The URL can be used to link to this page

Solis Ex Parte Ex parte Items - Commissioner Andy Solis COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA June 25, 2019 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 8.A. This item requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided by Commission members. Recommendation to approve an Ordinance amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended,the Collier County Land Development Code,which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A)Zoning District to a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development(MPUD)Zoning District for the project to be known as the Baumgarten MPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 400 multifamily and/or townhouse residential dwelling units and up to 270,000 square feet of commercial land uses at the southeast quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard, in Section 26, Township 48, Range 26, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 55.66+/-acres; and by providing an effective date. [Baumgarten MPUD, P120170000768) (This is a companion to Agenda Item 11.A) NO DISCLOSURE FOR THIS ITEM SEE FILE ®Meetings I (Correspondence ®e-mails ®Calls MEETINGS WITH: Bob Mulhere, Jerry Starkey, Patrick Vanasse, Bill Higgs, Rich Yovanovich MEETINGS, EMAILS, CALL WITH: John Agnelli SolisAndy From: Andrew Solis <ASolis@cohenlaw.com> Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2018 7:00 PM To: SolisAndy Subject: Accepted: Mini Triangle Stakeholders Meeting SolisAndy Subject: Bob Mulhere,Jerry Starkey; Mini Triangle Location: Cohen &Grigsby Start: Wed 5/2/2018 3:30 PM End: Wed 5/2/2018 4:15 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Categories: Mercato Office 5/1,5:25pm-left message for Stephanie to move meeting to C&G. Dear Angela: Pursuant to our discussion,if Bob and Jerry could meet with Commissioner Solis on Wednesday,May 2nd at 3:00pm,it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your assistance in this matter, Stephanie Stephanie Karol Permitting Coordinator HOLE MONTES,INC. Engineers Planners • Surveyors 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34110 USA Direct: (239) 254-2018 Main Line: (239) 254-2000 Facsimile: (239) 254-2099 SolisAndy Subject: Meeting w/Commissioner Solis re FAR Location: 3299 Tamiami Trail East Start: Tue 6/4/2019 4:00 PM End: Tue 6/4/2019 4:30 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Accepted Organizer: Richard Yovanovich Categories: Commission Chambers w/John Agnelli SolisAndy Subject: Call John Agnelli at 239-775-2230 re: Mini Triangle, former Trio parcel. Location: phone call Start: Thu 1/3/2019 3:30 PM End: Thu 1/3/2019 4:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) From: John Agnelli<lohna@powercorp.net> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:29 PM To: FialaDonna;SolisAndy;SaundersBurt;TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: BrockMaryJo; powercorpl@yahoo.com Subject: Mini Triangle,former Trio parcel. Attachments: FAR Rev 02.pdf; 7-CSCOTT Email re FAR.pdf; Hotel SF by Scott Brush.pdf; Review Comment Letter to Loscano.pdf DecPDF Review Comment Hotel SF by Scott 7-CSCOTT Email FAR Rev 02.pdf Letter to Losca... Brush.pdf re FARPDF Commissioners, We have met or spoken with all of you regarding the difference of opinion that we have with Staff regarding the application of the Floor Area Ratio to this property.To that end we have enclosed a comprehensive white paper, authored by Patrick Vanasse, who was also one of the authors of the Gateway Overlay. Additional documents include a Staff email, which was copied to all department heads, agreeing that FAR did not apply, a copy of a letter addressing room sizes from our hotel consultant and a letter to our architect/builder reversing the County's position on the FAR application. Attachments to the white paper will be forwarded in a separate email. Thank you, John John J.Agnelli Senior Vice President Licensed Real Estate Broker Power Corporation 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive Suite 105 Naples, Fl 34104 P: 239-775-2230 F: 239-775-1398 C: 239-285-0345 SolisAndy From: John Agnelli <johna@powercorp.net> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 7:17 AM To: SolisAndy Subject: Mini Triangle Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up Flag Status: Flagged Commissioner Solis, Thanks again for meeting with us regarding the Mini Triangle. Do you have any questions regarding the info we provided relating to the Floor Area Ratio? John John J. Agnelli Senior Vice President Licensed Real Estate Broker Power Corporation 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive Suite 105 Naples, Fl 34104 P: 239-775-2230 F: 239-775-1398 C: 239-285-0345 SolisAndy From: John Agnelli <johna@powercorp.net> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:29 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: BrockMaryJo; powercorp1@yahoo.com Subject: Mini Triangle, former Trio parcel. Attachments: FAR Rev 02.pdf; 7 - CSCOTT Email re FAR.pdf; Hotel SF by Scott Brush.pdf; Review Comment Letter to Loscano.pdf Commissioners, We have met or spoken with all of you regarding the difference of opinion that we have with Staff regarding the application of the Floor Area Ratio to this property. To that end we have enclosed a comprehensive white paper, authored by Patrick Vanasse, who was also one of the authors of the Gateway Overlay. Additional documents include a Staff email, which was copied to all department heads, agreeing that FAR did not apply, a copy of a letter addressing room sizes from our hotel consultant and a letter to our architect/builder reversing the County's position on the FAR application. Attachments to the white paper will be forwarded in a separate email. Thank you, John John J. Agnelli Senior Vice President Licensed Real Estate Broker Power Corporation 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive Suite 105 Naples, Fl 34104 P: 239-775-2230 F: 239-775-1398 C: 239-285-0345 SolisAndy Subject: John Agnelli; Patrick Vanasse, RWA; Bill Higgs, property owner; Gateway Mini Triangle Location: Cohen &Grigsby, Mercato Start: Mon 11/19/2018 2:30 PM End: Mon 11/19/2018 3:00 PM Recurrence: (none) Meeting Status: Meeting organizer Organizer: SolisAndy Required Attendees: Andrew I. Solis (ASolis@cohenlaw.com) Commissioner Solis, Bill Higgs, owner of our company, recently purchased the 2 acre western tip of the Gateway Mini Triangle. We have been researching the highest and best use of the property and would like to meet with you to discuss. If at all possible, due to the short week next week, we would like to meet this week. Any consideration to this request would be much appreciated. Thanks, John John J. Agnelli Senior Vice President Licensed Real Estate Broker Power Corporation 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive Suite 105 Naples, Fl 34104 P: 239-775-2230 F: 239-775-1398 C: 239-285-0345 Commissioner Andy Solis, Esq. Scanned Records Cover Sheet Date Material Received: L( ( t Received From: 1-d Vlivt Description: re : Ga4trw-ovl •�� 1/6-.1(t,/ (239)775-1348 (FAX) (239)775-2230 ® III=NW Usama CORPORATION JOHN J. AGNELLI WILLIAM T. HIGGS PRESIDENT SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT POWER CORPORATION Tel: 239-775-2230 3050 N.Horseshoe Drive,Ste. 105 Fax: 239-775-1398 Naples,FL 34104 Cell: 239-285-0345 e-mail:Johna@powercorp.net N HORSESHOE DRIVE$TE 105•NAPLES,FL 34104 ohns@powercorp,net E-MAIL: powercorpl@yahoo.com #!E 1 eArlP eld"..4V4 BRUSH &COMPANY June 6, 2018 LODGING INDUSTRY CONSULTANTS Mr. Bill Higgs Power Corporation 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Ste 105 Naples, FL 34104 Dear Mr. Higgs: This letter is to outline our discussion this morning regarding the range of guest room sizes for high quality hotels. As noted, the industry typically looks at the square footage (sf) of a guest unit although contractors may look at total square footage, including lobbies, meeting rooms, back-of-the-house spaces and others, divided by the number of guest rooms to get a gross square footage (gsf) per room for cost estimating purposes. BR.USH&COMPANY was established in early 1993 as an executive-level-only consulting organization. In keeping with 45+years of experience in the industry and recognized expertise, Scott Brush is a member of the International Society of Hospitality Consultants, a `membership- by-invitation-only' organization that is the first to certify the competency of its members. He is also a member of Cayuga Hospitality Consultants whose membership is a network of independent hospitality professionals and senior industry leaders with multi-disciplinary hospitality expertise. A resume for Scott Brush is attached and further information is available at the firm's web site: www.Brush-and-Cornpany.com. Although unit sizes are wide ranging from rooms to suites, in recent years with the advent of the flat screen television and the elimination of the oversized armoire, s�a� re__ otas;e per room has been declining across all levels from econo._ry to luxury and all types with the chains downsizing even the established names, new boutiques, soft brands and lifestyle properties. New prototypes of "lifestyle"hotels in the midscale_market (37star) are now mostly under 300 sf per room with s mein the 250 sf category where older typical mid-market rooms P are in the 350 sf range. These properties, typically with limited food Et beverage and meetmg7banquet space, the gross square footage is 550 gsf to 650 gsf. 16410 South West 77'h Court, Miami,Florida 33157-3765 Tel 305-253-7415 Fax 305-251-2108 ?A Cayuga www.erush-and-Company.com J S FT E HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS NTERi4ATIONAL SOCIETY OF HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS • HOTEL SQUARE FOOTAGE PAGE 2 JUNE 6, 2018 Rooms in the upscale and upper upscale segments (usually designated as 3- to 4-star) have also been quietly downsizing but still average about 375 sf to 450 sf per unit depending on the number and size of suites included in the room count. We typically advise about 10 to 15 percent suites, mostly 1-bedroom which contain the equivalent of 2 "standard" room modules. Depending on the amount of F&x8, meeting space and other indoor spaces included the gross square footage usually runs from 625 gsf to 700 gsf. The luxury market (5-star) is more likely to be average over 500 sf due, in part to the large number of multi-room suites. Even this segment has been downsizing as square footage lost from guest rooms is transferred to enhanced lobby spaces. Due to the normal inclusion of expansive meeting/banquet space, multiple F&B outlets and other indoor spaces, the gross square footage in the luxury segment runs over 700 gsf. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this topic further or if you have additional questions. Sincerely BRASH &� ;.A..i.ANY Gott W. Bush, ISHC President , mum&COMPANY HOTEL SQUARE FOOTAGE PAGE 3 JUNE 6, 2018 EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS SCOTT W. BRUSH, ISHC EDUCATION . Durham University -Durham, England Master of Science in Management Studies Cornell University-Ithaca, New York Bachelor of Science in Hotel Administration -- 71 i � PROFESSIONAL HISTORY BRUSH S'COMPANY 1993 to Present Established BRUSH&.COMPANY in 1993. An executive level consulting firm affiliated with International Society of Hospitality Consultants (ISHC)and Cayuga Hospitality Consultants. Florida International University 2004 to Present Adjunct professor in the Chapin School of Hospitality& Tourism Management with a graduate seminar course entitled Asset Management in the Hospitality Industry. Steckroth Hospitality Group 2014 to Present SHG is a Florida registered Real Estate Brokerage specializing in the Hospitality Industry. Joined SHG as a licensed Sales Associate in September 2014(Lic. #SL3305667) Nova-Southeastern University 1989 to 1995 Adjunct professor in the International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Management. Pannell Kerr Forster/PKF Consulting 1978 to 1993 Started as a consultant in April 1978,elected Senior Principal in 1985 and a co-founding director in January 1992. Ramada Inns,Inc. 1970 to 1972 and 1976 to 1978 Relief GM for managers on vacation or terminated at seven properties. Pre-opening personnel selection,training and opening in five locations. Rejoined Ramada in 1976 as GM at San Francisco International Airport,transferred to Colorado Springs to 1977. Navy Resale System 1972 to 1974 and 1976 Home office responsibility for 44 Navy Lodges and compiled the group's first Operations Manual. After completion of the Master's degree program, took a temporary assignment as Assistant Food and Beverage Manager at the NAS Alameda complex. MEMBERSHIPS/ACTIVITIES/PUBLICATIONS Developing a Hotel Business Plan:A How-To-Manual; Cornell Hotel&Restaurant Administration Quarterly;June 1993 Asset Managers Playing New Role in Hotels: South Florida Business Journal;February, 1994 Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Guest Editorial; Cornell Hotel&Restaurant Administration Quarterly,February 1994 The Caribbean Market;Hotel&Resort Industry;June 1987 Rethinking Your Business Plan;Hotel&Resort Industry,July 1994 Hotel Owners&Developers Find Money is Plentiful:Hospitality Highlights, 3Q 1997 Renovation,Refurbishment or Redevelopment:Is the Difference More than Semantics?;Lodging Hospitality;April 1998 Lessons From a Fallen Economy;co-author of the three-part series;Lodging Hospitality;January, February and March 2010 International Society of Hospitality Consultants-since 1989-member x 047 Cayuga Hospitality Advisors-Regional Director. South Floridari (1994-2014) ISHC Cayuga Hospitality Consultants(since 2015) Cornell Hotel Society-national organization and South Florida chapter CORNEA t err.