IS SOMETHING WE HOPE EVERYBODY WILL VOTE FOR. WARM REGARDS, JOHN AND ELSEBETH ESBENSHADE Packet Page -205- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: drvotel @comcastnet sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 9:36 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: reply Can't think of a negative. I think the CRA has done a great job that will enhance the area for everyone. Congratulations to those who had the foresight to make Bayshore a cultural corridor and a jewel in the area surrounding Naples Bay. 11N. Votel , MD 4650 Yacht Harbor Drive #131 Windstar on Naples Bay Naples, FL. 34112 Packet Page -206- GundlachNancy 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. From: boujoukos@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 6:39 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Bayshore cultural rezoning 1 am very much in favor of this rezoning {proposal. George Boujoukos 4432 Lighthouse Ln. Windstar Packet Page -207- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundfachNancy From: Regina Espenshade [reginalespenshade @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 1:56 PM 7o: GundfachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUDZPL2010592 Dear Ms. Grundlach, My name is Regina Espenshade and I am a property owner in the Botanical Place Condominium. I purchased my home trusting that Collier County would honor its commitment to redeveloping Bayshore. As you know the current zoning in the 18 acre property acquired by the CRA is obsolete. It would greatly harm the community if you were to permit hundreds of mobile homes to be placed on that site. The number of hours, level of community participation, voluntary work, funding and organization devoted to creating the cultural village concept are countless and unprecedented in Collier County.The redevelopment of Bayshore will eventually generate substantial tax revenues and create a multiplier effect that far exceeds any public funds invested to date. Commercial, residential, entertainment, and natural attraction opportunities all will follow from the careful and conscientious planning of this strategic location. Please register my support for this rezoning and pass on the message to the Planning Commission and the Board of Commissioners that residents of our community are counting on them to keep their commitment to this neighborhood. Sincerely, Regina Espenshade Packet Page -208- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachHancy Front: Robert Button [rjbtexastrader @gmaii.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 2:13 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: RE: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Follow lip Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged To Nancy Gundlach: We are Robert J Button and Sandra L Button, property owners in Windstar and also owners of Lot #1 on Jeepers,( the lot directly behind where the old welding shop was previously located). We are writing in support of the rezoning of the above referenced land. We are excited to see the improvements all ready happening on Bayshore in businesses and some homes. As registered voting citizens, we want to see Collier County cooperate in a timely way to affect these positive changes to our community. Please,streamline the process; Collier County is notorious for foot dragging and missed opportunities; let's make a good change and help the citizens of our community. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Robert J Button 4474 Lighthouse Lane Naples. FL 34112 (239) 403 -7351 ribtexastrader n,P-nail.com slbutton5 l nagnail.com Packet Page -209- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Gudrun Wunderer [Mandschu@comcast_net] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 3:08 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Mrs. Gundlach,.... As residents of the Windstar community, we we greatly appreciate your plans for the Bayshore artists village and its surroundings. in particular, we like • The enhancement of urban structures in our neighborhood, • The future connection to Lake Avalon and the Sudgen Park, • The introduction of a link into the chain that bears a special jewel at its southern end: the Botanical Garden • The creation of a stage for open air performances and concerts • The added value to the now waste lying area of the former Bayshore Club, bringing hope that this state will change sooner. Sincerely Dr. Bernd and Gudrun Wunderer 3832 Clipper Cove Drive Naples, FL 34112 (239) 262 5841 Mandschu@comcast.net 1 Packet Page -210- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNanc From: Kyle Simoff [kms7112001 @yahoo.coml Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 5:13 PM To; GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Hello Nancy, My name is Kyle Simoff. My husband, Mark, and I live in Botanical Place. We are year round residents of Naples. We initially moved to the Bayshore area(in '08) because of it's proximity to all the great assets in Naples, ie the beach, downtown, etc. Also, Bayshore seemed to be an up and coming part of the city. Of course, the downturn came and things changed. We are seeing many positive signs now and feel confident that the Cultural Arts Village would be an incredible addition to our small community as well as Naples as a whole. We would welcome this type of a change and believe it is the best way to rezone the land there. Thank you for taking our letter of support into consideration. Mark and Kyle Simoff Packet Page -211- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Judy Helms (judynaples @hotmail.comj Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:59 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: FW: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms Gundlach, I am also a resident of Moorhead Manor and voice my strong approval of the below project Judy Helms 28 Moorhead Manor Naples Florida 34112 239- 775 -9460 judynaples 0hotmail. corn From: AubshortCabaol.com Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 13:45:06 -0400 Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 To: NancyGundlachc_&colliergov.net Dear Ms Gundlach: The rezoning of the 17+ acres of land on Bayshore Drive for the Cultural Arts Village is a needed action to move the project forward (PUDZ- PL2010 -592). Other organizations have committed to being part of the Village and are actively supporting the project The development of this land into the Village is the best use and will add value to the community. The natural lakes on the acreage preclude it from being used as a mobile home community and it would be best to preserve this for the wildlife that presently occupy these wetlands. The Naples Botanical Garden is less that a half mile south of the proposed project it makes sense that the Village be near to that cultural icon. Its proximity to Sugden Regional Park and the plans to connect the 17+ acres with