-aNenoNAL SOCIETY or Academy of Travel and Tourism-Advisory Committee Treasurer-1991/99 HOTEL SOCIETY HOSPITALITY CO,NSULrA'irs Society of Nova Hospitality Professionals-Associate Lifetime Member ?f�Cayuga HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS BRUSH(Si_COMPANY a 0 li W a R e! a '1!'1.- .>i g— o :n .Wi3g$i Ws e j . o ,, 0 O I# 1 x r � s 41 n„ ...4- : 4.4**,-4.40Pe ry u h t 8 , I I y ;' ray t E ' r ti 5 n II i .: Fd.. ..,� II I, z o h -4', II « o Z a B 3 �1 i� ,... 0 Ps.; 11 I x nv . : Z r g r s ,-'7,..-7 .,. _t1 . ._. : M. o t i ii i,, * ,77.3/4'..---;:f*- �-- ;,* .'".../.*:''''';‘ # a '.. .. �' iii ii �'- j j it ;.1 ("`/ i z t II i ` 11 '"' • £R - ,','7wt, ; 31,11 it Ire ' 7 11 1 t �,; - iii iil'° t" s1.. ) 2� ;�// _ !14 Fat 1a it, pil '''';',. .4.*,:, ''' . ...' '`,,,,,,,,'' '.. ft ,r.,, +ii FIs i t: ' i' c�T.) ; tg og�� II n i �: 4 „ `s z 11 k,:,:Tiir.:„.:,, it it M 1 « I * ,,i .' / a?` : ! 7II ii i i / r f;�°r it till i \ ./ a or �`"� .tet 1 �` :1/f/;'ir' .; j h r =� 1 "74-0- -,¢ / .3 lii 1' ::ni -I- ,,„ it // „ ' ` ' iii, r. a SolisAndy From: John Agnelli <johna@powercorp.net> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 6:33 PM To: FialaDonna; SolisAndy; SaundersBurt; TaylorPenny; McDanielBill Cc: BrockMaryJo Subject: FW: FAR Rebuttal Attachments Attachments: 2.05.01DensityStandards_and_Housing_Types.doc; 1 - GMP Policy 5.6.F.pdf;4 - Sec 4.02.01Dimensional_Standards_for_Principal_Uses_in_Base_Zoning_Districts.doc; 3 - Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project scope.doc; 6 - Sec 10.02.15 Requirements_for_Mixed_Use_Projects_within_the_Bayshore_Gateway_Triangle_Rede velopment_Area.doc; 8 - Sec 1.04.01_Generally.doc; 7 - CSCOTT Email re FAR.pdf; 5 - Sec 4.02.16 Design_Standards_for_Development_in_the_Bayshore_Gateway_Tria ngle_Redevelopm ent_Area.doc; 9 - Sec 1.03.01_Generally.doc; 2 - Sec 2.03.07_Overlay_Zoning_Districts (1).doc John J. Agnelli Senior Vice President Licensed Real Estate Broker Power Corporation 3050 N. Horseshoe Drive Suite 105 Naples, Fl 34104 P: 239-775-2230 F: 239-775-1398 C: 239-285-0345 ._.- PATRICK VANASSE, AICP DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE 1239.597.0575 CELL 1239.398-2016 EMAIL I pvanasse(a�consult- rwa.com NOTICE:Upon receipt of any electronic file/data from RWA,Inc.,you are agreeing to the following: This file/data is for informational purposes only.It is the responsibility of the recipient to reconcile this electronic file/data with the actual project site conditions.Recipient agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RWA,Inc.for any defects or errors in this file/data 1.04.01- Generally A. The provisions of this LDC shall apply to all land, property and development in the total unincorporated area of Collier County except as expressly and specifically provided otherwise in this LDC. No development shall be undertaken without prior authorization pursuant to this LDC. Specifically, no building , structure , land or water shall hereafter be developed, or occupied, and no building , structure , or part thereof shall be erected, reconstructed, moved, located, or structurally altered except in conformity with the regulations set forth herein and for the zoning district in which it is located. B. The regulations established in this LDC and within each zoning district shall be minimum or maximum limitations, as the case may be, and shall apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure , use, land or water, except where specific provision is made in this LDC. C. This LDC shall apply to all division of land and all subdivisions in the total unincorporated area of Collier County, except to the extent as expressly provided herein. It shall be unlawful for any person to create a subdivision of, or to subdivide, or to otherwise divide, any land in the total unincorporated area of Collier County, except in strict conformance with the provisions of this LDC and any applicable provisions of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project: Intended as a higher density Mixed-Use Project, with focus on Hotel, Retail, Restaurants and potential for condominium uses. Maximize buildout potential and utilize structured parking. CRA staff felt concepts included in the original Redevelopment Plan did not provide sufficient density/footprint size. Potential to make the tip of the triangle (intersection of Davis and US 41) a strong focal point. r fi } -.t` _ - a S v: • rc - ti'' - 3 I -� 1 e t # - , i •a y:.. '"y 'y a i 1!„.,-4„- ...1 x` ,r ._._.. '�. z .. 7YN' tit � 'fit: +r Y'IL:-::-..--,,,,,,,, .;.,...-tee ..__. - .n p�'�w.".uwa..-..�.... 1 � � ttt. i st itilI�"� r ,.!'f .1....-N..,. 95`.y ` . ' .ia' 'S'" ( E lktW�AV£ `. , H ,, ',.... ' 41.!,,e,,,,ii.- ;,,-,:,g, _. --, -,,,-4,4,,,, t,---,,,-,,,,,,;„. -. — i, I it j ' ' ‘: 1,'4' '....r'''.1 ,41 1110.—N4f-:. /4141/P-11 . * 'kh4,------' ' ,-11E —F-43p---1.. WI ...ii, .i it i' ti - :,---,.ki,, ,.. aft F 3"` > +r [ � y ,� . � �' n; flit' ( " ♦ s: 4�, O tru t c" i + _ _ �.t. FY. s L4M.Vi: e;Ajit" O "+ •3 " . -�-, .,_ .mat ./�:A 4a ii a. ~�.{- V:.! .i t , , •a .„ $ ! i + : i i,, ' r art+ 5 Ste' vy/ -t ( _ 11' ='eyk�, t w ,tet " '11-1 _~ .. .." ` �c'+ .w .::- � ticf __i a ..Ctktu ray tep Other Maps/Previous concepts can be found at S:\2008\080236.00.PO Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project\Mini Triangle Project\background info.pdf Kelly Lake Catalyst Project—Multi-Use Cultural Facility: The CRA owns approximately 17-acres on the East side of Bayshore Drive, less than a half-mile north of the Naples Botanical Gardens at Thomasson Drive. There is potential that the property surrounded by the Site could be added. The site is intended as a Mixed-Use project focusing on potential civic,residential and environmental park use. Given the efforts to establish a Cultural and Arts District along Bayshore Drive, there is also significant interest in developing the site with a Multi-Use Cultural Facility that could include 500-750 foot theater, artist design and display studios, art/performing art education facilities. Affordable Live-Work units for artists have been discussed as a desired use in the Cultural District and may be a possibility. Existing conditions on the eastern portion of the property lend itself as potential environmental park w/ walking trails. v. * '1r 1 r.; :' °„ 4` Y ... , . , ,''. t , ` a ! x "' fi , _ ...., ,_ r4 . -. - 1211 I i'�a `,w t.cB moilt . .a, ,'�•.°5- ."' :i ,er ;B - ' ' ''siiiiii.H ' 17 -)A14, a t o P s 42 1 s F- =-' s': �.: 4 1 El lit ,,,,L1 , - , pct s . . y r'..i I.:‘,':,,,.....' , i. �� HE,ap AINR. a..'S , z ' t, ,1 jr§ ;"41% ? 1 /tip tic! . V Y' it I} �e ` y€ 11 ?, —'—°"° . fir. _ . -A,. ., „,4,-,..:. _. r<'z' a ..;"*.:k4. f-.--,- . , o3I .' '. — ::T .' ' '?;,AC£:t • i( i ' s ...1' � _ « • ' 2s } i C,aN county txrciear:Ysko�±r ,,,.�"P1as fL.' 0 m'5$ft $', Background info and previous renderings can be found at: S:\2008\080236.00.P0 Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project\Cultural Facility Project\background info.pdf Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No.2018-23 adopted May 8,2018 (IV)(IX)(XXV)(XXXII)(XLVI I) F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area. This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available. Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: (XLVII) 1. Mixed-Use Development:A mix of residential and commercial uses is permitted. For such development, commercial uses are limited to C-1 through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable FLUE Policies. Mixed-use projects will be pedestrian oriented and are encouraged to provide access(vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle)to nearby residential areas. The intent is to encourage pedestrian use of the commercial area and to provide opportunity for nearby residents to access these commercial uses without traveling onto major roadways. Parking facilities are encouraged to be located in the rear of the buildings or in parking structures that may be below, at, or above grade, with the buildings oriented closer to the major roadway to promote traditional urban development. (XLVII) 2. Residential uses are allowed within this Overlay. Permitted density shall be as determined through application of the Density Rating System, and applicable FLUE Policies, except as provided below, or as may be limited by a zoning overlay, or as otherwise provided within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. 3. Non-residential/non-commercial uses allowed within this Overlay include essential services; parks, recreation and open space uses; water-dependent and water-related uses; child care centers; community facility uses; safety service facilities; and utility and communication facilities. (XV)(XXXI I)(XXXVI I)(XLIV)(XLVI I) 4. Properties with access to US 41 East and/or Bayshore Drive and/or Davis Boulevard (SR 84) and/or the west side of Airport-Pulling Road may be allowed a maximum density of twelve (12) residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11, except that no project may utilize more than 97 units — 25% of the total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density, the project must be integrated into a mixed-use development with access to existing neighborhoods and adjoining commercial properties and comply with the standards identified in paragraph no. 8, below, except for mixed use projects developed within the "mini triangle" catalyst project site as identified on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map. The "mini triangle" catalyst project site is eligible for the maximum density of 12 units per acre, with development standards as contained in the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District zoning (XLVII)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2018-23 on May 8, 2018 140 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No.2018-23 adopted May 8,2018 overlay, adopted February 28, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-08), and amended December 14, 2006 (Ordinance No. 06-63). For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies, except as may be limited by a future zoning overlay. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. (XV)(XXXII)(XLIV)(XLVII) 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport- Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential- only project at a maximum density of eight (8) residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11 except that no project may utilize more than 97 units—25% of the 388 total density pool units available. The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. d. All residential units shall be market rate units. For projects that do not comply with the requirements for this density increase, their density is limited to that allowed by the Density Rating System and applicable FLUE Policies. Properties located within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are exempt from this paragraph. (XV)(XXXII) 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center #16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5, above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. (XV) 7. Existing zoning districts for some properties within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay allow uses, densities and development standards that are inconsistent with the uses, densities and development standards allowed within this Overlay. These properties are allowed to develop and redevelop in accordance with their existing zoning until such time as a zoning overlay is adopted which may limit such uses, densities and development standards. (XV)(XXXII)(XLIV)(XLVII) 8. To qualify for twelve (12) dwelling units per acre, as provided for in paragraph no. 4 above, or as otherwise permitted within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay must comply with the design standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, or in the case of the Mini Triangle Subdistrict, mixed use projects may utilize the design standards set forth in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict and its implementing MPUD zoning. (XLVII)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2018-23 on May 8,2018 141 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No.2018-23 adopted May 8,2018 (XXXII)(XLIV) 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of twelve (12) or eight (8) units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. (XV)(XXXII)(XLVI I) 10. Only the affordable-workforce housing density bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, and the density provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict are allowed in addition to the eligible density provided herein. For all properties, the maximum density allowed is that specified under Density Conditions in the Density Rating System, except as provided for within the Mini Triangle Subdistrict. (XV)(XXXI I)(XLIV)(XLVI I) 11. A maximum of 388 dwelling units are permitted to be utilized in this Overlay for density bonuses, as provided in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 above. This 388 dwelling unit density bonus pool corresponds with the number of dwelling units previously entitled to the botanical gardens sites prior to their rezone in 2003 to establish the Naples Botanical Gardens PUD. Projects within the "mini triangle" are not required to utilize this density bonus pool. (XV)(XXXII) 12. The Botanical Garden, Inc. properties located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, and shown on the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Map, shall be limited to non-residential uses except for caretaker, dormitory, and other housing integrally related to the Botanical Garden or other institutional and/or recreational open space uses. (VIII) G. URBAN-RURAL FRINGE TRANSITION ZONE OVERLAY Sections 13, 14, 23, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 26 East consisting of+2,562 acres which overlap the Urban and Agricultural/Rural boundary line, north of the intersection of Immokalee Road and County Road 951, are under common ownership and through comprehensive planning may resolve potential local land use conflicts and provide for the realization of unique regional environmental opportunities. Among the causes of potential land use conflicts are the abrupt transitionless switch from urban densities (4+ units per acre) in Section 23 to rural densities (1 unit per 5 acres) in Sections 13, 14 and 24, and the continuation of earth mining in an increasingly urbanized residential area. Under existing permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and Florida Department of Environmental Protection, a total of+1,700 acres in these four Sections have been or may be mined. Sections 13, 14 and 24 in the Agricultural/Rural Area contain large wetland areas in the north, which are contiguous to wetlands proposed for the Cocohatchee West Flow-way and slated for acquisition by the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust. These wetland areas extend in a contiguous fashion south into Section 23 in the Urban Area, in close proximity to the Mixed Use Activity Center quadrant designated within this Section. Sections 13, 14 and 24 in the Agricultural/Rural Area contain large wetland areas in the north, which are contiguous to wetlands proposed for the Cocohatchee West Flowway and are slated for acquisition by the Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed (CREW) Trust. These wetland areas extend in a contiguous fashion south into Section 23 in the Urban Area, in close proximity to the Mixed Use Activity Center quadrant designated within this Section. (XLVII)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2018-23 on May 8,2018 142 Future Land Use Element as of Ordinance No.2018-23 adopted May 8,2018 To resolve potential land use conflicts and protect environmental resources, an Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Zone Overlay is created which encompasses all four sections, and all development proposed within the Overlay area shall comply with the following performance standards: 1. Approximately 533 acres of wetlands, which exist on the property, are currently in a conservation easement. An additional 300 acres of wetlands will be placed in conservation easement status. Together these 830 + acres of wetlands have the potential to be connected to wetland sites off-site thereby providing an environmental and wildlife corridor connection. 2. Native vegetation or other natural areas (inclusive of conservation areas) shall cover a minimum of 40% of the gross land area (or its equivalent off-site)exclusive of existing rock quarries. 3. Seventy percent (70%) of the gross land area shall be devoted to open space, including but not limited to, lakes (including existing rock quarries), golf courses and conservation areas. 4. To the greatest extent practical, the existing rock quarries shall be incorporated into the regional water management system and utilized to accommodate the passing through of off-site water flows and may be used for recreational purposes. 5. Development on the property shall connect to the County's regional water and wastewater facilities, which exist at the southwest corner of the property at the intersection of Immokalee Road and County Road 951, which regional service area is expanded to include all of the property. 6. The maximum number of residential units on the entire Heritage Bay property shall not exceed 3,450(not including 200 ALF units). This number may be allocated and developed among all of the Sections, in conformance with the environmental preservation requirements referenced in Sub-paragraph 1, above, and shall be clustered, in order to achieve conformance with the other performance standards applicable to this Overlay. 7. Development of the property shall be designed to encourage internal vehicle trip capture by providing commercial and recreational uses and shall provide for pedestrian and bicyclist access to internal community recreation and convenience retail centers. Internal project roadways shall be connected and shall provide access to the Activity Center located in the southwest corner of the property. 8. Commercial activities are limited to a total of 40 acres within the Activity Center located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road and three "Village Centers" totaling approximately 26 acres within the residential part of the Heritage Bay development. The Activity Center commercial uses will include a maximum of 150,000 square feet of retail uses and 50,000 square feet of office uses. The Village Center commercial uses will include a maximum of 10,000 square feet of retail uses, 10,000 square feet of restaurant uses, 5,000 square feet of marina related retail uses, and 5,000 square feet of office uses. 9. For golf course(s) located in Sections 13, 14, and 24, for each five (5) gross acres of land area utilized as part of the golf course(s) ("golf course" shall include the clubhouse area, rough, fairways, greens, and lakes, but excludes any area dedicated as a conservation area,which is non-irrigated and retained in a natural state) one(1)transfer of development right (TDR) credit shall be acquired from areas identified by the County as "Sending (VIII)=Plan Amendment by Ordinance No.2003-7 on February 11, 2003 143 10.02.15 - Requirements for Mixed Use Projects within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area A. Mixed Use Project Approval Types. Owners of property located in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area designated as Neighborhood Commercial (BMUD-NC), Waterfront (BMUD-W), and Mixed Use (GTMUD-MXD) Subdistricts may submit an application for a Mixed Use Project (MUP). The MUP shall allow for a mixture of residential and commercial uses, as permitted under the Table of Uses for the appropriate subdistrict. Applications for a MUP may be approved administratively or through a public hearing process as described in this section. A pre-application meeting is required for all MUP applications. 1. Administrative Approval: a. MUPs may be approved administratively provided they meet the following conditions: i. The MUP complies with all site development standards as outlined in section 4.02.16 of the LDC; ii. The MUP only includes permitted uses as outlined by the Table of Uses for the subdistrict in which it is located; and iii. The MUP does not seek additional density through the Bonus Density Pool provisions of LDC section 10.02.15 C. b. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for MUP administrative approval. The application shall follow the applicable submittal requirements and procedures for site development plan submittal and review. 2. MUPs Requiring Public Hearing: a. MUPs that do not meet the thresholds for administrative approval may be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) through a public hearing process. b. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for MUP requiring a public hearing for approval. The application shall follow the applicable submittal requirements and procedures set forth in LDC section 10.08.00, for conditional use submittal and review. In addition to the conditional use findings as set forth in LDC section 10.08.00 D., the following shall be considered: i. Whether or not the requested use or uses are consistent with and further the redevelopment goals and/or objectives of the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) for the subdistrict(s) in which it is located. In addition to the typical staff analysis for land use petitions, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) may also be guided by written or verbal input from CRA staff. ii. Whether or not the proposed use or uses are appropriate in terms of scale and/or size when considered in the context of the overall MUP and subdistrict. iii. Whether a requested deviation is (1) justified in that the subject LDC provision is not practical, feasible, desirable, or warranted or not practical, feasible, desirable, or (2) warranted to the same degree as prescribed by the subject LDC provision, in the context of the proposed mixed use project. The applicant shall provide an analysis so the CCPC may consider the existing conditions related to the need for the requested deviation or conversely, strict adherence to the subject LDC provision, in terms feasibility and/or need. iv. Whether or not the deviation will or may have a negative impact on public health, safety, and welfare. c. There shall be a public hearing before the BZA legally noticed and advertised pursuant to LDC section 10.03.06. d. After a Mixed Use Project has been approved by the BZA, the applicant shall submit a site development plan (SDP) consistent with the conceptual site plan approved by the BZA and meeting the requirements of section 10.02.03 B.1. of the LDC. The SDP may be submitted concurrent with the MUP application at the applicant's risk. e. MUP approval shall expire and any residential density bonus units shall be null and void and returned to the bonus density pool if any of the following occur: i. The SDP is not submitted and deemed sufficient for review within one year and approved within two years of MUP approval. ii. The SDP under review is deemed withdrawn and cancelled, pursuant to LDC section 10.02.03 B.4.a. iii. The SDP is considered no longer valid, pursuant to LDC section 10.02.03 B.4.b. and c. f. An approved MUP may be amended subject to the same procedures provided in this section. B. MUP Deviations. 1. Authority. The County Manager or designee may grant administrative deviations for proposed developments requesting, or which have obtained, MUP approval through a public hearing process. Deviations to the following land development standards may be granted, providing such deviation requests demonstrate compliance with the applicable criteria. 2. List of Development Standards Eligible for Administrative Deviation Requests. MUPs shall be eligible to seek an administrative deviation from the following LDC provisions: a. Front Setback . • i. These deviation requests shall be subject to the process and procedures of LDC sections 5.05.08. G.1.