a path will make Sugden more accessible for many residents on Bayshore Drive - a positive for rezoning. My wife and many of our friends in Moorhead Manor (154 families who are real property owners and taxpayers) ask that the rezoning be approved so that the Cultural Arts Village on Bayshore Drive can be brought to fruition. I am sure that your expertise as a comprehensive planner will recognize that this is good for our community and Collier County. Thank you very much. Aubrey and Diane Short 98 Moorhead Manor Naples, FL 34112 239 774 -0851 Aubshort(a-)aol.com Packet Page -212- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Mike and Marie Spence [mspence_98 @yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:08 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Nancy, As a resident/ property owner at Windstar on Naples Bay since 2002, I have been delighted with the continuing improvements along Bayshore Drive and the adjacent properties. My late husband, Mike Spence and I, Marie Spence find the area delightful. The readily available access to Florida's ecology is unusual and refreshing. New retail establishments and the Botanica[ Gardens are substantial attractions, and the addition of more cultural and educational opportunities would surely enhance our base. I support development of land to its highest and best use and this arts village would be most appropriate. This parcel is also key to the overall area development as it applies to access to Sugden Park. A remarkable triangle is surely under way; and this is a key piece in the puzzle. The journey to transform Bayshore has come so far. It has been a long but relentless process and I believe this would continue an endeavor which is well under way. I heartily support this issue. Marie C. Spence 4773 Yacht Harbor Drive , Naples, FL 34112 239 -435 -3554 Packet Page -213- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundfachNancy From: JSIMSINNAPLES @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:13 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Nancy, We followed the planning of the CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE from it's inception and are looking foreword to the grand opening. The many diverse activities being offered will bring our community closer together. John and Marilyn Sims 36 Moorhead Manor Naples,Fl. 34112 239 - 793 -8014 Packet Page -214- GundlachNancy From: Bruce Bonadies [brusterb @comcastnet] Sent:. Tuesday, April 03, 2012 5:12 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Ms Gundlach, I am a windstar resident, my wife and I have lived here for 10 years. We have appreciated the interest in the development of the area and think future cultural and educational activities for the community would be a plus. Please vote to change the zoning so the efforts to continue to improve the area will not be overshadowed. Thank you for your support Bruce R Bonadies 3700 Haldeman Creek Dr 1 Packet Page -215- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: GGallrein1 [ggallrein 1 @comcast net] Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 6:47 AM To: GundlachNancy Dear Nancy, I'm very much supportive of the Cultural Arts project on Bayshore Drive moving forward. I am an owner and permanent resident and moved down here from Louisville, KY in August,2011. Thanks to all of you for all your hard work on this wonderful plans you've been working on as this will help to make our community a place we can be so proud of and the city of Naples,too. Glyna M. Gallrein 4520 Botanical Place Circle # 101 Naples, FL 341 Packet Page -216- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Yvonne Wood [ywood @johnrwood.comj Sent: Friday, April 06, 2012 9:51 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore; PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Dear Nancy, My name is Yvonne Wood and my husband is Woody Wood We live at 4530 Botanical Place Circle, Naples 34112. We are full time residence. I am a sales associate with John R Wood Realtors. I sold over 30 condos at Botanical Place. We are in favor of rezoning the 17 plus acres from Mobile homes to Mixed use cultural center. Thank you, Yvonne and Woody Wood if you know of someone who is thinking of buying or selling, please let me know. I always have time for your referrals. Thank you for thinking of me! * * * ** *Confidentiality Statement * * * * ** The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e -mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 1 Packet Page -217- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Janet Nave Danet.nave @gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 12:06 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: cultural village at BayshorePUDZ- PL2010- This is a very important rezoning for the community. Mobile home zoning is not the highest and best use of the land. I sold real estate in NC for 25 years so know that how county commissioners rezone land is very important for growth of communities . I cannot imagine that any of our commissioners would vote no. They have the best interests of the County at heart. There may be factions on the board (as even with my condo board) but you all really care about how the entire county grows in the future. Proximity to our beloved downtown Naples and the beaches makes us prime for development one day. It was a spark that died with the real estate bust. Botanicall Gardens, Sudgen Park, Avalon Park, Bayview Park and Hamilton Harbor make this a great place to live. I love it here -- in Botanical Place on Bayshore Dr. Just minutes to Fifth Ave, Third Ave and the beaches. who could ask for more? 1 Packet Page -218- GundiachNancy 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. From: Janet Nave ganet.nave @gmail.com) Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 12:19 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: ps I forgot to say I am a homeowner at 4410 Botanical Place Circle. 1 Packet Page -219- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundfachNancy r From: Nick Datesh [ndatesh @datesh.com] Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2012 12:39 AM To: GundlachNancy Subject: cultural village at SayshorePUDZ- PL2010 -592 The rezoning of the above PUD, via the Petition Name Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore, is an important step toward fulfilling the plan for Bayshore area development as a upmarket cultural arts district, anchored by the Naples Botanical Gardens and bordered by Naples Bay Hamilton Harbor; Windstar; Haldeman Creek; and the parks of Sugden, Avalon and Bayview. The parcel(s) to be rezone are current of limited or no development value. Given the percentage of water surface, the current use, mobile homes, could never be financially viable. The proximity of Moorehead Manor, a well - established mobile home park, makes such a use redundant in any event. Currently, there is not true developer for this property, but rezoning pursuant to proposed mixed -use site plan presents an attractive, highest -best use development potential. Rezoning consistent with the proposed site plan would give a developer a year or two jump on proceeding to execute the plan. A multi - ponded mobile home park will never happen and the property will lie fallow until its usage profile is modified. John Nicholas Datesh, Jr. Botanical Place 1 -166 South Naples, FL 1 Packet Page -220- 6/12/2112 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy From: Sharon Worley [sharonworley7 @gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2012 1:07 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Rezoning of Cultural Village Parcel I own a condominium at Botanical Place and want to let you know that I am in favoar of the rezoning of the Cultural Village Parcel in the Bayshore area. I think there is much potential in the Bayshore area and this rezoning will help to achieve that potential. Sharon Worley Botanical Place 2-404 Naples, Fl. Packet Page -221- I 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GundlachNancy Front: heidi Iiebwein [liebweinh @yahoo.comj Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 7:08 PM To: GundiachNancy, jourdanj Cc: JacksonDavid; powen @dexbender.com Subject: Cultural Arts village at Bayshore; PUDZ -PI 2010 -592 To Whom it May Concern, First I want to comment that as much as a good idea this seems, how much I would love to see the beautiful architecture you have planned, and as much as I would love to have an artist community here on Bayshore I am opposed to the size Bayshore CAPA is desiring. We need to look at the big picture and not the small picture or short term. Let US ponder about long term, we have to think about what is best for Bayshore and Naples, not on our human desires. I would hate to see all this land here destroyed for businesses that cannot thrive, and then the damage is done. That is why I believe start small, see how it goes. Let enough time to go by to determine, of course it could be thriving for 5 -10 yrs, but what happens after that? Look at the past performance? Do we really want another abandoned building on Bayshore? Make use of the land that was already built on instead of destroying untouched land. In the end, my belief is what will preserve our real estate market value, not all the abandoned buildings, that will hurt the market values. That is why initially this idea sounds desirable, but if we look at past results in Naples, we must take that into consideration and realize it is not a good idea to use the amount of land you want to use. If we do use the designated sight, then preserve the old Canta Mar Apts for wildlife or land preservation. It has been the standard in Naples since I have been here since 1972 that businesses just cannot thrive. You have seen example of this just on Bayshore alone. I see no reason to destroy nature for an idea that might not work if we look at past history. My answer is to use the land that is closest to Bayshore which cannot be used for nature anyway since it is too close to civilization and start out small. Maybe the artist habitat and an eclectic coffee shop and maybe a few stores, we must use discretion that the unique business will make it and not be the same ole same ole. Use discretion as to what type of business comes in, is it different enough to bring people to Bayshore and more than guarantee success? Think of questions to ask if we do decide to build. Something that is not similar to what is going on in the rest of Naples. There is too much competition in Naples for just the "same" that these businesses do not thrive. Bring something new to the table. We do not need an amphitheater you already have something similar to that at Sugden, if not what you want, expound on the theatre there to accomplish goal. I see no need to build another amphitheater. It just doesn't make sense to me. Bayshore drive is already out of the way which is why I think businesses do not make it. I think we should use the 360 Restaurant, the new green one and see what happens there? is that bringing in droves of people yet? No, it is not. Contemplate the fact that Naples is seasonal. More businesses Packet Page -222- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. coming in cannot make it then we have already poured the concrete and the expense to put it back the way it was. I do believe your proposed idea: Cultural and educational activities for the community IS A GOOD OPTION, PROVIDED NOT MUCH LAND USE. Preserving the natural lake -area for eco- tourism (bird and natural life observation) IS A GREAT IDEA! Future connection to Lake Avalon (Sudgen Park) IT WOULD BE NICE TO TAKE A WALK OR BIKE IN A BEAUTIFUL AREA WHERE WE CAN APPRECIATE NATURE, BEYOND THE SMALL LAND TAKEN FOR AN ARTIST COMMUNITY. IT SEEMS CREAMTE IDEAS FROM THE COMIvfUNITY ARE NEEDED. To Recap: I BELIEVE WE SHOULD START OUT SLOW AND SMALL. THERE IS NO GUARANTEED SUCCESS BY ADDING THE BUILDINGS AND MEDICAL OFFICES THAT IT WILL BRING IN BUSINESS, AND THE CONSEQUENCES FAR OUTWAY THE SHORT TERM BENEFIT. BAYSHORE SEEMS LIKE A RESIDENTIAL AREA, NOT AN AREA FOR BUSINESSES TO THRIVE SO WE HAVE TO USE CAUTION. THE FACT THAT THERE ARE ABANDONED BUILDINGS FROM BUSINESSES COULD NOT MAKE IT DOES NOTHING FOR PROPERTY VALUES IN THE AREA, IT IS AN EYESORE, AND CAN ENCOURAGE SQUATTERS. WHY ISN'T SOMETHING BEING DONE TO THE ABANDONED BUIDINGS? FIX THAT PROBLEM FIRST BEFORE ADDING MORE PROBLEMS. SHALL WE USE THOSE EXISTING BUILDINGS AS AN ARTIST COMMUNITY AND SAVE THE EXPENSE OF TEARING THAT DOWN, BECAUSE IT WILL REMAIN EMPTY FOR 14 YRS. WHAT IS THE LESSON LEARNED FROM CANTA MAR APTS? A SMALLER AREA TAKEN FOR THIS IDEA WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL. KEEP THE PARKING GARAGE OUT AND MEDICAL OFFICES AND BUSINESS OFFICES OUT. We need to think of the big picture for Bayshore and not be selfish due to greed. Let us do what is best for Bayshore Drive AND Naples. Let us make this a benefit to Bayshore. I also do not think 5 convenience stores on Bayshore helps the real estate values at all, that is akin to adding strip malls and adult video stores. Let us put a thought process into this. If this does bring in businesses considerations should be made as to the increase in traffic for the residents, is that a good idea? Thank you for your time. Signed, Full time area resident and property owners Heidi Liebwein and Corinne Liebwein 118 Moorhead Mnr Naples, FL 34112 -6590 tel/ 239 -774 -2567 Packet Page -223- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. ORDINANCE NO. 12 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2004 -41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE ZONING DISTRICT (C- 2- BMUD -NC) AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT (C- 4- BMUD -NC) AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT OF THE BAYSHORE DRIVE MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT OF THE MOBILE HOME ZONING DISTRICT TO A MIXED USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS THE CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD, TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF 40 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AND UP TO 48,575 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL LAND USES, UP TO 84,000 SQUARE FEET OF PARKING GARAGE AND A 350 SEAT THEATRE IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 17.89 + /- ACRES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency, represented by Banks Engineering and Pizzuti Solutions LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2- BMUD -NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of Cultural Arts Village / PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Revised 5/07/12 Page 1 of 2 Packet Page -224- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning District (C -4- BMUD-NC) and the Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District of the Mobile Nome Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), to allow construction of a maximum of 40 residential dwelling units and up to 48,575 square feet of commercial land uses, up to 84,000 square feet of parking garage and a 350 seat theatre in accordance with Exhibits A through F. attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super- majority vote by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of ATTEST: DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK By. , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and Iegal sufficiency: ri �r „w k Iieidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 2012. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA ME FRED W. COYLE, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F — List of Developer Commitments CP110 -CPS - 01023`58 Cultural Arts Village ,` PUDZ- PL20l0 -592 Revised 5/07/12 Nee 2 of 2 Packet Page -225- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. EXHIBIT A FOR CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD PERMITTED USES The Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD (Mixed Use Planned Unit Development) will be developer} as a mixed use project within the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay comprised of a maximum of 40 residential units, 48,575 square feet of gross floor area Commercial uses (including retail, office and medical office) and a 350 -fixed seat Performance Theatre and ancillary 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. Tracts A, C, D, E, F & G Principal Uses: Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Pan 1 of 20 Packet Page -226- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD u o W LL 4 Q Q Q Q Q TABLE OF PERMITTED USES F F- PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES: 1 ACCOUNTING SERVICES (8721) X X 2 ADVERTISING AGENCIES (7311) X X AMUSEMENTS AND RECREATION SERVICES (7999- BOAT RENTAL, MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, BICYCLE AND MOPED RENTAL, RENTAL OF BEACH CHAIRS AND ACCESSORIES, CANOE RENTAL, DAY CAMP, EXHIBITION OPERATION, EXPOSITION X X X X X X OPERATION, JUDO INSTRUCTION, KARATE INSTRUCTION, YOGA 3 INSTRUCTION APPAREL & ACCESSORY STORES (5611 -5699) WITH 5,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PRINCIPAL X X 4 STRUCTURE ARTIST STUDIOS: PAINTING, DRAWING, GRAPHICS, FINE WOOD WORKING, MIXED MEDIA, FIBER ART (WEAVING), GLASS, CUSTOM JEWELRY, CLAY (CERAMICS /POTTERY), SCULPTURE, X X X PHOTOGRAPHY, DANCE, DRAMA, AND MUSIC (3269) (7335) 5 (7336) (7929) ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, SURVEYING SERVICES (0781, X X 6 8711 -8713) 7 ATTORNEY OFFICES & LEGAL SERVICES (8111) X X AUTOMOBILE PARKING, AUTOMOBILE PARKING GARAGES AND PARKING STRUCTURES (7521); LIMITED TO 84,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE PARKING GARAGE OR X X PARKING STRUCTURE. THIS USE DOES NOT INCLUDE TOW -IN 8 PARKING LOTS OR STORAGE Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Pan 1 of 20 Packet Page -226- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 2 of 20 Packet Page -227- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD a o W G G G Q Q 4 TABLE OF PERMITTED USES CC at cc ~ ~ PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES: 9 BANKS, CREDIT UNIONS AND TRUSTS (6011 -6099) X X 10 BARBER SHOPS OR COLLEGES (7241) X X 11 BEAUTY SHOPS OR SCHOOLS (7231) X X 12 BED & BREAKFAST FACILITIES (7011) X X 13 BUSINESS SERVICES (7389) X X 14 CHILD DAY CARE SERVICES (8351) X X CHURCHES (8661); CHURCH USES ARE LIMITED TO PERFORMING ARTS CENTER AND ADJOINING AMPHITHEATRE X 15 AND LAWN CIVIC AND CULTURAL FACILITIES; LIMITED TO LESS THAN X X 5,000 SQUARE FEET E CIVIC, SOCIAL AND FRATERNAL ASSOCIATIONS (8641); X X 17 LIMITED TO LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET 18 COMMERCIAL ART AND GRAPHIC DESIGN (7336) X X 19 COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY (7335) X X COMPUTER AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE STORES (5734); X X 20 LIMITED TO LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET COMPUTER PROGRAMMING, DATA PROCESSING AND OTHER X X TX 21 SERVICES (7371 -7379) 22 DANCE STUDIOS, SCHOOLS AND HALLS (7911) X X DRINKING PLACES (5813), RESTAURANTS, HOTELS AND PRIVATE CLUB, GOLF CLUB, COUNTRY CLUB, OR CIVIC OR X X FRATERNAL CLUB, PURSUANT TO SECTION 5.05.01.A.7.; 23 BOTTLE CLUBS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. DRUG STORES (5912); LIMITED TO LESS THAN 6,000 SQUARE X X 24 FEET 1 EATING ESTABLISHMENTS AND PLACES (5812) EXCEPT CONTRACT FEEDING, DINNER THEATERS, DRIVE -IN X X X RESTAURANTS, FOOD SERVICES (INSTITUTIONAL), INDUSTRIAL 25 FEEDING; LIMITED TO LESS THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET 26 EDUCATION SERVICES (8211 -8222) X X X 27 ESSENTIAL SERVICES X X 28 FOOD STORES (5411, 5421 -5499) X X 29 GENERAL MERCHANDISE STORES (5311 -5399) X X Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 2 of 20 Packet Page -227- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 3 of 20 Packet Page -228- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD u LD b ¢ a a a TABLE OF PERMITTED USES � PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES: GROUP CARE FACILITIES (CATEGORY 1 AND II), CARE UNITS, NURSING HOMES; ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES PURSUANT TO F.S. 400.402 AND CH. 5BA -5 F.A.C.; AND CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES PURSUANT TO F.S. 651 AND CH. X X 4 -193 F.A.C.; ALL SUBJECT TO SECTION 5.05.04); OFFENDER HALFWAY HOUSING AND HOMELESS SHELTERS SHALL NOT BE 30 PERMITTED. HARDWARE STORES (5251); LIMITED TO LESS THAN 1,800 X X 31 SQUARE FEET 32 HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICES AND CLINICS (8011 -8049, 8082) X X HOME FURNITURE, FURNISHINGS, EQUIPMENT STORE (5712- X X 33 5719); LIMITED TO LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET 34 HOTELS AND MOTELS, EXCEPT HOSTELS X X HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCE STORES (5722); LIMITED TO LESS X X 35 THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET 36 LEGAL SERVICES (8111) X X 37 LIBRARIES (8231) EXCEPT REGIONAL LIBRARIES X X 38 MANAGEMENT SERVICES (8711 -8748) X X 39 MEMBERSHIP ORGANIZATIONS (8699) X X MISCELLANEOUS REPAIR SERVICE (7622, 7629, 7631, 7699) EXCEPT AIRCRAFT, ENGINE, BUSINESS AND OFFICE MACHINES, X X LARGE APPLIANCES, AND WHITE GOODS SUCH AS 40 REFRIGERATORS, AND WASHING MACHINES. MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL SERVICES (5932 -5949, 5992 - 5999); LIMITED TO LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET; ADULT ORIENTED X X X SALES AND RENTALS, TATTOO PARLORS AND PAWN SHOPS 41 SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. 