-2. and the submittal requirements established in the Administrative Code, except that in order to be eligible for an administrative deviation the site shall meet at least one of the following conditions or circumstances: a) If constructed where otherwise required, the building(s) or structure(s) would conflict with regulatory standards for existing public utilities or encroach into an associated public utility easement , which cannot reasonably be relocated or vacated based on physical or legal restrictions, as applicable. b) The property has a unique or challenging parcel shape or boundary, such as a narrow lot frontage on the public street . ii. In order to administratively approve a front setback deviation, the proposed design shall create a connective and walkable environment by demonstrating a comparable relationship between proposed alternative building(s) location(s) and their associated pedestrian and vehicular pathways , and associated parking facilities and transit alternatives. b. Architectural and Site Design Standards. These deviation requests shall be subject to the process and procedures of LDC sections 5.05.08. G.1.-2. and 5. and the submittal requirements established in the Administrative Code. c. Landscape and Buffer Requirements. The alternative plans requesting approval for deviation from landscaping and buffer requirements shall be subject to the process and procedures of LDC section 5.05.08. G.1.-2. and the submittal requirements established in the Administrative Code. Further, the applicant must additionally provide a minimum of 110 percent of the open space requirement for mixed use projects in addition to other conditions that the County Manager or designee deems necessary. d. Parking Standards. These deviation requests shall be subject to the process and procedures of LDC section 4.05.04 F.2. 3. In order to provide for maximum flexibility, an applicant may request a deviation in addition to the administrative deviations specifically identified in LDC section 10.02.15 B.2 as part of a MUP Public Hearing process. Requests to deviate from LDC provisions where compliance is not practical, feasible, desirable, or warranted in a mixed use project shall include a written justification for any such deviation. The review of these deviations shall be guided by the following considerations: a. Whether a requested deviation is (1)justified in that the subject LDC provision is either not practical, feasible, desirable, or warranted or not practical, feasible, desirable, or (2) warranted to the same degree as prescribed by the subject LDC provision, in the context of the proposed mixed use project. The application shall provide an analysis of existing conditions and the impact of either the requested deviation or strict adherence to the subject LDC provision, in terms feasibility and/or need. b. Whether or not the deviation will or may have a negative impact on public health, safety, and welfare. 4. Effect of Denial. Staff denial of any such requested deviation may be appealed under the provisions of section 250-58 of the Collier County Code of Laws and Ordinances. C. Bonus Density Pool Allocation. Under the Collier County Future Land Use Element, bonus density units are available for reallocation within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. The County Manager or designee will track the Bonus Density Pool balance as the units are used. These bonus density units may be allocated between the BMUD and GTMUD overlays, and shall only be allocated through a public hearing approval process. To qualify for up to 12 dwelling units per acre, projects shall comply with the following criteria. This density of up to 12 dwelling units per acre is only applicable until the bonus density pool has been depleted. 1. The project shall be within the Neighborhood Commercial (BMUD-NC), Waterfront (BMUC-W), or Commercial Mixed Use (GTMUD-MXD) Subdistricts, and shall be a mixed use project. 2. Base density shall be as per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the 12 unit maximum being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. 3. For proposed projects, only the Affordable Housing Density Bonus, as provided in the Density Rating System, is allowed in addition to the eligible bonus density units provided herein as the entire BMUD is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). 4. The project shall comply with the standards for mixed use development set forth in LDC section 4.02.16 C.8. 5. 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. (Ord. No. 12-39, § 3.K; Ord. No. 13-56, § 3.SS; Ord. No. 16-22, § 3.0) 4.02.01- Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts A. The following tables describe the dimensional standards pertaining to base zoning districts. Site design requirements apply to the principal building on each site. Table 1. Lot Design Requirements for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Maximum Building Coverage Zoning District (square feet) (linear feet) (%) GC None None None A 217,800 165 None E 98,010 150 None RSF-1 43,560 150 None RSF-2 20,000 120 None I Corner lot Interior lot RSF-3 10,000 None 95 80 RSF-4 7,500 75 70 None RSF-5 6,000 70 60 None RSF-6 6,000 70 60 None RMF-6 S.F. 6,500 60 Duplex 12,000 80 None 3+ units 5,500 per unit 100 RMF-12 43,560 150 None RMF-16 43,560 150 None RT 43,560 150 None VR 6,000 60 S.F./MH 10,000 100 None Duplex 43,560 150 M.F. MH 6,000 60 None TTRVC Park 20 acres Travel trailers/Park models 40 site None 800 Campsites 30 lots C-1 20,000 100 None C-2 15,000 150 None C-3 10,000 75 None C-4 10,000 100 None C-5 10,000 100 None I 20,000 100 None BP Park 35 acres site 100 45 lots 20,000 CON 217,800 150 None P None None None CF 10,000 80 None I Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. Maximum Minimum I Minimum Floor Area of Floor Area Building Distance Zoning District Buildings Ratio Height j Between (square feet) (%) (feet) Buildings GC 35 None None I None A 35 None 550 None E 30 None 1,000 None 1-story 2-story RSF-1 35 None None 1,500 1,800 RSF-2 35 None 1,500 1,800 None RSF-3 35 None 1,000 1,200 None RSF-4 35 None 800 1,200 RSF-5 35 None 600 1,200 None RSF-6 35 None 600 800 None RMF-6 35 A 750 None Efficiency 450 RMF-12 50 A 1 BR 600 None 2+ BR 750 Efficiency 450 RMF-16 75 A 1 BR 600 None 2+ BR 750 300 10 stories, not to exceed RT 100' A (max. for hotel units= None 500') S.F. 30 None VR MH 30 None None None Duplex 30 None M.F. 35 B MH 30 None None None TTRVC 30 10 None None C-1 35 None 1,000 (ground floor) None C-2 35 A 1,000 (ground floor) None C-3 50 None 700 (ground floor) None Hotels .60 C-4 75 A 700 (ground floor) Destination resort .80 I � � Hotels.60 C-5 35 A 700 (ground floor) Destination resort .80 50 A 1,000 None BP 35 A 1,000 None I , CON 35 None None None P C None None None i 1 Towers/antennas 40 CF D 1,000 (ground floor) None Other 30 Overlay See table of special design requirements applicable to overlay districts. Districts A= 50% of the sum of the heights of the buildings , but not less than 15 feet. B = 50% of the sum of the heights of the buildings . C = Buildings within 100 feet of an adjoining district are limited to the height of the most restrictive of an adjoining district. D = 50% of the sum of the heights of the buildings , but not less than 25 feet. 1. Principal Structure Minimum Yard ( Setback ) Requirements: Table 2.1, below, provides the minimum yard requirements for principal structures on conforming lots of record in base zoning districts. The following shall apply for all other lots : a. Corner Lots : Corner lots shall have front yards along each street frontage . The other yards shall be considered side yards . See LDC section 2.03.01 for Estates setbacks . b. Nonconforming Lots of Record : Minimum yard requirements for nonconforming lots of record are provided in LDC section 9.03.03 A. Table 2.1 - TABLE OF MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS (SETBACKS) FOR BASE ZONING DISTRICTS Note as to setback line measurement: minimum setback lines are typically measured from the legal boundary of a lot, regardless of all easements burdening a lot , with the exception of easements that comprise a road right-of-way where the minimum setback line is to be measured from the road right-of- way easement line. 1 Minimum Zoning Public School Front Yard Minimum Side Yard (feet) Minimum Rear Yard (feet) district Requirements (feet) GC None None None A 50 30 50 x E 75 30 75 x RSF-1 50 30 50 x RSF-2 40 20 30 x Non- Waterfront RSF-3 waterfront 30 10 25 x 7.5 RSF-4 25 10 7.5 25 x II RSF-5 25 10 7.5 20 x RSF-6 25 10 7.5 I 20 x RMF-6 S.F. 25 10 7.5 20 x Duplex 25 10 10 20 3 + units 30 15 15 20 i RMF-12 30 a 30 x I RMF-16 b a b x RT b a b x Waterfront I Non- waterfront SF./MH 20 10 20 VR Duplex 35 15 1 5 30 M.F. 35 15 30 15 I MH 1 Non- Waterfront 25 10 waterfront 10 x 7.5 Waterfront Non Waterfront Non TTRVC 2 waterfront waterfront 10 10 10 - 5 8 Residential Non-residential Residential Non-residential C-1 25 25 15 25 15 x C-2 25 25 15 25 15 x C-3 3 c 25 a 25 a x C-4 4 d 25 a 25 a x C-5 4 25 25 15 25 15 x 14 25 50 e 50 15 x BP 50 50 10 50 25 - I CON 5 50 50 50 50 50 - P f f f f f x I __ Residential Non-residential Residential Non-residential CF 25 25 15 25 15 x Overlay 'See table of special design requirements for the applicable overlay district located in the Districts?appropriate section for that district in chapter 4. 1 MH District - additional yard requirements: side yard setback from a public road that is external to the boundary of the park = 50 ft.; the minimum setback on any side from the exterior boundary of the park = 15ft. 2 TTRVC District - additional yard requirements: setback from exterior boundary of park = 50 ft.; setback from an external street = 50 ft., setback from an internal street = 25 ft.; setback from any building or other structure = 10 ft. 3 C-3 District- minimum setback on any side that is waterfront= 25 ft.; setback for marinas = none. 4 C-4, C-5 and I Districts - minimum setback on any side that is waterfront = 25 ft.; setback for marinas = none; setback on any side adjacent to a railroad right-of-way = none 5 Any non-conforming platted lot of record in the CON District that existed before November 13, 1991 will be subject to the following standards: Front yard: 40 feet. Side yard: ten percent of the lot width, but no more than 20 feet on each side. Rear Yard: 30 feet. a = 50% of the building height, but not less than 15 feet. b = 50% of the building height, but not less than 30 feet. c= 50% of the building height, but not less than 25 feet. d = 50% of the building height, but not less than 25 feet. Structures 50 feet or more in height = 25 feet plus one additional foot of setback for each foot of building height over 50 feet. e = the total of all side yard setbacks shall equal 20% of the lot width, with a maximum of 50 feet. No side yard shall be less than 10 feet. Alternative dimensions may be possible when approved through a unified plan of development involving one or more lots under common ownership where the yard requirements are met for the unified site but not necessarily for each parcel within the unified site. f= the yard requirements shall be equal to the most restrictive adjoining district. x = for principal structures: 50 feet from all property lines; for accessory structures: 25 feet from all property lines. B. Open space requirements. Usable open space shall be provided as follows, except as required in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District within the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 1. In residential developments , at least 60 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space . This requirement shall not apply to individual single-family lots less than 2.5 acres in size. 2. In developments of commercial, industrial and mixed use including residential, at least 30 percent of the gross area shall be devoted to usable open space . This requirement shall not apply to individual parcels less than five acres in size. 3. Historical/archaeological resources that are to be preserved may be utilized to satisfy required setbacks , buffer strips or open space up to the maximum area required by development regulations. Conservation of such historic or archaeological resources shall qualify for any open space requirements mandated by the development regulations. C. Specific Requirements for Uses Involving Shopping Carts. When the operating characteristics of a duly authorized business require the utilization of shopping carts by customers, provision shall be made for outside storage areas to be illustrated on a site development plan , and said shopping carts shall be collected at the close of business each day and stored at the front of that business establishment. It shall be the responsibility of the merchant to collect any and all shopping carts that stray from the premises upon which they are intended to be utilized. A name-plate on a shopping cart shall be prima facia evidence of ownership. D. Exemptions and exclusions from design standards. 