42 MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES X X X 43 MORTGAGE BANKERS AND LOAN CORRESPONDENTS (6162) X X 44 MOTION PICTURE THEATRE (7832) X X 45 MULTI - FAMILY DWELLINGS X X X 46 MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (8412) X X X 47 MUSICAL INSTRUMENT STORES (5736) X X 48 PAINT STORES (5231) X X 49 PARKS, PUBLIC OR PRIVATE X X X X X X 50 PERFORMING ARTS THEATER (7922) 350 SEATS X X 51 PERSONAL CREDIT INSTITUTIONS (6141) X X PERSONAL SERVICES (7299); LIMITED TO LESS THAN 5,000 X X 52 SQUARE FEET; TATTOO PARLORS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 3 of 20 Packet Page -228- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Page 4 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -229- a U a W �- a a TABLE OF PERMITTED USES a - ~ a PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES: 53 PHOTOCOPYING AND DUPLICATING SERVICES (7334) X X 54 PHOTOGRAPHIC STUDIOS (7221) INCLUDING PORTRAIT X X 55 PHYSICAL FITNESS FACILITIES (7991) X X X X X X PROFESSIONAL OFFICES (6712 -6799, 6411 -6399, 6531, 6541, X X 56 6552, 6553, 8111) PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (9111 -9199, 9224, 9229, 9311, 9411 -9451, 9511 -9532, 9611- 9661); LIMITED TO LESS THAN X X 57 5,000 SQUARE FEET RECORD AND PRERECORDED TAPE STORES (5735) WITH 5,000 SQUARE FEET OR LESS OF GROSS FLOOR AREA IN THE X X PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE; ADULT ORIENTED SALES AND 58 RENTALS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. REPAIR SHOPS AND RELATED SERVICES, NOT ELSEWHERE X X 59 CLASSIFIED (7699) EXCEPT ENGINE REPAIR. 60 RESIDENTIAL USES X X 61 RETAIL SERVICES - MISCELLANEOUS (5912, 5942 -5961) X X SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION SERVICES, ART, CERAMIC, DRAMA, X X X 62 MUSIC (8299) SECURITY BROKERS, DEALERS, EXCHANGES, SERVICES (6211- X X 63 6289) 64 SHOE REPAIR SHOPS OR SHOESHINE PARLORS (7251) X X 65 SINGLE - FAMILY DWELLINGS X X 66 TAX RETURN PREPARATION SERVICES (7291) X X THEATRICAL PRODUCERS AND MISCELLANEOUS THEATRICAL SERVICES, INDOOR (7922 -7929, INCLUDING BANDS, X X 67 ORCHESTRAS AND ENTERTAINERS; EXCEPT MOTION PICTURE) 68 TOWNHOUSES X X X TRAVEL AGENCIES (4724, NO OTHER TRANSPORTATION X X 69 SERVICES) 70 TWO- FAMILY DWELLING UNIT X X X UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (4311) EXCLUDES MAJOR X X 71 DISTRIBUTION CENTER VETERINARIAN'S OFFICE (0742) EXCLUDES OUTDOOR X X 72 KENNELING VIDEOTAPE RENTAL (7841); ADULT ORIENTED SALES AND X X 73 RENTALS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED. 74 VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS, COMMERCIAL ART SCHOOLS (8249) X I X X WALLPAPER STORES (5231); LIMITED TO LESS THAN 5,000 X X 75 SQUARE FEET Page 4 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -229- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. B. Tracts A, C, D, E, F & G Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associ~w th the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: Q U a w LL Q Q U Q U TABLE OF PERMITTED USES ►- Q ~ Q PERMITTED PRINCIPAL USES: OTHER INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL USE WHICH 15 ]ANY COMPARABLE IN NATURE WITH THE FOREGOING LIST OF X X X X X X 76 PERMITTED USES. B. Tracts A, C, D, E, F & G Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and structures customarily associ~w th the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: C. Preserve Tract "B" Permitted Principal Uses: 1. Parks, passive recreational areas. 2. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. Permitted Accessory Uses: 1. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. 2. Water management structures. D. Interim Uses for all Tracts (Excluding Tract "B "): 1. Community events such as, but not limited to, festivals. Page 5 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -230- Q U p w LL Q Q U Q U TABLE OF PERMITTED USES (cont'd) Q ~ Q PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES: OUTSIDE STORAGE OR DISPLAY OF MERCHANDISE WHEN SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED FOR A USE, OTHERWISE PROHIBITED, X X X X X X 1 SUBJECT TO SECTION 4.02.12. 2 PLAY AREAS AND PLAYGROUNDS X X X X X X C. Preserve Tract "B" Permitted Principal Uses: 1. Parks, passive recreational areas. 2. Native preserves and wildlife sanctuaries. Permitted Accessory Uses: 1. Biking, hiking, and nature trails, and boardwalks as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. 2. Water management structures. D. Interim Uses for all Tracts (Excluding Tract "B "): 1. Community events such as, but not limited to, festivals. Page 5 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -230- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. E. Proposed Mixed Use Panned Unit Development Uses: USE ACRES % of Site TRACT "A" RESIDENTIAL UNITS: 40 COMMERCIAL 35,000 SF PERFORMING ARTS THEATRE: 350 SEATS 7.72 43% CLASSROOMS /STUDIOS: 925 SF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES: 1,650 SF PARKING GARAGE: 84,000 SF TRACT "B" 0.56 3% REQUIRED NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVE TRACT "C" COMMERCIAL /COMMUNITY BUILDING: 11,000 118 7% SF TRACT "D" COMMUNITY PAVILION, RECREATION, 0.87 5% COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC USE, PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYS /BOARDWALK TRACT "E" RECREATION, COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC USE, 1.68 9% PEDESTRIAN ACCESSWAYS /BOARDWALK TRACT "F" RECREATION, COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC USE, 2.82 16% OPEN SPACE TRACT "G" RECREATION, COMMUNITY OR PUBLIC USE, 3.06 17% OPEN SPACE TOTAL 17.89 100°6 Page 6 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -231- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. EXHIBIT B FOR CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Table 1 below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Mixed Use PUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) in effect as of the date of approval of the Site Development Plan or Subdivision plat. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth above shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and /or homeowners' association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development Standards. TABLE 1 MPUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Page 7 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -232- PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH N/A MINIMUM YARDS external From Ba shore Drive 10 feet SPS From North Property Line 15 feet SPS From South Property Line 15 feet SPS From East Property Line Tract "^n 15 feet SPS MINIMUM YARDS internal SPS Internal Drives /ROW /Property lines 5 feet SPS Internal Lake (1) 20 feet / 0 feet when utilizing a bulkhead (see 0 feet (see deviation 4) deviation 4 Rear 20 feet 10 feet Side 5 feet SPS MINIMUM DISTANCE 1 -story to 1 -story: 12' SPS BETWEEN STRUCTURES 1 -story to 2 -story: 135 2 -story to 2 -story: 15' 2 -story to 3 -story: 17.5' 3 -story to 3 -story: 20' 3 -story to 4 -story: 20' 4-story to 4-story: 20' Principal /Accessory setbacks to preserve Tract "B" 25, 10, Page 7 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -232- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. (1) Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Lake setbacks can be reduced from 10 feet to 0 feet subject to the requirements of Section 4.02.05 of the LDC. Note: "SPS" refers to 'same as principal' structure. Building Standards Building Design 1. Building facades facing the intersecting east -west streets with Bayshore Drive shall have the same architectural design treatment as the building fagade facing Bayshore Drive. 2. Buildings containing commercial and residential uses are required to have a minimum depth of 35 feet. The remaining depth of the lot may be used for parking. Maximum square footage A building with commercial use only is limited to a maximum gross building foot print of 20,000 square feet. Minimum floor area 700 square foot gross floor area for each unit, residential or commercial Maximum Height Commercial Use Only: Maximum Height of Buildings Zoned: 42.0 feet, not to exceed 3 stories (consistent with current Land Development Code) Actual: 56.0 feet, not to exceed 3 stories (consistent with current Land Development Code Residential Use Only: Maximum Height of Buildings Zoned: 42.0 feet, not to exceed 3 stories (consistent with current Land Development Code) Actual: 56.0 feet, not to exceed 3 stories (consistent with current Land Development Code Mixed Use: Residential on top of Commercial Uses Zoned: 56.0 feet, not to exceed 4 stories. Only the first two floors shall be used for commercial uses. (consistent with current Land Development Code) Actual: 72.0 feet, not to exceed 4 stories. Only the first two floors shall be used for commercial uses. consistent with current Land Development Code Ceiling Height: The first floor commercial ceiling shall be no less than 12 feet in height from the finished floor to the finished ceiling and no more than 16 feet in height from the finished floor to the finished ceiling, with the exception of a theater use see Deviation 6 Maximum Residential Density: 40 dwelling units Page 8 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -233- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. GENERAL: Remaining Design Standards shall be in accordance with the Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore MPUD Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, LDC Section 4.02.16.6, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, with the exception of requested deviations. Cross - access Basements or shared parking commitments shall be required if separately owned tracts are established, so that all parking facilities serve as common facilities to both commercial and residential development. Project phasing — It is understood that the development is likely to be realized over a number of phases, the first of which will be determined at the time of Site Development Plan submission. Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 9 of 20 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -234- 8 `�. � 'fir �.. �- <. `�'. �Y$y C��• - ._ r3. .N 10 K .gypN':. 9 Yf poi Jg� F etKra Nsaa�ir' aea: w„e aria' t 9H 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. . u, pNp r� #y a r vy,YI Ilk Pa. z1° �� 211, ,. Kill dDlg � � O v 'T'Gy� 'i/� yt Z''�+•'(�f, INI ��'�:= ..:'��f�zJ�. .�j�t — t1-q �:_';: •� ''0.'.H.. Q -'�'� •t :i �p O �a4 _ m l +�r♦ ism '.1 { .7 "II. �' M i+F4. -c xFr •Cs i'�c.'.i �o �'�i' IMMA v' . rwnnrw -s-ipa � fggri = -� sJ C MEW 4r r ' V Revision Date. May 71 2012 Page .10 of 20 Cultural Arts Village at Sayshore' PUM PUDZ- Pt203.0'592 Packet Page -235- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Aft, UYEDS SNIM ne T7� 7 -..Ilq NC11 LUIS t,690'41 if OWE b � --Iew I ga W. V) 0 1 Wow. i2 2 �jz ZZZbZ ='Ld Kew U T"n! n fn Cc, CIL -4o 30(a SKE wx < I X-1 aac WE '0 =�i Cn V,;, W'38 ' w. Cc Cr -K F. ;S.'w Q. 1. 0 � r. . . x 1. US ISN S- V Cam' % K UVA W::b 515; 113.410fww�; -0 CS? V T 11L '-4 " 3'3 < � � 'w T �� . 'Cuz ,of I Z' w L'i j lz E Ez.w 9 R w 0.� i.1 J C2, 11�z R VE0 a< Ld 4A Z' Ir x z u 0, z F. "Fina :Z<"7xqw =1 5Q- 52 16 2 etfw� LM 9 P ty < I w O'r 4C & Wd fu< Ox .J" U. Revision Date: May 7, 2= Pae=e 11 of 20 Cultural Arts Village at Buys . hare-PUD. PUDZ-1*1.201"92 Packet Page -236- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. �. .. Z. tLd W 1 .a'. 2 --V Itz }1! Op Z. 581 Z u :4 F Z ! � �` '¢ 0 1.li5LH 9NIO'Ttti� iifli�l��4 ,Lr =,a will W w I t� J lR G1 N ^'1, � 3'_ T fill I,. W Lam/ N iR � 6� p W. < 4. w as i< t� S. t9 .. -s Q JriY fig• �: +" % W- �G�IZwfdi V �WW �Wi.� V1 u. W5 a.z a A. U..: �r 4 raQf� da yi.ey�rc�ii 4z5 dti� �wzw. v .vW zwz earyy c-n- -aW zu a 9 m�iz4. 2 S O O �� • < U x' 4 A U m a Tj z'� w. 1 - o j W;.�.� r�;INU al yDD'd KSINa 3U'5tii} t~n G �-" � w 1'� � ,��• � '� , �`C. � " � � m � kYli ;Zf QL .Z l 1N�I�Fk O IX Z sa�u� mat a�� lsa� cry la its z ` K Yj U_ U•Q y _ z •a 'o ry � 1 01 < a: ty4 aRO�3Z ° _i a"I 2rS�'c *'v o2� <' �, 6 `I' Q m CWi ..i m. ! ...Qj m J �n (. <7 r°rw �ki ,zg<.=4 ins in' o u�yea� <� =rR zU ktY+ybl. ZZ Z 5 0 1,10 z = : AL ll' �Z �C EA ►".mS E Er tr; 0 m A Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 12 of 20 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshcre PUD: PUPZPI.2010�592 Packet Page -237- O-Z I I 1 IN �Z. . . . . . . . . . . . arm jiw Hz MH Revision Date: May T. 2012 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Of M. E W, SO ir LU U rx z IA U a i . . . . . . . . . . . arm jiw Hz MH Revision Date: May T. 2012 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. Of M. E W, SO F 1 .1 5, ir U z IA F 1 .1 5, Page 13 of 2G C.-Ulturail Arts V1114e at 9ayshor6 PUD. PUDZ-K2010592 Packet Page -238- U a i T!i t. or p -1y 0 ftft !Irk Page 13 of 2G C.-Ulturail Arts V1114e at 9ayshor6 PUD. PUDZ-K2010592 Packet Page -238- C! �.'mv' � -r � E c j' ' ^ •�, yrr uric 3 ... � : ,�I�I lipn� �` r•f IN IN CIE 1 71 wl a 4 —, " � �' ,� � �� 9 -e� *btu . • ��r : �_ r ke e a c t a1F`Fs,, r ,.c _ V {•.