1. The height limitations contained in LDC subsection 4.02.01 A. Table 2. Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts do not apply to infrastructure in support of the building , such as mechanical penthouses, elevator shafts, stair shafts, mechanical equipment, mechanical screening, spires, belfries, cupolas, flagpoles, antennas, communications towers , water tanks, fire towers when operated by a branch of government, ventilators, chimneys, feed storage structures , silos, windmills, airport control towers , or other appurtenances placed above the roof level and not intended for human occupancy or for commercial purposes as provided below: a. Structural elements shall be no higher than necessary to accomplish the purpose it is intended to serve. b. The aggregate area of structures or appurtenances shall not exceed one-third the area of the supporting roof. c. Where this section conflicts with section 5.05.08, the provisions of section 5.05.08 will control. d. The heights of these structures or appurtenances thereto shall not exceed any height limitations prescribed by the Federal Aviation Agency or airport zoning regulations within the flight approach zone of airports . (See section 2.03.07 C.). 2. In instances where off- street parking is provided within the principal structure , the County Manager or designee may waive the maximum height requirements to the extent necessary to permit off- street parking within the principal structure , provided however: (1) the number of off-street parking spaces required by this LDC for the use involved may not be reduced; (2) the waiver in height shall not be greater than that necessary to provide for the off- street parking within the principal structure , with a maximum of two parking levels; (3) the waiver of the maximum height requirements are compatible with the uses on adjacent properties; and (4) for each off- street parking space permitted within the principal structure for which the maximum height waiver is granted, 300 square feet of additional open space beyond that which is otherwise required by this LDC shall be provided. 3. Every part of every required yard shall be open and unobstructed from thirty (30) inches above the general ground level of the graded lot upward to the sky except as hereinafter provided or as otherwise permitted in this LDC. 4. Sills and other architectural and design treatments shall not project over twelve (12) inches into a required yard . 5. Movable awnings shall not project over three (3) feet into a required yard , provided that where the yard is less than five (5) feet in width the projection shall not exceed one-half(1/2) the width of the yard . 6. Window- or wall-mounted air conditioning units, chimneys, fireplaces, bay windows, or pilasters shall not project over two (2) feet into a required yard . 7. Fire escapes, stairways, and balconies which are unroofed (except as otherwise permitted within this section) and unenclosed shall not project over five (5) feet into a required side or rear yard and three (3) feet into a front yard of a multi-family dwelling , hotel or motel and not over three (3) feet into a required front, side or rear yard of a single-family residential dwelling . Regardless of the extent of encroachment, the minimum requirement for separation of structures shall be maintained. 8. Hoods, canopies, or roof overhangs shall not project over (3) three feet into a required yard , but shall not come closer than one (1) foot to the lot line . 9. Fences, walls and hedges, subject to section 5.03.02, ground mounted air conditioners, unenclosed pool equipment and well pumps, are permitted in required yards , subject to the provisions of section 4.06.00. This includes air conditioners that are ground mounted and those required to be elevated to meet flood elevation, including their supporting structures , provided the minimum separation of structures is maintained. 10. Cornices, eaves or gutters shall not project over three (3) feet into a required yard , provided that where the required yard is less than six (6) feet in width, such projection shall not exceed one-half(1/2) the width of the yard . 11. Except as otherwise provided by this LDC, when lots on both sides of an undeveloped recorded lot contain a residential structure whose front yard setback is less than is now required, the average of the setbacks of the two (2) contiguous developed lots shall serve to establish the minimum front yard requirement for the vacant lot . 12. In commercial, industrial and multi-family residential developments , carports which are open on all sides may encroach into the required yards provided they do not encroach into the required landscape buffers , as required by this LDC; and furthermore, if the landscaping is deficient where the carports are proposed, the landscaping must be upgraded to comply with the LDC requirements to the greatest extent possible prior to the issuance of a building permit for said carports. This shall be accomplished by a site development plan amendment or a site improvement plan approval. 13. Permanent emergency generators may be placed within the rear yard with a 10-foot rear yard setback. Permanent emergency generators may encroach into side yards up to 36 inches. Generators are not permitted to encroach into required front yards. Above-ground fuel tanks for the generators are subject to the same setbacks; however, underground tanks are not subject to setback requirements. In order to reduce noise during required routine exercising of the generators, this exercising is restricted to operating the generator for no more than 30 minutes weekly during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and shall not exceed sound level limits for Manufacturing and Industrial uses as set forth in Ordinance 90-17, the Noise Ordinance, as amended. All permanent emergency generators must be equipped with sound attenuating housing to reduce noise. a. Facilities with fuel pumps. Permanent emergency generators and related fuel storage installed at existing facilities with fuel pumps may encroach into any required side or rear yards, provided the encroachment does not create a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. b. Assisted living facilities and nursing homes. Permanent emergency generators and related fuel storage installed at existing assisted living facilities or nursing homes that are subject to LDC section 5.05.04 E. may encroach into any required side or rear yards or buffers, provided the encroachment does not create a hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. (Ord. No. 04-72, § 3.L; Ord. No. 05-27, § 3.P; Ord. No. 07-67, § 3.I; Ord. No. 10-23, § 3.Q; Ord. No. 12-38, § 3.J; Ord. No. 14-33, § 3.I; Ord. No. 18-18, § 3.G; Ord. No. 18-32, § 3.A) 2.05.01- DensityStandards and Housing Types A. Where residential uses are allowable, the following density standards and housing type criteria shall apply. Maximu m Caretak [ Housin Density Singl . Mobi Gues i er Units g Type: ' e- Dupl Townhou Multifam le Clust t (numbe Timesha Recreatio i z, Zoning nal famil ex se ily Hom er Hous r re District vehicles 1 (units Y e e allowed I ) per !gross acre) GC Two 0.2 (1 A ✓ S J unit per 5 acres) 0.44 (1 E ✓ J unit per 2.25 acres) RSF-1 J I J 1 RSF-2 J I J 2 RSF-3 ,/ I J 3 RSF-4 J I J 4 RSF-5 J I J 5 r I RSF-6 J I J 6 RMF-6 J J J J J J ' 6 RMF- S ✓ 1 1 12 12 RMF- 16 ✓ 1 16 RT 3,17 1 26 ( RT 4'17 1 1 1 16 RT 5-17 1 1 1 16 VR 6 ✓ ✓ 1 7.26 VR7 1 1 8.71 VR 8 ✓ 1 14.52 MH 9 1 One 7.26 TTRVC One ✓ 12 C-110 One 16 C-2 1° One 16 C-3 1° One 16 C-4 One ! i C-5 One I I � One BP One 0.2 (1 CON 11 ✓ unit per 5 acres) 0.33 (1 unit per 3 acres) Big Cypress BMUD 12 S S S S 12 GTMU D12 S S S S 12 R-1 ✓ ✓ ✓ J R-2 I I ✓ J i GZO Per underlying zoning district 16 for timesha re mf& VB- ✓ J J twnhses RTO 17 ; 26 for hotels and motels Per GGDCC underlyi ✓ ng 0 i E zoning district 0.025 (1 RFMU ✓ J 16 unit per 13 40 t acres) I ° RFMU 0.2 (1 14 I I ✓ J ./ 16 J J I ✓ unit per 5 acres) RFMU 0.2 (1 15 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓16 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ unit per 5 acres) I � 0.2 (1 MHO ✓ unit per 5 acres) Legend: S =permitted subject to supplemental standards 1 Recreational vehicles include travel trailers,park models, pickup coaches, and motor homes. 2 Density is calculated as the number of residential dwelling units per gross acre (see definition of density , residential). Generally, in all zoning districts except for A , E and CON , this indicates the maximum allowable density , including any applicable density bonuses per the density rating system in the growth management plan. Density may be restricted by the board of county commissioners at the time of rezoning to something less than the maximum, as indicated parenthetically on the official zoning atlas maps. For example, "RMF-6(4)" allows all uses and development standards of the RMF-6 zoning district but density is limited to 4 dwelling units per acre. 3 A maximum of 26 dwelling units per acre are allowed for hotels and motels . A hotel or motel in Port of the Islands may offer timeshare units and retain the density of 26 units per acre. Outside of Port of the Islands, a hotel or motel or multi-family structure including a condominium which offers timeshare units is permitted a density of up to 16 units per acre. 4 For RT zoning located inside Activity Centers as designated on the Growth Management Plan's Future Land Use Map, residential units (including those for timeshares and multifamily uses) are allowed at a maximum of 16 dwelling units per acre. Similarly for RT zoning not located within Activity Centers but in existence at the time of adoption of the LDC (October 30, 1991), residential units are allowed at a maximum of 16 units per acre. 5 For RT zoning not located within Activity Centers and not in existence at the time of adoption of this LDC (October 30, 1991), allowed density is per the density rating system up to 16 dwelling units per acre. The calculation of density shall be based on the land area defined by a lot(s) of record. 6 Density for single-family and mobile home, with or without clustering. 7 Density for duplex , with or without clustering. 8 Density for multi-family , with or without clustering. 9 In the MH district, modular homes are allowable. 10 Properties zoned C-1 through C-3 may have associated residential densities in instances of mixed-use development pursuant to the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 11 The density of 1 dwelling unit per 3 gross acres only applies to private in-holdings within the Big Cypress National Preserve that were in existence prior to October 14, 1974. 12 Maximum allowable density in the BMUD and GTMUD overlays is attained through the Mixed Use Project(MUP). Approval Process pursuant to the regulations in the Overlays. 13 One dwelling unit per 40 acres is the maximum density permitted in RFMU Sending Lands (see section 2.03.08). 14 One dwelling unit per 5 acres is the maximum density permitted in RFMU Neutral Lands (see section 2.03.08). 15 One dwelling unit per acre is the maximum density permitted in RFMU Receiving Lands located outside of a Rural Village with redemption of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) credits; 0.2 units per acre is the maximum density permitted in RFMU Receiving Lands without redemption of TDR credits; 3 dwelling units per acre is the maximum density per acre in RFMU Receiving Lands located within a Rural Village with the redemption of TDR credits (see section 2.03.08). 16 Only if Mobile Home Overlay exists. 