�y t j `t =•ate -. ^°" �'".. -M l yy i .1a 'k :iAM A '"A At rn .. �•`�' l' kr'9k � -- � .� Vic: f1r .. � 1�► P '�"` u F '�^"""' " �u•`aa y,. �� a n.r � � �E'.r..r'�37'�,�4� Wit! tlt .a rM i w» u n r� 1.'^4.i. "''W.. -rE"` as''G _ J � � � w 4 • •, � 1 ^r „.n.. 7, .�dG.� ��T^3L` ��' ,. i�.i'i.s�i a. E'.M_,....n�...ukn fru j� '��...1 ^.icy �i,. ,,.wIaY 1.. ":�_r..'.•lr�� 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. EXHIBIT C (ADDITIONAL NOTES) CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD MASTER PLAN A. Exhibit "C," MPUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed Development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries, or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or SDP approval. Subject to the provisions and applicable sections of the LDC and the Growth Management Plan (GMP), in effect at that time, amendments may be made from time to time. B. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to ensure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 15 of 20 Packet Page -240- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. EXHIBIT D FOR CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCELI THE WEST 425 FEET OF LOT 109, NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS No. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27A, LESS THE EAST 200 FEET AND THE WEST 25 FEET THEREOF, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 2 THE EAST 200 FEET OF THE WEST 425 FEET OF LOT 109, NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS No. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27A, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLER COUNTY, FLORIDA. TOGETHER WITH AN INGRESS AND EGRESS EASEMENT ACROSS THE NORTH 30 FEET OF THE EAST 200 FEET OF THE WEST 225 FEET OF LOT 109, NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS No.2 PARCEL 3 ALL OF LOT 108, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE NORTH 273.44 FEET OF THE WEST 425 FEET AND THE KELLY ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY, NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS No. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27A, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; TOGETHER WITH: ALL OF LOT 109, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE WEST 425 FEET AND THE KELLY ROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY, NAPLES GROVE AND TRUCK CO'S LITTLE FARMS No. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 27A, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND PARCEL A, LAKESIDE MOBILE ESTATES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PLAT RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 9, PAGE 99, PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Page 16 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 . PUDZ- PL2010.592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -241- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. EXHIBIT E FOR CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC Deviation #1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.F.2. which states, "Buffers are required between mixed use PUDs, BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts that abut residential property. A minimum 10 -foot wide landscaped area shall be required. This area shall include: a six -foot high opaque masonry wall; a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center; and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height, and 3 feet on center at the time of planting. Landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall." The alternative proposed is a 10 -foot wide alternative "A" buffer on Tract "A" and on Tract "C" adjacent to the MH- BMUD -NC zoned portion of the vacant property which abuts the internal loop road, as shown on Exhibit "C" page 2 of 6. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.F.2. which states, "Buffers are required between mixed use PUDs, BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts that abut residential property. A minimum 10 -foot wide landscaped area shall be required. This area shall include: a six -foot high opaque masonry wall; a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center; and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height, and 3 feet on center at the time of planting. Landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall." The alternative proposal will allow no buffer along the northern property line (portion of Tract "F ") and southern property line (Tract "G ") that is located within and adjacent to the lake for the area as depicted on Exhibit "C" "MPUD Conceptual Master Site Plan" and Exhibit "C" page 2 of 6. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.F.3 which states, "A shared 10 foot wide landscape buffer with each adjacent property contributing a minimum of 5 feet is required between BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts abutting commercial zoned districts or abutting BMUD -NC or BMUD -W Subdistricts. However, the equivalent buffer area square footage may be provided in the form of landscaped and hardscaped courtyards, mini - plazas, outdoor eating areas, and building foundation planting areas." The alternative will allow a 10 -foot wide alternative "A" buffer on Tract "A" adjacent to the commercial parcel to the north and on Tracts "A" and "C" adjacent to the C- 2- BMUD -NC zoned portion of the vacant property as shown on "Exhibit "C" page 2 of 6. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A, Table 11 "Design Standards for the BMUD Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" which requires a waterfront setback of 25 feet, to allow a minimum waterfront setback of 20 feet (0 feet with bulkhead) as shown on Exhibit "C" page 2 of 6. Lake setbacks are measured from the control elevation established for the lake. Furthermore, lake setbacks can be reduced from 20 feet to 0 feet when utilizing a bulkhead, subject to the requirements of Section 4.02.05 of the LDC. Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 17 of 20 Packet Page -242- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.F.2. which states, "Buffers are required between mixed use PUDs, BMUD -NC and BMUD -W Subdistricts that abut residential property. A minimum 10 -foot wide landscaped area shall be required. This area shall include: a six -foot high opaque masonry wall; a row of trees spaced no more than 25 feet on center; and a single row of shrubs at least 24 inches in height, and 3 feet on center at the time of planting. Landscaping shall be on the commercial side of the wall." The alternative will allow a minimum 10 -foot wide buffer with no wall, same number of trees and shrubs; however instead of a single row of shrubs, shrubs shall be planted in groupings along the lake edge and around the building foundation along the northern edge of Tracts A and D. 6. Deviation #6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A, Table 11, Desion Standards for the BMUD Neiahborhood Commercial Subdistrict, which requires that the first floor ceiling shall be no less than 12 feet and no more than 18 feet in height from the finished floor to the finished ceiling and shall be limited to commercial uses only. This proposed deviation will remove the maximum height requirement to accommodate a theater use. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.03.A. Table 3, number 3 which requires a minimum building separation for multi -story parking structures of "1 foot of accessory height = 1 foot of building separation." The alternative is a 0' building separation to allow for a commercial building to abut or attach to a parking structure. Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Page 18 of 20 Packet Page -243- PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. EXHIBIT F FOR CULTURAL ARTS VILLAGE AT BAYSHORE MPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS 1. ENVIRONMENTAL A. A minimum of 0.55 acres of preserve area are required for this MPUD (2.2 acres existing native vegetation x 0.25 = 0.55). 2. PLANNING A. Building permits shall not be issued for more than 20,000 square feet of commercial floor area prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy (C.O.) for a minimum of 20 dwelling units. An exception to this limitation is that building permits may be issued for up to 30,000 square feet of commercial gross floor area if building permits are concurrently issued for all 40 dwelling units and the C.O.s for all 40 dwelling units are issued prior to or concurrent with the C.O.s for no greater than 30,000 square feet of commercial floor area. B. All internal access ways, drive aisles and roadways, not located within County right -of -way shall be privately maintained by an entity created by the developer, its successor in title, or assigns. All internal roads, driveways, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer and Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. The proposed main loop road shown on Exhibit "C" may be public or private. 3. MANAGING ENTITY 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 Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency. 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 Page 19 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 Packet Page -244- PUDZ•PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. 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 are closed -out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. 4. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS A. A temporary use permit must be obtained for festivals and outdoor musical events. B. Boardwalk lighting shall be low intensity, no higher than the railing and shall be directed to the walk. Page 20 of 20 Revision Date: May 7, 2012 PUDZ- PL2010 -592 Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore PUD Packet Page -245- 6/12/2012 Item 9.A. NAPLES DAILY NEWS a Friday, May 18, 2012 (( 21D NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING " Notice is hereby given that. on Tuesday, June 12, 2012, in the Board of County Commissioners meeting room, Third Floor,. Collier Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples FL., the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will consider the enactment of a County Ordinance. The meeting will commence at 9:00 Ail. The title of the proposed Ordinance is as follows: PUDZ -PL -2010 - 592,. "Cultural Arts Village at Bayshore MPUD, an Ordinance of fh "e Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amend' ngg Ordinance No. 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County .Land Development Code, whith established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area,(of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or mapsrby changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from: lne Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict of the. Bayshore Drive. Mixed Use Over ay District of the Commercial Convenience Zoning District (C- 2,BMUD -NC) and the . Neighborhood .Commercial Subdistrict of the .Bayshore Drive Mixed Use. Overlay District of the General Commercial Zoning ' District ..(C 4- SMUD.NC) and. the .Neighborhood *Commercial Subdistrict of the Bayshore ;Drive Mixed Use—Overlay District' of the Mobile... Home'.Zoning District ",to a .Mixed -Use Planned U,pit Development (MPUD) Zoning District for the project to be known as the Cultural Arts Village. at Bayshore MPUD, :to allow construction: -of a ,maximum of ;40 residential dwelling units and up 'to 48,575 square feet of commercial land uses, j6p to `,64,000, square feet -of parking garage; and a 350 seat theatre in Section 14, ,Township, 50 South,. Ran e. 25 East, .Collier County, Florida consisting of 1789�7- acres, and providing an effective dater f' A copy of the proposed Ordinance is on file with the Clerk to the Board and, is available for inspection. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard r NOTE: All ; persons wishing. to speak,, on any agenda. item must:. registe[:';rvith 'fie County manager .prior 'to presentation of" the agenda item,;to be addressed. Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item ;'Tk selection of ' ny individual to . speak on, behalf of an organization or .group is . encouraged: t-If recognized by the Chairman, a" spokesperson for a group or organization 'maye allotted 10 minutes to'speak on an item. ('r •. Persons wishing to.have written or'graphii materials included in the Board agenda packets must submit .said, material a minimum of 3 weeks prior..to the resppective public' hearing. In :any . case, written materials, intended to be, considered.,by.;thi Board shall be submitted to the appropriate County staff a minimum, of seven d ,ys prior" to the public hearing. All ".:materials used in presentations before the Bo rd W become a permanent part of the record: Any .person who decides to appeal any decision of the Board will "need a record of the proceedings " pertaining thereto and " therefore, may "need to ensure thatY a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record: includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If.you are a person with a disability whoneeds any accommodation in orderj participate. in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to, the provision of certain assistance. Please Contact the Collier County Facilities Managemniit Department, located at 3335 Tamiami "Trail East, Suite #101, Naples, FL 34112 -536, (239) 252- 8360, at least two days prior to the meeting. - Assisted.Astening devices for the "hearing impaired are available in the Board of County. Commissioners. Of- fice. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS `. P COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ?' FRED W. COYLE, CHAIRMAN DWIGHT E. "BRO.CK; CLERK:` By: Teresa Polask( Deputy Clerk (SEAL) May 1c' 8. 2012 No. 2949528 c'2 t;: f, a Packet Page -246-