17 Lock-off unit: Where the floor area of a timeshare unit or hotel room contains lock-off accommodations which can be occupied separately from the main living unit, each lock-off accommodation shall be counted as a full timeshare unit when computing the allowable density B. Acreage associated with historical/archaeological resources preserved within the boundaries of a project shall be included in calculating the project's permitted density . (Ord. No. 06-08, § 3.H; Ord. No. 07-67, § 3.F; Ord. No. 10-23, § 3.J) Editor's note—The effective date for this section is August 23, 2010. Co ler County Growth Management Department October 16, 2018 Chris Lascano Phoenix Associates of South Florida, Inc 13180 Livingston Road Suite#204 Naples,FL 34109 EMAIL-clascano@phoenix-associates.com RE: Site Development Plan Insubstantial Change PL20180002049 Gateway(FKA Trio)(SDPI) Dear Applicant: The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions, please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a"HOLD" status until all comments are satisfied. The following comments need to be addressed as noted: Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed By: Christopher Scott Email: chrisscott@colliergov.net Phone#: (239) 252-2460 Correction Comment 1: The County has determined that the hotel portion of this mixed-use project is subject to the Floor Area Ratio(FAR)requirements as outlined in LDC Section 4.02.01 A., Table 2,Building Dimension Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts. The FAR requirement in C-4 zoning is 0.6 for a hotel or 0.8 for a Destination Resort Hotel.Please update the SDP to include FAR calculations demonstrating the hotel meets the FAR requirement. Please also update the architectural floor plans to show floor areas for various uses. The following comments are informational and/or may include stipulations: • When addressing review comments,please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to completed reviews with stipulations. • Please be advised that Sections 10.02.03.H.1,and 10.02.04.B.3.c require that a re-submittal must be made within 270 days of this letter. Informational Comments: • When the sign permit is applied for the project name can only be called Gateway not Gateway of Naples. Informational Comments: • 7/26/18 Informational Comment: No County ROW permit is required since no work is shown within a County roadway ROW.An FDOT permit is required for median improvements on Davis Blvd. and for construction of site access driveways on Davis Blvd. and US 41 and must be provided prior to the pre-construction meeting. Stipulations: • 7/26/18 Stipulation: Prior to preconstruction meeting,the applicant needs to complete the payment reimbursement for removal of County landscaping within the Davis Blvd. ROW.Please coordinate with the County Landscape Operations Manager,Pam Lulich, PamelaLulich@colliergov.net,239-252-6291 to complete the process. Stipulations: • 7/26/18 Stipulation: The OR Book and page reference for the access easement for interconnection with the adjacent property to the east, as shown on plan sheet SDP-1, must be provided prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy(CO). Informational Comments: • It is the understanding of staff that this project, Trio, and the project immediately to the east, Mini-Triangle, have submitted ROW permit applications to FDOT. As US41 is regulated by FDOT, if such permitting results in any changes to the submitted access locations,additional site permitting may be required prior to any construction onsite. If you have any questions,please contact me at(239)252-2460. Sincerely, Christopher Scott Planning Manager Growth Management Department Aiiip...1214k4r &tett& BRUSH&COMPANY June 6, 2018 LODGING INDUSTRY CONSULTANTS Mr. Bill Higgs Power Corporation 3050 North Horseshoe Drive, Ste 105 Naples, FL 34104 Dear Mr. Higgs: This letter is to outline our discussion this morning regarding the range of guest room sizes for high quality hotels. As noted, the industry typically looks at the square footage (sf) of a guest unit although contractors may look at total square footage, including lobbies, meeting rooms, back-of-the-house spaces and others, divided by the number of guest rooms to get a gross square footage (gsf) per room for cost estimating purposes. BRUSH&COMPANY was established in early 1993 as an executive-level-only consulting organization. In keeping with 45+years of experience in the industry and recognized expertise, Scott Brush is a member of the International Society of Hospitality Consultants, a `membership- by-invitation-only' organization that is the first to certify the competency of its members. He is also a member of Cayuga Hospitality Consultants whose membership is a network of independent hospitality professionals and senior industry leaders with multi-disciplinary hospitality expertise. A resume for Scott Brush is attached and further information is available at the firm's web site: www.Brush-and-Company.com. Although unit sizes are wide ranging from rooms to suites, in recent years with the advent of the flat screen television and the elimination of the oversized armoire, square footage per room has been declining across all levels from economy to luxury and all types with the chains downsizing even the established names, new boutiques, soft brands and lifestyle properties. New prototypes of "lifestyle" hotels in the midscale market (3-star) are now mostly under 300 sf per room with some in the 250 sf category where older typical mid-market rooms are in the 350 sf range. These properties, typically with limited food a beverage and meeting/banquet space, the gross square footage is 550 gsf to 650 gsf. 16410 South West 77`h Court, Miami, Florida 33157-3765 Tel 305-253-7415 Fax 305-251-2108 iS Cayuga www.Brush-and-Company.com I S H HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS HOTEL SQUARE FOOTAGE PAGE 2 JUNE 6, 2018 Rooms in the upscale and upper upscale segments (usually designated as 3- to 4-star) have also been quietly downsizing but still average about 375 sf to 450 sf per unit depending on the number and size of suites included in the room count. We typically advise about 10 to 15 percent suites, mostly 1-bedroom which contain the equivalent of 2 "standard" room modules. Depending on the amount of FEB, meeting space and other indoor spaces included the gross square footage usually runs from 625 gsf to 700 gsf. The luxury market (5-star) is more likely to be average over 500 sf due, in part to the large number of multi-room suites. Even this segment has been downsizing as square footage lost from guest rooms is transferred to enhanced lobby spaces. Due to the normal inclusion of expansive meeting/banquet space, multiple FFtB outlets and other indoor spaces, the gross square footage in the luxury segment runs over 700 gsf. Please let me know if you would like to discuss this topic further or if you have additional questions. Sincerely BRUSH&✓0;.,,..I.ANY / cott W. Brush, ISHC President "�' BR.usH&COMPANY HOTEL SQUARE FOOTAGE PAGE 3 JUNE 6, 2018 EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS SCOTT W. BRUSH, ISHC EDUCATION Durham University- Durham, England 1,1 Master of Science in Management Studies • Cornell University - Ithaca, New York Bachelor of Science in Hotel Administration `s 4 tiv$04. E4P PROFESSIONAL HISTORY BRUSH&COMPANY 1993 to Present Established BRUSH&COMPANY in 1993. An executive level consulting firm affiliated with International Society of Hospitality Consultants (ISHC) and Cayuga Hospitality Consultants. Florida International University 2004 to Present Adjunct professor in the Chapin School of Hospitality Ft Tourism Management with a graduate seminar course entitled Asset Management in the Hospitality Industry. Steckroth Hospitality Group 2014 to Present SHG is a Florida registered Real Estate Brokerage specializing in the Hospitality Industry. Joined SHG as a licensed Sales Associate in September 2014 (Lic. #SL3305667) Nova-Southeastern University 1989 to 1995 Adjunct professor in the International Centre for Tourism and Hospitality Management. Pannell Kerr Forster/PKF Consulting 1978 to 1993 Started as a consultant in April 1978,elected Senior Principal in 1985 and a co-founding director in January 1992. Ramada Inns, Inc. 1970 to 1972 and 1976 to 1978 Relief GM for managers on vacation or terminated at seven properties. Pre-opening personnel selection,training and opening in five locations. Rejoined Ramada in 1976 as GM at San Francisco International Airport,transferred to Colorado Springs in 1977. Navy Resale System 1972 to 1974 and 1976 Home office responsibility for 44 Navy Lodges and compiled the group's first Operations Manual. After completion of the Master's degree program, took a temporary assignment as Assistant Food and Beverage Manager at the NAS Alameda complex, MEMBERSHIPS/ACTIVITIES/PUBLICATIONS Developing a Hotel Business Plan: A How-To-Manual; Cornell Hotel&Restaurant Administration Quarterly; June 1993 Asset Managers Playing New Role in Hotels: South Florida Business Journal;February, 1994 Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics: Guest Editorial; Cornell Hotel&Restaurant Administration Quarterly, February 1994 The Caribbean Market;Hotel&Resort Industry;June 1987 Rethinking Your Business Plan; Hotel&Resort Industry,July 1994 Hotel Owners&Developers Find Money is Plentiful:Hospitality Highlights, 3Q 1997 Renovation, Refurbishment or Redevelopment: Is the Difference More than Semantics?;Lodging Hospitality;April 1998 Lessons From a Fallen Economy;co-author of the three-part series;Lodging Hospitality;January, February and March 2010 International Society of Hospitality Consultants-since 1989-member#047 Cayuga Hospitality Advisors-Regional Director, South Florida(1994-2014) ISH Cayuga Hospitality Consultants(since 2015) 1 1 1 Cornell Hotel Society-national organization and South Florida chapter }RN) l,t INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF Academy of Travel and Tourism-Advisory Committee Treasurer-1991/99 HOTEL SOCIETY HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS Society of Nova Hospitality Professionals-Associate Lifetime Member ?A Cayuga HOSPITALITY CONSULTANTS kt&BRUSH&COMPANY 9/19/2018 RWA,Inc.Mail-RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) Patrick Vanasse<pvanasse@consult-rwa.com> ENGINEERING RE: Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) 1 message ScottChris<Chris.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov> ~ Wed,Jun 6,2018 at 4:23 PM To:Patrick Vanasse<pvanasse@consult-rwa.com>,EstradaMaria<Maria.Estrada@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc:WeeksDavid<David.Weeks@colliercountyfl.gov>,BosiMichael<Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov>,BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>,AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>,Laura Tefft<Itefft@consult-rwa.com>,McLeanMatthew<Matthew.McLean@colliercountyfl.gov> Patrick: The LDC specifies the submittal/review requirements for Mixed Use Projects(MUPs)in Section 10.02.15(attached).If there are no deviations or bonus density units being requested,then this will be submitted solely as a SDPA(similar to the original Trio SDP).If deviations or bonus density units are being requested,then it will require both a MUP and SDPA submittal.Since the MUP and the SDPA have different reviewers,I don't believe a formal pre-application meeting is the best venue to answer your questions.This would be better addressed through an informal meeting or a Zoning Verification Letter. I understand that you are hoping to follow the Administrative review process(SDPA)but are unclear as to whether deviations are necessary for your client's project as it relates to: • Hotel Density/Unit restrictions • FAR requirements • Minimum Hotel Room Size requirements I am not aware of limitations to hotel density,except as provided in the LDC and GMP,which limit Activity Centers and the RT zoning designation to 26 rooms/acre,but will defer to Zoning and Comp Planning. The FAR requirements for hotels in a C-4 district would not apply to projects in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle,as the development standards of 4.02.16 would supersede the base zoning. The Minimum Floor Area of 700 sf per unit as identified in LDC Section 4.02.16 B.1.,Table 7,is applied to individual residential or commercial units and would not apply to individual hotel rooms. Please be advised that the Bayshore Gateway Triangle provisions have specific requirements for what qualifies as a Mixed Use Project.Per LDC Section 4.02.16 C.8.,a MUP must include a mix of commercial and residential uses.The LDC furthers the commercial requirement to include"a minimum of 60%of all commercial uses within a MUP shall provide retail,office and/or personal services uses..."Please be sure that the MUP is not solely hotel and residential,but also includes some retail,office and/or service uses. Christopher 0.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! From:Patrick Vanasse[mailto:pvanasse@consult-rwa.comj Sent:Wednesday,June 06,2018 3:16 PM To:EstradaMaria<Maria.Estrada@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc:WeeksDavid<David.Weeks@colliercountyfl.gov>;BosiMichael<Michael.Bosi@colliercountyfl.gov>;BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>;AshtonHeidi <Heidi.Ashton@colliercountyfl.gov>;ScottChris<Chris.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov>;Laura Tefft<Itefft@consult-rwa.com> Subject:RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) Hi Maria, We believe that we can go through the MUP and SDP amendment process,but we need to get that confirmed by the staff leadership group. I've already discussed this issue with David Weeks and Ray Bellows and we respectfully request that all staff members copied on this email attend the pre-app meeting in order to obtain consensus on several issues. I've copied an email I sent to David Weeks requesting confirmation of the following items. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5006a3915c&view=pt&search=all&permth id=thread-f%3A1602550455812696624%7C msg-f%3A1602556099419... 1/6 9/19/2018 RWA,Inc.Mail-RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) Thank you for your response. As discussed with you over the phone,one of our clients has purchased the mini-triangle Trio property and is very interested in the possibility of locating a hotel with some residential units on this site. In order to make a hotel viable,more rooms are needed. As you can imagine we would prefer to avoid the public hearing process if at all possible,and simply amend the existing MUP and SDP. Per your response and my review of the LDC,I could not find any regulations that limit the number of hotel rooms at this location. The 26 unit per acre standard seems to be limited to the activity centers and RT district. Moreover,I don't think the FAR associated with C-4 zoning applies when the MUP avenue is taken. My understanding is that the overlay supersedes the base zoning and that the overlay does not contain an FAR in order to provide more flexibility and encourage redevelopment. These are very important questions/issue that we need to.confirm as soon as possible.I believe the quickest way to obtain answers is through an official pre- application meeting. As such,Laura from our office is submitting a pre-app request today. We respectfully request that you and/or Mike,Ray and Heidi attend our meeting so we can discuss these issues and ensure we have consensus moving forward. Thank you, From:EstradaMaria Sent:Wednesday,June 06,2018 12:24 PM To:'Itef t@consult-rwa.com'<Itefft@consult-rwa.com> Subject:FW Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) Hi Laura, Please see email below from Chris. We are trying to determine if you need to Pre-App meetings or just one for the SDPA. Maria From:ScottChris Sent:Wednesday,June 06,2018 8:26 AM To:BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov>;EstradaMaria<Maria.Estrada@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) A MUP only requires a public hearing if they are requesting deviations or if they are requesting density pool bonus units;otherwise,it is an administrative review processed through the SDP(A)process. Christopher 0.Scott,AICP,LEED-AP Planning Manager-Development Review 239.252.2460 How are we doing? Please CLICK HERE to fill out a Customer Survey. We appreciate your Feedback! From:BellowsRay Sent:Tuesday,June 05,2018 5:18 PM To:EstradaMaria<Maria.Estrada@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc:ScottChris<Chris.Scott@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) Hi Maria, Since the MUP requires a public hearing,two pre-app should be required but one can be held after the other. Zig https://mail.goog le.com/mail/u/0?ik=5006a3915c&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1602550455812696624%7Cmsg-f%3A1602556099419... 2/6 9/19/2018 RWA,Inc.Mail-RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) Raymond V.Bellows,Zoning Manager Zoning Division-Zoning Services Section Growth Management Department Telephone:239.252.2463;Fax:239.252.6350 {'"� - ...-County Exceeding expedmlians,everyday! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT. From:EstradaMaria Sent:Tuesday,June 05,2018 5:02 PM To:BellowsRay<Ray.Bellows©colliercountyfl.gov> Subject:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) June 05,2018 Dear Ray Bellows, The activity Verify Folio&Assign Planner has been assigned to you for PL20180001936. This is required to be completed by 6/8/2018 12:00:00 AM Comments: Can they submit for a MUP and SDPA together Or do they need to submit for another pre app request for the SDPA? My guess is they do. Planner: Fire District Greater Naples Fire https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5006a3915c&view=pt&search=all&permth id=thread-f%3A1602550455812696624%7Cmsg-f%3A1602556099419... 3/6 9/19/2018 RWA, Inc. Mail-RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) PROJECT:MP20180041127-[ELECTRONIC] ,- I New Application(current project) _....,._._.�..__� ._ ....._ New Application(no project) Planning Project JPL20180001936 Application Number Statuz Submitted•Closed for uploads Type Pre-Application Meeting Planner Name Mini Tnangle Jurisdiction Collier County Entered By Web Registered User Location Description Department • Expiration Date 1 Site Area(Acres) 1 Date Closed I — Date Entered 106104/2018 Inspector Note " Project Description I This pre-application request is for an MUP and SDPA. 1 Public Notice Summary , Total Estimated Valuation S 0.00 " Show More Fields Mede or Clear Fields Is this an EPR Mybnd7 No G Project Status Date 106/05/2015 Road Distnct 12 — Electronic Documents Ye-s ___J Location(tram Portal 100366840007&003e68e0009 Application) i Property/GIS attributes Fire District Greater Nacles.Fire E.] Fire District Number 3 j Commissioner District a,171— Location Contacts =aa nes•:per,::,or C'sins to L..:dress eool. ‘.7.1 to. ert: ,a,.1 a Contact To link a contact to this application,enter contact information below. CrtyView will suggest possible matches as you t:pe: (Laura Tefft.Address:6610 Willow Park Dr. Cao I ,' Type T- Deacnpu n I Contact Alert J Pnmarr7 i Chsple0 ,,.. .. Applicant Laura Tefft,Address:6610 Willow Park Dr, Fropertr'Comer 1705&1507 T.MIAMI TRAIL LLC.Address_404 SOUTH 11UNTiNOTON https://mail.g oogle.com/mai I/u/0?ik=5006a3915c&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1602550455812696624%7Cmsg-f%3A1602556099419... 4/6 9/19/2018 RWA, Inc.Mail-RE:Pre App 20180001936 Mini Triangle(MUP) ,, t.,-.,:i. '-_-- --', I' ,3 ,. ,.4,.. 4 ',0„1,0,,,,,,,„.„ 1116,....4 '-. — m, r tc r ar. MAP LEGEND �� . � x au ham+ ral P'"16 PO ,os*Ili tat R ",�h�a 1 _ f A Alri11iY2ltltXT� '"� cos,.coo** N4 r,, 'b%., , s. ..% '14,N,,,,Iriti,:*4t4, ‘, ,), * '�x 4` - Folio Numbec 003868. Name:1725 1817 T.AMIAMI TRAIL # ' Street' R Name;1705 TA AMI TRI, E . . - ,,„,,,,,,,, '',,,,N.', Ifk ii,.. �` "�' � � � t3uNd/t Unitt:ty?2 t 1 ,y legal Description:/150 25 PAR@ S tN QR#db PG 4T!DESC A3 Ft3t L. BEGAT kW CNR SEC.RUN E 318 SOFT.S 618 T TO S RCN U `� tom« ,t10-' E lett,r,„00,,,i . — I 4,0%, *, '* ' .4.% y �ct !` '+� IrAr�cfNo , /7 M I _` -1 «. ''V (er A, 'F'i * Aenra]at!tial s eshotY t7.* . i.,, A.w 5* l5T1 w 44k44. . " "` .� �. S Falta Number;003 40007 0h s Name-1705 R 1507 TAb1IAMI TRAIL t, L ' ate, Street%&Name:1801 TAf iIAMI TRL - Id Legal D DAVIS814On:11'5125 N`WI! :. -> (3',..,g• NYf11t flF N— Liss N°FTRAIL d *%4W.)sio.* St5FMSB1 c..cLESSRCt.LESS +. t 0;1148 PG dT t LESS(3 O T.9 5 Cox + *'e Aew* §K++ s � `� + ,- ,• Respectfully, Maria Estrada,AS https://ma i 1.g oog le,co m/mai I/u/0?i k=5006a 3915c&view=pt&search=a I I&pe rmth id=thread-f%3A 1602550455812696624%7C msg-f%3A 1602556099419... 5/6 9/19/2018 RWA, Inc.Mail-RE:Pre App 20180001936-Mini Triangle(MUP) Business Project Coordinator Co ler County Growth Management Department Operations Si Regulatory Management Division NOTE:Email Address Has Changed 2800 North Horseshoe Drive,Naples Florida 34104 Client Services:239.252.1036 Phone:239.252.2989 How are we doing? The Operations&Regulatory Management Division wants to hear from you! Please take our online SURVEY. We appreciate your feedback! Under Florida Law,e-mail addresses are public records.If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity.Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. al 10.02.15 Requirements for Mixed Use Projects within the BGT Redevelopment Area.doc 40K https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?i k=5006a3915c&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1602550455812696624%7C msg-f%3A1602556099419... 6/6 I A-1 ENGINEERING WHY the C-4 zoning F.A.R. for Hotels does not apply to the Gateway Naples Project 1) THE GTMUD OVERLAY WAS ESTABLISHED TO ALLOW GREATER INTENSITY& DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay,the GTMUD-MXD, Mixed Use Projects (MUPs) and the, mini-triangle catalyst site were established to foster redevelopment, incentivize development opportunities and allow greater densities and intensities. The GTMUD is intended to provide greater intensity as supported by the GMP, LDC, and the CRA's scope of work associated with the mini-triangle catalyst site. a. GMP intent language: Policy 5.6.F. "Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay The Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, depicted on the Future Land Use Map, is within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on June 13, 2000. The intent of the redevelopment program is to encourage the revitalization of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area by providing incentives that will encourage the private sector to invest in this urban area.This Overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities that will promote the assembly of property, or joint ventures between property owners, while providing interconnections between properties and neighborhoods. The intent of this Overlay is to allow for more intense development in an urban area where urban services are available.Two zoning overlays have been adopted into the Collier County Land Development Code to aid in the implementation of this Overlay. The following provisions and restrictions apply to this Overlay: ...." b. LDC intent language: LDC Sec 2.03.07.N.4.a "The Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District consists of the following subdistricts: i. Mixed Use Subdistrict (GTMUD-MXD). The purpose and intent of this subdistrict is to provide for pedestrian-oriented commercial and mixed use developments and higher density residential uses. Developments will reflect traditional neighborhood design building patterns. Individual buildings are encouraged to be multi-story with uses mixed vertically, with street level commercial and upper level office and residential. Included in this District is the "mini triangle" formed by US 41 on the South, Davis Boulevard on the North and Commercial Drive on the East, which is intended to serve as an entry statement for the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA and a gateway to the City of Naples. ..." K:\2018\180059.00.00 Mini Triangle\0001 Project Research\FAR Rev 02.docx Page 1 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 I (239) 597-0575 I Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com ENGINEERING c. Catalyst site intent: The attached Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project document was provided by David Jackson (prior CRA Director) as guidance for work RWA conducted on the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, and the catalyst site plans developed for the mini-triangle and Kelly Lake properties. As stated in Attachment 3: "Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project: Intended as a higher density Mixed-Use Project,with focus on Hotel, Retail, Restaurants and potential for condominium uses. Maximize buildout potential and utilize structured parking. CRA staff felt concepts included in the original Redevelopment Plan did not provide sufficient density/footprint size. Potential to make the tip of the triangle (intersection of Davis and US 41) a strong focal point." 2) LACK OF A HOTEL F.A.R. WAS NOT AN OVERSIGHT—ASSUMING SO IS FLAWED REASONING a. Assuming that omission of the FAR in the GTMUD-MXD was an oversight and that the C-4 Hotel FAR should apply is illogical,since this reasoning is inconsistent with the stated intents in the GMP and LDC. b. Assuming that when an overlay is silent on a given standard,we revert back to the base zoning is inconsistent with common zoning practices and the evidence within those overlays.The Hotel and Motel use was intentionally added to the overlay as part of a list of uses found in Table 2 of LDC Sec 2.03.07. Other uses within that table contain "additional standards;"the Hotel and Motel use does not. Should we then assume that all uses without additional standards are subject to oversights and that we can revert to base zoning or other code sections as we please? The answer is clearly no. As evidence,the "Dwelling, Mobile Home" use contains the following additional standard "*If permitted by the underlying zoning," No other use allowed in the GTMUD contains this exception which demonstrates that the underlying zoning standards do not apply unless specifically stated. c. It is common practice to administer the LDC based on its "face value." It cannot be assumed that the lack of an FAR was an oversight unless evidence supports that assessment. If that reasoning were applied, every code section would be open to debate and challenge. d. RWA developed the GTMUD and BMUD Overlays. At that time, Patrick Vanasse led the RWA team that worked on the overlay. Mr.Vanasse clearly recalls that the team intentionally removed barriers to redevelopment and drafted the overlay without a Hotel FAR in order to allow more intensity within the mini-triangle area.The team intentionally allowed more intensity in the mixed use subdistrict to foster redevelopment of the mini-triangle and make it attractive for a hotel and corporate offices to be built within the mini-triangle catalyst site. e. Not requiring an FAR for the GTMUD district was intentional and is consistent with the GMP, and LDC Sections that outline the intent of the overlay as well as the scope of work provided by the CRA. Should a Hotel FAR have been desired, specificity would have been provided on how to calculate and administer this regulation. As staff knows, applying a Hotel FAR requirement to K:\2018\180059.00.00 Mini Triangle\0001 Project Research\FAR Rev 02.docx Page 2 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 I (239) 597-0575 I Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com ENGINEERING a mixed use project is very complicated. By the very nature of a project being horizontally or vertically integrated it is difficult to discern what should be counted toward the hotel use versus the rest of the commercial uses that have no FAR. 3) CONSITENCY WITH GMP As commonly accepted in the planning and zoning profession,the GMP supersedes the LDC. The GMP clearly states that the intent of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay is to "allow more intense development" per Policy 5.6 F. Furthermore, it states, "This overlay allows for additional neighborhood commercial uses and increased intensity and higher residential densities...." a. If we apply the C-4 Hotel FAR to the overlay,then the intensity for Hotel uses is not increased and therefore inconsistent with the GMP. The overlay's intent is clearly to increase intensity; therefore, having no FAR limit within the overlay is consistent with the stated intent. 4) THE BAYSHORE GATEWAY TRIANGLE OVERLAY SUPERSEDES C-4 BASE ZONING a. The notion of an overlay superseding base zoning is consistent with planning and zoning best practices. Overlays in Collier County and other jurisdictions typically supersede or supplement existing restrictions, rights and/or privileges for a certain geographic area governed by the subject overlay. It is common practice for CRAs to use overlays to encourage and stimulate redevelopment by allowing greater densities and intensities,thus allowing greater development opportunity through more flexible development standards. b. GMP Policy 5.6.F.1 states that for Mixed Use Developments like Gateway Naples "a mix of residential uses is permitted. For such development uses are limited to C1-through C-3 zoning district uses, except as otherwise provided for in the Mini Triangle Subdistrict; hotel/motel use; theatrical producers (except motion picture), bands, orchestras, and entertainers; and, uses as may be allowed by applicable Flue Policies." This clause indicates that C-4 uses are not allowed within MUPs except for those further listed in this policy. As such, C-4 limitations identified under Sec. 4.02.1 do not apply. Hotel Uses within the GTMUD-MXD district are therefore strictly regulated by Section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area,which intentionally does not contain an FAR limitation. c. LDC Sec 4.02.1 which provides a development standards table for various commercial zoning districts, contains a row for Overlay Districts that states, "See table of special design requirements applicable to overlay district." This clause acknowledges that the overlays provide separate and more specific regulations,which as a result supersede base zoning district standards and have primacy over base zoning design requirements. d. LDC Sec 2.03.07 Overlay Districts makes it clear that while densities and uses can be established according to the base zoning district or the overlay that "in either instance the GTMUD site development standards as provided for in section 4.02.16 shall apply." See#6 below for more detail on this issue. e. LDC Section 10.02.15 Requirements for Mixed Use Projects within the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area states the following: K:\2018\180059.00.00 Mini Triangle\0001 Project Research\FAR Rev 02.docx Page 3 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 I (239) 597-0575 I Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com ENGINEERING "A. Mixed Use Project Approval Types. Owners of property located in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area designated as Neighborhood Commercial (BMUD-NC), Waterfront (BMUD-W), and Mixed Use (GTMUD-MXD) Subdistricts may submit an application for a Mixed Use Project (MUP). The MUP shall allow for a mixture of residential and commercial uses, as permitted under the Table of Uses for the appropriate subdistrict. Applications for a MUP maybe approved administratively orthrough a public hearing process as described in this section. A pre-application meeting is required for all MUP applications. 1. Administrative Approval: a. MUPs may be approved administratively provided they meet the following conditions: i. The MUP complies with all site development standards as outlined in section 4.02.16 of the LDC; ii. The MUP only includes permitted uses as outlined by the Table of Uses for the subdistrict in which it is located; and iii. The MUP does not seek additional density through the Bonus Density Pool provisions of LDC section 10.02.15 C. b. The Administrative Code shall establish the submittal requirements for MUP administrative approval. The application shall follow the applicable submittal requirements and procedures for site development plan submittal and review. ..." It should be noted that Sec 10.02.15 makes it very clear that Sec 4.02.16 applies MUPs, not Sec 4.02.01. Moreover,the clause states that MUPs can only include uses outlined in the Table of Uses for that subdistrict. That would negate the ability to revert back to Sec 4.02.01 and apply the C-4 Hotel FAR. 5) STAFF DETERMINED IN WRITING THAT THE FAR DOES NOT APPLY. The attached email from Chris Scott dated June 6, 2018,states "The FAR requirements for hotels in a C-4 district would not apply to projects in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle, as the development standards 4.02.16 would supersede the base zoning."This determination is consistent with the findings detail in this report. 6) GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE LDC ESTABLISH PRIMACY OF GMP AND MORE SPECIFIC OVERLAYS General provisions within the LDC establish the primacy of the GMP over the LDC and allow more specific overlays to supersede base zoning regulations: a. LDC Section 1.04.1.6 states the following: "The regulations established in this LDC and within each zoning district shall be the minimum or maximum limitations, as the case may be, and shall K:\2018\180059.00.00 Mini Triangle\0001 Project Research\FAR Rev 02.docx Page 4 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 I (239) 597-0575 I Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com ENGINEERING apply uniformly to each class or kind of structure, use, land or water, except where specific provision in the LDC is made." Specific provisions are made throughout the Code reiterating the position that Sec 4.02.16 supersedes Sec 4.02.01: i. LDC Sec 2.03.07.N.3.b; Sec 2.03.07.N 4.b.ii.c and the notes associated with Table 2 under Sec 2.03.07.N 4.b.iii state the following respectively: "Property owners may establish uses, densities and intensities in accordance with the existing LDC regulations of the underlying zoning classification, or may elect to develop/redevelop under the provisions of the applicable GTMUD Subdistrict. In either instance,the GTMUD site development standards as provided for in section 4.02.16 shall apply." "Mixed Use Projects shall be limited to the permitted, accessory and conditional uses allowed in the GTMUD-MXD subdistrict, and subject to the MUP approval process as outlined in section 10.02.15.All other projects may elect to establish uses, densities and intensities in accordance with their underlying zoning or in accordance with the Overlay Subdistrict. However,all projects must comply with site development standards as provided in section 4.02.16." "Mixed Use Projects shall be limited to the permitted, accessory and conditional uses allowed in the BMUD-NC and BMUD-W subdistricts, and subject to the MUP approval process as outlined in section 10.02.15. All other projects may elect to establish uses, densities and intensities in accordance with their underlying zoning or in accordance with the Overlay Subdistrict. However, all projects must comply with site development standards as provided in section 4.02.16." ii. LDC Section 2.03.07.N. states the following; "Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District (GTMUD).This section contains special conditions for the properties in and adjacent to the Gateway Triangle as identified by the designation "GTMUD" on the applicable official Collier County Zoning Atlas Map or map series.These special conditions constitute "specific provisions" in the LDC and as such supersede more general provisions. iii. LDC Sec 4.02.01.A—last row of Table 1 states: "See table of special design requirements applicable to overlay district."This clause essentially says that designs standards within that table do not apply and that the user needs to refer to the special design requirements found in the overlays. b. LDC Section 103.01.D states: "In the interpretation and application of any provision of these regulations, it shall be held to be the minimum requirement adopted for the promotion of the public health,safety,comfort, convenience, and general welfare. Where any provision of these regulations,the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida, imposes greater restrictions upon the subject matter than any other provision of these regulations,the GMP, or any other law or regulation in effect in Collier County, Florida, the provision imposing the greater restriction or regulation shall be deemed to be controlling." K:\2018\180059.00.00 Mini Triangle\0001 Project Research\FAR Rev 02.docx Page 5 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 I (239) 597-0575 I Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com En This clause outlines the primacy of the GMP and other laws that may supersede certain sections of the LDC. When read in its entirety within the context of the LDC and the GMP, it should be understood that provisions providing greater regulation shall be deemed controlling. "Greater restriction or regulation"should not be interpreted as "most limiting" but rather as meaning that certain regulations are more specific and supersede or supplement others, as is the case for zoning overlays versus base zoning districts and the GMP versus the LDC. If interpreted as "most limiting,"the overlays could not provide greater densities and intensities, more flexible design standards and additional uses not allowed in base zoning districts,thus rendering them null and void as a regulatory tool. 7) OVERLAYS ARE NOT LIKE PUDS Overlays are not like PUDs that, when silent on a given standard,the accepted practice is to revert back to code or the most similar base zoning district. GMP and LDC sections cited above say otherwise—the more specific regulations, i.e.the overlay, controls. There is no indication in the LDC nor in planning best practices that would substantiate such an approach unless clearly stated in the LDC or GMP. ATTACHMENTS: 1. GMP Policy 5.6.F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay 2. LDC Section 2.03.07 Overlay Zoning Districts 3. Mini-Triangle Catalyst Project—scope of work from CRA 4. LDC Section 4.02.01 Dimensional Standards for Principal Uses in Base Zoning Districts 5. LDC Section 4.02.16 Design Standards for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area 6. LDC Section 10.02.15 Requirements for Development in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area 7. Email from Chris Scott to Patrick Vanasse dates June 6, 2018 8. LDC Section 1.04.01 Generally 9. LDC Section 1.03.01 Generally K:\2018\180059.00.00 Mini Triangle\0001 Project Research\FAR Rev 02.docx Page 6 6610 Willow Park Drive Suite 200 Naples, FL 34109 I (239) 597-0575 I Fax (239) 597-0578 www.consult-rwa.com