Loading...
CCPC Agenda 07/18/2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 7/11/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 July 18, 2019 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. July 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 7/11/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes B. June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20180001174: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to add 5.85± acres from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to increase the maximum square footage from 764,478 to 878,889 square feet, to increase the maximum number of independent living units from 355 to 431 units, to increase the maximum number of assisted living beds from 35 to 47 beds, to add sales and marketing as a permitted indoor accessory use, to reduce setbacks from the south and west property lines, to reduce the minimum square footage of assisted living units, to increase the landscape buffer on the south property line, to revise the Master Plan to reflect the additional acreage and modified site layout, to add one deviation and remove one deviation relating to landscape buffers, and to modify developer commitments. The subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, just east of Airport-Pulling Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.10± acres; providing for repeal of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, Ordinance Number 92-75, as amended; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA] July 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 7/11/2019 2. PL20170004419/CP-2018-1: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed-Use District, to allow up to 304 multi family dwelling units, and providing for transmittal of the adopted amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the south side of Veterans-Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.57± acres. (Companion to PL20170004385) (Adoption Hearing) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 3. PL20170004385: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida 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, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) known as the Della Rosa RPUD, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Allura RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 304 multi-family dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans-Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 35.92± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance No. 07-73; and by providing for an effective date. (Companion to PL20170004419) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] 4. PL20180000261/CPSP-18-2: 9 ordinance amendments of Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County Florida, relating to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy. The following elements are changed or created with a separate ordinance for each: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Golden Gate City Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Rural Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Conservation and Coastal Management Element; Future Land Use Element And Future Land Use Map And Map Series; the Stormwater Management Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; the Solid Waste Sub- Element of the Public Facilities Element; and the Transportation Element. [Coordinator: Kris VanLengen, AICP, Project Manager] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 07/18/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes Meeting Date: 07/18/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 06/11/2019 10:36 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 06/11/2019 10:36 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 06/11/2019 10:35 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 07/18/2019 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 May 16, 2019 Page 1 of 91 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, May 16, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt Absent: Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Jeremy Frantz, LDC Manager Gil Martinez, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 2 of 91 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the Thursday, May 16th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We have a quorum of seven, Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And let the record note that I was contacted by Mr. Eastman. He had another commitment that he had to be at this morning and couldn't make it here, so... With that, addenda to the agenda. We have a long agenda. Now, there's only four items on it, but if it follows where it started, it could take most of the day, and we may not get through those four items. When it was set up, I talked with staff about the potential of having to continue the LDC amendments. I'm going to try to accommodate the public that's here today the best we can. I know it's hard to sit in this room and then never get to where you want to go. So I'd like to ask how many -- by raise of hands, how many people today are here for the generator Land Development Code issue? Okay. And how many people are here for the Baumgarten PUD? Oh, it's about the same amount. Well, I don't know how to accommodate one group for another, unfortunately. What I'd like to do is move forward with the -- try to finish. We started the Baumgarten PUD. It's first up on the agenda, and generally all of our continued items are first up on the next meeting, which is how this one's been arranged. Since there's about an even amount of people for each one, I don't see the -- it wouldn't be right to slight one group for another. We'll move forward with the Baumgarten PUD first, but instead of going to the Ave Maria SRA second, we'll go to the generator item on the LDC second. How many people here are for the Ave Maria SRA? Good. And I'd like to ask the applicant for Ave Maria if they have any objection to that arrangement. MR. YOVANOVICH: Excuse me. For the record, Rich Yovanovich. As long as we get to it today, we'll have no objection to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a good -- that's a good point. What we'll have to do is, I'm going to quiz the -- I don't think the Ave Maria one, especially without any people here, is going to take longer than one hour. So what we would do is wrap up as far as we can get with the discussion on just the generator LDC amendment, and then at 3 o'clock, if we decide to leave at 3 (sic), at 3 o'clock we will move into the SRA, and we'll finish it before we leave today. So I don't expect it to take that long, Richard. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 3 of 91 MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we should get through the generator one even with the public speakers. It's a single item. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully it will go faster. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, as far as the calendar today goes, what time frames do we have, most of us, being able to stay? Stan, I would think you have to leave early. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About what time? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: About noon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You okay, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I start getting tired at 4. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And 4 works for me. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: As long as you need it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And, Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I have to leave as well, but I'll make phone calls during the lunch break if I need to if we have a quorum, to make sure we have a quorum. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll have a quorum. We have at least five of us here. We'll be good. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Tentatively I want to be here for the whole day, but I may have to leave in the afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll try to leave around 4 o'clock. We'll see how things are shaping up at that time and go from there. That takes us to the Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is June 6th. Ray, do we have anything scheduled for June 6th? I know we may continue items from today. I just didn't know if we had a long agenda that day or not. While he's checking that out, does anybody know if they can't make the June 6th meeting? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ray, we'll have a quorum anyway. MR. BELLOWS: We will have items: Eagle Redi, a conditional use -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. BELLOWS: -- is one of them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So June 6th we have a quorum. We're good for that. And approval for the minutes. We were sent electronically two sections or two dates. I will read those separately, and then if there's any changes, then we'll motion. April 4th, 2019, minutes, is there any changes or corrections? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Recommended by Ned. Seconded by -- who made the second; Patrick? Second by Patrick. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 4 of 91 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Same action for April 18th. Anybody have any issues with April 18th minutes? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Approval by Ned. Seconded by Joe. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Ray, the BCC report -- oh, Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. If we do not have a meeting -- you said the next meeting was -- well, June 6th, and then the 20th. But, obviously, we're not going to meet July 4th, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. Why wouldn't we meet July 4th? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can. But I show that on the calendar and I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we would have -- we wouldn't have a meeting on -- you're right. The first meeting in July then would be not existing. You know what, we'll go to the second meeting in July with anything we have. Ray, is that consistent with what you thought? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So, Ray, are you ready for BCC report? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. The Board met last Tuesday. There were no zoning section land-use items. There was an LDC amendment that was heard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Chairman's report: I have nothing new to report, and we will move right into our regular public advertised hearing, which is -- we have no consent items either. ***So we'll start with 9A. This item's been continued from the April 18th CCPC meeting. It's for the Baumgarten MPUD on the southwest quadrant of Immokalee Road and Collier Boulevard. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak on this item today, please stand up to be sworn in. This is for the first item up, which is a planned unit development where the Pelican Nursery used to be. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last meeting we left off with -- we actually accelerated or changed our process to accommodate the speakers that were there. And we had a lot of people speak in the meeting. We didn't finish all the public speakers at that time. Since then the applicant has made some changes to the documents. We've got a new, what, another -- I think is 110 pages of documents. Some are just backup material. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 5 of 91 So we will have public speakers, but we will go through the day as we normally would. We'll have a presentation from the applicant, the Planning Commission will ask their questions of the applicant. We will then have presentation by staff; same situation with staff and questions. After that we will finish with the public speakers for that item, and then the applicant will have an opportunity for rebuttal. Then we will go on to the second item today, which will be the generator issue. So with that in mind, Richard, it's -- oh, disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission since our last meeting. Stan? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does my wife count? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think she counts. She takes care of you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just the usual emails from everybody else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are these only new disclosures, Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since last time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Last time. Just a brief conversation with Chris Thornton, who's an attorney. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No new communications. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had met with the applicant and their people, especially their traffic guy. We're going to be talking about some of that today. And the only other -- I don't believe -- I think there's been some correspondence, but every bit of it has been sent to Nancy. She's distributed it to this Planning Commission, so it's all on record. I can't remember all the numbers of them that I had. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Emails from Nancy, the forwarding the correspondence, as you discussed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Same. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I did have one phone call from a gentleman, I think, up in The Quarry or Heritage Bay. With that, I'll turn it over to you, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: Good morning. For the record, Rich Yovanovich on behalf of the petitioner. With me is David Genson, the owner's representative; Dan Waters, the engineer for the project; Wayne Arnold, the professional planner for the project; and Norm Trebilcock, our traffic expert. We -- since the last meeting, we met with representatives of the Tuscany Cove community, which is the community just to the south. As you probably will recall, I had mentioned that we had made certain commitments to change our development standards in response to their letter from their planner. We had a subsequent meeting with them, and we did make some changes to the PUD document that I'd like to go through with you since they were changes from what was in your packet before. It shouldn't take me long to take you through those changes, and then we can open it up to any questions that you may have. The first change really relates to the setback from both the south boundary, which is Tuscany Cove, and the east boundary, which is Bent Creek, and we committed to 105-foot setback from wherever residential is next to residential, and that occurs in two places; one in the Development Standards Table and one on the master plan. So I'll take you through those two. You'll be able to see that the minimum setback from the PUD boundary is now 105 feet instead of what was previously 50 feet. And the one exception is we can have kind of a walkway and pathways 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 6 of 91 within that 105 feet but no actual physical structures, and that's both in the Development Standards Table and then again on the master plan we could depict that setback. So we show that 105-foot setback where we anticipate having residential development adjacent to those properties. We also agreed to some special conditions that are in your packet as Page 19 of 19. I'll put this up in a second, but I won't be able to read it if I don't read it from here. The first is we agree to no amplified sound after 10 p.m. and no lighted recreational facilities other than low-illumination ground-mounted lighting after 10 p.m. We also agreed to both a pedestrian and vehicular interconnection to Tuscany Cove that will include a chain-link fence on both sides of that interconnect that extends a distance of about 100 feet -- or 100 feet, and we also agree to 100-foot lineal chain-link fence on the southwest portion of the site also shown on the master plan. So you can see -- oh, that's right. You can't. We have a chain-link fence in this location that I just referred to, southwest corner, and then chain-link fences on both sides of the interconnection, and those are both -- all those three conditions I just read to you are on Page 19 of 19 of the PUD. And those are the changes we've made as a result of our meetings with representatives and previously committed to on the record the last hearing. Those are the changes we've made. You asked for some additional information to be provided, which was what was the actual master plan that was shown at the neighborhood information meeting. That's in your backup, and it's consistent with what you put up on the visualizer at the last hearing. And then you have, I think, some permitting information that was provided as part of the backup materials. With that, those are the changes that we've made to the PUD document since the last meeting. And I would -- again, we would request that you follow your staff's recommendation of approval. And with that, we'll open it up to any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll start with, of course, the Planning Commission. Anybody have any questions? And I know, Ned, you and I do, so let's see if the others have got something they want to get on record first. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I pretty much asked my questions last time. I'll wait to see what you guys ask, and I may follow up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? COMMISSIONER FRY: Likewise. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then, Ned, do you want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Chairman. First of all, Mr. Yovanovich, you mentioned, I think you said 105 feet both on the east subdivision border into the south. There's a water feature also mentioned on the south. Is there going to be something in the nature of that on the east? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, partially. You can -- Mr. Fryer, you can look up on the -- well, it's probably -- you have a visual -- up on the visualizer you'll see that we have a meandering lake on the south, and then we have a lake on the east on our master plan. So those are the water features that -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is it also 100 feet average width? MR. YOVANOVICH: On the south it is. Well, and -- yeah, wherever we have a water feature, the average width is 100 feet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. The concept of an activity center, I have a few questions about this, and it's really not in an argumentative way. It's just to clear up some uncertainties that I have about what it's reasonable for the public to expect when they purchase property that is planned and it is publicly known to be planned for an activity center. The time of the Tuscany development, which is the earlier of the two, correct? MR. YOVANOVICH: Earlier of which two? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 7 of 91 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Tuscany and Bent Creek. Tuscany's earlier? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, I believe it did predate Bent Creek. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. Okay. So when Tuscany -- when the developers of Tuscany were selling those properties to the owners, the first owners, what was publicly known about the county plans for an activity center? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I can only -- well, the Growth Management Plan had identified an activity center at this corner. It was slightly different configuration from what is there today, but it's in a master planned activity center that allows for the boundaries of the activity center to move as long as it stays within the 40-acre quadrant that's generally described in the activity center. That was all public record at the time both of those projects went through the approval process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And what -- and I realize that it would depend upon the individual PUDs that would apply to the property in the activity center and it would vary, but what -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In your experience, what would it be reasonable for the public to assume or to expect in an activity center as far as building height is concerned and density and the mixing of uses? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, activity centers, as the Growth Management Plan says, is where the most intense development is supposed to occur in Collier County. Activity centers is where commercial, since 1989, was intended to go, and that included all C1 through C5 uses from an intensity standpoint as well as from a height standpoint. 1989 the C4 -- height for C4 was 100 feet. It got reduced sometime after the Fifth Third Bank building got built down to 75 feet. So since -- you know, since 1989 and that other change, you could have expected 75-foot-tall buildings on this piece of property based upon the Growth Management Plan, and you could have expected commercial uses from C1 through C5. You could have expected residential density at 16 units per acre. You could have expected -- I'll use the term double dipping in activity centers, and that means you don't take out the acreage that you dedicate to commercial when you're calculating your residential density. So this is where you're supposed to have the most intense mixed-use projects within Collier County. And they were originally intended to be a mixture of residential and commercial. Up until recently, most activity centers had been commercial. If you look at the major quadrants, you usually find them at the corners of major roads, like Pine Ridge Road and Airport Road. You'll note that those four quadrants developed all as commercial. The goal was to have that be a mixture. And now you're seeing -- as commercial's changing in the world, you're seeing people come back and amend commercial PUDs to go to what was originally intended with a mixture of residential and commercial in those activity centers. So we're actually -- that's what was intended since 1989, and I think that everybody who owns property in Collier County since then should have expected high-intensity commercial, high-intensity residential with a height expectation of up to now 75 feet because C4 is an allowed use under activity centers. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. We saw some recent correspondence to indicate that an accord of sorts has been reached with the governing -- or not the governing body, but the neighborhood association in Tuscany. Have there also been conversations with the folks in Bent Creek? MR. YOVANOVICH: We've had -- the only conversations we've had with Bent Creek, and correct me if I'm wrong, is you heard Mr. Caldwell who -- he spoke at the meeting the last time. He's with the developer of Bent Creek. And, basically, he just -- I think he said he was okay with what was being proposed as long as the setback that we provide to Tuscany Cove was consistent, and he wanted to make sure that the interconnection was a private interconnection, so we've had those conversations with the developer. We have not had -- we've obviously seen correspondence from individual residents, and I spoke 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 8 of 91 to a few of those residents at the last meeting. But that's the extent of the conversations with Bent Creek. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate to ask if there are any representatives from Bent Creek today who plan on speaking? Could I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. I mean -- you want to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Show of hands. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just would like to have public speakers later. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to see -- would those of you who are from Bent Creek and plan to speak today, would you mind raising your hands. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I haven't signed in yet. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You plan to speak? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can't have conversation from the audience. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do I need to fill something out? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's not necessary, sir. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Let's see. Then those are the extent of the questions I have about the activity center and even, I think, compatibility except for the fact of compatibility issues that arise with regard to traffic, and I remain very concerned about that. And I'm not sure there's much of anything that can be done about it under the circumstances, but it is very troublesome to me even with accords that have been reached that the traffic that is expected on this segment -- I believe it's 43.2. And I understand that that's a one-way number of 188 peak hour trips. It's going to be almost completely eaten up by this project. And traffic there, as everyone knows, is burdensome already, and it's going to get worse. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it remains a very troublesome thing to me. Now, I understand about flyovers and other points, but I'd be remiss in not expressing my remaining concerns. MR. YOVANOVICH: If I -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I address the concern? And, obviously, I have a feeling that Mr. Trebilcock will get up here and speak a little bit about traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think what we'll all do, though, is go through everything but traffic first, then when Norm comes up -- because I, too, have a lot of traffic questions. We can get them all done at one segment. We can be here for three or four hours talking about traffic. Just kidding, Norm. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Fryer, I think what is important to remember is we're getting to where Collier County ultimately was going to be from a growth standpoint, and the Comprehensive Plan was identified and set up to have these commercial nodes to serve people who were on the roads. And, in fact, I believe, and I'm sure Mr. Trebilcock will say this, is that this commercial project will actually capture trips that are already on the road and are really not generators of traffic. They capture traffic that's already on the road going somewhere for these services. So -- and this is what was intended to happen through the Comprehensive Plan. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not laying any blame for this on your client. MR. YOVANOVICH: But if I can, we have become -- and I've lived here almost 30 years. We got very spoiled when we all -- a lot of us first got here. The road system, we didn't have as many people, and you could get from Point A to Point B very quickly. We have an adopted level of service in our Comprehensive Plan, and that's what things are measured by, understanding that eventually people are going to come to Collier County, and we're going to fill up, and the roads are going to operate at the adopted level of service, and that's where we are getting to that point. So the Growth Management Plan has, in fact, come to fruition. And, yes, it takes a little bit longer to get from Point A to Point B, but that was understood when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and we knew people were going to come to Collier County. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 9 of 91 We are not causing any failures to the transportation system through this project. I'm not telling you we won't have traffic, and I'm not telling you it already takes time to get from Point A to Point B out east, but these types of developments will actually shorten trips. And if the Rural Lands Stewardship Area program ever gets to come to fruition like it was originally designed, it would actually change some of the transportation patterns. But right now we're consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and that's -- and your Land Development Code and concurrency, and that's the measure. And, yes, it takes longer to get from Point A to Point B, no question, but we meet the rules and regulations that are in effect. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. I think we're all relying hopefully that the concept of reducing net traffic as a result of interconnected activity centers will come to pass, but I don't think we know that. I think we're at the hopeful point. Chairman, should I reserve my remaining traffic questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you don't mind. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, not at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some, too, and we'll have that as a separate segment. And during that questioning on traffic, I think there is opportunities, based on prior consistency issues that we've done before you got on the Planning Commission and most of the others, for phasing projects that have difficult traffic issues. We might want to consider that discussion when the traffic comes up, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll reserve those questions. I still have a few more on other issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. In the NIM, is the gentleman's name pronounced Genson, Mr. Genson? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is Genson. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Genson, Thank you. Mr. Genson referred to the project as a long-term hold Class A development. He cited Creekside Corners as an example of what it will likely resemble in some respects. He then said that they had gone above and beyond what Collier County requires from a code perspective, I guess, in the case of Creekside. Could you or could your client identify some specifics of how you went above and beyond the county requirements on Creekside and, most particularly, how you might be going above and beyond the requirements for Baumgarten. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I don't know where Mr. Genson went. He was here a moment ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, there are other questions, and maybe we can move -- and I know if he's the one who made the statement -- MR. YOVANOVICH: He made the statement, so I'd like -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I imagine he's just out in the hall. You know, we talk about him, and he comes in. I don't know if he heard Ned's -- you may have to repeat the question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll be glad to, sure. Mr. Genson, I was reading the transcript of the NIM, and I noticed some comments that you made that I wanted to ask a little bit about. You referred to this project as a long-term hold Class A development, which, of course, is encouraging to hear. You also cited Creekside Corners as an example of what this will likely resemble, I think, in some respects. I guess Creekside is not residential, though. It's all commercial, correct? MR. GENSON: For the record, David Genson with Barron Collier Companies. No, Creekside is primarily commercial and industrial. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, okay, okay. But it's not residential? MR. GENSON: It's not residential. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood, thank you. All right. Then you went on to say that in 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 10 of 91 the case of Creekside, your company went above and beyond what Collier County requires from a code perspective. And I'd like to ask you in what specific respects that happened in Creekside and then, most particularly, most importantly, how you would be going above and beyond the county requirements in the Baumgarten project. MR. GENSON: Well, we -- Barron Collier's been here for over a hundred years, and we intend to be here for another hundred years and longer. We pride ours on quality jobs that we do, and we go above and beyond on most of our projects with respect to the construction, the quality of the construction, just because that's who we are, and that's who we've always been. And so the county has their own requirements through the LDC, and we make sure that we meet those, and then we go above and beyond because we -- that's our method to keeping this county as beautiful as it should be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand the general concept. You're to be commended for it. But my question is, could you be a little more specific about how you went above and beyond on Creekside and whether in those same particular ways you're going to go above and beyond with this project. MR. GENSON: Well, I can't testify to exactly how that is, but we're going to maintain controls on anything that gets built out there to make sure that it's up to our standards. So I don't have specific items at this point in time that we can say, how that's going to happen, but I commit to you that this will be a top-quality development; that both Barron Collier and our partner, Metro Commercial, who's here, have committed to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I just wanted to know if you were prepared to offer any more -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If I can, Mr. Fryer, for example, on this particular project, a setback of 105 feet residential to residential I guarantee you is above and beyond probably any project that I've been involved in, but I know it's well above what the code requires, as I pointed out at the last meeting what the minimum setback would be if we followed the Land Development Code straight zoning to straight zoning. That's an example. We've worked with our -- we've worked with our neighbors to make sure that the site plan, or the master plan, if you will, is comparable and first-rate quality. We did the same thing at Creekside. We spent a lot of time in that Creekside process working with both representatives, and I think Mr. Pritt was involved in that one as well. We worked with our neighbors to talk about uses that could be on the property, height, setbacks; things like that we did both at Creekside and we've done here, and those are both projects that, you know, Barron Collier was involved in. So those are examples of going above and beyond the minimum required by the LDC that we did there and that we're doing here as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do take your point on the 105 feet, and I think that is very helpful. I guess I was looking for whether the developer would be in a position to make some more specific comments about building materials and the like. If not, I can move on. I just wanted to see if that was the case. MR. YOVANOVICH: Building materials? I'm confused. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, you know, when expressions are used like "first rate" or, you know, "A level," I'd like to know if there are any specifics that could be added to that. And if not, it's not essential that you do. I was just asking. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It's the quality of the tenants and the occupants of the property, the quality of the apartment developer, things like that that I would say are, you know, first rate. That's what we intended. Your code doesn't dictate that. We just meet that level of standard in what we do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When the time comes -- and I realize this is not the time -- will the developer be willing to make commitments about, for instance, length of leases and the level of vetting 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 11 of 91 that will be put into any rentals? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we talk about those -- we can talk about that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. All right. And it's my understanding that these will be four-story buildings. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And what about Creekside? Are they four-story there? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, Creekside has no residential. That's where Arthrex is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm slightly taller than four stories for the Arthrex building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Yeah, I understand. Okay. Also in the NIM it was mentioned -- a question was asked about whether there was a specific plan to put in a parking garage, and I don't think there was any -- well, Mr. Arnold said, "I don't think there's anything that would exclude us from doing it." I was wondering, have plans evolved on a parking garage? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have -- at this point there are no plans for a parking garage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: One way or the other? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct, but we don't have -- we're not leaning towards putting a parking garage there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And those are all the questions I have except for traffic, Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I know some of you are waiting for Ned and I to finish our questions. Does anybody have any questions they'd like to interject at this time? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to clarify. And Dave Week's not here. From a standpoint of activity centers, Mr. Yovanovich explained it. But from my experience with the county, the purpose of the activity centers was to make sure that we consolidated commercial development to avoid the development of strip malls all long the streets, and that was the purpose of the reason for -- the Comp Plan identified activity centers so that they would become the focal point of development. And I don't know if the staff wants to reiterate on that, but that was the whole genesis behind -- Dave Weeks is here. I didn't see him. Dave, I think for the record -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is anybody questioning that, though? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ned did. I don't know -- did you get your answer on activity centers? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe I did, yeah. Just to reiterate, I don't think we know for sure that the concept applies, but I do understand what the planning goals were, and we all hope that they are achieved, that it does result in a net reduction. So that's -- my questions were satisfactory. Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I just -- Mr. Fryer, I also listed at our last meeting all of the -- and I get, they're above-and-beyond commitments we make related to transportation on this project. I just want that to be part of the answer to what are we doing above and beyond. Like we're accepting water management from the road system, we're dedicating right -of-way related to the road system. I know that goes to probably transportation-related questions, but it also it relevant to the above-and-beyond comment related to the code. And I spoke about it at the last meeting. I won't reiterate them, but I just want that to be part of the answer. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. And it's fair for you to bring those up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The chain-link fence, I see one in the videos that's already there. Is that your -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 12 of 91 MR. YOVANOVICH: It's on our property, and that ultimately will go away. So the entire length of the chain-link fence will go away. It will be replaced with certain strategically placed lengths of chain-link fence. And don't forget that there's going to be the enhanced buffer along that south property line together with the, you know, average 100-foot-wide lakes on the south boundary as well as on the east boundary. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And what about the Bent Creek side? There's nothing? No wall. They're closer to the property -- the homes are closer to the property than Tuscany Cove's homes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's nothing there? No wall? No fence? MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know what they have on their side to be honest with you. I'll have to check with Mr. Genson on that, but... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And you're going to have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We have not been asked by the developer of Tuscany Cove to provide any additional walls or fences along that boundary. I don't know what they have planned as part of their development, but we've not been asked for that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: And there will be a specific dedication for them to interconnect? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, both -- if you look on the master plan -- and this is confusing -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I see that's potential arrows. MR. YOVANOVICH: We clearly -- Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek both have the opportunity to interconnect. I'm fairly certain Tuscany Cove is going to take advantage of that interconnection. I don't know if Bent Creek will or will not. We've made that available to them if they want to do that, and we hope that they will. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It sounded like they were looking forward to it at our last meeting. MR. YOVANOVICH: And it's there. It's absolutely there for them to do it. I, unfortunately, know through past experience, there's some people in communities that like the interconnection and some that don't, and that community itself will ultimately have to decide whether it wants to make that physical connection. I thought the only hang-up for Bent Creek was making sure it was gated, and they can clearly do that. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hey, Rich. A couple issues that were brought up last meeting. I'm not sure that the answers were explained or perhaps I missed them, so I wanted to revisit them. There was question whether the interconnection to Bent Creek actually aligned up with the stub-out that they had created. Could you clarify that, please. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I think people got confused. Everybody keeps seeing this highlighted roadway, and you'll note it doesn't go all the way to their property line. That really just brings internal access to that last outparcel. The actual connection will be down here where my finger is. COMMISSIONER FRY: I believe someone from Bent Creek spoke to the effect that their interconnection stub-out was actually intersecting your lake below. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's just above the lake. It's right where my finger is. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it does line up? MR. YOVANOVICH: It does line up. I think, again, people were so focused on that other road thinking that that was the interconnection, but it does line up with where they have open area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Another question was that the boundary of the activity center originally was more of a square in the corner, and it was redistributed and re-drawn as part of this process. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was the answer to how that -- what was the process to actually redraw 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 13 of 91 that activity center boundary? MR. YOVANOVICH: The Growth Management Plan specifically refers to the ability to redraw those lines, and the way you do that is through this PUD process. The same process was used for Mercato. So you go through the PUD process to do the reconfiguration. You do not do a Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So that's all part of this process what we're reviewing today. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right now. COMMISSIONER FRY: This may be a question for staff. The intersection of Immokalee and Livingston, is that an activity center corner? MR. YOVANOVICH: It is not. COMMISSIONER FRY: It is not, okay. I brought that up because that would be, I think, a great concern to all of us if we could imagine those four -- we have with the Oakes market, but other than that, you have a development on the one corner but I think two empty lots for the most part on the other corners would potentially add a lot of traffic to that corridor, which we know is already pressed. So I wanted to clarify that for everyone. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually, on that northwest side, you've got the new and future parking lot for Seed to Table, which will hold about 200-plus cars, Seed to Table on the northeast, and then on the southeast you've got that apartment complex. So that leaves the southwest, I think, still available, if I'm not mistaken. COMMISSIONER FRY: But it's not classified as an activity center -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, there's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: -- for the same density of development. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- a lot of areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's start with the 102-page supplemental report, then we'll go back to the one from last week that was 583 pages. If we go to the table that we started talking about on Page 11 of that report, you have a minimum PUD boundary setback, and you've changed from 50 to 105 feet, and that goes to the benefit of both Bent Creek and Tuscany. But if you look to the south, the bottom of that page, you'll see accessory structures, and it is an Asterisk 6, and it says, minimum PUD boundary setback 15 feet. So that means the elements in Asterisk 6 or any other unlisted potential accessory structure could be 15 feet off those two property lines; at least that's how I'm seeing it reads. And No. 6 includes community structures such as guardhouses, gatehouses, fences, walls, columns, decorative architectural features, streetscape, passive parks, and access control structures. They all have no required setback except as listed below and are permitted throughout the R designated areas of the PUD. So they would be 15 feet from the PUD boundary, no setbacks from other lines. But that's -- that doesn't -- I'm not sure that's in concert with what the Tuscany and Bent Creek people expected when they were told they had 105-foot setback. So maybe we can clarify that a bit so we know what everybody's doing with those accessory structures. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. I do believe that this footnote is consistent because, obviously, access gates and things like that are going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What about dumpsters? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, that -- I don't see that as a structure, but we can certainly clarify that, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's an accessory. I mean -- and maybe Ray can clarify that, too. Is dumpster enclosures and dumpsters accessories to -- or are they stand-alone uses? MR. BELLOWS: Those are accessory uses. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 14 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the kind of stuff I was worried about. And I don't see it listed there, and it's kind of like a blank, and I thought we'd catch it while we were discussing this. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, we're fine with that. Obviously, we didn't intend to put a dumpster within 105 feet of that area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I think before the meeting's over, I know Wayne's your planner. Maybe he could figure out some language that would address how accessory structures would be handled in that 105 square (sic) feet prior to the public speaking. That way the Tuscany's representatives know what's going on with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you go to the master plan, I note that you -- and could you put the -- you had a plan up there a minute ago, a master plan with some green coloring in the corner, okay. Now, that is the platted layout of the Bent Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the residential units up to where the southern part of that road stops have got the 105 setback. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But north of that road you have an MU tract which contains uses including residential of anything from C1 through C5, and they can go up to whatever heights you have. How far is the setback for the MU tract, that one MU tract, from the boundary line to the east to Bent Creek? Because you've got some unit lots on that radius that are not set back the full depth of the green area. They're set back on the narrower part of it, and I'm just trying to understand how those people will be covered by what you're proposing. MR. YOVANOVICH: It is 50 feet -- I'm looking right now. I found it. It's on the -- it's on the table, and it's 50 feet for principal and 15 feet for accessory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's if you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's if it's developed as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As residential. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- actually commercial. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Commercial. MR. YOVANOVICH: And then when you go -- yes, that's the MU tract. The MU tract is -- that's the development standard for the MU tract. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So your accessory structures there could go 15 feet, and if it's a commercial tract, a commercial structure, it would be 50 feet. But at 15 feet, you, again, have got the issue with the noise -- the dumpsters wake people up at 6 o'clock in the morning, and I'm just -- those are some of the issues that become problematic. Also, you have a restriction on noise limitations. Well, the project across the street from you is Heritage Bay, and there is a -- I don't know if it's a cafe, nightclub. I don't know what it's called. I think it's called Pelican Larry's, but I don't know what it does. When it first opened up, there was a lot of concerns over noise from that. And this MU tract could have those kind of uses on it. Would you be willing to consider a reduction in the type of uses that would go in that MU tract so we don't -- or extending the noise provisions up to that particular tract so the people -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Are you talking -- I just want to make sure I understand. So you're talking about the MU tract immediately adjacent to the green? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sure we can work through that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then, before this meeting's over, those are things we need to work out. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 15 of 91 MR. YOVANOVICH: Sure, of course. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And let me make a note of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: So you're talking about restrictions like to outdoor amplified music on that tract, because that's the issue with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the biggest issue, yeah, and then your setbacks for accessory on that tract. Then on that same master -- and the master plan over on the left-hand side. And I'm not sure why. I thought -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Go back to this one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure, the most latest one. You see where it says "conceptual stormwater outfall location to Collier Boulevard canal"? That same notation was put on the previous master plan, but it was up to where the first R is to the right on another lake location. And it's no problem moving those. They don't make noise. They're quiet. But that location's going to have to be reviewed and dedicated by our Stormwater Management Department and, most likely, South Florida Water Management. We don't typically put these in master plans. Did you guys require this on there? MR. YOVANOVICH: We were requested to put that on the master plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not a good idea, because just the change you just made, you'd be back in for a minor change to a master plan which was silly because it's an agency requirement. So let's just take off and not include conceptual stormwater outfall locations. Those are by regulation. It doesn't really matter where they go as long as they meet regulations. Coinciding with that, Footnote 3 on the following page, again, it refers to PUD will outfall stormwater to the Collier drainage canal. It doesn't matter where it goes as long as it meets the regulations. And you may find there's a better location than that or however else you want to do it. So, again, I would suggest that for staff's future use -- we had this issue come up a while back. I guess it got forgotten. But let's just keep the stormwater stuff off the master plans. They're for Site Development Plans. MR. BELLOWS: I'm sorry. I missed the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't a question. It was a statement. Nancy heard it. Now, if we go to the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, can I go backwards for a moment on the noise issue or the sound issue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Genson reminded me, we already have a provision in the special conditions regarding that. I just want to know if it's acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know there is one in the new special conditions. MR. YOVANOVICH: It was actually an old Special Condition B for commercial uses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I've got to get to it. What page is that? MR. YOVANOVICH: Nineteen of 19. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, boy. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't know under your fancy -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I get every -- we have three different ways of distributing these documents. Mine comes in a 102-page PDF. I've found it now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. So if you see Special Condition B it talks about -- we can't even have outdoor music and televisions within 500 feet of either the southern or eastern PUD boundaries. So I'm hopeful that that addresses that concern. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you go one step further and just simply agree not to put an eating or drinking establishment in that particular MU site? That would keep it away from the neighbors, and we won't run into the same problem we've had in other projects with outdoor seating, noise. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 16 of 91 MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll put that on the list of things to talk about, and before the public speakers, we'll come back and tell you yes or no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That would -- MR. YOVANOVICH: If that's okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would set everything back so that Bent Creek's not disturbed by any of that. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Sorry to go backwards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I go backwards every single day of my life anymore. Now let's go back to the regular -- the document that was presented to us last time, 583 pages, and I'm going to start with Page 7 of the staff report. This isn't really a traffic issue. It's a question on how we're supposed to handle it. The traffic was conditioned -- the traffic review was conditioned on the following: The companion developer agreement is required to be approved with this rezoning request. And I know the Board actually finalizes any rezoning, and I'm just wondering between us and the Board, is there proposed language that would tell us what this agreement's basic outlines are so we can include that as a stipulation? We need to know what they're going to see, and usually those are -- they are supposed to come to us. I don't know how, again, this goes forward and gets processed and that's not included in the packet when it says it should be. So somehow that's another issue I wish was resolved before today. MR. YOVANOVICH: We have talked to Ms. Scott about the business points of a developer agreement which I had gone through at the last meeting regarding giving right-of-way to the county: Traffic signal on 951, accepting the water runoff from the future overpass. Those were the things we talked about. Those were the business points that I know Mr. Klatzkow is working with Ms. Scott to get that on so that both items are heard, both the PUD and the developer agreement are heard on the same Board of County Commissioners' agenda. The reason we do this through the developer agreement instead of putting them in the PUD, because if there becomes a reason to tweak some of those conditions, you can amend an agreement much easier than going through the process of amending a PUD. So that's why you do them separate from the PUD. It was always my understanding that they would catch up at the Board level since, in our opinion, we don't need to do any of these things to meet the code requirements. They're the above-and-beyond things I talked about last time, and we are hopeful that we could just have a condition that those items be in a DCA and that they get approved by the Board at the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and all I'm suggesting is that we ought to be told what they are. They could be conceptual stipulations based on final Board acceptance, and at least then we've reviewed them. And we can bring that up during the traffic point, but in order of the way these things were presented in our package, I wanted to make you aware of my concern on that issue. And also I'm not sure there's any necessarily difference in the way it could have been processed whether it was a developer agreement or in the PUD, but that's another argument for another day. MR. KLATZKOW: No, these things should be in a developer agreement. The developer agreement has nothing to do with the zoning on this property. As Richard stated, a lot of it has to do with water retention, getting the water off the overpass. I'm looking at the draft now. Access points. They're all non-zoning issues. And the problem is, we learned a hard lesson years ago; when you put these things in a PUD, when you need to make a minor change, you've got to go through an entire amended PUD process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can go through a PDI or -- MR. KLATZKOW: And it's a process rather than simply amending the developer agreement and going right to the Board. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Things like changes to traffic access points, though, are considered substantial changes in the code and my -- and that's the only thing I'd like to at least know -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 17 of 91 MR. KLATZKOW: You can condition your approval on seeing -- that's up to you guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I'm simply asking for at least an idea today when we get to Trinity's part of this, which is not now, we get a listing of what those are and we understand them to a point we can include them as -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I can read them. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's just wait. I'm just bringing stuff up. And when we get to the transportation section, we'll try to get into it. Unfortunately, everything was given to me in an order of 583 pages, and that's the only way I know how to follow it, so... I've got some questions of staff, so I'm going to sort those out -- we're not onto staff yet -- and just take a minute. In some of the uses you have -- and I understand you're allowed already by right by the code to go in with C1 through C5 subject to compatibility and consistency issues. And I've read through them all, and they stay within that range. I would like a cleanup on No. 107. They -- if you're going to do a self-storage, it's going to have to be indoor air conditioned. Do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: No issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Under the Page 7 of the PUD document -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The new one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, again, it's the old one, but I think -- you didn't change this section of it, so I'm still going by the old one. I can't retype everything every time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, I just want to get the right document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys change things. Under the residential section, you talk about the amenity area. Now, you didn't locate the amenity area, so it's going to be within a residential -- could be within a residential building. Is that what you're most likely going to do because -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than the swimming pool. Yeah, the swimming pool's not going to be within a building. But the current plan is, now, that your typical clubhouse, if you will, will be within one of the residential buildings. But we've accommodated the location with that 105-foot setback requirement for -- so, basically, you're not going to have an amenity area other than a walking path within 105 feet of either boundary. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the -- and I'm now going back to the new document so I can understand the two tables. In the old table you had -- well, you made some -- in the old table you had, from the southern project boundary, your principal and accessory uses that would be mixed use, that's -- well, that's the mixed use. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your amenity area was 50 feet. That's still back at 105 feet now, right? MR. YOVANOVICH: There will be no amenity area structures, which includes the pool, within that 105 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I'm moving through the pages, just so you know. The questions you've already answered I'm not going to, obviously, re-ask. I'm just trying to get past all those right now. One of the items that was in one of the responses by staff sent to you, it's a traffic item, but it's really a locational piece. Ms. Gundlach said, under Revision 1, provide a development commitment that acknowledges the potential future overpass interchange at the intersection of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard including no harm/future business damages to Collier County. Where is it located in the document? MR. YOVANOVICH: That is something that's being addressed in the developer agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that will be one of the bullet points that we're told -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 18 of 91 MR. YOVANOVICH: That is one of the bullet points that we addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. In the master plan, if you could pull it back up, you're going to be putting a signal lining up with the Pebblebrooke Plaza across the street with that southern piece. And I -- this is somewhat of a traffic issue, but I found the discussion -- a discussion of it in the NIM. The traffic coming in from the left off Immokalee Road into this project, if they still want to continue west to Immokalee Road, they have two choices. They can go back out the entrance they came in and go down to the Woodcrest and Quarry, I think it is, make a U-turn. By the way, traffic engineering is going to talk to us about the timing of that traffic light going in at Woodcrest and Quarry. There is one going in there. Alternatively, they can go down to the southern point, and they could go into that right lane to make a right out of your project. The problem is, they've got to cross -- they've got six lanes of traffic coming up there. And I drive that intersection quite often. You have three lanes going left from Collier onto Immokalee, you have a straight-through lane, and you have two right lanes. And I see you scowling, but I do have the aerial that shows that. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I'm trying to read. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm just wondering how much stacking you're going to be fitting on the project and this will -- I guess it's more of a traffic question then, because your throat length there is -- I don't know how long that is. But you're going to have traffic waiting to get through that intersection because there's stacking going on on the lanes going both north, left, and right. It, many times of the day, is backed up. And I'll ask Norm, then, how he's calculated that. I guess I got off onto what I didn't want to do, is traffic at this point, so... Bent Creek Preserve Homeowners Association, they sent a letter back dated April 5th, 2019. It was in the first packet. They asked about a wall. Have you worked it out as far as the 6-foot wall goes in your buffers between the two projects? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have not worked out a wall requirement for Bent Creek in our project. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The code in a Type B buffer does allow a wall. Are you -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It does not require a wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. How about at the MU site, since you're not going to have the 105-foot setback? That's a small site but, again, it does protect those houses that are going to be backing up on that green space that I think now is a cell tower or was. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. It's getting relocated, but that's still going to be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's not going to be a lot of protection there, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we put that on the list of we'll come back and address? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The association concurs with the county staff recommendation that the requirement of 50-foot setback plus one additional foot for each one-foot increase of building height above 50 feet. Accordingly, a 65-foot-high building will have a 65-foot setback. Is that consistent with what you've included now in your table of standards? MR. YOVANOVICH: Other than we don't agree that's what it needed for consistency. We have agreed to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- that 105. We're more than that. We're 105 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not in the MU, though. This one -- if you look at their letter, it says No. 3, mixed-use commercial land use adjacent to the Bent Creek Preserve. Exhibit B, development standards, shows a minimum yard from eastern project boundary of 50 feet. Association concurs with county staff recommendation, the requirement of 50-foot setback plus one is what they're looking for. Are you saying -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 19 of 91 MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm just -- Mr. Strain, I'm not -- which association? Was this the association -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bent Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: Bent Creek. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only MU adjacent to a neighbor is at Bent Creek. MR. YOVANOVICH: I didn't know if you were talking about the Tuscany Cove association comment, because they didn't agree that that was enough. So they would like us to be 50 feet plus one foot for everything over 50 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For that one MU, small MU site. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's not an issue for us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. My remaining questions will be for traffic. And just so you know, my thoughts on this is that you've got a lot of square footage, all of which, if it hit the road at the same time, would be problematic. I'm looking to consider somehow phasing. As you might recall, you were the representative at the time back when Vanderbilt -- it's now called Vanderbilt Commons. I have no idea. I think it was Carolina Village way back in the day. But we did phase that project, and it had something to do with the six-laning of Collier Boulevard and Vanderbilt Beach extension. And I want to talk about that after we hear the traffic responses for having Vanderbilt extension completed out to -- whether it's Everglades Boulevard -- I think it's Everglades Boulevard will be the first -- or Wilson, where they hit Wilson, because that will alleviate -- that is supposed to alleviate -- and I think Trinity's going to talk about that during the traffic discussion, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: If my memory is correct on that one, there was a phasing for some of the footage, and it had to do with a time-certain as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had a -- it would either be X but not later than Y in case the road improvement wasn't done because there was a challenge to a permit or something like that. Is that the same concept? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it was anticipated at the completion date, I think, at the time that they were using in our Transportation Department, and I would expect a similar situation. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But that will be where some of the concern's going to go in talking with the traffic. MR. YOVANOVICH: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that takes me to the end of my issues except for traffic, and I -- if you don't mind, we'll entertain -- Norm will entertain us for a while. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Norm. We see you here often lately. MR. TREBILCOCK: Good morning. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned's going to start with his questions, and we'll go back to the other board members, and then mine. And I know you really like us to understand what you're saying, but we -- sometimes if you can just be as succinct as possible, it would help, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, it's all yours. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. The trip cap, could you walk us through, again, how that was calculated? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. So what we did is we looked at a couple scenarios, of land-use scenarios, and so we utilize one particular one where we had less total square footage but is more intense uses. And we had the residential hotel uses, and that came up to the 1,159. We had another scenario where we were maxing out the square footage of total uses, and that was 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 20 of 91 a bit less. But it's fairly close; it was 1,058. So it was 100 vehicles per hour difference between the two. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the validation of that going forward will be based upon the ITE rather than the actual -- an actual traffic count; is that correct? MR. TREBILCOCK: We utilize the ITE standard as really most all communities in Florida use, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Why wouldn't we, though, run an actual traffic count at peak time to see what's really going on rather than rely on a more generic study? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, when you're planning the development, you don't have the development there, you know. So what we're doing when we do developments and we do Site Development Plans, we can't base it on what's there because it hasn't been built yet. Then we rely on the ITE numbers. Now, for the background traffic, to your point, Collier County maintains an annual traffic database of what the peaks are. So that really trues things up in the system, and then they use their trip bank, too. But all traffic professionals, we rely on the Institute of Transportation Engineers as the standard for transportation. Every community I've worked in in this area in the last 29-plus years relies on ITE. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And is it the ITE -- a change to the ITE that brought about a situation where traffic generated by an apartment dweller is deemed to be the same as that generated by a condo owner? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. They did change that approach. And, you're right, whenever we -- about every, say, four to eight years they'll update the trip generation manual, and in that case you're exactly right. And so for this project, too, I kind of questioned it, too, quite frankly. And conservatively in our traffic analysis, I use low-rise, which is a higher trip generator, although this is a mid-rise project, and we also did local trip -- we did a study of a couple of local apartment projects and, in fact, the analysis I used is actually a higher trip generation using the ITE low-rise than, in fact, what our experience is here locally on the projects I analyze. And I believe I provided that information to you-all. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Now, going back to trip cap, was it 2,259; is that the number? MR. TREBILCOCK: 1,159 peak p.m. trips two-way. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And five years from now, how specifically will your compliance with -- or the actual traffic conditions be measured against that trip cap? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay, yes. So as we do Site Development Plans or platting plans, Collier County staff will review those plans and also do an accounting. Each time we do a traffic study for a new development, we'll account for what prior approvals were in place. And, in addition, again we'll use the updated background traffic that the county has to true things up as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The AUIR? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that is based upon actual traffic counts, isn't it? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What continues to be bothersome for me or create concerns is in the Florida Statute 163.3164, Sub 9, defines compatibility, and it's pretty generous in terms of, I think, flexibility for developers, but you may be walking right up to the limits of it here. It says, compatibility is defined as a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by another condition. And so ordinarily -- and I think the statute is correct, compatibility is not so much an affirmative test. It is the absence of a negative test. But the more you encroach upon the upper limits of traffic, it seems to me, the more that this definition of compatibility gets called into question. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 21 of 91 And so I find that to be a worrisome point. Do you have any comment to that? MR. TREBILCOCK: No, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I do. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does Mr. Yovanovich want to comment on it? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll let me. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Of course. MR. YOVANOVICH: If you'll -- Mr. Fryer, if you'll remember, I took you through all of the statutes dealing with 163 and the requirement that the Land Development Code and the county regulations that you adopt have to assure compatibility. So I would say that you don't have a problem with compatibility until you exceed the adopted standards. So that's the measure, because all the county land development regulations are required to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the statutes I took you through, and I could pull back out my binder. We went through that. All of those statutes require that the Land Development Codes assure compatibility. So I would say that you don't cross the line on compatibility, as you just read it, until you exceed the adopted standards. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure I read it the same way, Mr. Yovanovich. It says, a condition that unduly negatively impacts directly or indirectly by another use or condition. And if the use that is being introduced is going to unduly negatively impact the use that exists at present, it seems to me you do raise a compatibility issue. You don't have to wait until conditions have -- well, for instance, that the AUIR shows that the segment is actually impaired. MR. YOVANOVICH: You can't read that statute out of the context of the regulatory scheme when you review -- this is all under the Growth Management provisions of the Florida Statutes. And that definition has to be read consistent with the provisions that we went through the last time. And I'll find my binder, and I'll take you through the statute that says all land development regulations that the county adopts are to assure compatibility as defined. MR. KLATZKOW: Except this is -- Richard, stop. This is a PUD, right? So you're not doing straight zoning and developing, straight zoning where, yes, by definition it's going to be compatible. This is a PUD. When a PUD -- the way we've constructed these things, it gives the developer an awful lot of opportunities to go well above and beyond what normal straight zoning would do. So, yes, compatibility is an essential element anytime you're looking at a PUD, because it's not straight zoning. You're not -- this is not C1 zoning where we know what uses you could do that you purchased, that the county then planned on so that the next door won't be unduly impacted. This is PUD zoning, all right. Now, I'm not entirely sure I understand where you're coming from as far as traffic goes, incompatibility, since this is an activity center, an intersection of two six-lane roads, quite frankly. But, no, compatibility is an issue here, and you can't just say, well, all you have to do is be in compliance with the LDC, and we're automatically compatible. I don't agree with that. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's okay. You're entitled to have your opinion, just like I'm entitled to have my opinion as to what the law says. MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but you're not testifying as to what this is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm asking. MR. KLATZKOW: If we could just stick with factual conversations here as to this rather than legal dissertations, I think we'd be better served. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's fine. I was just responding to a lawyer -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's just move on. Let's just move on. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That covers the general points that I had on traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before I start, does anybody have any other questions on traffic? (No response.) 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 22 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, in your report on Page 7, first of all, there's -- in my opinion of -- and I've been driving this county for 42 or 43 years -- we have two links that are really stressed, and one is Pine Ridge Road and the other is Immokalee Road. And we have two major east/west links that go all the way out east, and those are the two general ones. So I'm more concerned about anything that happens along Immokalee Road in regards to traffic, and I need a further explanation -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- so I'm going to be asking you how some of this fits together. And if we turn to Page 7, the third paragraph, you talk about pass-by trips in the last two sentences. And then the pass-by trips are at a 50 percent rate. Is that by ITE? And you're using a 25. Can you tell us how the pass-by trips are generated? For example, I live near here, and whatever services you have here, I may be interested in them, especially if you were to put a hardware store, which I understand you're not. But still, if I were to go there for a Starbucks, which there's one across the street, so I do go to that one a lot, I'm making a destination of that location. I'm not pass-by. So there's got to be a difference between how you can somehow figure that someone passing by is going there or someone like me is going there as a destination. Can you explain a little bit of that, and as briefly as possible. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. So there are ITE standards, and what Collier County does is through our guidelines we adopt local standards. And so to your point, there's certain uses that are considered -- would have a higher pass-by use, and Collier County establishes that. So what you identified was, like, the fast-food restaurants with drive-through, gasoline service stations, are allowed a maximum pass-by of 50 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Collier County? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, by Collier County's standards. And then the TIS guidelines also go on to say for the other uses we have to limit it to, like, a 25 percent -- let me see -- for shopping center, a 25 percent cap. So our standards lower the allowable threshold so it really creates higher external trips than, say, what, say, an ITE standard may be. So I just rely and use the Collier County standards. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the Collier County standard more conservative than the ITE standards? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes; yes, they are. Yes, they are. I don't have those specific numbers. But typically they'll vary, say, typically, we'll be in the 5, 10, even 15 percent range, and so Collier County is holding it lower by basically expressing that there will be more external trips than, in fact, we really feel they are necessarily through the ITE. But we use the county standards as a result. And then Collier County does have an overall -- like, for the internal capture they have an overall no more than 20 percent, and that's just a standard Collier County uses. Again, because what they want to try to do is make sure that we're conservative that, if anything, we'll err on the side of showing more trips than, in fact, actually happens. And, again, their annual true-up really helps govern, you know, things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: When you create a project like this that has limited access points, you're forcing people to use alternate movements. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In this particular case you've got a left-in for people going west. They can try to queue up, and this is another -- an issue of concern. They can go down to that south entrance, and they're going to have to sit at that entrance until the light changes and hope the traffic hasn't backed up past it, or they're going to have to sit there until the traffic breaks enough if they want to make a left on Immokalee Road to cross three lanes of active traffic to get there, and that right-turn lane is busy. As far as the queuing goes, I don't know how many lanes -- it looks like you've only got two lanes on that south access point. If you do that, one person making a left lane (sic), which will be probably 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 23 of 91 quite a few because I might be one of them at times, to get onto Collier Boulevard would back up all the right-turn people. So your stacking into that project could be to a point where most people now won't want to use it, which then will force them to go out to northern access points on Immokalee Road, and guess what they've got to do? They've got to go down to Woodcrest and add to hazardous situation in making U-turns in front of The Quarry. So can you tell me how you're handling that traffic flow at that southern entrance to make it a place where people want to go as an easier movement than going out and making a U-turn down the road on Immokalee? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. So you're saying the signalized access at -- I'm sorry at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pebblebrooke. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, okay, perfect. Yes. So we do make sure we -- especially when we're in the platting development and look to develop that signal, we'll get into more fine-grain detail, exactly what you're saying to make sure we have what we call adequate throat length, and even the southbound turn lanes as well to make sure they're adequate, and that's one of the things they've looked at. We've even provided some preliminary analysis for you on that, but we would make sure that -- and also, as you said, that we have the proper lane calls that we're going to have a right-turn lane, potentially a through lane, and a left-turn lane, and potentially that could be even combined as a dual left to exit the project. So we will look at that in more fine-grain detail. In this report, too, though, I did -- we did analyze, like, on Immokalee Road, to your point, the possibility of U-turn movements, and I did identify those at Bellaire Bay is potentially a left turn, and we did identify that we would foresee needing to extend that turn lane a bit. And that's the normal process, but we'll fine grain that, though, really, when we go to the development stage, and staff will get into that a lot more. But we conceptually have looked at that for everybody, and I believe we have adequate throat depth, but yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's not -- it's throat depth and lanes. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you commit to at least two left-turn lanes at that location? And that would help alleviate stacking both -- in both sections. Now, to the south, you've still got room before you get to your setback. The lanes aren't necessarily part of the setback. I think you can do it. I'm concerned about this board being constantly told, well, when the reviewers review it, they'll fix it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're not fixed. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The traffic's a mess. So I'd rather if we know some things could be improved here, why don't we look at them. I honestly think that that is important so that you're not forcing too much stacking and blocking of that exit onto Pebblebrooke or onto that Pebblebrooke entrance. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. I just want to make sure I'm clear what you're asking, then. It would be -- our westbound lefts would be potentially dual lefts? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, that way people using that to come in, shop, and then scoot back out or, if they're actually using it, to avoid the traffic light that's a mess at Immokalee and Collier. Regardless, you're going to have people using that entrance, and I think that left lane's going to actually be very useful. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. What I'd do, if it's okay -- because I do -- you know, the transportation operations folks really do a good job operating the signal system in the county. I can say that we can accommodate the duals if warranted, okay. But I don't want to overstate it is all. But I know we have enough room in there, and I'll double-check with our civil engineer, too. But we can 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 24 of 91 accommodate that. But I want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But see, your "if warranted" gets into the issue of what we're trying to -- what you're going to hear about right now. It's going to be ITE, which ITE is not set up for the state of Florida. So I'm real concerned about leaving it up to "if warranted." Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm very concerned about getting into site-development level detail at a rezone hearing when we don't have our plat in front of us, we don't have our Site Development Plan in front of us, we don't even know yet which users are or are not coming to the site. To commit to certain improvements that -- what happens if it turns out that we need to modify that because traffic engineers working for the county say what you committed to at the rezone is a bad commitment. Now I've got to come back, and I've got to amend a PUD. We don't do this at a PUD level. We talk about access points, and then we get into the finer details of site planning and platting for what's an appropriate throat, how many lefts do you need in or out of this project. I'm very concerned having to do this at a zoning-level hearing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you want to bring the Site Development Plan back to this board for review? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, I want to follow -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then how -- MR. YOVANOVICH: -- county regulations that have worked forever; that we allow a site-plan process that the professional engineers dictate what is the appropriate access improvements that are necessary for what the zoning approved. We don't do public vetting of Site Development Plans for a very good reason, is you have to have professionals with credentials review those materials. And no disrespect to the Board, I'm not sure, but a couple of you have actual engineering backgrounds to get into that level of detail to make those decisions. Your staff is -- they're the ones that have to make those decisions to make sure it works. And I don't want to make a commitment that I may regret because it sounded good today and then we come back and your professional engineers say you shouldn't have done it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm concerned about the fact everything's left in the hands of people as it goes past these boards, and we've got a road system now that is problematic on at least two main east/west roads, and I don't know how to fix it. So I'm trying to put in thoughts that would help it. You're not willing to go there. We'll deal with it before the meeting's over. Norm, if we move to the -- let me see -- the next pages. Let me get down to where -- oh, your trip distribution and assignment. It's on Page 9 of your report. You have Immokalee Road, Logan Boulevard to Collier Boulevard, which is one of the biggest areas of concern as far as capacity goes. I believe there's 188 trips left on there. Your distribution of project traffic came in at 30 percent, and because it came in at 30 percent, your westbound traffic is 175, which happens to be just 13 points lower than 188. That's really useful and convenient, but how did you come up with 30 percent? What guidelines gave you the right to make that as a decision versus 31 or 32 percent that might have kicked the westbound traffic up to close to the 188 or even breaching that threshold? MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. So two years ago when we started this project, we first meet with staff and do a methodology and come up with an estimate of the distribution of the project. And we provide that information, and we use our judgment on what the distribution would be without running all the numbers and stuff like that. And we certainly didn't have the 2018 AUIR in 2017. But we run -- we provide that to your staff, your staff reviews it, they will check it to make that it's a reasonable, rational assumption that had been made and makes sense, and then we'll run our numbers based on that. So that's how we -- the genesis of that, and then we run our analysis after that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So it's a question of staff. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. Yeah, it's in collaboration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you said -- so this is based on the 2017 AUIR? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 25 of 91 MR. TREBILCOCK: No. The -- well, yeah, the application is based on that. I did update some of my numbers using information from the 2018 AUIR. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is the 188 westbound 2018 or 2017? MR. TREBILCOCK: 2018. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 2018, okay. So the new AUIR, which comes out in a few months, could have already utilized some of that 188 downward, which means what in relationship to what you've got here today? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well, understand, too, please, that the AUIR had a trip bank of 992 trips there as well. So what you would see is that being utilized. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what's the 188 represent then? I keep hearing that number talked about. MR. TREBILCOCK: That would be the number above and beyond trip bank plus the estimated background traffic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the trip bank is not your project. The trip bank is other projects. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir, but that creates minor 188 available trips available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you would do is your traffic would be now lumped in with the trip bank or not -- MR. TREBILCOCK: It would be added to it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or do you displace the trip bank? Which one do you do? MR. TREBILCOCK: We do, but what your staff does is they'll what I call clean up the trip bank each year when they look at the AUIR, so they're looking at the actual traffic, and they also look at what's been absorbed in the system, and they adjust it accordingly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm going to dwell on that -- focus a little bit on that with stuff when they come up here. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 1,159 total trips -- MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- during peak hour; 30 percent of those are leaving during peak going west in this segment? So you've got, really, 348 leaving. Is that -- because on your table on Figure 2 on Page 10, you've got 30 percent traffic going west of Immokalee Road -- west of Collier Boulevard on Immokalee Road. I'm assuming that's the traffic from the project. And if you have 1,159 p.m. peak-hour trips, then wouldn't you be 30 percent of that? How do you calculate that? MR. TREBILCOCK: On Table 3, we show the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm on Figure 2, I'm sorry. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. Table 3 shows the eastbound versus the westbound coming out of the project. And so that would give you on that link, say, for Immokalee Road, the 173 trips is an eastbound volume, and then 175 is the westbound volume that we illustrate there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're taking both directions. So you've got a lot of -- okay. So that's how you figure it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah. We have to utilize the peak. That's why I'll make it in bold and underline it, because what we're doing is we're using the volume that gets added to your peak direction. So it, hopefully, would make some sense here. But we focus in on the peak direction of travel for your roadway network. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm fine. Have you checked out the stacking distances that you've got on Page 14 in regards to Tuscany Cove? You're going to have to have a 340-foot-long stacking length going south and a 315-foot-long on the left turn lane. Is that -- is there adequate area in that roadway to accommodate that kind of stacking? Has anybody looked at that? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 26 of 91 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yeah, that has, and what we did do is we were looking to trigger like, say, southbound at that location to actually go to duals even though we don't have the volume warranting. But because there is the length, we want to make sure we -- you know, to the point you made, concerns about the traffic stacking up, we want to make sure we can accommodate it. So we've master planned for that. But these are the kind of fine-grain details that we look at, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, may I follow up on your previous question -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- having to do with the trip cap and how it was calculated? 30 percent assigned to Segment 43.2. Was that 30 percent number suggested by you, Mr. Trebilcock, or by staff? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. What we do is we present an initial methodology that I did, again, two years ago for the project, and that's what was provided for them to review and make sure it's reasonable. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it was your recommendation? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And would you tell me again how you arrived at that? Why not 35 percent? MR. TREBILCOCK: Well. Again, we were just looking, using my judgment and experience in the area and just looked at how, you know, we felt the traffic would move and circulate and based on the entrances for the project as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On Table 7, Page 16 -- and we're probably going to have to break before I finish, but I don't have too many after the break. But on Table 7, there's level-of-service issues with intersections. What level of service is Immokalee and Collier? MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. So the Immokalee and Collier in the a.m., currently it's a C, and it's a D in the p.m. under 2018 conditions. In the projected project improvements without our project, it would still be a Level of Service D, and then with our project it would continue to be Level of Service D. There's just a range in delay per vehicle, so that would go up a little bit, because we'd still be within a Level of Service D. And that's illustrated on -- Table 8 that we provide has intersection levels of service 2018, and so that hopefully is helpful to you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I just -- I had gotten a -- I thought I got a different response when I asked that question, but they'll be back up. They'll be up here in a little bit, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm moving through the rest of my pages so I don't have to ask you things that you've already responded to, so... MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hopefully that will be most of it. MR. TREBILCOCK: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think it -- let's see. We'll take a break, and when you get back, I have just a little bit of time I need to talk with you about some of the ITE issues that I found, and then we'll go to staff or other members. We'll wrap it up. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. We'll take a break right now, and we'll come back at 10:45. We'll give the court reporter a 15-minute break. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ladies and gentlemen, if you'd please take your seats, we'll resume the meeting. And we left off with talking some traffic issues with Norm. Norm, I have one other issue. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 27 of 91 MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me elaborate on it a little bit, and then I'd just like your thought on it. It involves one I previously mentioned to you so you could be prepared. The ITE manual is based on a lot of data collected, and my understanding is it's collected from engineers and developers from projects they do throughout this country and Canada, and we use that as a basis to establish trip generation rates for the state of Florida. And I'm going to go through some examples, and one of these is like -- the simplest one is a mini warehouse. The sites that were surveyed were from 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. The states that were used were California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Texas, and Utah. The last I knew, those states are pretty cold, and they get a lot of snow. There was no Florida; no southern states there. My concern is -- and this is the same situation when we look at multifamily housing. Even in that category it says you ought to be looking at nearby development because it will affect trip generation rates, and then they go through 21 states that they went to and through the same time periods, including British Columbia, and there's only two southern states, Florida and Georgia. I went through and took a look at this for everyone, and then I looked at the times that the counts were done. They weren't consistent with our peak hour a.m. and p.m. times. And I'm wondering how you guys, as traffic engineers and even our county staff, can justify using a manual based on mostly counties and sections of this North American continent that are with snow six months a year or eight months a year. They don't probably have the tourism like we have here. They don't have the seasonal adjustments that we have here. Our -- we have a lot of longer permanent residency staying. And when people come down here for short periods of time, they hit the roads a lot harder because they're trying to see everything. I don't see how the ITE manual is tailored enough to the conditions we have in Collier County. It's not going to necessarily affect things today, but this has come up and come up, and we've looked for an explanation as to why our road system is problematic. And I will constantly now question the ITE manual until we find a solution to this, because it just doesn't seem like it's working for us. How do you justify all this putting -- especially, when the hours that they're using for their trip generations, for the most part, don't coincide with the peak hours that you're using in your analysis? MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. So the ITE is a standard that we all rely on as engineers, and it was -- you know, in the case that you said for the mini warehouse, it's not a specific Florida, but there is a reasonable sample size to use. I've done probably a good half dozen mini warehouse projects in Collier County and relied on this data for that, and, you know, I don't see mini warehouses as the evil for our area at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm looking at them all. That was the first one in order. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I was just reading them. I can read them all to you. They all are similar. MR. TREBILCOCK: And like you said, the multifamily, you know, quite frankly, I had the same question when ITE did the change from having a specific apartment to going to low, medium, and high-rise. And so we did, in fact, do a check of that, because I, similar to you, maybe had questioned it. And it's identified by ITE as a group, because these aren't things that -- you know, there's a 50-person committee that works on the ITE Trip Generation Manual, and they're all engineers, and they vary from development engineers to consulting and also public sector as well, so there's a consensus. And we did do that. And in other projects we've done that to, to your point. Like, sometimes there -- we'll question a value, and like, say, for auto sales, you know, we have luxury auto sales and so, in fact, Collier County did adopt a differential trip generation rate for luxury auto sales, and so we can do that when we see that there are problems. Again, it's my opinion and belief, like in the mini warehouse, that these are valid. I mean, I get 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 28 of 91 your point that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You keep -- and I'm sorry. The mini warehouse is not the crux of the issue. Again, that was the first one in order. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can go to any one of them, Norm -- you know what, I don't want to belabor the point, because it's not going to necessarily affect the outcome. What I was looking -- and I'm going to be exploring this further with staff. We need an alternative that's tailored to Florida then the ITE manual. I don't know if such a thing exists or it could be done, but our road system is not responding adequately based on ITE trip rates. That's what it boils down to in my opinion. MR. TREBILCOCK: But the only difference I would just suggest, that the -- this is data that provides you numbers to what we've projected the traffic to be. I think -- you know, you're certainly right, there's a bigger picture. And I think a big part of our community has responded to that even approving the one-cent sales tax to understand the need to construct the infrastructure that we need to do, because we do have a plan there that tells us what we need to do, and if we don't do that plan, then we're going to have -- suffer the consequences. You know, that's why we do a needs analysis and a financially feasible plan. And so we just need to make sure that we, in fact, construct that system. A lot of this system that we have in place was built many years ago with a lot of extra excess capacity and knew that we would fill it up. And so we're filling that system up and we need to continue on, but I can tell you the ITE is a valuable tool for all of us, for all of us professionals, because it is -- for the very fact that it is independent is relied upon by engineers throughout the state of Florida. ITE is not our problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Norm, I am going to respectfully disagree with you. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have to belabor that point. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other thing about the situation, we had asked a while back that all the uses you pick out of ITE be corresponding to the SIC uses that we use in our zoning code. MR. TREBILCOCK: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was probably after this started; is that a fair assumption? MR. TREBILCOCK: I believe -- I thought I had updated it to the SIC codes. Yes, I did. Table 1A I do identify the SIC codes, just some uses a varian (sic), you know, shopping center. It goes across a broad spectrum of SIC codes, so I identify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Because you do get to choose the SIC code. There's been -- there was one project, for example, where the choice was for recreational homes which generates a much lower ITE rate than its corresponding real use, which is similar to a timeshare, which is a much higher ITE rate. But if you use the recreational homes, which I don't even think we have a category for that. MR. TREBILCOCK: Sure. And what you're citing, that wasn't done in Collier County. I can tell you Collier County's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It's just that you do get to pick and choose, unfortunately. MR. TREBILCOCK: I don't, actually. What I do is I recommend, and your staff reviews it to make sure that it's reasonable and rational. It's not just, hey -- you know, and my goal in what I do is to look to be conservative, to generate, if anything, slightly higher than what's going to occur, and that's evidenced in how I did the multifamily, quite frankly, where I used low-rise, which is a higher trip generation. And it's not there to hurt the client or project or anything, but it's to have a balanced perspective. I mean, this is a community that I live in as well, so I want to do the best possible job. And I know our client does, and so they understand that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Norm. I appreciate it. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 29 of 91 Anybody else have any questions of Norm at this point? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Does staff want to come up and address some transportation issues if they're here, which I know they are, so... Good morning. MS. SCOTT: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, you've heard the discussion. There's a few points that I'd certainly like clarified, and that is how the 30 percent was accepted by staff as the right number; the stacking situation at the light that's going to occur; and the cross traffic abilities for that light at Pebblebrooke to function properly; and I understand the suggestion of a left -- dual left turn lanes may be problematic. I'd like to understand from you if you see it that way; and maybe some enlightenment about the ITE manual. Is there any options to that program? Because I would much -- I think Florida needs to see things tailored to Florida. We are getting the short end of the stick if we rely on seasonal states to provide data that we live with 12 months a year. So, anyway, would you mind? MS. SCOTT: Okay. I'll start with the distribution. For the record, Trinity Scott, transportation planning manager for Collier County. Norm is correct, as part of our Traffic Impact Statement guidelines we hold a methodology meeting with the applicant. They provide a distribution that is reviewed by our staff as well as we have an outside consultant who reviews the majority of our Traffic Impact Statements as well. And, by the way, I would be remiss by not stating that today I have with me Mike Sawyer, project manager from Transportation Planning, as well; Tom Ross from Jacobs Engineering, professional engineer who routinely reviews our Traffic Impact Statements; as well as Bill Gramer, also from Jacobs Engineering, who, for this particular project, reviewed some of the developer agreement business points as well as the traffic analysis, along with Mr. Ross -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you -- MS. SCOTT: -- for the intersection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll be able to give us those business points? I meant to -- MS. SCOTT: Yes. I have Reader's Digest to read into the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just out of curiosity, the firm that you -- is Jacobs? MS. SCOTT: Jacob's Engineering, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where are they out of? MS. SCOTT: They have a local office here, but they're an international firm. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have not heard the name. I've just -- usually I see everybody. MS. SCOTT: Formerly CH2MHill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, okay. That explains it. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: But they do -- in Collier County they do public-sector work, and so we utilize them for our TIS review as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: With regard to the distribution, for any project that comes forward, the distribution is presented to us as part of the methodology meeting; that is before we're looking at the AUIR. When this distribution came in, I believe it came in two years ago, so we're looking. And we just look to see if it's a logical representation of what we feel will occur with the traffic, if we concur or not. There are times when we've pushed back, not on this particular project, on other projects, where we have said -- you know, particularly when you get into low numbers, 5 or 10 percent doesn't seem reasonable. And so we will look at that. So before the applicant even starts the TIS, before we review the TIS, we look at that. We provide that concurrence before they proceed forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you ever get suspect when you see the numbers come so close? I 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 30 of 91 mean, 188's the cap. You trip that, you run into different scenarios, but 175's pretty close. Did that ring a bell with anybody to take a closer look at it, or is it -- MS. SCOTT: It wouldn't have at that point because we wouldn't even have that end data. We're just looking at the overall distribution at that point. And this was -- when this project started, it was started on an AUIR that was two years ago. And I didn't bring all of my AUIRs with me. I don't know what the trip -- what the available capacity was two years ago. I can look it up, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The conditions have gotten worse. MS. SCOTT: Correct. So it wouldn't have been as close two years ago when we were having this conversation as what we are now, because we do reevaluate it before we come to you to look. So with regard to the stacking: My only concern with regard to requiring a dual left -- and I understand where you're coming from -- is that depending upon the configuration of the intersection, it could -- depending on spacing, it may require different signal timing. And so from a county perspective, we want to be able to give as much green time as possible to that Collier Boulevard intersection to be able to clear that. That's our main road. And while I understand the dual left, that may mean that the left turns may not be able to go at the same time, which would then take green time away from the Collier Boulevard intersection. So I'm not saying that we won't necessarily get there, but that will be an analysis that's done when they're looking at that intersection, and that's with our Traffic Operations Department. Our Traffic Operations folks will ultimately be the ones who time this intersection and be responsible for it once it's constructed of timing it and coordinating it with the adjacent signals. So I would defer to the traffic operations staff and our chief engineer there, Tony Khawaja with regard to those specific lane calls. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I don't forget, so thank you. I'll remember we had this conversation when I try to get out of that shopping center. MS. SCOTT: Well, what I will tell you as you're trying to get out, there will be a signal box there, and if you have issues, you'll be able to call 252-5000, which you can at any signalized intersection today, and you'll talk with our Traffic Operations staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a recording, right? MS. SCOTT: After business hours, yes. I did call it over the weekend, I'll have you know, and left a message. With regard to the ITE options, ITE is the acceptable standard for us. It has the most data points that we have available. You and I have talked in the past, and we have discussed that it's the basis of our impact fee analysis, along with any local studies that we might have. If there is a specific land use that is giving this Planning Commission heartburn that you would like us to study, we can go out and do an individualized study to look at that. Understand though, to do that for all of the ITE manual, for all of the land uses, one, we may not find them in Florida. We may only have a few data points to be able to look at. So if there are certain land uses that you think may be off, we can certainly look at them, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Trinity, excuse me. Excuse me, Chairman. I think the Chairman's question was, are there any alternatives that are out there? MS. SCOTT: The acceptable standard for us -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not for you. MS. SCOTT: For -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are there any other alternatives to the -- MS. SCOTT: The majority of the professional industry is the ITE. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are there any other alternatives out there? MS. SCOTT: Not that I'm aware of. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 31 of 91 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: As I said, if there is a -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Trinity, I understand your question and your point. I think it's -- MS. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned is right. I just needed an answer on that. If you don't know of any, that's fine. You did suggest we look at alternatives for specific uses. And the use that comes in that's most common that seems the most -- and it's relied upon because it has a reduced trip generation, is shopping centers, but shopping centers have become part and parcel to gas stations with convenience stores and other big attractors more than a majority of middle attractors. If there was any that seems to be plaguing us more, I think it's these shopping centers at these intersections. And if someone were to ever consider looking at a separate number for how we would look at those, that might be one to consider. MS. SCOTT: Absolutely. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll move on. I wanted to make my point. I did. And we'll go from there, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? Could I ask? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Does the Federal Highway Administration have any sources that they use other than ITE? Does Norm know? MS. SCOTT: I can't think of any off the top of my head, and I've done a lot of research on it, based on the feedback that we've had, and I'm looking to my engineers in the back who aren't jumping up either, so... COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because I was Googling and finding things, and just was curious. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You were Googling during all this excitement. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Oh, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think I asked you this question unofficially, but I'd like to ask it publicly now. When and how often do you do followup traffic studies, traffic counts at projects once they're approved and implemented to compare the actual traffic generated by a project to what was predicted by the ITE manual? MS. SCOTT: So for specific traffics of going out and putting tubes across their driveways, the county does not do that. The county used to require the developers to do that back until the early 2000s. When a project would close out, the developer, the property owner would submit a closeout, if you will, that would have a comparison of their Traffic Impact Statement as well as what their actual traffic was. And I have found a few of those in our files from the early 2000s. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we have any data that would support the accuracy of the ITE kind of after the fact what's actually generated? MS. SCOTT: Not in recent years, other than with the Allura development as it came forward with the GMP amendment, the applicant did go out and do some analysis as well as with this one. I believe Norm did some analysis as well with regard to the condominium apartment that was included in your packet, so going out and counting actual Collier County and seeing how that compared to the ITE trip generation manual. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I'm also curious about the levels of service that we always are referencing. And we've got Immokalee, that segment is a D. It would be a D without this. It would be a D -- still slightly a D with this project. Can you just explain the definition of a Level of Service D and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 32 of 91 how -- a person that's actually driving the road, their experience of a Level of Service D, what it looks like. MS. SCOTT: And let me go back to, when we're assessing our level of service based on the Annual Update and Inventory Report, we are looking at the p.m. peak hour in the peak direction. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. The heaviest traffic possible on that segment. MS. SCOTT: Heaviest traffic possible on Immokalee Road, which would be, you know, 4 to 6 p.m. and going eastbound in that particular segment in this area. So that is your most congested time of the day. So a Level of Service D, you're going to have levels of congestion. You're going to have levels of delay. It's not a free flow like an A where you're, you know, just going probably above the speed limit just cruising along. You're experiencing some levels of delay, but it is not in a gridlock situation where you're not moving. COMMISSIONER FRY: So is that the definition of a failing road then, a level F? MS. SCOTT: A failing road is when the roadway exceeds the adopted capacity level. COMMISSIONER FRY: And so the driver experiences what when it -- MS. SCOTT: Significant delays. COMMISSIONER FRY: So significant delay, meaning instead of sitting through two cycles of a light, it might be three or four -- is there a definition as to what represents significant delay? MS. SCOTT: I'm going to look to my guys back here, see if there's a specific -- Tom Ross is going to come up and give me the specific definition. I'd Google it, but I don't have my computer up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ask Stan. He's got his running, obviously. MR. ROSS: Good morning. Tom Ross, for the record. Based on the Highway Capacity Manual, which is the adopted manual that everyone uses for evaluating capacity for intersections and for roadways -- and this is a nationally accepted document -- for intersections, the level of service is based on delay, so it's based on the amount of time, but there's also an evaluation for capacity as well. So every intersection approach, given the geometry, the number of lanes, has so much capacity and so much time to get that traffic through, and a lot of that is dependent upon the timings for that intersection. So the more time you have for a particular approach, of course, you can get more traffic through. As you have competition from the other approaches, you're splitting up that time. And so, of course, now the delays increase for each of the approaches. I can't speak to the exact time, number of seconds, average per vehicle. I believe it is somewhere around 55 seconds on average per vehicle is the overall level of service where it is considered failing when it gets beyond that. The other measure to determine whether or not an intersection fails is when the capacity overall for the intersection exceeds 100 percent. So in other words, if you have the capacity to serve -- now, I'm just going to give a random example. But if you have 3,000 cars entering an intersection within an hour and you actually have a demand for 3,100, you've now failed because you exceeded that capacity. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So there are no hard and fast standards for number of cycles or time specific -- 55 seconds, you can sit at a light under normal circumstances, and it can be two minutes for that cycle to happen. MR. ROSS: Yes, sir. That's considered an average. So, I mean, you've got to look at the total time and all the number of vehicles that come through an intersection. COMMISSIONER FRY: Right. MR. ROSS: So some vehicles may actually experience time that goes beyond that, but then there may be other vehicle that have much less delay. So it's figured out on the total overall average for all those vehicles, and that's how that's determined. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 33 of 91 COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Appreciate it. Trinity, one final question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm going to have a question for Mr. Ross, but -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Do you want me to answer -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: Trinity, one last one for you. MS. SCOTT: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: The 30 percent we've talked about was arrived at before we really knew the use of this -- the intended use of this project and any trip counts that might be generated by the project, correct? The 30 percent distribution that was allocated to that one segment that is so close to -- MS. SCOTT: Well -- and Mr. Sawyer just actually brought up some information from the prior AUIRs that I think will be helpful as well. When they come in for a methodology meeting, we have a general idea of what they're going to be doing with the project. They'll state, you know, X number of residential units, approximately this much square footage of these type of land uses, so we know that when we're having that methodology meeting, because it can certainly make a difference depending on land uses. So, yes, we have that information available. But what Mr. Sawyer provided to me was in the 2017 AUIR, that particular roadway segment had 635 remaining trips. So if they came in at 178, it wouldn't have been something that we would have said, hey, it's really close. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But it was established way back then, and now the trip counts have all been updated. MS. SCOTT: Trip counts have been updated, and you've also had a lot of development come online in that area. You've had Logan Landings open, the apartment complexes have come in, and those trips are banked, so that reduces that capacity in that area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Great, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Ross, the 30 percent number that was assigned to Segment 43.2, do you believe that was the right number to use? MR. ROSS: It seemed like a reasonable number at the time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you describe in a little more detail how you would arrive at that conclusion. MR. ROSS: Well, when you look at the surrounding land uses around this particular location and the development that's occurring and the proposed development that's going to occur further out, say, for east along Immokalee Road and further south along Collier, you look at an area that's getting built out fairly -- I wouldn't say exactly uniformly, but it is spreading out around from that location, so that when you look at a distribution that is relatively even pretty much in all directions, it's a very reasonable number. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. The standard that Ms. Scott mentioned, logical representation, is that the standard that you would use also to evaluate the recommendation from the developer as to assignment of numbers of trips in any of the particular four directions? MR. ROSS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It is? MR. ROSS: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have for you. MR. ROSS: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Oh, excuse me. You're local. You're familiar with the local conditions? MR. ROSS: I don't live here. I live in Orlando, but I've been down here a lot and have been studying this area and doing a lot of work for the county for a number of years, so I am quite familiar with 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 34 of 91 the conditions, yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: When you're engaged by the county for advice, would you ever consider actually, you know, putting those tubes down on the roads to determine the percentage and the actual numbers of cars? MR. ROSS: Well, in order to determine what a future development's going to occur (sic), it wouldn't be possible to do that because those trips aren't there yet so -- and counting what actual traffic is there, again, only tells you the current travel patterns and where that volume is on those particular links. So determining what a future development, which direction those vehicles are going to go, that's one measure, but a lot of the measures are basically what the adjacent and other uses are that those trips would be exchanging to. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's not only an estimate based upon current conditions, but it's also not related to anticipated future conditions? MR. ROSS: It is related to anticipated conditions as well as existing. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it's an estimate of existing on top of estimated future? MR. ROSS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You got quite a few of the points. I don't know if you had any more you wanted to discuss, but I still need the business points. And I would like you to tell us the time frame for the opening of the extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road to Wilson, the completion and functioning of the traffic signal proposed for the one here at Pebblebrooke, how that would be coordinated, and the traffic signal proposed for Woodcrest and The Quarry. I'd like those three time frames, if you don't mind. They will factor into a potential phasing request of the applicant. MS. SCOTT: Can we go back to the three time frames as well VBR extension, Immokalee Woodcrest, and what was the third one? I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one they're proposing at Pebblebrooke. How soon within the project's parameters are you going to require that light to go in? You know, that's going to be important to make sure that functions like it's supposed to. MS. SCOTT: Okay. There are a few other things, if I could get on the record, just as I was listening to the discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. SCOTT: So we've had a lot of discussion about the 188 trips. Remember, today when you are looking at this, you are looking at consistency. Consistency is different than concurrency. We do not bank their trips when the Board approves this development -- when the Board approves this PUD. Banking of trips does not occur until they come in for Site Development Plan approval or plat, and they receive a certificate of adequate public facility. So when we're looking at consistency purposes, we're looking at five years. In the next five years, will there be sufficient capacity for the roadway? Within the five-year area, we have the parallel roadway, Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, that I'll get into completion time frames, is anticipated to be completed in the next five years, and per our Capital Improvement Element, projects identified in Years 3, 4 and 5 of the schedule of capital improvements can't be relied on for committed capacity for concurrency but are considered for consistency when reviewing land-use applications for compliance with Section 5.1. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But the 2018 AUIR projects 188 remaining capacity, including the trip bank for people who have paid their impact fees, but it's also projecting that, not five years, but two years from now it's going to become deficient; 2021. MS. SCOTT: So -- but what I'm telling you is based on our guidelines and our rules and when we review, we are able to look at the five years and if an improvement will be in there within the five years from a consistency standpoint. Now, when they come in, Mr. McLean's group will get another bite at the transportation apple, if you will, and will look at it from a concurrency standpoint. And if there is not available capacity existing and there is -- I'm going to read from the Capital 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 35 of 91 Improvement Element -- projects identified in the first two years could then be utilized for concurrency standards. So they would be able to do that if it were within two years. And right now it's not; it's in the third year. So just to get that on the record. So we will have another opportunity to took at this. When this comes in at whatever point in the future, if there is not available capacity on that roadway and there is not an improvement identified that will increase that capacity within two years, they will have to wait until, or they'll be able to pay a proportionate share and pay and go forward. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They would have to wait, I get that. Would that be, in effect, a reduction of the trip cap? MS. SCOTT: No, it would not. They would -- understand, today is consistency. You are not banking those trips. Those trips are not being taken out of our checkbook until they come in for Site Development Plan or plat approval. Consistency only today. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'm sure that, as the expert that you are, that you're accurately reporting the standards that you use and the considerations, but I'm looking at myself, for instance, and others as motorists and the concerns that real motorists would have. There's an 1,159 trip cap. If in the 2019 AUIR we find that we've already blown this number, 174, '75 is not going to be enough, does the county have the authority to reduce the trip cap? MS. SCOTT: The trip cap would not be reduced in the PUD; however, there are provisions when they come in for Site Development Plan or plat, the actual development order to build something where there are provisions where they can pay their proportionate fair share and go. They could wait and proceed forward. So there is another stopgap measure that happens after the zoning application. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They could wait before they develop the property; is that what you mean? MS. SCOTT: Correct. Or they could pay their proportionate fair share and go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that, I think, needs a little clarification. So if we have a road that is within the five-year window for improvements but it's going to fail in two years and they hit that failing two-year point and they cause -- they can't go over that, but they can if they just provide some monetary payment. So you can buy your way out, basically, of a failed road segment if it's within the five years that it fails because you're allowed to proceed if you're on the books within a five-year window of the overall improvements. Is that what you're trying to tell us? MS. SCOTT: The state statute allows a developer to pay and go for the improvement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the pay and go means whatever monetary amount somebody figures out as a fix to the road, even though that fix can't happen instantaneously -- road work takes forever. So we would have to live with the failed segment for a certain period of time if that were the circumstance. MS. SCOTT: That is correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the piece I didn't understand. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have one more question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We talked a little bit -- Commissioner Fry's question was almost exactly what I was going to ask, but let me follow up on it a little bit having to do with policing mechanisms to look back and see if the trip cap has been exceeded. It's my understanding that in recent years there's been no attempt -- and I understand budget limitations, but there's been no attempt on the part of the county to look back and see whether the assumptions were made when these trip caps were approved were valid. You don't do actual trip counts? MS. SCOTT: We don't, and then that would -- that would pose the question of if they went over by five trips, am I going to tell them to tear down 5,000 or whatever -- 500 square foot of their building? It's based on the Traffic Impact Statement as it comes forward, and we require them to do it 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 36 of 91 cumulatively to show how they're stacking up. And if they choose a more intense -- because they have a menu, if you will, of land-use options, if they choose something that's more intense that's going to eat up more of that trip capacity, then they're not going to be able to build as much square footage. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I mentioned -- or I asked the question in the framework of recent past. Are you aware of any time in the history of county transportation current planning and current oversight that there has ever action taken against either a developer or a current owner if it turns out that the numbers have been exceeded? MS. SCOTT: No, sir. That -- to my knowledge, that has never occurred. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Trinity, I think we left off on -- MS. SCOTT: Business points and some time frames. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Phasing. Phasing, you said it's within the five-year plan for VBX. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But you didn't say VBX is scheduled to be completed. That was the question. MS. SCOTT: You know, I should take some advice from Mr. Scott who got his hand slapped quite a few times by you about Vanderbilt Road extension. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's your husband. MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought we got along just fine. MS. SCOTT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I really do -- I think that's a critical answer. So just out of curiosity, do you have that number? MS. SCOTT: I do. I have the latest information from our Transportation Engineering and Construction Management Group. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: For Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, it will go from 951 to 8th Street, so it does go beyond Wilson. Anticipated to start in early calendar 2021 and be completed in early calendar 2023. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And either one of -- the Woodcrest light? MS. SCOTT: The Tree Farm/Woodcrest light is anticipated to be complete within one year from today, so around May/June time frame next year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when would you require the light to go in at the Pebblebrooke entrance? MS. SCOTT: I'm looking at the DCA points. I don't believe that we had a specific time frame but, presumably, they're going to put it in right away. But I'm looking to see if there's a specific time. It does not have a specific time at this point. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's probably a concerning issue, because until that gets done, it's going to be -- for people to go -- if they're going to go south on Collier and they wanted to come into this facility first, and that is an -- that hasn't got left-turn lanes open. They're going to have to go up to the Immokalee Road, go down and start making U-turns, get back in the left going to Collier, and then back south on Collier again. MS. SCOTT: I'm meeting with Mr. Klatzkow hopefully at the conclusion of this meeting today to finalize the developer -- the draft developer agreement, so we can look at a first CO, if that is acceptable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm suggesting that it be added to your business points for the DCA or the DA, whatever you want to call it. That's kind of why we'd like to have seen that DA ourselves so we could have understood some of the things that may have been overlooked or not thought of, so... MS. SCOTT: And if you like, I can go through the Readers Digest version of the business points, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 37 of 91 if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. Are you prepared to send that to us in a written format so we have it? MS. SCOTT: I can, yes. So, number one, the developer will design and permit their stormwater management system to accommodate the necessary storage and conveyance for the future single-point urban interchange. We call them SPUIs or overpasses. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: SPUIs. MS. SCOTT: SPUI. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Never heard that term. What country uses that? Where'd that come from? MS. SCOTT: Single-point urban interchange. It's just another one of our many acronyms that we use in Transportation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's interesting. MS. SCOTT: The developer will be responsible for their perpetual operations and maintenance of the shared stormwater management system. Prior to the first CO, the applicant will convey to the county at no cost approximately 1.3 acres along Immokalee Road. This additional right-of-way will accommodate the future single-point urban interchange. This additional acreage is sufficient to provide for the compensating right-of-way for the development-specific turn lanes as well. The property owners and its assigns will waive all claims for future business damages as a result of the single-point urban interchange construction. As part of the final design of the residential portion, the property owner will coordinate with the neighboring properties regarding the interconnections, which we've talked a lot about through this -- through our PUD process as well. In the interim condition, the county will allow the intersection that is aligned with Goodland Bay Drive to consist of a right-in, right-out, and left-in to the site. In the buildout condition, this access point will be limited to a right-in, right-out access point only. Collier County will permit a traffic signal at the entrance on Collier Boulevard which lines up with Pebblebrooke, and the property owner will not receive impact fee credits or cash for the right-of-way donations or the value of the stormwater improvements associated with the single-point urban interchange. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's it? MS. SCOTT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to distribute that, so -- but when we -- we'll have to review what's resubmitted and double-check it against that, and I'm hoping that can be done outside of a consent hearing, but we'll get to that as we wrap up. Okay. As long as you consider adding that one to activate that light within whatever time frame needs to be in there, I think that's a critical point. MS. SCOTT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't have any other traffic questions. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much for your time, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, do you have any additions to the staff report? Well, I do know your recommendations have got changes, so do you have your new recommendations? MS. GUNDLACH: Good morning, Commissioners. Yes, I do have new recommendations and, for the record, I'm Nancy Gundlach, principal planner with the zoning division. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 38 of 91 And recommendation No. 1 still is in effect, and that states -- would you like me to read it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, so everybody knows what it says. MS. GUNDLACH: Okay. Yes, I will. Number 1, the companion development agreement is required to be approved with this rezoning request and then, No. 2, the previous recommendation, that's been modified slightly, and it now reads, any building located on an MU tract within 50 feet of an external residential PUD boundary shall be set back an additional one foot for each foot of zoned height over 50 feet. And the Recommendations 3 and 4 are no longer valid because we have the new PUD document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Is there anything else you wanted to add to your staff report? MS. GUNDLACH: I don't have anything else to add to the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any members of the Planning Commission have any questions of staff at this point? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Just a general one, I guess. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The development agreement is where these bullet points have come out, correct? The ones that you mentioned earlier that I guess Trinity mentioned. MS. GUNDLACH: I believe so. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I believe in other jurisdictions, such as the City of Naples, the development agreement comes before the Planning Advisory Board before it goes on to City Council. And this is the first time it's occurred to me that that might be helpful for us as well. Did staff have an observation of that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's our requirement, too. That's why it was worded the way it was, but it didn't get, I think, to us in a timely manner. We normally see DCAs. I think this time it got -- between working out the business points and all that, I had asked for it during staff's -- my staff's review, and I was hoping if we got the business points as the basis, as long as it got to the Board with us having reviewed the business points, it would be adequate. That's how it happened this time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You are right. It's supposed to have come to us as part of the package. MR. KLATZKOW: No, and part of it's my problem because Trinity originally sent it to me on May 3rd, and just getting our schedules coordinated so we could actually meet and sit down and go through the terms have been longer than we'd both had hoped for. That's the reason. It's partly on me. I did have the documents on 5/3. We just haven't been able to sit down and bang it out for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nancy, I have one question and, Ray, it kind of involves you as their manager. I noticed in here that we talked about us joining -- and the issue's been resolved, but I'm just saying for the future. Between Tuscany Cove and Bent Creek, there were some issues of comparisons of the heights both actual and zoned of the proposed PUD to the actual and zoned of the two adjoining PUDs. And I understand what you guys utilize. If one PUD could have 50 feet, the residential, let's say Bent Creek, or 55 feet, whatever it was, and they didn't use it but they put single-family along the side, the comparison was, well, they could have used it; therefore, they're compatible to the height of the proposed Baumgarten PUD. I'm just suggesting in the future if you've got a platted project next door, let's use the actuals, because the platted projects aren't going to change. They're what they're unless 30 years goes by and mortgages go away. So I would suggest we start comparing things to what's really on the ground in those cases, if you don't mind, unless you've got a reason not to, Ray. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 39 of 91 MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. Staff does look at both examples. What both PUDs allow as their maximum height limits or development standard setbacks plus what is built. Now, sometimes during the review of those staff reports, some of the original analysis gets modified or tweaked because new information comes in, they have a greater setback, let's say, than they originally submitted. So some of that might have got pulled out of the original draft of the staff report. But we will work better at trying to ensure that the actual conditions are referenced in the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And when you write your compatibility up, I mean, to take into consideration more than just the buffers. If you've got greater setbacks -- MR. BELLOWS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and things like that, all that should be looked at together. It would help us know that you've seen the freshest information and the most relevant we're looking at, so... MR. BELLOWS: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. I don't have any other questions of staff. As long as nobody else has, we'll move to public speakers. Whether you're registered or not, we're going to start with the registered speakers. Then I'll ask, generally, from the audience if anybody else likes to speak, and, Rich -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Did you want to address the points you wanted us to consider before the public speaks or after? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you're ready to address them now, I asked them earlier, so I was wanting to give you as much time as possible, but if you're ready to go, I'm -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Whatever you decide. I thought maybe you'd want the public to hear that before they speak. It may affect some of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would be the best, but I wasn't sure you even had a chance to talk about it. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I'm sure you'll remind me if I missed one. I think I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm watching. MR. YOVANOVICH: I know. I'm going to -- we agree to a wall next to Bent Creek along the MU tract parcel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would impose a condition that prohibited outdoor dining on the MU tract adjacent to Bent Creek. We would agree to a condition that there would be no dumpsters within 105 feet. Does that work on the MU tract? There would be no dumpsters within 105 feet of either Bent Creek or Tuscany Cove, the enclosures, the dumpster enclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's 105 feet, though. Are you talking about just residential? What about that commercial piece? MR. YOVANOVICH: That's what I was -- are we sure on the MU tract? Are we good? Yeah, that would be the entire boundary both east and south of the PUD. When Mr. Klatzkow writes the revised business points, we would agree that the traffic signal on Collier Boulevard would be constructed before the first CO, so that would -- you talked about it, but I just wanted you to know that we would agree to that condition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. YOVANOVICH: What did I miss on development standards? I mean, we had already talked about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You got them. I think you got them all. I think the one -- and I didn't know if it's best to approach this before or after public speakers. They may have some insight into the question. I have brought up the issue of phasing. You've got 370,000 square feet. You have -- I know by code and by law you have a right to develop that property. I'm not saying 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 40 of 91 you shouldn't develop it, but I think that right goes with coordinating it better with the area. I drive that area a lot, and I can experience the traffic just as -- probably as many of these people in this room have. So I would suggest that there's a substantial amount of square footage that ought to be postponed until many of these improvements could be in. Have you guys had time to talk about that? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have, Commissioner Strain. One, I think that we've -- at one time we thought it was -- a hotel made sense there. We would be willing to take the hotel use out of the equation which could be a significant traffic generator. So we would agree to take that use off the table. And we also think that a logical split would be 250,000 square feet in the first phase and then the balance would be tied to the opening of the Vanderbilt Beach Road extension but not later than the first quarter of 2023 is what I wrote down it's scheduled to be complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I appreciate you talking about it before the public speakers, and we'll get everybody's input on it and see where it goes from there. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think -- just as an aside, I think when that traffic signal goes in at Woodcrest and our traffic signal goes in, I think those are going to be significant benefits to that traffic circulation in that area. So I think the phasing schedule we're proposing makes a lot of sense. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, we'll hear from the public. So with that in mind, the staff will call the members that are registered first. If you'll come up to either speaker (sic). We ask that you limit your discussion to five minutes unless otherwise waived because of whatever reason you may request. If you -- by the way, if you have -- if you just agree with the speaker before you, it's fine just to say you agree with that speaker. But we're certainly here to hear you. And after we get done with registered public speakers, I'll ask for those who have not registered if anybody else wants to speak. So, Ray or Nancy, would you call the first speaker. MR. BELLOWS: Robert Pritt, to be followed by Dale Walters. MR. PRITT: Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, my name is Robert Pritt. I'm the attorney for Tuscany Cove Master Property Owners Association, Inc. I think you have received a copy of a letter, it should be in your packets, from Tuscany Cove. It's dated May 13, 2019, and that does, indeed, indicate that Tuscany Cove and the developer have been able to have fruitful talks and have come to terms on certain matters that have already been brought up by Mr. Yovanovich. I won't go over each and every one of those unless you want me to. There's one thing I do want to clarify. I believe that Ms. Gundlach covered it, but it's my understanding that the reference, if I may ask, or at least raise this. It's my understanding that the 60-foot setback issue does not mean that we're stuck with 60 foot. It's still the 105 feet; is that correct? MS. GUNDLACH: That's correct. MR. PRITT: She mentioned the 60-foot, but I didn't hear anything about the 105, but I think she said that those were all covered already, and I just wanted to make sure that was the case. If I can just say something about homeowners' associations, at least this homeowners' association, I don't want to get involved with ones that have unreasonable expectations and don't have a -- do not have a point to bring to your attention. Tuscany Cove has been wonderful to work with, and they had concerns that I think were very legitimate. Some of the things I heard some of the board members say today indicates that you have heard those also. So I think that it was very productive. It turned out that it was very productive that the matter did not get finalized at the last meeting and had to be continued to this meeting. Frankly, there's very little time -- between the time that the final staff report comes out and it gets to you, there's very little time to do a whole lot of things and to make a lot of decisions. For example, should you hire a planner. In our case we did. Do they have enough time to do all of the reviews? It's a very, very quick process. Should you hire an engineer or a traffic engineer? Traffic engineers that will be hired, be willing 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 41 of 91 to be working for anybody but the government or the developers are very, very scarce. So we had to make all of these decisions and, in doing so, working with the developer, working with the developer's attorney and his planner and his staff was a -- had turned out to be positive. President DiFusco is going to be speaking also, but I just wanted to give you my take on it and indicate that we think the process is working out for the benefit of not only the developer and the county, but also Tuscany Cove. Be glad to try to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Pritt, I only know that we get our packet about a week before these meetings. So what is the timing -- when the staff report is made available to you, what kind of time frame are you talking about to prepare? MR. PRITT: It's the same time frame, essentially. We do try to have a meeting with the staff ahead of time, but that's before the report finally comes out. And so, you know, technically it's a very short period of time. And when it becomes public for you, it becomes public for us, and then we very quickly try to get somebody in to do the reviews that are necessary. So this one turned out fine, as far as -- I think, as far as we're concerned. I think it was also -- and I don't know if the developer agrees, but I think it was productive and worthwhile for us to have the discussions we had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ned. MR. PRITT: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to commend Mr. Yovanovich and Mr. Pritt for getting together working out so many of these things. It's very productive when that happens. Thank you both. MR. PRITT: I'd love to take credit for it, but it was really the members of the board and the developer and their team. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I should have said and your respective clients. MR. PRITT: As well as the attorneys. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Got it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else -- or what's our next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Dale Walters followed by Louis DiFusco. MR. WALTERS: I'm Dale Walters. I live in Tuscany Cove, and I live right on the property line with this project. And there are 37 homeowners that live right on the property line. My biggest concern is the buffer that we're going to have to make sure that we have adequate buffer for visual and, more importantly, noise. There is significant vegetation existing along that property line. I would like to see it left in place. It doesn't extend that far out into the property, but it is along the property line, and understood that it was going to be removed. It would also be nice to have a berm placed behind that vegetation. Again, this would help, would give us a buffer. The water, the pond or lake or whatever's behind there, will provide no buffer for us. That noise would carry right over that. So that doesn't help us one bit. Also, I saw in previous drawing where there's going to be a parking lot directly behind me. Well, I would like to see parking lots be on the north side of these apartment buildings. That would give us a nice buffer to have the backside of the apartment buildings, you know, coming along parallel with the border of the two properties. So thank you for putting in my request, and I hope you can make goodness out of this for a buffer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. I have -- go ahead, Karl. You have a question. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Walters, you mentioned a berm -- MR. WALTERS: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- as an alternative to a wall or -- I mean, right now there's nothing specified other than the buffer. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 42 of 91 MR. WALTERS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you prefer a berm to a wall? I'm curious if you'd considered either possibility. MR. WALTERS: Well, if there is a berm there, there has to be some vegetation to be able to keep it in place. That would be more significant than having a wall, because vegetation's, of course, going to be able to grow up, and over time I think we would see a better buffer with something like that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Were you part of the meetings that occurred between the applicant and -- MR. WALTERS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- the association? MR. WALTERS: And as I say, there's 37 homeowners that are going to be directly behind this property. I'm one of them, and that's my biggest concern is making sure we have a good buffer. COMMISSIONER FRY: Of those 37, a significant number of you are to the east of the lake. There's a large lake that's going over in that southeast corner, and then the others would have a significantly larger buffer, the ones that are the -- I'm sorry, that are on the east side of the interconnect because they'll be looking across a very large lake and you'll have a very narrow lake. Which side are you on? MR. WALTERS: I would be where there will be narrow lake. COMMISSIONER FRY: The narrow lake. MR. WALTERS: From the design, they showed a parking lot directly behind that on their property, which would be -- I would have a parking lot 100 feet from my property, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: The other you would have -- and I'm just -- I'm curious if this was part of the discussion. This room, I'm guessing, is approximately 100 feet long. It's about -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can count the tiles, but... COMMISSIONER FRY: If we start at this wall, I'm going to say it's probably 100 feet, so that's not much shorter than the distance between the property line and where a four-story multifamily building could be. MR. WALTERS: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Was the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The room is closer to 70. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The room. It's closer to 70. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, it's 70 feet. So it would be another third of this -- or another half of this length, so another 30 feet beyond. Was it discussed -- we've had other applications where the difference between a three-story and a four-story building at that proximity was very important. I'm just curious if that issue came up and what the discussion was regarding that. Did you have any concerns about four versus three stories? MR. WALTERS: Really, I think, having that buffer is significant. Like I say, leaving the plant material that is there, putting a berm behind there with vegetation on that would really help with ground noise, and that's where most of your noise is going to be anyway. What's happening at three or four stories probably is not going to be significant. It would be the ground noise that we're going to be affected by, and that's why I say the lake wouldn't help us one bit. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your concern is more related to noise than vision? MR. WALTERS: Yes, it is. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Louis DiFusco. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many speakers total do we have? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 43 of 91 MR. BELLOWS: Three more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DiFUSCO: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Lou DiFusco. I'm the president of the HOA for Tuscany Cove. And, as you know, the last meeting that we had, we've had about 50 homeowners with red shirts in. They were very upset about this entire setback of the buildings going up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, before you go too far, would you mind spelling your last name for the court reporter. MR. DiFUSCO: D as in David, I, F as in Frank, u-s-c-o. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. MR. DiFUSCO: That's okay. Since that time we've had a meeting with our attorneys, our planner, along with the Barron Collier construction as well as Grady Minor engineers. We discussed basically setbacks, fences, security, a number of issues, of which they did agree to abide by. I'll address the thing Dale just mentioned, the buffer zone. There is going to be a buffer zone. I believe it's a 15-footer with plants and trees that will be supplied on the Baumgarten side. As far as Tuscany Cove is concerned, we'll take a look at that. If we have to put in some plants and trees ourselves, we'll take a look at that. But I do believe that they will do us a fine job of getting that buffer zone in. With the setback of 105 feet, that bails us out quite a bit as far as privacy is concerned. So at this point I'm going to withdraw our objection for the building of the multifamily homes and, in turn, support the Baumgarten situation to go forward. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. MR. DiFUSCO: Questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're good. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Brian Gorla. MR. GORLA: Hi. I'm Brian Gorla, G-o-r-l-a, and I live in the Bent Creek Preserve area. I also spoke last time. And I just wanted to say I appreciate the support for Bent Creek Preserve. We didn't hire an attorney, so a lot of it's just been our community and our HOA president who came last time who represents the builder. I'm still a little bit confused after the hearing today. What I heard was at the beginning the setback would be 105 feet, but I also think I heard over in the northeast section of the Baumgarten that it would be 65 feet where that -- where their commercial building will be up against residences. So I'm not sure if it's 105 feet over in that northeast section or 65 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's 105 feet up till it gets to the road that they're putting in, and that road will access that commercial -- very last commercial parcel. That last commercial parcel is up against the site where your cell tower was or is today, not directly up against residential. In that location the setback would be 50 feet plus one foot for every height of the building, I think. Is that correct, Nancy? MS. GUNDLACH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Plus we've asked them to put a wall in, and they've agreed, and they will still have the vegetation buffer. MR. GORLA: Okay. And I appreciate the wall. I think that's great. I would go one step further. In our original request we requested that the wall be a hundred and -- I think, 870 feet was the request. Noise doesn't know to stop where that area is, and the noise will come right down the wall where there's other residential. So my request would be that the wall would go down to the lake, or if there is going to be an interconnect where that is, where the interconnect is, and I think that that's one of the things that's missing from it. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 44 of 91 Because we can hear noise from Pelican Larry's across the street. Once this gets developed, that noise will carry into the development, and I think the wall would help with that. The interconnect, the other -- that was confusing to me as well. I know that, you know, we got clarification on why it didn't line up; that was a main road. But when I stepped up to the picture during the break, all there was was a dotted line. I'm not sure if that dotted line represents a road or -- it just looked like a dotted line. And so I'm not certain whether there is going to be an interconnect or there isn't going to be an interconnect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They will make provisions for you to connect to them. But if you've got a gate or there's something like that, that would -- MR. GORLA: Right now we have a stub, a stub that ends on our side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: My understanding, there will be an ability to interconnect to them. They will pave or provide an access up to your point. And I believe that's going to be enforced by staff. Is that your understanding, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, at the time of SDP, they would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, yes, you'll have an interconnect, and you can treat your side of it whatever way your PUD allows. MR. GORLA: Okay. The cell tower was relocated. They put in what I understand is a temporary cell tower. It's a smaller one. I think after they decided to relocate the larger one, they realized that 911 calls go through it, so they had to put a temporary smaller one in there for now, but the larger one has been relocated. And then the other thing with Woodcrest. I'm originally from Missouri. We're the show-me state. I've been hearing for about the last three years that there was a stoplight going in at Woodcrest, and I've got email saying, yeah, in the next year you'll have it. So I did hear it today that it will be another year, but I'm not sure why I should believe that it's going to be there in another year. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we can only do what staff tells us -- MR. GORLA: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- they're scheduled to do, so, I mean -- MR. GORLA: Yeah. Okay. I get it. There is a potential problem with -- and I just want to highlight it to you-all. So when the Woodcrest was built out, they put a rotary in at Woodcrest into Massey. And it connects to Tree Farm as well. Massey was not developed, and it's just a -- it's an abbreviated road. It doesn't have curbs. Some of the road is not -- it's not wide enough for, kind of, traffic. People really have to drive it slow, but that traffic goes through there very fast. I'm just telling you that it's a very dangerous road. It's not up to standard. So, potentially -- you know, a lot of people take that road now because it's been built out, and I would just encourage you to just drive it. And it's considered a private road from what I understand, but I think that it does -- it's going to require the county to come in and take over that portion of the road, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are working on that, too. Thank you. MR. GORLA: Okay. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And, by the way, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to -- what I'd like to do with this board, if you all don't mind, I'd like to finish this item before we go to lunch break. We do have to take an hour lunch break, but we will finish up on this one first, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Cheryl Ollila. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so the speaker's prepared, who's after her? MR. BELLOWS: Ruth Fahmy. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 45 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. OLLILA: Good afternoon, I'm Cheryl Ollila, O-l-l-i-l-a. I'm the president of The Quarry Homeowners' Association off of Immokalee Road. I'm very concerned with all this development about the lack of traffic signals that have been approved by the county east of the intersection of Immokalee and Collier on Immokalee Road. Ms. Scott talked about -- that the traffic signal which has been approved will be constructed and installed in a year at The Quarry Drive and Immokalee Road and Woodcrest intersection, but that is the first traffic signal east of that intersection. And with all this development that is occurring on the southeast corner as well as all the activity and building that's occurring on the northeast corner, that puts a heavy traffic load on that signal at Quarry Drive. And as we talked about today, there is no traffic signal planned on Immokalee Road for the entrance either into the northeast properties or the southeast commercial properties, and anyone leaving these areas going east on Immokalee Road but wanting to go west will be turning around right in front of Quarry Drive making it nearly impossible for our residents and homeowners to be able to turn right out of that intersection with the left turns. So I'd like to know -- we've had previous town hall meetings where the transportation engineering department has been to The Quarry when this traffic signal has been talked about. The county has denied a traffic signal at Bellaire Bay Drive and Immokalee where the Racetrac gas station is at. And I'd like to know how close is this Pebblebrooke light to the intersection of Collier and Immokalee as opposed to the traffic signal that was denied at Bellaire Bay Drive and Immokalee and Collier, please. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll ask questions of staff when we finish with public speakers, and we'll ask that question for you. MS. OLLILA: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And staff -- transportation staff, the question was how far south is the roadway that's going to be interconnecting to Pebblebrooke from the intersection and, likewise, how far east from that intersection is the -- where they had tried or asked at one time, apparently, Bellaire Drive. I think the difference is going to be the fact there's an overpass going east to west, but we'll let transportation staff answer that when we're finished with public speakers. Go ahead, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: The last speaker is Ruth Fahmy. MS. FAHMY: Good morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning. MS. FAHMY: Thank you. Do you need me to spell my name? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Please do, yes, ma'am. MS. FAHMY: Ruth, last name F-a-h-m-y. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. FAHMY: Again, I want to thank everybody today. I understand that our association and our board of -- our HOA board who hired our attorney and worked a lot of these issues out. And I want to thank you for the time the last time also. I also want to thank you for really being sensitive to this traffic issue because, like I said, before I got involved in this, about two years ago, and I reached out to Mr. Bosi because of an article in the Naples Daily News with regard to rezoning this particular Pelican Nursery piece of property. And from everything I've listened to, the keywords that still come to me -- and I appreciate all of you for being sensitive to it -- is putting together the legally sufficient without being deficient, looking at all these calculations and numbers and updating them in lieu of all the new construction that has taken place in just the last few years with many more, you know, about to be developed, and with the sensitivity to traffic. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 46 of 91 I know it was asked of me, and it was mentioned at this April 18th meeting, that when you purchase a home or move into a home or rent a home, whichever, that's next to a piece of property like Pelican Nursery, you needed to expect that in the future it would be developed some way somehow and that this was always on the board or on the county records for being an activity center. I just want to point out one thing, because it kind of came to me today, and I actually mentioned it to Ms. Gundlach in the ladies room. Galgano was always a named street in Tuscany Cove, and it's not a street. There are no homes on it. To the right or east of it, we have the Collier County utilities and sewer and other maintenance type things like that, and to the right is, like, a little bit of a preserve. It's about the same width if not identical to what our inner roadways are, and it had a name 15 years ago, and that was because we were all told that our developer was initially planning a larger development. And the piece of property that they've agreed to put the lakes and give us the 105-foot setback, my understanding would be that that was going to be more homes until the housing bust, the crash, and then the builder didn't pursue that. And maybe that's why it was a named street all the way back then. And if that had been the case, then that piece of these 55, 56 acres -- you know, and you talk about the commercial portion being 40, that would have probably been the acreage that would have been our single-family, one-story homes, and maybe this other portion would have been just strictly for the commercial. I am so thrilled to hear that several of you have engineering licenses. I do not. But I've said from the beginning of this I wish that the developer and the traffic people and all of their people, if they could have developed this where your entrance would have been on Immokalee Road, similar to like when you got off of Interstate I-75 after you're in that far right lane, and you are now -- you have to turn into Target. You pass Regions Bank, you either turn into Tarpon Bay, or turn into Target. And if they could have made some of those adjustments, it could have avoided some of these issues that definitely are being created for Tuscany Cove, because we're not going to have the option of having a traffic light in front of Tuscany Cove. So we're going to have to head north. We have no choice. And as far as -- it would avoid the stacking. I appreciate that -- Commissioner Strain, that you and Commissioner Fryer are sensitive to what that stacking is going to cause and how long you're going to need it for that many directions and the timing of it and the lights, and no one really knows for sure how many homes they're going to bring. I was never that much upset over whether these were apartments or condos or townhomes. For me it was always more about how many cars. So, obviously, if it was another 150 single-family homes at an average of two cars, right, that would be 300 cars; 400 apartments at an average of two cars is 800. I mean, it's going to have significant impact no matter what. And everybody's going to have to have some give and take. But I look at this development and I say, okay, the overhead, I know from Ms. Scott, it's not even in the future five years for the flyover overpass. So that's a lot of years for us to all deal with this but -- and we don't even know, you know, in lieu of whatever else could happen. But you would think that if they took that piece of property and kind of divided it down the middle a little bit, they could have had the residential, they could have had the commercial, they could have had the entrance come in that way. I would just think that there's a lot of great minds here that can put this together and, you know, make it be a good thing for everybody and meet the compatibility and the legally sufficient. But I like compatibility better than legally sufficient, or borderline deficient. Thank you all so much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much, ma'am. Ray, is that the last public speaker? MR. BELLOWS: We did have somebody who didn't register but would like to speak. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, fine. Could you please call the name or -- oh, he didn't register. Sir, come on up, identify yourself for the record, we'd be glad to hear from you. And we'll need to know if you were sworn in previously. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 47 of 91 MR. BROMLEY: No. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. BROMLEY: And I did pass in a slip, and I think it must have gotten lost over at the desk. Gary Bromley, B-r-o-m-l-e-y. Address, 9517 Ironstone Terrace in Naples. Thank you for the opportunity, Chairman Strain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The mic's not picking you up too clearly there, sir. MR. BROMLEY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There you go. MR. BROMLEY: Again, thank you, Chairman Strain and Commissioners, for giving me this opportunity today. A couple of things that I wanted to comment about is the insightful remark that Chairman Strain made about how we calculate traffic and roadway flows. And it seems to me that there is a great need for something that's more customized to the state of Florida than other parts of the country. That makes a great deal of sense, and I hope that conversation continues. And I would like to participate in it if it does. I was very surprised to hear that the county really doesn't do any after-studies to try and look at what the original projections were and then what, in reality, happens. And I think that that's maybe evident as I drive around in Collier County and see all the different changes that are taking place after the fact in order to try and accommodate traffic situations which were decided upon years before. So Pine Ridge is one example of where the intersections are going to have to undergo fairly expensive projects to improve the flows there. And so, again, this is something that I just want to go on the record and say I think that the county really ought to take a look at doing after-studies on these projects. One of the things that was mentioned by Mr. Yovanovich in terms of his willingness to do some phasing on this, which I was very happy to hear, phasing in terms of coordination that's better synchronized with the Vanderbilt extension, he said no later than early 2023 that he would be bound to that phasing idea. My only concern there is -- and I'm not even sure if it's fairly based, but is there anything that could hold up the Vanderbilt extension? I don't know if a recession can affect it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's all kinds of things that can hold up roadwork in this country and county. So, yes, they're too numerable to even mention. MR. BROMLEY: Okay. So, you know, I would say that with the levels of traffic calculations that have been done, what we're using as the database for that, the only way to really kind of get relief from that building congestion would be this Vanderbilt extension. And if that were to go another year or two or whatever past the early 2023 projection, it seems to me that we're going to be stuck, and we're going to be stuck with a lot of congestion and delays. So I have a concern about making it hard and fast that it's early 2023 and not beyond. And, let's see. The last thing -- and I don't quite understand this, so it's kind of part question and part comment. But the pay-to-go stipulation that I heard about for the first time this morning, that sounds to me like a bypass for the developer to -- you know, if a road is considered to be close to failure or in failure but if you pay enough money you can keep going anyway, I think that's a wrong concept. And I have that wrong, I apologize, but that's the way it sounded to me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. You're paraphrasing it a little differently, but you're right. I think if there's a deficiency, they can pay their proportionate share of that deficiency to have relief from the deficiency, yes. MR. BROMLEY: Okay. So I think that has to be re-examined. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's above and beyond today. MR. BROMLEY: Yeah, the scope of this. Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it is an issue that we have to deal with, unfortunately. MR. BROMLEY: This is more public comment in that regard. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 48 of 91 So those are my major points, but I appreciate the time. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Are there any members of the public who have not spoken on this item that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Trinity, would you mind responding to the question concerning the accessway over to Pebblebrooke versus a similar accessway that had previously been requested for at Bellaire and Immokalee. MS. SCOTT: For the record once again, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. I'm not going to tell you that my measurements are dead-on accurate. They were from the Property Appraisers' website where I was in trying to measure. Collier Boulevard, the proposed signal is approximately 1,100 feet south of the intersection of Immokalee Road, and the proposed -- the intersection of Bellaire Bay Drive on Immokalee Road is approximately 2,500 feet from the intersection of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the Pebblebrooke one is 1,100 feet south, and the other one is even farther away from the intersection. So, then, isn't that -- you just answered the question in the opposite way I thought you were going to say. MS. SCOTT: No. Actually, we've had some internal conversations with regard to the intersection at -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Bellaire. MS. SCOTT: -- Bellaire Bay Drive. That is within an area of influence of what would be the future interchange, and so that is why we have been reluctant to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean the overpass. MS. SCOTT: Yes; the overpass, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I thought your answer was -- okay. You didn't say -- now I'm understanding. So even though it's farther away -- MS. SCOTT: The overpass is anticipated to go -- for Immokalee Road to go over Collier Boulevard. That is what all of our conceptual designs show for that. So that signal would be very close to those approach ramps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I thought was the case. I just wanted to understand it from you. Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any other questions? Is there any -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, for Trinity. How far -- how far -- how much farther from Immokalee Road or how far from Immokalee Road is the light that has been approved to the east? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Woodcrest. COMMISSIONER FRY: Woodcrest. MS. SCOTT: Yeah, it's about a mile. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's about a mile. MS. SCOTT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And was that the nearest U-turn point for people that wanted to exit then go west to Immokalee? MS. SCOTT: No, there's a U-turn actually at Bellaire Drive, I believe -- Bellaire Bay Drive, I believe. COMMISSIONER FRY: What distance do the people turning out of the new development have in order to get across the three lanes to make a U-turn? MS. SCOTT: I'm going to pull up the Property Appraiser and see if I can measure really quickly. Do you guys know offhand? COMMISSIONER FRY: While you're looking, I asked that question because I know in my own 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 49 of 91 neighborhood we had a similar situation where a right turn could be made, and then you had to quickly cross three lanes to make a U-turn and eventually, because of safety issues, that was disallowed by the county and a light was put in. You're no longer able to make a U-turn. So one of my concerns is just that there's a tenable way for people to exit east or west -- or I'm sorry -- east on Immokalee and then be able to make that U-turn in a sustainable way and a safe way to head back west on Immokalee. MS. SCOTT: It is just over 1,100 feet between their -- essentially, they're lining up with Goodland Bay Drive. Their access point is lining up with Goodland Bay Drive, and it's about 1,150, 1,160 to Bellaire Bay, which would be the next U-turn opportunity. COMMISSIONER FRY: A little short of a quarter of a mile to do that. So that's a lot greater distance than in the scenario I was describing. So thank you. MS. SCOTT: So, yes, someone could make that U-turn there and not have to go all the way down to the entrance of The Quarry where the new signal will be. And if there's one other thing that I could just clarify. When I was talking about Vanderbilt Road extension -- I'm not going to change the dates I gave you. But the limits -- allergy medicine must have gotten to my head. It actually goes to 16th Street, which is a mile further than 8th Street. So we're building another bridge to make a connection to Randall Boulevard as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would you potentially open up the intersection of Wilson and Vanderbilt before you completed that last mile? MS. SCOTT: I couldn't commit to that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We don't have any more public speakers that we can -- we closed the public speakers at this point. We'll entertain a rebuttal by the applicant if you have any, Richard. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't have any rebuttal. We think that the proposals we've made before the public speakers and the other revisions we've made throughout the history of this project are good commitments on our behalf and result in a good project, and we'll answer any more questions you have or comments you may have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions further of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one. This phasing issue's going to get complicated, and I'm trying to think of a solution to it. I notice this project didn't start out with the square footage you're asking for now. And the TIS doesn't support the square footage you're asking for now. I understand the 250,000. Why don't we just drop the phasing and drop the rest of the square footage? MR. YOVANOVICH: So you want to reduce 370- to 250- -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- and eliminate phasing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm suggesting. Then you've got your project, you've got your units, and you've got what you've asked for. And I'm just wondering why we need to mess around with the phasing, because it's going to get complicated. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand that. Can we take a two-minute break? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, we can do that. Two minutes. We'll break for two minutes, ladies and gentlemen. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're back on the speakers, folks. So, Richard? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 50 of 91 MR. YOVANOVICH: Mr. Strain, here's -- I'm going to propose that we take it down to the 400 units and 270- square feet instead of 250-, because if we do the indoor self-storage option, that would probably bring us to the 270-, and that's a lower traffic generator anyway. So I would request that we just reduce it down to 270-, we take the hotel out that I previously had mentioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that would be 270,000 square feet and 400 units and take away the 100,000 square feet in Phase 2. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So what you're really saying is the hotel goes away, we won't need to phase the project because you're willing to drop from 370-, 100,000 square feet, down to 270-. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the 270- is based on the fact if you do self-storage, it's a low traffic generator. So of the -- because you're asking for 250-. So of the 270-, at least 20,000 will be for a self-storage facility. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that keeps the traffic where the 250- was. Okay. I like that a lot better. Does anybody have any concerns? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then I'll -- I'm going to read off -- go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to be clear then, there will be no phasing? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're just going with as stipulated then? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We just eliminated 100,000 square feet, so yeah. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But we're not connecting anything to the Vanderbilt Beach extension. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: Remember, we have all those other commitments we talked about. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm going to read those into the record, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You have the whole list? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Here's what we've talked about: The changes to the project will be consistent with the new document that was produced for today's meeting. The MU tract in the upper right-hand corner furthest east above the road will have no outdoor dining facilities. And along the eastern boundary of that MU tract, there will be a 6-foot wall, and there will be no dumpsters within 100 feet of not only that tract but all tracts to the external PUD boundary. MR. YOVANOVICH: One hundred and five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: One hundred and five. I'm sorry. A one hundred thousand feet; that would be nice. Boy, that would be subtly just taking it away completely. That would be a win, but okay. And then we're going to remove the stormwater notes that are on the master plan. We're going to accept the staff recommendations as they were modified on the record. And the phasing and all the other issues involving the road system on that issue go away. So that takes us to the DCA business points. We're going to get a circular on that, but there are seven of them, generally. Conceptually, they'll be reviewed -- they've been reviewed by us, but they'll be going to the BCC as a part of the package for finalization, and that will include the timing of the Pebblebrooke light, the overpass water management facilities and the maintenance of those, the 1.3 acres along 846, the business damage claim waiver, the coordination of the interconnections -- we'll coordinate the interconnections on the interior, and the Goodland Bay -- within the Goodland Bay Drive 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 51 of 91 issues -- what's the Goodland Bay Drive issues? What was that one? Does anybody remember? Trinity's coming up. MS. SCOTT: Sorry. For the interim condition they would have a right-in, right-out, and a left-in, and in the buildout they would only have a right-in, right-out. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now, you're going to articulate this in a memo to us anyway. MS. SCOTT: I've already emailed it to Nancy so she can send it out to everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Then the last one was, there will be no impact fee credits for some of the items that were just mentioned in the business document. Now, that's all going to be gelled up so it's finalized by the Board. Those are the concepts; then they can fluctuate a bit, obviously. That's what we are considering. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to be -- and that sounded very comprehensive, and it's probably going to be the basis of a motion. I wanted to be sure that it included, and I think it does, but it's worth saying. It includes the business points that -- in the development agreement. It also includes the accord reached with Tuscany. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we don't know what that is. Tuscany's not opposing it for some -- they're the agreements that were put on the master plan, so I'm not sure what else there is. MR. YOVANOVICH: We put -- all of our agreed-upon conditions are already in the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. They're in there. MR. YOVANOVICH: They're already in the version you had today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't want to refer to an accord we haven't seen. Let's just leave it with the PUD. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood, okay. And then -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I wasn't done yet, but anyway. I had more. Did you want to hear the rest of it, or did you have things -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The other item, there will be no hotel use allowed on the property. The property's square footage will be reduced to 270,000 square feet, and with that at least 20,000 square feet of it will be for self-storage, and because of that, the phasing is not on the table anymore. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And to include elimination of the hotel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I said that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. You said that, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned, do you have any more? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I want to be sure that this statement is correct or, if not, that it gets made correct, that all of the benefits that are being extended to Tuscany are also going to be enjoyed by Bent Creek? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the extent they're on the master plan and in the document. Isn't that how it was worked out? MR. YOVANOVICH: Both properties get a Type B buffer on the master plan, both properties get the setback of 105 feet, both properties get an interconnect that's private, if they want it. I can't force Bent Creek -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Understood. MR. YOVANOVICH: So, yes, those are -- well, and then we committed to that wall up on that one parcel that's not involved, obviously, in Tuscany. They did it with a chain-link fence. So I just want to make sure it's not exact, but -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the only thing that is different, if I understand correctly, is the provision of a lake on the south? MR. YOVANOVICH: Tuscany -- if you look at the master plan -- actually, let's use this one. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 52 of 91 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So the -- MR. YOVANOVICH: There is a lake across a portion of the Bent Creek as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: So we make up for it. The setback is equal. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Chairman, my concerns were picked up in your comprehensive statement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. And I know we're not privy to the agreement that was made between Tuscany Cove as proffered or as stated by Mr. Pritt, but, for the record, can I ask that -- you did confirm, and you're still in agreement you're -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He said on the record he's fine with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. You're still in agreement with all the conditions as agreed to? MR. PRITT: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If anything, you're probably happier. MR. PRITT: Happier. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I hope he is. That was a concession that I didn't expect, and I'm glad we've got further -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just want, for the record, to make sure. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's on record, so we're good. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think you may have forgotten to say that the indoor self-storage is air-conditioned. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those are -- those are -- those are as we worked through the document, and there were a few other grammatical things. I'm assuming those will all be taken care of as they always have been in the past. MR. YOVANOVICH: I just want to make sure there's no ambiguity there. We understand. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So there won't be a wall between -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your mic. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There won't be a wall between Bent Creek residential and the residential? MR. YOVANOVICH: There will only be a wall where you have commercial up against residential for Bent Creek. There's no wall between us and Tuscany either. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The residential to residential doesn't require a wall. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's the buffer with an additional setback. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I was just -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: There was a request from a Tuscany Cove resident for a berm, a resident for a berm, and there was a request from the Bent Creek resident for a wall. So the answer to both of those, is that no? MR. YOVANOVICH: The answer to both -- well, I want to say it in a nicer way. We don't -- first of all, I think when the request for the wall came from Bent Creek, we only had a 50-foot buffer. That's now gone to 105 feet. I'm sorry, 50-foot setback. We've now gone to 105-foot setback. And we did work on configuring our site, and to change the site to now put a berm over there is just not doable. We believe that the landscaping that we're proposing -- and we showed you the sightline studies last time. I think we've taken care of those issues. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have one concern that hasn't been addressed, but I think that I will defer to the negotiations that took place between Tuscany Cove and the applicant, and that is, is a four-story building compatible with single-family homes even at 105 feet. My personal opinion is no; that's a pretty significant change in land use. I was surprised it wasn't 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 53 of 91 an issue. It was a huge issue in a previous application that we heard. I was prepared to support that argument in terms of requesting a reduction from four-story to three-story buildings. What would the unit -- your units approved -- you're asking for 400 residential units. What would be the impact on that number if the multifamily units were three stories versus four? MR. YOVANOVICH: You know, we've not done the math because, for us, that's not an option because we -- by going to the 105 feet that we've gone to in designing this site, we think that is more than compatible. We did look at a straight zoning option. And if you looked -- if you remember, we went through this. The straight zoning option, if we went to multifamily, would be half the building height. So if I did a 75-foot-tall residential building, which you can do in RMF16, the setback would be reduced to 37-and-a-half feet. So I think that to go to what we're asking for at 105 feet is far more adequate from a compatibility standpoint than if we went straight zoning. COMMISSIONER FRY: I understand that -- do you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just a comment, though. One of the biggest significant differences is the location that you're referring to required a small-scale plan amendment. It was not an activity center. It did not have previous zoning that would have given it a height of 75 feet by right for different uses. So this is a far cry from that. So the land-use rights here are substantially different for negotiating such items as the land-use rights were on that other project, because in that they had to even amend the GMP because they were not within an activity center. So that's the reasoning I saw not to go that far with it, because the 16 units per acre in that density band are given. So, anyway, did that help? COMMISSIONER FRY: I appreciate that. I just observed that in that previous application when it went to the Board of County Commission, they took it upon themselves to lower, even the units adjacent to Livingston Road, to three stories throughout, but I understand. Thank you for clarifying the differences. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that's exactly what happened. Remember, that was during the Comp Plan amendment process. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Well, I wanted to just go on the record with that concern and have it in there in the public record, but thank you for addressing it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: May I ask a couple questions? Is this on? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, it's on. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. It's just on Page 9 of the PUD document; it's the residential table under the accessory structures, the bounding setback for the amenity area. There was a statement that there be no pool within 105 feet. I didn't know if you wanted that as -- if that was a commitment change you were planning to the PUD, if you wanted a footnote or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we did clarify the dumpsters. I don't know -- I'm not sure where the -- how does the pool fit in? MR. YOVANOVICH: The way we looked at this, if you looked at Footnote 5, it says, "Does not apply to past recreational uses such as trails and pathways." We interpreted that to mean none of the amenities other than trails or pathways could be within 500 feet, 505 feet (sic). So if we need to clarify -- we thought the footnote took care of that, but clearly a pool's not a -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, the footnote says that the 105 feet does not apply to trails and pathways, so you can put the trails and pathways closer than 105. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: And every other non-passive use would be subject to that 105-foot setback is how we thought we'd address it. I'm not objecting to clarifying -- 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 54 of 91 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No. I'm just saying you said on the record there would be no pool within 105 feet. So I'm just asking, did you want to add a footnote to the minimum PUD boundary setback for the accessory structures that there will be no pool within 105 feet? That's all I'm asking as to whether that was something -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't we simplify it by just doing that. Do you have -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll add another Footnote No. 7. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah, and it will go under -- MR. YOVANOVICH: It will go under amenity area. Right where we have the No. 5, we'll also put a No. 7. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it will be under 15 where you have the 15-foot setback for the PUD boundary setback. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll put it wherever you -- we'll work with you, Heidi, to put it wherever you want to put it. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. Well, we can talk about that later. MR. YOVANOVICH: We agree with the words. We'll figure out where it goes in the table. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Are we there? COMMISSIONER FRY: Final comment. Just that I -- having gone through a similar process, I believe the residents of Bent Creek and Tuscany Cove will enjoy having all of those additional services and amenities in their area, so I think that's a -- it will be a blessing in that respect. I think we have a problem here in Collier County in that every application the residents -- the homeowners walk in -- and this is not related to you. They walk in, and they were somehow not aware of what was already approved to go in next door to them, be it an approved PUD or be it that was zoned for a road, that kind of thing. And I think we have an issue here in Collier Couth that I'd love to see -- I'd like to be part of getting this addressed where there is an easy mechanism for homeowners to research what is approved and what could go in next to their house. And in my case, at the end of our streets was a right-of-way for the Logan extension, and I had a half dozen people who bought at the end of that street and had no idea that a major road could go in there. My wife and I went through extensive steps in order to figure out how to research what might go there and decided, no, we don't want that. There could be a road some day, even though it was all woods at the time. And I just think that's a problem we need to address. We'd have a lot less people walking in going, well, I was told this would be a preserve or some or -- somehow the message is just not getting to the people, and there needs to be an easy mechanism for that to take place. MR. KLATZKOW: Staff has been very good about answering people's questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. COMMISSIONER FRY: I don't doubt that. MR. KLATZKOW: It is as simple as somebody picking up a phone and asking staff, you know, what's planned around me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Maybe it's communication. Call this number. MR. YOVANOVICH: 311. COMMISSIONER FRY: 311. That the new -- that number actually would answer these types of questions, what's going in next to my -- MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fantastic. Thank you. I'm glad I brought it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have a list of stipulations. Is there a motion to either deny or 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 55 of 91 approve this project? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve PUDR-PL2017000768, the Baumgarten Commercial Planned Unit Development, based on the stipulations as stated by Commissioner Strain on the record. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Karl. Discussion? First of all, I want to thank the applicant for the extensive amount of cooperation. Not all times do they work out as well as this, so I do appreciate it. I think we've got a project that's better off now than it was when it started, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I do thank the residents -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- of both communities, Tuscany, in particular, taking the initiative to hire an attorney to at least go through this and hammer out these issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I'll call for the vote. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries, 7-0. Thank you all very much. We're going to take a one-hour lunch break. Well, actually, a 59-minute lunch break. We'll be back at 1:30 to resume the meeting. When you come back, we'll be talking about the generator issue. That will continue no later than -- till 3 o'clock, at which time we'll have to depart from that one. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioners Chrzanoswki and Dearborn are absent for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, thank you for the mic. Now, ladies and gentlemen, if you'll have your seats for a minute, we're going to continue with this kind of an out-of-sequence portion of our meeting today. We have one other land-use item that we're going to hear no later than 3 o'clock. So if we start on an item now and we can't finish it, we'll start it at 3:00. ***Jeremy, we need to move into the generator portion of the LDC amendment. Could you guide us to the right section and page that we're talking about. MR. FRANTZ: This should be the first amendment in your packet after the memo. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On what you distributed, I think it's 518 of 567, but that may not match your pagination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a 31-page document for one of them. That's the lighting, generators, and gas station signs. MR. FRANTZ: This is addressing LDC Sections 4.02.01 and new section 5.03.07. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Gotcha. Okay. We're there. So at this point we're going to -- right now the discussion's going to be for LDC Section 4.02.01 and 5.03.07, permanent emergency generators. And there's no need to be sworn in or disclosures. We'll 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 56 of 91 just move right into the discussion. Jeremy, you want to -- MR. FRANTZ: Briefly, we've seen this amendment two other times, and hoping that we can resolve the issues that you-all had and maybe fine tune some of the language that you had concerns over. Rich Henderlong has got a really brief presentation just to bring everybody up to speed, get everybody on the same page. There's some people from the public who have not been present at previous meetings. And then we can move on to your questions or concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's go right into it. Richard? MR. HENDERLONG: Rich Henderlong, principal planner, Planning and Zoning Department. We thought it might be just appropriate to just recap what the Board directive was for the benefit of the general public. It started back on this first slide June 26th, '19, last year. The main directive was to bring back the amendment to address generator setbacks and make a recommendation to enhance the existing LDC regulations. And, as you know, those LDC regulations are 3-foot encroachment in side yards is the principal issue that people have been debating back and forth. In addition to the report, they wanted to know what are the issues to report back to the Board, and I've listed them here as quoted from each individual commissioner. They talked about fire, setbacks to property line, separation between homes, the amount of clearance between generators due to heat and fumes, noise attenuation along a neighbor's property line, theft, or placement on the same side of neighboring property lines. Next slide. So out of these issues -- okay. Out of those issues there are four principal issues that the Planning Commission discussed since March 27th, the last hearing meeting, and the main. one was health and life safety. We were asked to take -- you heard testimony from the fire official regarding obstructions for maneuvering emergency services equipment between principal structures, and provide assurances for early detection to carbon monoxide fumes. What is proposed and in your text today is a 3-foot clearance around the front and the sides of the generator, a 3-foot distance to gas/electrical meters, pool pumps, other mechanical equipment, landscape planting, other than shrubs and trees, a 5-foot clearance from shrubs and trees, 10-foot offset in distance to and between generators and, lastly, the installation of CO detectors on each floor when generators are located within 10 feet of an exterior wall. The next three issues relate to noise, placement, and proximity or location of the generators. On noise, we are requiring the adherence and compliance with the county's noise ordinance and the manufacturer sound-level readings. We provided in your packet the manufacturer's data that shows that the sound-level readings, decibel readings range from 61 to 73 of those manufacturers we looked at, and it also keys it into the fact that they meet the level requirement of 75 dBA for the county noise ordinance. The third issue is placement within all types of easement. This was brought to our attention at the last meeting by Mr. Anthony Pires. The language that has been added into your text, he sent an email this morning saying that he's in agreement with it and satisfied with it, and so that text has been added to the amendment. The last issue is proximity and location to the property lines and neighboring principal structure. Following the lead from the last meeting, we gathered from the general consensus that there should be a 5-foot distance to the property line in the side. We already agreed on the rear yard. Secondly, that there be a 10-foot distance to the property line when the side-yard setback is greater than 20 feet and then, lastly, at a 10 feet distance to a neighboring principal structure or wall, okay, that that be a standard. So to that extent we looked at -- that that separation for distance is -- if you had 48 feet, you would have 10 foot for the structure. That would require about a 7-foot side-yard setback to meet those standards. Also, we received some general public comments that are supporting the original amendment at 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 57 of 91 one foot from the property, and I believe there are residents -- you'll hear testimony from others today about their concerns; how it may affect them who have tried to get permits and have been rejected. In some cases, there may be medical necessity. We sent you an email -- I think Jeremy did last night or yesterday regarding Mr. Halts, Ammel Halts (phonetic), and his situation is that in Talis Park he has a 5-foot setback. He needs -- the 36 inches does not work for him, the 3 foot. He's looking for a 4-foot setback. In his property, there are no obstructions other than just a -- no plantings, an air-conditioned unit on both of the adjoining properties. But his wife has, for over 20 some years, a medical necessity, needs refrigeration of her medicines to be constant and continuous and not be interrupted by any electrical outages. So he's brought that to our attention, and we just wanted to mention that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Rich, first of all, you did a really good job in laying this out for us. Thank you. It's going to be easy to read and discuss, and I certainly appreciate it. And with that, I'll turn to my Planning Commission members and see if they have any questions. Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I do. Rich, I'm trying to figure out the best way to phrase this. With regards to the permitting -- and I'm going to give a scenario. I'm in a house, there's no -- the lot next to me is vacant. I put in a generator. Does that now force the builder who's going to build a house next to me make sure that the house is designed to comply with the requirements of where that current generator is placed? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, as proposed today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So we'll have to -- so no opening can be within 10 feet of the existing generator? So no window could be designed. So if this is a standard cookie-cutter type of development where you might have five or six options, they're going to have to redesign the house in order to construct that house next to a lot that already has a generator. MR. HENDERLONG: Let me answer your question as it relates to the other property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: What this code will say is that if it is closer than 10 feet, that window, you must have a carbon monoxide -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the carbon monoxide. MR. HENDERLONG: Right. So there's nothing that would restrict them to making that a little closer. What does require is an offset generator. They cannot be adjacent, like this (indicating). They'd have to be at least 10 feet or offset -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MR. HENDERLONG: -- to meet the 10 point -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If the new home then wants to add a generator, they would have to meet distance requirement and place the generator at a place that complies. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And that's understandable. MR. HENDERLONG: They'd be rejected. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second scenario. The two houses -- and I think we may have talked about this last time, if they have no other place to put it than very limited from a standpoint to meet all the requirements except for this 10-foot separation to an opening. Does that, then, force the neighbor to install the CO detector in the house? Or who's responsible? MR. HENDERLONG: It does not. The CO detector would be on the original applicant who goes in. The county doesn't have a proposal for it. Although you heard testimony from the fire official that their preference is to see that it be required for all of them, but the Florida Building Code does not require that, to have carbon monoxide alarms installed in these other adjacent properties. MR. FRANTZ: I think it's also important to remember that with a minimum of five feet from the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 58 of 91 property line, it's going to restrict you to a certain size setback and that will -- that will force those generators to be, I think in a lot of cases, at least 10 feet from a window on a neighboring property as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Which is -- yeah. For both questions Joe's asked, if you take this 5-foot minimum to the property line into consideration, it solves the issues that he's bringing up, and I think that's probably a solution to the response that might help. MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Five-foot distance. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you've got 10 feet between any obstructions, and you've still got the width of the generator away from the wall to building, so you're far enough away you wouldn't need to do a smoke detector or anything like that, a carbon monoxide detector. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Carbon monoxide detector. I had one other question. And from a standpoint, some communities require sound walls around pool equipment or A/C units. Is there any restrictions that a sound wall -- if a community requires some kind of a sound wall, there's a screen, are there stipulations as far as how far from the generator one would have to put the wall up? MR. HENDERLONG: That is usually a manufacturer determination in their specs, and what I have seen where there is a wall or landscape, it will be two to three feet. It is not something that the county enforces from homeowners' association, but if that homeowner's association has a more restrictive, they'd have to comply with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Many homeowners in the docs require some kind of a sound wall or screening. And the last is, as far as the -- in regards to over easements, the applicant is fully responsible. They'll come in with all the documentation, as I read, to assure that if they're on some kind of a -- over some kind of an easement, that the easement holder has released -- they're obligated to get the release. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And verify that they've coordinated. MR. HENDERLONG: They will not proceed with the application if they provide their -- to require -- they'll submit the easement with the application, and if that letter does not accompany the application, staff will not process that building permit application until they get it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff, during the application process, is verifying any type of easement. It could be a landscape buffer easement, or it could be a utility easement -- MR. HENDERLONG: Correct, drainage. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- drainage easement. Sometimes these easement holders -- and that was Mr. Pires' -- Tony Pires' biggest concern was many of those easement holders are the CDD or the homeowners' association or somebody that really is the -- is the responsible entity for the easement, but the applicant has to secure the release or the approval. MR. HENDERLONG: I'm glad you brought that one up, because we went back after the meeting and pulled that permit to see actually what happened, and transpired, and that was a situation where a vendor and a contractor went out, they just knew the 3-foot setback was whatever it was, and they went and installed that, constructed it, but the county had never issued a permit for it. It came back for permit. It was rejected and, therefore, that's when it got caught again, and they had to move it to the rear yard. So that's where the permit was issued. That generator was moved from the side yard to the rear yard, and it met the requirements. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. HENDERLONG: But it still means that we need to be very vigilant making sure they're not in the easement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The real issue is in the staffing process that -- because many times the industry, the applicant may just pull the -- I want to call it kind of the site -- the spot survey or 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 59 of 91 the survey for the house, but you'll actually have to go back to the plats and plan to make sure -- MR. HENDERLONG: Exactly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- and verify that there's no easement, because the easement may not be noted on the survey plat for the home, but it would be on the plat or plan for the street, so there's got to be that due diligence to verify that those are not going over some type of easement. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. The Planning and Zoning Department gets the application first. They check the setbacks, and they're looking for the easements. They'll check the plats and see if there's any; if so, they'll send that back and put it on hold and ask the applicant to provide that letter or some proof of evidence that all the easement holders are willing to accept it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Am I correct that -- let's say I own a vacant lot right now, and my next-door neighbor decides -- we have a small setback or small distance between where I could build a building and where his housing unit is? He puts a generator in, and in some cases that might result in a smaller footprint for my house; am I correct. MR. HENDERLONG: Not necessarily. Generators are always allowed currently under the LDC as an encroachment in the side, or it has to be in the rear yard 10-foot back. That's being modified with this amendment to -- in the rear yard from 10 to 5 feet. The second part is -- what we're doing is acknowledging that a generator is an accessory use. It's not -- should not be looked at as somewhat like an encroachment into a side yard, but the proper standard is to set it at a certain distance from the property line. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So in my vacant-lot hypothetical, the fact that my next-door neighbor puts a generator in would have no effect on the sideline of where I could construct a house. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have anything? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: One more. It's somewhat related, corollary. As you recall during the last hurricane, we lost a lot of power in the county, of course, and as a result, after three or four days, the people using their facilities in their home -- we had no lift stations operating, and we pretty much overwhelmed much of the county with sewage because we had little sewage moving because the lift stations don't have auxiliary power. We now have many homeowners who are deciding to put generators in with the belief that they're going to live in the home now and, of course, the generator -- they're going to be living in the home, but after three or four days, if we don't have power restored -- and I don't believe we have plans now for any type of auxiliary generators in lift stations. They may be living in the home, but they're not going to be able to move sewage, which is going to be a real problem in the county, because in the past people who didn't have the generators either evacuated or they lived in a hotel or they went somewhere. I just see it really becoming -- going to be a significant increase in the number of people coming back turning on their generators and trying to live in their house, but we can't move sewage in this county without auxiliary generators powering the lift stations. I don't know, is that -- second and third order effects of this. Has anybody talked about this? MR. BOSI: Well, Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I believe utilities has a plan of trying to provide generators in more locations to individual lift stations, but it's a pretty hefty task with the number that they have. It's like 657, I believe it was. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Significant task. Very familiar with even the days when FEMA used to provide generators and what it cost to store generators and all the other things associated with it. Though it's a great concept from a standpoint of the county trying to do it, it's a pretty significant expense to have the generators to power the lift stations. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 60 of 91 So though they maybe have power in their home, they may not be able to move sewage. And we had some serious problems, as you may recall, during the last hurricane. MR. HENDERLONG: Duly noted. I agree with you. I know the Board struggled with that, and Mr. Summers has talked to the Board about that, and they're trying to do a study on how they can improve that or find accessibility for auxiliary generators and have a certain amount or quantity available and where to place them on a first-, second-, and third-tier level. For instance, nursing homes, ALFs, gas stations, et cetera. And then where do they get the most number of people back up and running with the sewer problem? That's still -- my understanding, that's still an ongoing study. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And in my summation, it's going to be a short-term fix. If it powers more than 10, 15 days, it's -- you know, we're not going to move sewage. I mean, that's what happened. MR. HENDERLONG: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? One point of clarification. Rich, on 5.03.07.C.2, you added some language in yellow. It says, "All easements burdening the property including, but not limited to, drainage easements, lake maintenance easements, and access easements." And I understand what that means, but in the amount of single-family that I've been involved in, either between the units or in the rear lot lines we have drainage swales or areas where drainage is directed by slopes. A lot of times those are interrupted because people plant in the middle of them, stop the water from running, and that stops -- blocks it up on both sides for drainage, and it stops water from going to the street or to the back. How -- is that occasion addressed somehow in the sense that if they are in an area where the drainage is supposed to sheet flow or flow in a collected swale to a direction, especially one that backs up to other properties, how are we addressing that? MR. HENDERLONG: In the context of what you have in front of you, it's not addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it should be because then that's one of the problems with these -- when you keep packing this stuff in between units, because most of the times -- and a lot of the conditions don't have gutters. Whether they do or not, though, the water ends up going between the units and then it's supposed to flow front to back or middle to both sides. We've got to make sure that's not impeded. So I think some note ought to be added just to make that as something that should be considered in the site plan review. MR. HENDERLONG: You can make that a condition for your approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Any drainage directions are accounted for, something to that effect. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the only thing I'd ask I think I've seen missing from this. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's a good point. I've got one more. The zero lot line pretty much negates any ability to put a generator in, because it will -- typically the zero lot lines are, what, five foot and zero, so you -- MR. HENDERLONG: Well, a true zero lot line says that the structure's on the lot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: On the lot line. MR. HENDERLONG: And then you've got 10 foot to the side, okay. So they still -- if you've got 10 foot on the side, you would be -- if the other house is 10 foot, too, you would be prohibiting anybody in that area. Same thing with the 5-foot setback. If you've got five and five or seven and seven, they're going to have to have five that -- if you've got seven-and-a-half feet on both sides and they're looking for 48 inches, four and four, okay, and you're going to get the 10 foot, that's the only case where you'll get your 10-foot separation between a structure and the generator is on a 7-and-a-half foot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, a lot of places are going to require generators either going 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 61 of 91 in the back -- mostly in the back of the house behind the pool or other places. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: These are -- I don't argue with the restrictions, but the restrictions are going to be, I would say, difficult to meet in a lot of places, and they're going to end up putting them in the back, which is what my neighbor did. He put it back behind his pool cage. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. And staff, as a whole, tries to ask that question. They are cognizant of that; why can't you put it in the back? And then they do try to -- when they do the review of the planning and zoning, I know I've talked with a couple of the reviewers regarding that, but they're not -- they can make the suggestion. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- here might be able to make -- what is it, 20 percent additional cost? I don't know. I just don't know. MR. HENDERLONG: You'll hear from some of the members of the industry today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If nobody else, we'll do public speakers. We'll start with registered speakers, whoever wants to call them up. And when you please come up, identify yourself by spelling your last name if it needs to be, and then we'll be glad to hear from you. MR. BOSI: First speaker is Joe Dvorak, and he'll be followed by Ray -- Ron Kay. MR. DVORAK: Yes, I have some pictures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you'll have to use the microphone. Identify yourself before you start speaking. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: They can put pictures on the viewer. MR. DVORAK: My name is Joe Dvorak, D as in David, V as in Victor, o-r-a-k. My wife and I live in Lely Resort. I have with me 55 signatures on a petition, and there's another gentleman here tonight, he has 45 signatures. We have over 100 signatures on our petition making a recommendation that the previous provision of one foot from the property line be adhered to. These were signed before it changed to five feet. So this is -- this is in reference to 12/18, the provision one foot from property line. So I have three sets, and I have photos. My wife and I purchased our home a year-and-a-half ago in Lely Resort. We've been renting down there for four years. We're from Chicago. And at the time when we were looking for a home, we were trying to focus on areas that had natural gas. We wanted natural gas for cooking, for barbecuing, and also for a generator. In Chicago we have a generator. We've had it for 10 years, and I can tell you it has saved us probably two or three times a year. We have a high water table, and when the power goes out, our sump pumps will shut down. The generators runs our sump pumps. It runs a lot of -- in the wintertime it runs the furnace. So we were focused on a generator. No problem. So we purchased a home, and I asked the realtor at the time, I said, is there any problem with having a generator on this home? He said, absolutely not. Half of your neighbors have generators. Great. So after we moved in the home, I decided -- I met some of my neighbors. We decided we're going to do a package deal. We went and we purchased -- we got seven neighbors. We purchased a generator from a gentleman right here. We got a package deal, great deal, 10-year warranty, everything was fine. Six of my neighbors got their generator installed. Came time for our generator, we were told it encroached six inches into the side yard; six inches. So I said, really, why don't we put it behind the pool cage? The problem is we're on a lake. On a lake you own no property behind your pool. On a golf course, most of the homes don't have any property behind the pool cage. So we couldn't put it behind the house, couldn't put it on the side of the house. So Anthony goes, let's put it in your front side yard. I said, front side yard? I want to put it between two garages. I've got two garages. There's no windows. There's nothing there. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 62 of 91 He gets the permit to put it in the front side yard, our HOA will not approve. There's no generators in the front yards. So now we have no -- we want a generator. We have no option. All we want to do is protect our home. We know that there's three appliances that protect your home: Security system, air-conditioning for mold, and a generator. Hurricane time, without a generator you have no protection for your home. That's what we're looking for. When the staff proposed the one foot from the property line amendment, we were all in favor of it. It help -- there's probably, I don't know -- Rich, how many people have had permits rejected? MR. HENDERLONG: About 15 percent. MR. DVORAK: Fifteen percent or 50? MR. HENDERLONG: Fifteen of the total pool. MR. DVORAK: Fifteen of the total pool have been rejected. So all of a sudden we're trying to figure out -- we were told when they first did the amendment that it was going to speed in help getting generators. So going from two foot from the property line to one foot would speed the process. All of a sudden now we have five feet; five feet. Well, my calculation is, if it has to be five feet from the property line and you have two generators, that now means that homes have to be 17 feet apart; 17 feet apart. We live in a new community, three years old, and I could tell you for a fact, there's 150 home. Seventy percent are not 15 feet apart; 70 percent. Of the 633 permits issued in the last two years for generators in Collier County, 633, 36 percent are between 10 and 15 percent (sic), a total of almost 71 percent of those permits would be rejected with this 5-foot addition. We are against the 5-foot addition. We don't think it's reasonable. We're very concerned. Hurricane season's coming. We've been waiting a year for a permit. I go back to Chicago in two weeks. I can't -- I can't be in the house, can't watch the house. So we know that the Board has their meeting at the end of June. We want this thing resolved today; today. We want the recommendation resolved today. We think that the seven foot is really ridiculous, the 17 feet. How many communities do you live in that the homes are 15 to 17 feet apart? Not many. Now, if you don't mind, I'd just like to pick a couple highlights out of the petition just to mention a few things. We, the people, demand equal protection rights. A phrase in the 14th Amendment in the United States Constitution requires that states guarantee the same rights, privileges, and protection to all citizens. We are sure that every commissioner who -- would want to have the same right to install a permitted generator if they so wish so. We want the same right. This gentleman over here has a generator. I compliment him. He knows the benefit. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't have a generator. Make it clear. I do not. MR. DVORAK: Do you want one? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. No interest in one, and I don't want one. MR. DVORAK: Okay. Then I misunderstood you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. DVORAK: We understand -- if the commissioners believe there's an issue with this, we really say that Collier County is responsible. Collier County approved developers building homes 10 to 12 feet apart. Back when there was a hurricane in 2007, this could have been amended and changed but with Wilma where you could have incorporated the pool equipment, the air-conditioners, and a generator. Nothing was done. And today new developments are still 10 to 12 feet apart. So you helped to contribute to the problem, and now you want to penalize us because we can't get a generator. We didn't decide how wide the lots were. When we bought our home, we thought they were wide enough. We assumed in planning and zoning that was considered. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 63 of 91 The Fire Department's already indicated they don't have a problem with access between the homes. So in summary, we compliment the staff for all of their work and their first initial recommendation, and we believe if you still feel there's a problem, grandfather all existing homes that are 10 to 15 feet apart, anything platted new and going forward make the developers put the homes further apart. I know that's a task. It's not easy. But it doesn't -- why penalize the residents that we can't protect our homes? So in the end, I have just four quick pictures, then I'm done. All right. This first picture, in my opinion, says it all. This is my next-door neighbor's pool equipment, the generator is behind it, and down further is an air-conditioning unit. His pool equipment is on the property line. There's no provisions for pool equipment, there's no provisions for air-conditioning units, but now there's a provision for generators. The generator's the smallest appliance between two homes. Does that make sense? I could probably show you 100 pictures where the pool equipment's on the property line. No provisions to stop that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Could you go back to that picture again. When you say the pool equipment's on the property line, what do you mean? MR. DVORAK: You see the concrete slab. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. DVORAK: That is on the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So right where the slab ends. MR. DVORAK: Ends is the property line. Those homes are 10 feet apart. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a 5-yard side-yard setback? MR. DVORAK: Yeah. And you're proposing that the generator now has to be five feet from the house. The whole pool equipment's five feet from the house. Those homes have to be 15 to 17 feet apart to abide by this five foot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it's five feet from property line, not five feet from the house. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The generator has to be 18 inches from the house. MR. DVORAK: From the house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. DVORAK: Exactly. But isn't this new provision that the generator has to be five feet from the property line? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we just said, yes. You were saying five feet from the house. It's got to be five feet from the property line. MR. DVORAK: That's what I meant. Okay. It's got to be five feet from the property line. So on both sides it has to be five feet. That's 10 feet. That's without the generator. You've got to add in the generator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I understand. MR. DVORAK: So we're talking 15 to 17 feet. What we're saying is this is a hurricane zone; 50, 60 percent of the homes aren't that wide. You're telling us we can't have -- some people could put their generator behind their home, yes, and maybe there's some HOAs that will allow it in the front yard, maybe yes. But there's a high percentage of the new projects you're not allowed in the front yard, and you don't have property in the backyard. So I appreciate your time, your consideration. This -- we feel this is a very serious issue, and we would appreciate your very serious consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I just want to ask Rich to clarify. I'm looking at Exhibit D illustration, and this is installation for a typical five-yard setback, and it shows 18 inches, and then it shows the generator one foot maximum. Is that -- is this illustration not correct? I'm looking at 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 64 of 91 Exhibit D. Do you need a page number? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. It's Page 10, correct? That's what you're looking at, Page 10? Or your Packet Page 528. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 530 is the packet I'm looking at. MR. FRANTZ: It's on the visualizer. MR. HENDERLONG: Okay, sorry. There we go. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, this is showing one foot. This is how the original codification would have worked. MR. FRANTZ: We didn't go through and update the exhibits. We just updated the language as requested. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the original then? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And so if someone did this, the neighbor would have to install carbon monoxide detectors? MR. HENDERLONG: If there's a window opening -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Or a door. MR. HENDERLONG: -- within five feet, or a door, correct. And also manufacturers usually specify if the vent above is five feet, clearance from the top of the generator up to the vent, it has to have at least five feet of clearance. Some of them say four, but most of them say five. And I've been told one company won't even allow it -- if it's less than four, they won't even put the generator in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So what the gentleman had stated, that he was -- he's not allowed to put a generator. And this is now no longer allowed, as you're showing here? MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. MR. DVORAK: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you have to use the microphone if you're going to speak. MR. DVORAK: This is exactly how our home is right now. Ten feet apart. The one foot would allow us to put in a generator. Now that one foot becomes five feet, we can't put in a generator. And probably 70 percent of the homes can't put in a generator between homes. We have carbon monoxide detectors throughout our whole community. Not a problem. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What percentage of the homeowners' vote is required to amend your division indenture, your declaration? MR. DVORAK: I don't know. We just -- you know, we moved in a year-and-a-half ago. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It might be around 70. MR. DVORAK: Probably. I don't know. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Get Rich back up there, because I -- again, I'm looking at -- of course, I'm looking at the chart, but I'm also looking at the exhibits. What I've heard stated, then, if there was 18 inches plus the width of the generator plus five feet, no one will be able to put a generator in the side yard. MR. HENDERLONG: No, that's not what we're saying. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If it's -- preponderance of homes in this county, typical layout they're 5-foot or 7-and-a-half-foot setbacks. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. For setbacks at five feet, okay, no generators. It gets up to seven feet, it can be done. We've done a study on that. You can do it at seven feet. You need at least seven to seven-and-a-half feet to be able to put a generator in and offset them. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So then it's stated again, if there's a development with 5-foot setbacks, they are not going to get a generator on the side yard. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A 7-and-a-half-foot setback, it's possible? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 65 of 91 MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. They've got two-and-a-half feet to work with. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So when I look at Page 10, that's the -- that is -- it's Packet 528, Page 528 in the packet, but it's Page 10 in the ordinance, that's the one. That is acceptable right there? MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. And that is the one that DSAC -- oh, no, no. Let me back up. This one -- this new diagram that was added -- this is on Page 10/528. This was added in to identify for you that -- you asked us to take a look at clearances with an A/C. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: There's the minimum three foot, that's in the code; the 10-foot minimum, the diagonal, would be code required; and then your 48 inches. It would yield two feet both from the common property line, which would necessitate a 6-foot side-yard setback in order for that to be approved. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So this is -- yeah, it shows 6-foot setback, but -- MR. HENDERLONG: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, the preponderance there, a majority of the homes are either seven-and-a-half foot or five foot. MR. BOSI: Just a clarification. If it was passed with the five -- the 5-foot restriction from the property line, this diagram does not work. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. That's what I just was going to ask. The five foot from the property line, this wouldn't work, nor would a 7-and-a-half-foot setback work. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: This is 3 feet short, correct? Maybe 24-inch, we would need 60 inches. We'd need another 36 inches to the property line. MR. BOSI: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Maybe I lost it, because I -- what necessitated the 5-foot distance from the property line? If you have five foot, plus 30 inches, plus 18 inches, it's -- we're not going to have any -- most of the divisions will not be able to put it in the side yard. MR. HENDERLONG: The five foot from the property line was brought up at the March 27th meeting -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. HENDERLONG: -- and that was your goal was to say that you didn't -- that the Commission did not want it within five feet. You wanted 10 foot between the structures, and that you're manipulating too many elements into a very impacted area. That was the primary concern. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Maybe I was -- MR. HENDERLONG: In addition, if you look at -- you'll see there is some in your packet on Page 11, right next to it, you'll see that we gave you other Florida community research. And you'll see under the counties Brevard, Miami, Orange, Palm Beach, and Sarasota Counties, on the sides, Miami-Dade is at three foot, five foot for the estate lots; 10 foot for Orange; Palm Beach is three foot for single. On zero lots, they're five foot. So my point -- and if you look at Sarasota way to the right, distance to the property line, that's how they allow them. It's no closer than three feet for Sarasota County. So there are standards in other communities that are doing this. We looked at Marco Island. If you look at Marco, they're allowed four feet into the side and the rear regardless of the distance to the property line. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think at the last meeting I was thinking between the two units total of 10 feet. So that would be two-and-a-half foot from the unit to the property line and another two-and-a-half feet from the unit to the property line, which would give you a 10-foot clearance for people to pass through. MR. HENDERLONG: And that's why we thought the offset would accomplish that, by offsetting that they can -- around generators, and three foot between the A/Cs. We have no requirements 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 66 of 91 on pool pumps or A/Cs. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But now if it's five foot, nobody's going to be able to put a generator in. MR. HENDERLONG: That's correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, in some communities, like where I live, that's public utility and drainage easement -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- at five feet on each property line. We don't allow anything in the easements. It impedes the drainage and anything else that you have to do within your property. I don't understand why this community doesn't just change their documents so you can put them in the front yard. You have 100 signatures right now. That's enough to -- you can change your documents. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: How about my community? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, you can't talk from the audience. You'll have to wait till your turn to speak. Thank you. Okay. Joe, are you finished with any questions at this point? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm just going to sit and listen for now, because I want to look at these drawings. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: So as I recollect, the fire official that was here last meeting said that they'd like to have 36 inches in order to weave through the equipment and get to the backyard and that they did not have significant issues with that. They didn't need five feet. They needed -- maybe it was even 24 inches. MR. HENDERLONG: They said two to three. COMMISSIONER FRY: Two to three. MR. HENDERLONG: The minutes reflect that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it sounds like we're trying to balance safety issues, emergency access issues, safety from the standpoint of carbon monoxide, or generator fumes being drawn into other mechanical air intake equipment. I guess I'm unclear as to if you could achieve those other objectives but still have the 1-foot setback from the property line. That's really no farther encroaching than the air -conditioning pad or the pool pad, the pool equipment pad. Then why do we need more than the 1-foot setback to the property line? MR. HENDERLONG: That's your illustration that's in the packet for the original. What that illustration doesn't show is any of the other mechanical equipment. It doesn't take into consideration all that. But that's how you still could maneuver around assuming none of the other equipment's in there as an obstruction. COMMISSIONER FRY: So an alternative would be to have -- have this read where you could be within a foot of the property line but have these clearances to the other equipment to ensure a safe access. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes, that's the intent. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So there's no magic in the five feet. One foot, as long as it was safe in all the other directions, all the other dimensions, would be acceptable. MR. HENDERLONG: Correct. MR. FRANTZ: You-all have expressed concern about the neighboring property, and being one foot from the property line might not address your concerns about being that close to the other home if it is that tight space. COMMISSIONER FRY: But if the air-conditioning pad can be encroaching that far, and the pool pad encroaching that far, farther than the generator would, which is 18 inches from the house, and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 67 of 91 then that adds two-and-a-half to three feet, so it's, what, 44 inches, three-and-a-half feet, four feet max from the home outward. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: If we can ensure safe clearance for emergency access and everything else, then I guess I'm just looking for clarification as to why we need further restrictions in -- MR. BOSI: The 5-foot setback was the Planning Commission that made the recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, I was thinking five foot between two neighboring units. So it would be two-and-a-half on each side. Maybe I was mistaken. I'm going to ask another question, then. On Page 13, the drawing that is shown, it shows four feet. This would not be acceptable. It says four feet from the property line is the generator. I'm looking at the highlight; 18 inches from the wall, 5-foot openings, four foot to the property line. MR. HENDERLONG: You're looking at Exhibit D? MR. FRANTZ: It's on the visualizer. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's the one on the visualizer, yeah. MR. HENDERLONG: Yes. That's a 7.66-foot side-yard setback, and this is a common note that would -- that staff would put on there, 18 inches from the wall, five feet from the opening, four feet to the property line, and the state, so that's in compliance with the 36, the 3-foot setback, their encroachment that they're allowed. So it would be 4.65 from the property line. And what -- those that are being rejected, they need 42 inches to 48 inches rather than the 36. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I tell you, I must be -- I'm just not grasping this. This says four foot from the property line. What I heard you say is it has to be five foot from the property line. MR. HENDERLONG: That's what you're proposing. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh. Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are going to stop this discussion at 3 o'clock to go back to our regular agenda, so if we keep going on this and don't have a -- don't understand it, we're going to be here and maybe not even get to finish this today. So you-all need to keep that in mind every time we hear some new comments, because we've got to get it to a solution on this. MR. HENDERLONG: Mr. Dvorak's got the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Just leave one with the court reporter, one with the County Attorney's Office, and one with staff. And I have one question of Rich before we move on, or Jeremy. Jeremy, how many homes do we have in Collier County? How many homes have generators? MR. FRANTZ: I don't have either of those numbers available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We have over 211,000 homes, but I'm not quite sure how many have generators because we're -- I'm just trying to understand the quantities that are involved. Not everybody in every home lives down here full time and is here during the summer and needs a generator. And I just was trying to find out how many -- MR. FRANTZ: I know that Rich looked at how many permits we've received within a period of time, but we don't have like, you know, all -- total numbers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Ron Kay followed by Bob Cramer. MR. KAY: I need to swear in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, sir. We don't need that for legislative action. MR. KAY: Hi. I'm Ron Kay. I'm the president of one of the HOAs in Lely Resort, and I'm on the current turnover committee to take the entity back from Stock Corporation to the Lely LCDD. So I'm well acquainted with what Lely looks like. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 68 of 91 And let me recite a couple things for you. There are over 5,000 doors in Lely, and the preponderance of those doors are in single-family homes or condos. Those single-family homes have about 10 feet of separation, as Mr. Dvorak indicated, and I know that because I live in one of those. Last year during the hurricane, or a year and a half ago, those of us that live in Lely ended up going without power for about six to seven days depending upon the location you were in. That's the first time that that's really happened in a very, very long time. I've been down here for over 20 years. That drove demand for generators, and so there are lots of people who are buying generators. Interestingly enough -- by the way, some of you may say, well, why didn't you have a portable generator? Well, that's the way I started. I had a portable generator. I had it hardwired into my panel where I could pull it out of the garage, run it, and it powered -- I had a 7 kW generator. It powered a little bit of the house, so it took care of my refrigerators, it took care of my fans, took care of my lights. It wouldn't run air-conditioning; didn't have enough juice coming out of it. And we survived for two days until you couldn't get gas down here anymore. So anybody that thinks that portable generators are the solution to this problem, they are not the solution to this problem, because when power is out, it's out everywhere. There were only a couple of places where you could get gas, and the lines were a mile long to get there. And so portable generators aren't the fix. So I agree with Mr. Dvorak; you need to get to the place where reasonable setbacks are honored. I just had a whole-house generator put in. I didn't have a problem with setbacks because I have a very large pie-shaped lot, and so I was able to put a generator in, and I was able to bury a 500-gallon propane tank. But with weather being what it is, I mean, we could go another 30 years without seeing a storm like Irma but, then again, we could see another one very shortly, and we'll be in the same predicament. And I think demand has risen significantly. You'll probably hear from some of the generator folks, and I think we need to have reasonable setback requirements and, frankly, I don't see the reason for the change to the existing setback requirements that were in effect before this subject was brought up last month. So thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Mike? MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Bob Cramer followed by Jeff Wegner. MR. CRAMER: Good afternoon. Bob Cramer, Generac Power Systems, C-r-a-m-e-r. I am the technical applications manager for anything 0 to 150 kW. I travel the country. I just came down from New York. I wasn't expected to be here, but I came down from New York to provide some support to your residents and our dealers in this market. So I'm here more to answer questions that you might have than provide any statement, but I can certainly provide history on CO detection and where we're going as a manufacturer. I can provide NFPA 37 placement issues and how that's evolving with the codes. I can talk to you about emergency systems versus optional standby systems are legally required, like your lift station issue that you had some concerns about. So I guess I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Absolutely. I'm glad that you're here. What do you find -- I'm sure that we're not the only place in the country that has homes that are 10 feet apart. MR. CRAMER: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: What do you find elsewhere in terms of the preponderance of the requirements and the ability of people to put generators in their side yards in those developments? MR. CRAMER: So NFPA 37 is the standard for placement of a generator, and NFPA 37 developed a position that required you to be five feet from any combustible structure or any opening in a structure. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 69 of 91 And I would say back in the early 2000s we were developing portable product and limited home standby product, and the lot-line restrictions here caused us to go through special testing, which is Southwest Research Institute, and they're based out of San Antonio, Texas. And we went in because of the NFPA 37 requirement of placement to allow us to go to that 18 inches. So that 18 inches that you see is we established that as a manufacturer. COMMISSIONER FRY: So 18 inches from the home? MR. CRAMER: From a combustible wall, correct. We could have gone 12. We could have gone 10. But we chose 18 inches as the standard because of some air circulation for the equipment and things like that. So the placement of the product at 18 inches is based off the testing we did in the earlier years to provide a product for Florida, for the hurricane areas where the homes were closer together. The problem was portable product that was getting used in these markets, they were leaving them in the garage. The elderly communities, they wouldn't pull them out onto the driveway. They'd leave them in the garage, and carbon monoxide would build up. So testing -- we spend about $250,000 a year on testing for placement and then redesign of product. We have to go through and test it every year, and that developed that 18 inches. And then we work directly with any community across the country for placement. In New York -- one of the issues I'm dealing with in New York right now is we have to go through an affidavit program to get placement closer than 24 inches, and New York is accepting that, but they're trying to roll forward with some laws in this one particular community. So we deal with these issues from California to New York all year long. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I think what we're dealing with here is not so much the 18 inches to the home. It's the distance to the property line and between the generator and other equipment. You know, we have the carbon monoxide requirement within 10 feet of an opening, a window or door in that structure or an adjacent structure, but what do you see elsewhere in terms of how close the generator can be to the property line and what kind of factors are -- you know, are weighed by other communities in making that decision? MR. CRAMER: The lot-line restriction, I've never seen it to the five foot. From the building structure, 18 inches to the unit, 24 inches -- and, again, I'm talking about our product, not any of our competitors -- width of 24 inches, and then an additional five feet to a lot line. We don't see that. And in this market in Florida, there's tens of thousands that are already installed within what your community is requesting right now. So they're already in place. I think there was a misunderstanding of the distance from the generator to the lot line just listening to the conversation that's taking place. And as far as the fire marshals that we meet with, they don't have a problem getting to the front door or the back or getting into our equipment. They have an ax, and they open it up, and they do what they want. So we haven't -- we've never really had any issues other than CO. On the CO side, we are -- we're leading as -- we're leading manufacturer in stipulating that CO detectors are installed if a generator is installed on the property. Now, there's some hangups that come with that based on the building codes and things like that, but our recommendation is that a CO detector is installed when a generator is installed on a residence. It's not a requirement but NFPA 37, which again, talks about placement, is moving forward to try and adopt something. I don't know if it's going to make it in this code cycle or it's going to take another three years, but there is discussion right now. We were just up in Savannah with the panel members of NFPA 37, and it's a recommendation. COMMISSIONER FRY: In this version of our code, the recommendation is -- or the requirement would be one carbon monoxide sensor per floor inside each opening, a door, window, that's within 10 feet of the generator. Does that support what you've seen in terms of ensuring safety elsewhere? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 70 of 91 MR. CRAMER: Our installation and owners' manuals recommend within -- inside in the closest part of the structure that has an opening, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Even if it's farther than 10 feet away? MR. CRAMER: Correct, correct. The closest opening within the structure. COMMISSIONER FRY: One carbon monoxide sensor inside near the window or near the door? MR. CRAMER: We'll call it a bedroom. Inside that bedroom, if that window's on that side of the house, we make a recommendation for an installation of a carbon monoxide detector. COMMISSIONER FRY: And if you were within 10 feet of the adjacent house in these very close lot-line situations, the recommendation would be to have one inside the window of that home as well if it was within proximity of the generator owned by the adjacent neighbor? MR. CRAMER: Again, it's tough to discuss that because it's not a requirement. It's not part of the Florida Building Code. It's not part of the ICC. It is a recommendation on our part based on the events that took place here over the years. And, moving forward, we know that there is going to be adoption but, again, it's dictated to the structure that the product is installed on. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. CRAMER: So if the neighbor -- I don't have any control -- or our dealers have no control over whether the neighbor wants that or not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Jeff Wenger followed by David Gregory. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How many speakers total do we have, Mike? MR. BOSI: Five additional. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to be cutting it close to three. MR. WENGER: I can go fast. My name is Jeff Wenger, W-e-n-g-e-r. I'm here to speak on my own behalf and also for 45 residents of Stone Creek. Stone Creek's a brand-new development. It's still under construction. The advantage Stone Creek has is it's one of the very few new communities with natural gas. Like many of my neighbors, we moved there because we wanted to get a permanent home generator. The standby generator we've had in the last two homes. We value what it can do for us not only for health reasons, but if there is a hurricane, to answer one of your questions, we're not going to stay around, but we don't want to come back to a house with rotten food in the refrigerator and mold throughout the entire house. That's why we want a generator. We're 12 feet from our neighbor. After Irma, all of our neighbors applied. Neighbor on one side got his generator. Neighbor on the other side got his generator. We're six inches too close to the property line as the previous restrictions were. That means that we're looking out at his generator yet we can't put one in the very same space even though there's 10 feet of room between generators between openings in both of our homes. There's plenty of room. We can't get it because we're six inches too far apart. Forget about the 5-foot setback that you've been talking about. We feel one foot is too much. We'd like you to make that one-half foot. If you make it one-half foot, we get our six inches, we can put our generator in in the same space between our two homes as he does. We cannot put it in the back of our house because our pool cage goes all the way to the property line. We might be able to put it in the front of the yard, but even if the homeowners would allow it, it would be unsightly. I want you to know, too, portable generators are dangerous. Hundreds of people die every year because of portable generators. Permanent generators, permanent standby generators are not. There are very view instances where it contributed to any deaths whatsoever, all right. And the idea of the carbon monoxide and everything, I think you have to realize that -- I think the fears are unwarranted in terms of 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 71 of 91 these permanent generators. Also, the sound is not an issue. For years at a time that generator may never go on full time. It's going to turn on for maybe 15 minutes once a week, and the sound emitting from air-conditioning units and from pool equipment, those -- that equipment runs continuously, all right. A permanent backup generator does not run continuously unless there's a hurricane situation or a major outage, all right. I have here signed petitions and letters addressed to you from 45 of our neighbors right along our own street. Our homes are all 10 to 12 -- some of them are a little more than 12 feet. Some people can get generators, some people cannot, all right. Every one on this list, they're all asking you to lessen the restriction, lessen that 1-foot setback. Make it half a foot so we can all get generators. If this doesn't go through, my wife and I, we're going to move out of Stone Creek. We're going to have to move somewhere else where they already have a generator, all right. It's just something that we feel we should be able to get. And the ability to do it with natural gas is so much better than having to bury propane tanks or have aboveground propane tanks. They're just unsightly, okay. So we ask that, if you would, please, lift the restrictions somewhat. Don't increase them. Permanent standby generators are a good thing, they really are. And they're -- if this does go through where you're going to increase the restrictions, right now with the restrictions as they are, about 10 to 15 percent of the homes in Stone Creek would not be approved. They'd be denied just like I was denied and some of the other people here were denied in Stone Creek. If you increase them, I guarantee 90 percent of the homes would not be able to get permanent standby generators. And that's what I have to say. COMMISSIONER FRY: What distances were involved in your case? What distances? And where were you six inches shorts? You're 18 from the home for the generator. MR. WENGER: Eighteen inches from the home. The Generac generator's 24 inches. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's 42 inches. That's three-and-a-half feet. MR. WENGER: Then we need it to be another foot to the property line. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's four and a half feet total. MR. WENGER: But we weren't a foot to the property line because our house is a little bit wider than our neighbor's house. So we're short six inches to the property line. We need another six inches. And even with that space, there's so much space between our homes, the fire people could easily get in and out, weave between the generators and, you know, pool equipment and so on. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your setback -- your property line is four feet from your house; is that what you're saying? MR. WENGER: I don't know. All I know for sure is that we're six inches short. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. WENGER: So here are the copies. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Typically, again, they're either 5-foot setbacks or 7-and-a-half. That's why I'm trying -- sitting here doing the math, and I mean -- I mean, even if it were six inches, how are you going to -- Commissioner Strain brought up the fact of assuring that there was adequate drainage between the homes so you don't cause a dam effect or backup water, because the home requirements are is -- you know, they're built up a bit and you're allowed drainage so you can have -- water comes off the roof. It has to move to the front or the back of the house. MR. WENGER: Understood. Our neighbor's pool equipment extends much further out from the house than this generator pad would in the same space. Believe me, it's not going to be an issue because the space is there. It's just our house is a little bit wider than his. We're 12 feet apart. He has his. We look out at it every day. It doesn't bother us. He can get his. We can't get one ourselves. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So your request, in summation, is you don't want any more than six inches from the property line. MR. WENGER: Property line, yes, sir. Because if we don't do that, 20 percent of the homes -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 72 of 91 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The math doesn't add up. Twelve -- 18 inches plus 24 inches. MR. WENGER: You've got the 12. How many inches, 18 inches from the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah, 18 inches from the house. Twenty-four inches, you said, is the typical size of the generator, so that's two-and-a-half feet. MR. WENGER: Yeah. But from looking at your exhibit on Page 12 or 13, whatever it is, it shows that -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Three-and-a-half feet, sorry. MR. WENGER: You need that extra foot. And all I know is that we were denied because we were six inches too short. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: The next speaker is Brian Gillis. MR. GREGORY: I thought you said David Gregory. MR. BOSI: Oh, I'm sorry. David Gregory followed by Brian Gillis. MR. GREGORY: Thank you. My name is David Gregory. I happen to live in Stone Creek. I've also been on the board for over four years at our North Naples condo association. I'd like to address a question regarding the sewage which you talked about, Mr. Schmitt. One of the big problems after the hurricane -- and I think there's two types of people: Those that leave and those that stay. And then some people do come back early. We were without power for 10 days at the condo from FPL. One of the major problems is, because people didn't have air-conditioning, they were running showers all the time, and we had to go out to people and knock on their doors and tell them, please don't take a shower. Don't flush your toilet unless necessary. But by not having power, you actually created a problem with the sewage because people were trying to cool themselves off. As I recall, it was, like, 98 degrees and 95 percent humidity. So I went to put in an application for a permit for my new house in Stone Creek. I am zero lot line. I have 10 feet that I own right to the wall of my neighbor. Now, he does have 6 -inch easement to be able to paint his wall, but I own 10 feet. My air-conditioner sticks out 42 inches. I don't have any pool equipment, so there's nothing else going down there. I know that other people with pool equipment, as was shown here, with pool, gas heaters, et cetera, extend out beyond that. So we're not encroaching on your drainage because, if we are, the builder has already encroached on the drainage. I was denied the application just this past week. It was rejected. Finally today they listed why the -- you know, the application. And it tells me that the encroachment is over three feet into the 10-foot setback because that's the current code as I understand it. If that is true, then nobody should be a play (sic), because if you take 18 inches from the wall, 24-inch, you're at three-and-a-half feet. There should never be a single installation in this county. Before I put in my application, I did it for the HOA, and I pulled identical houses to mine, identical footprints. I looked at what was approved. They all were approved with six-and-a-half feet to the property line, because if you take that 18 inches plus 24 inches, that's three-and-a-half feet to a 10-foot property line, there's six-and-a-half feet of clearance. I was rejected. I do not understand why -- I have it in writing if you'd like copies. I have copies of all of the permits that were approved and their addresses in my community. So we're ambiguous here or selective enforcement. I don't know what the situation is. But it is not reasonable -- I mean, I can agree with safety issues, but I'll tell you builders are putting air-conditioners straight across from each other that -- and I've got pictures of them -- where it would be hard for people to get through. Obviously, six-and-a-half feet to walk between what's on my property to the wall of my neighbor would not be a problem. My neighbor on the other side has two air-conditioners that the builder could have spent $25 additional and moved them back probably four feet so I'm not hearing them every day. I can't open my 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 73 of 91 front door. But that's the way builders do things. So I think that there's a reasonable expectation here. The reason I want a generator is I spent $25,000 on hardwood flooring when I built this house, and I saw in the condo association many people after 10 days with the humidity and heat lost flooring as it all started to pop. If you look at the current insurance, your deductibles are now a percentage of your value of your home that's insured. So, therefore, you can have 15- or 20,000 or more in insurance deductible, so the investment in a generator to keep my refrigerator going and not having throw out food and not take a chance losing my floors, to keep my security system on and other things to me is well worth. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Brian Gillis, followed by James Klug. MR. GILLIS: Good evening. I'm Brian Gillis. I live at 2899 Cinnamon Bay Circle, in Naples, a development known as Riverstone. It abuts up next to the other two gentlemen's establishments, which is Stone Creek. One of the issues I heard was about the swale, about the water coming through the swale, the runoff of the gutters and things like that. I know for sure Riverstone, built by GL, and the HOA does not allow anybody even to plant on that, put any equipment there. It's supposed to just drain out to where it's supposed to drain. It's a big violation on that. There's another photo I have here, if I can do this, showing A/C equipment and a generator, about how -- about how the A/C units do not -- actually, the A/C units here further encroach -- I think they're 44 inches, and the generator itself is only -- is one inch less than that. My point is, the fire marshals, police department, or anybody trying to go in there to go to the back of my lot to put out any fire or anything could easily go through there. And that's the way it is right at my house. That's been sitting there for about a year, because I've been battling with a shortage of about four inches on the side yard. I have hired All Phase Electric to do the job. They were declined to get the permit because of a shortage. One of the big reasons here, I think we've made it kind of clear today is this 5-foot setback from the base of the generator just won't work on a majority of these homes, because you would have an 18-inch off the wall of the house, the unit -- a Generac unit is 25 inches, and another 60 inches is for the 5-feet setback. That's a total of 103 inches. You would need a side-yard setback of each house eight feet, seven inches, which is a total of about 17 feet. And these homes down in Florida are put on with eight to 10 -- 10 feet, 12 feet, side yard clearances in a typical acre, which is 44,000 square feet, the builders are allowed to put five homes at, say, approximately 8,000 square feet, which equals about 40,000 square feet. If the builders would give us 10,000 square foot lots, we would avoid a lot of problems with generators for the future. I agree with what Joseph came up and said, and I agree with DSAC's setbacks for the setbacks for the generators. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you the house on the right? MR. GREGORY: I'm the house on the left. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're the house on the left. So that is your generator? MR. GREGORY: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. MR. GREGORY: I bought it after the hurricane which was, what, a year and a half ago. They've already put the underground tank in. It's all plumbed up, as you can see on the side, but we can't get a building permit because we're short about four or five inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 74 of 91 MR. BOSI: Next speaker is James Klug, followed by Larry Smith. MR. KLUG: Hi. My name is Jim Klug, K-l-u-g, and I live opposite Lely on 941 (sic) in a new community called Winding Cypress about a mile north of where Collier Boulevard comes into 41. I'm applying for a generator. The houses in this community are -- if they're straight, without the pie shape, are 10 feet apart, okay. There's a swale. There's no problem with having the air-conditioning units or any of the other appliances out there on a concrete slab which obstructs -- which would obstruct the water from going down the thing. We've had some rain, and I've had no problems with it at all. My problem is is that it's -- oh, the other key thing about my particular thing and I've -- I realize I'm kind of unique, is I've got no houses on that side because I'm on a corner lot. And I bought that house because I was on a corner lot, and I've also got a small preserve in the back. So I only have one house on one side. The other side is where the pool equipment and the air-conditioning equipment and everything like that is. But from my house to the common ground, the association common ground is five feet, one inch. And from what I understand -- I haven't submitted a permit yet, but from what I understand, I might as well not do it, because it's just not going to work. And I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I don't want to -- let me ask a question. What is the reason for the 5-foot setback? Why can't it be six feet or 10 feet or not -- I'm sorry, smaller -- four feet or three feet? I don't understand the reason for it. Could somebody help me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what we're trying to get to the bottom of today, sir. MR. KLUG: Because it just doesn't make any sense to me that, particularly on my particular side, where there's no neighbors or anything like that, and all the other requirements are 10 foot to the doors and all of that stuff are met. But I just don't -- it just seems to me -- I don't see the reason for regulating a 5-foot setback. We've got -- I've got -- I live with my daughter and granddaughter and husband. My granddaughter is handicapped/impaired. We all -- all of us have handicap stickers. We don't want to leave. We've got hurricane panes. I bought the house in February, and it's powered by natural gas. So it's a perfect hurricane shelter. I've got all the stuff that's necessary for a hurricane. And the reason I bought the house was because it was natural gas, and I say, oh, boy, I can put a generator in. And that's all. And I just don't understand the reason for a 5-foot setback. Maybe there should be some kind of a setback, but I just don't understand why it's got to be so much. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Mike. MR. BOSI: Next speaker is Larry Smith, followed by our final registered speaker, Frank Lowery. MR. SMITH: Good morning, Commissioners. My name's Larry Smith. I'm at 12784 Aviano Drive. I also represent the condo association architectural community for the same Aviano community. I submitted my permit request about a year ago. Bought the generator from a local Lowe's and had installation part of that, and then I got told, I don't know, July or August of last year that I failed my permit. There's 14 feet, two inches between my building, or my home, and my neighbor's home. It's the same distance of a neighbor down the street that put his several years ago. It's the same distance. He's got his in. So if you go with the original that I saw there of five foot from one building to the property line and 10-foot total, I'm golden. I don't know what -- all the various things we discussed today because it seems to sort of go around with lots of different five foots and three foots and whatever, but I thought the original one that was submitted way back, what'd you say, March of last year, of five foot with a one foot from the generator to the property line seems to be one that would work, and I would recommend the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 75 of 91 Board approve that so we can get on with all these generators. And I was told there's much more than 15 sitting out there based on my discussion with other people. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Mike. MR. BOSI: Your final speaker, Mr. Frank Lowery. MR. LOWERY: My name's Frank Lowery. I'm at 9016 Cherry Oaks Trail in Fiddler's Creek, Cherry Crossing and, respectfully, wanted to attend the meeting to kind of figure out what was going on. And there are a lot of different circumstances, and I know you have to get a uniform code together for future building and what have you. My particular situation -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we saw it, sir. You don't need to put it back up there, that's fine. Unless you want to leave your phone for us; we'll take that. MR. LOWERY: You can see there's plenty of room going down through there. And I'm told that I'm an inch-and-a-half, two inches into the easement that -- since we moved the -- from 12 inches to 18 inches, we're just a couple inches too far into the easement. Again, the A/C and the pool equipment are further into the easement. But my situation is I have a building permit. It was installed and inspected, and everything's 100 percent okay, but I can't get my CO. And I've paid a lot of money. I'm invested a lot of time. My major desire for the generator is not to live here through a hurricane or through sewage issues, but I was a general contractor for a number of years in Dublin, Ohio, and Columbus, Ohio, and I'm very sensitive to mold issues both personally and professionally. I'm very sensitive to maintaining my investment in a good condition, including wood flooring, including ventilation and breathing issues, et cetera, et cetera. I had a generator in Ohio for storms and winter cold to keep the heating going, and I installed a generator here to keep the A/C going was my primary concern to protect the house. And there's a lot of unique situations. A corner lot with easements would be a unique situation, and I don't know if some of these things -- you know, you're planning ahead and setting statutes, and I appreciate that and understand that, but when the permits were submitted for your approval and approved by Collier County, you know, there are some unique situations here that are being presented that need to, I think, be sensitive to. And I'd appreciate very much being able to get my CO and moving on with my life. I love it here. I plan to be a full-time resident in another couple of years and would appreciate your consideration in getting me my CO. And I understand the other issues. There's a lot of things you're considering, but it's there. It's in place. It was approved by your Building Department, your Zoning Department, and now I can't get a CO. Thank you for your consideration. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Mike, was that the last public speaker? MR. BOSI: That was the last registered speaker. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That phone has to be confiscated by our court reporter. MR. LOWERY: Give me my CO. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Is there anybody else who has not spoken that would like to speak on this matter? Yes, sir. Come on up. Please identify yourself for the record. MR. PIPIA: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We are running out of time, so if you can be brief, that would be helpful. MR. PIPIA: Very brief. My name's Dominic Pipia. I'm owner of All Phase Electric Service. There was a comment made earlier, not everybody's going to have a generator. 1950, in Fort Myers, not everybody had air-conditioners, okay. So we're in a new world. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 76 of 91 Generators, it is predicted -- or alternate power supplies are predicted to be a very common, common issue or ability on each house in the near future here. So we expect to see more and more of this happening and, as you see, this is the reason that we're here. The second thing is, on the CO2 issue, there was a report -- I think Antonio, you know, which report came out recently, that said that deaths by CO2 for generators, there was zero deaths reported for standby generators, which is what we're talking about right here. For portable generators, there was multiple deaths. So it's actually a life-safety thing. A lot of these people here, if you don't give them a generator, a standby generator, they're going to get a portable generator, and you're creating another issue all together, life-safety issue in that. The other issue that I wanted to bring up is that this is being called an emergency generator. NFP 72 is what we work on. We're electrical contractors. There's three classifications for generators. And the generator that we're calling -- that you're talking about is called an optional standby generator. But -- and I had brought this up again previously, and I was told, okay, no, we're calling it an emergency generator. So, okay. It's called an emergency generator, so -- and we're talking about drainage, so an emergency generator, which we think is important. We're so -- we want to put a classification called emergency on it, but we can have pool equipment that stands out farther into the yard than the generator itself. We've got to have some common sense to put this thing together. These people need their generators. I think we need to stand up for them in your community. That's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Okay. We had our public speakers. Anybody have any comments, suggestions to staff on how to proceed with this? Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would like to be reminded how we got to the five feet from the property line rule and what, if any, support for public safety reasons or noise pollution or whatever was behind what we had decided. MR. FRANTZ: My recollection is that, in particular, thinking about the zero-lot-line scenario, there was concern about allowing them too close to the property line, and that could allow for a generator to be just several feet away from the actual home on the neighboring property. And so the thought was, I think, you know, thrown out towards the end of the meeting that perhaps five feet from the property line would cover the bases in any situation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're also talking about everyone in Collier County. This applies to everybody, every home, not just one community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. It would be the LDC for every home. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's right. So, I mean, you're not denying generators. They can be in the front yard, backyard, or side yard. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, as long as they meet the code requirements. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On this particular issue, is anybody in a position where they want to make a motion? We're going to have to move this forward to get to the Board in one manner whatsoever. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would begin a motion. I guess I would ask, before I make the motion, just, is there any other information we have not discussed that would require more than a six -- one gentlemen said a 6-inch setback. I'm at a loss, personally, to understand why we need more of a setback or more of a setback from the property line for a generator than we do for a pool pad, air-conditioner, anything like that. They're on concrete pads. They all are. They all would impede drainage in the same way, so why would we -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, I think the thought at the time was that this 10-foot clearance for 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 77 of 91 carbon monoxide is important. And if you've got a neighbor and you're going to put a generator next to his home and he's got a potential of having a life-safety issue because of the carbon monoxide, maybe that's been solved by the way staff's laid it out. I'm not sure, but I'm just telling you that's what generated a lot of concern. You also have -- and I can certainly tell you I know Fiddler's Creek better than anyone in the room. The swales that -- the example that was shown to us last, those are swales down the middle between the units. Those things can impede water. In fact, in the couple times they had in that particular project, people complained. So you've got to be cognizant that we've got to still maintain the flow. We've got to have enough setbacks so the property owner on the opposite side is not interfered with in his routines and daily life activities. And to say that, okay, we're going to cover it by if you're within 10 feet of a window or door or something else, you've got to move farther away, then that means we're going to have to have surveys showing where all that stuff is accurately on the house next door in order to get that locked in for a permit purpose. Those are the things we were trying to avoid in the previous discussion. If that isn't necessary, then that's fine, but I think that's where -- that's how we got to where we were. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There were some issues there that I don't know how you resolve them for the neighbor next door. In the particular case of these neighborhoods, they may all be on friendly terms, but as seen sitting here for what, this is your third month, you've certainly seen when neighbors aren't happy with one another a lot. So they just happen to be good in this particular case, but what if someone moves in and says, you know, I keep smelling these fumes or I keep having this -- I'm worried about the carbon monoxide or the noise that goes off, those are the kind of things we were trying to accomplish. If it can be reduced to make it better, fine; but that's where we started from. COMMISSIONER FRY: It sounds like we're in a balancing act position here, weighing different things against one another, one being the right of a property owner to have a generator for many of the justifiable reasons that were mentioned here, the other being do we force them to put it in the front yard, which is -- I think would be universally agreed not a nice alternative aesthetically for property values, and it's sometimes not even allowed by the community. So I'm going to throw out that -- just in trying to balance everything we've heard, I haven't heard any -- I believe the five foot may have been more of a setback from the neighbor's house rather than the property line, if we're talking about a zero-lot-line situation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Not for me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not for you. It's really the property line for you? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Where I live it's -- it would be -- there's plenty of room, and we need five feet from the property line. So it's our public utility, and it's drainage, the whole community, and the water drains there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that not covered by the restriction in the LDC that you get approval from the easement holder? I guess if it's a drainage easement, that does not apply? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's public utility, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It needs to be identified in the plat as a drainage easement, utility easement, or a landscape buffer easement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't have to be in the plat. It can be a separate instrument, too. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, it could be a separate -- thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The only way that shows up is by an ALTA survey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You're right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are we not requiring -- isn't part of the amendment to this that they're requiring the easement holder to provide written approval, or they will not process the application? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 78 of 91 MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that cover -- my question is, does that cover -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So what happens when the house is sold and there's written approval? Then it can be withdrawn by the new owner, and their generator's removed. So what's the point? Why don't you just put it in the front or back? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: There's two things that are coming up. We committed -- applicant earlier said they would agree to delay their application till 3 o'clock today, but they had to be finished today, and I think we need to start that by 3 o'clock. It's 3:01 right now. The court reporter needs a break as required. So we need to give her a 10-minute break. I would suggest we take a 10-minute break, we come back, we hear the applicant for the thing that we've postponed all day, and then come back and finish this up before we go home today. And I don't think the other one's going to take more than 30 minutes or so, so we should get through that quickly and jump back on this. And maybe it will give us time to think about it a little bit before we jump back on it. So with that, let's take a break till 3:10, we'll resume, but then when we come back, we're going to be talking about the SRA Ave Maria change. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If everybody will please take their seats, we need to move on with the meeting we started earlier. ***Next item up is 9A2. It's PL20180003069, the Town of Ave Maria Stewardship Receiving Area located north of Oil Well Road and west of Camp Keais Road. All those wishing to testify of behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures from the Planning Commission. We'll start with Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just emails. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I've -- I think I might have gotten an email. I talked to the applicant. They asked me if I had any issues, and that was -- of course, I said no. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. There was emails? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think there was. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the package. COMMISSIONER FRY: Just the packet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing on this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wayne, you know, you might expedite this, since there's no members of the public here for this issue, we simply could just ask you any questions we have from it. MR. ARNOLD: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Unless anybody on the panel objects. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no questions, and I could -- I'm about ready to make a recommendation of approval, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's go through the -- let's go the gyration. Go ahead, Wayne. MR. ARNOLD: For the record, I'm Wayne Arnold -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's pretty insignificant. MR. ARNOLD: -- with Grady Minor & Associates. With me is David Genson, Barron Collier companies; Richard Yovanovich, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester Law Firm. The change itself is fairly insignificant in terms of removing neighborhood general areas just 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 79 of 91 under 13 acres and adding it back. The only thing I wanted to make sure I got on the record -- and, Heidi, I know there was communication between our office and yours. The sketch that accompanied the legal description that's in the ordinance, there was an error in that, and a corrected version was provided to you after this packet was provided to you, and I can -- just so you're all clear, I can put that on the visualizer, if you don't mind. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's a sketch -- it's for the legal description? MR. ARNOLD: It is the sketch that accompanies the legal that's in your ordinance. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. So it's Exhibit B of the resolution. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're going to substitute a new Exhibit B with a corrected scrivener's error? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Correct. MR. ARNOLD: That's -- the small corner that's in the southeastern portion of Ave Maria, this is how it's depicted in the sketch that's in your packet. It really should have looked like this when they mapped the legal description. COMMISSIONER FRY: Advertisement. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, a little bit larger. MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, it was clearly an error in the mapping of it, but the legal description was provided and checked accordingly, so that was correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. My only question -- and I didn't highlight it, but, Wayne, I believe there -- from a standpoint of credits, everything's wash -- pretty much a wash between the areas? Receiving/sending credits, none of that has been really significantly impacted, correct? MR. ARNOLD: None of it has been impacted. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a staff report? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Commissioners. For the record, Gil Martinez. Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition SRAA-PL201800003069 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval contingent on the following conditions as further described in the accompanying resolution: SRA monitoring requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any members of the public here for this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, Wayne, do you have anything you want to rebut? MR. ARNOLD: I do not. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This is an interesting approach today for this item, but let's -- with that, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Joe, I guess you had one. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I make a motion we recommend approval as stated in the petition. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second by Ned. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 80 of 91 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Sorry you had to wait all day, but I appreciate you allowing the other one to move forward while some of the people were here. Okay. With that, we'll move back to our favorite subject for today, and that is the -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What are we talking about? What was that again? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, generators. Let's start with that. We'll wait and switch county teams. And, Ray, thank you. Let Mike take over. Okay. We left off trying to figure out what to do for a motion, and I guess we'll pick it up right there. Is there any -- anybody have any idea how they'd like -- Karl you started it. So let's blame it on you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I started it. So, Jeremy, how often does the county get complaints from one neighbor about another neighbor's generator? MR. FRANTZ: I'm not aware that we have received any. MR. HENDERLONG: Just for the record, it's in your file, none. COMMISSIONER FRY: None. MR. HENDERLONG: Yeah, I can show you the page if you want to see it where we did look into that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So -- MR. HENDERLONG: They did get complaints for other things, but none for generators. COMMISSIONER FRY: This may -- may not fly through, but you asked for a motion, so I'll offer one. I'd like to move for approval based on an additional condition beyond the ones defined in the amendment. That is that the setback from the property line be reduced from five feet to six inches, which there -- that's basically it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, let's have -- is there a second to the motion first? Then we'll go into discussion, then we can modify the motion. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made and seconded. Okay. Joe, discussion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, in accordance with the chart, would it be easier to state in compliance with the chart, which we have five feet or less, greater than five, up to seven-and-a-half feet, and then greater than seven feet. That's the chart. So -- and -- yeah. I'm actually on the -- where you had the comparison and summary of recommendations. The DSAC has voted -- and which was commensurate or the same as -- pretty much the same as what the staff initially proposed. But I believe that if we change that one foot to one-and-a-half or, really, 18 inches for five feet or less, everything else falls into place, and it would -- then no matter what -- the gentlemen with the 6-foot separation would comply. It would be a 6-inch -- oh, he'd have more than six inches. But actually, instead of DSAC where it says one foot, we actually make it one-and-a-half feet. Probably even easier would be anything less than seven-and-a-half feet would be -- have to have a minimum of 18 inches from the property line. Seven-and-a-half feet or greater would be 2 feet and then 4 feet as shown. That's, I think, 18 inches. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm personally not clear -- I'm not clear on what you're suggesting. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you -- Joe, take a column on what's in front of us and tell 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 81 of 91 us -- you want to modify the DSAC column or the initial draft column or -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the initial draft column, yes, I would just modify it and change it from one foot to 1.5. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're increasing the setback from the side yard -- from the property line under the initial draft from one foot to one-and-a-half foot; is that what you're saying? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And how would that -- and what about No. 2, the second line? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I could just leave that at two feet, because I don't think there will be a problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what you end up with, then, if you have two 5-foot setbacks, you're going to be three feet between -- clearance between the area. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Three feet between clearance, yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does the motion maker accept that as an amendment to their motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And let's go back, just so we're clear then, because it would be 18 inches plus 24, so that's three-and-a-half feet, and then another 18 inches would be your 5-foot setback. So it would be 18 inches instead of the foot. That -- I'm not sure where we got this six inches, because that's -- COMMISSIONER FRY: They had a -- I believe they had -- they must have had only a 4-foot setback from their property line to their house. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think we've ever done less than five. COMMISSIONER FRY: Not less than five. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We've never done less than five. So unless there's a stagger, seven and two or something like that or seven and three, but typically you have a side yard -- if you have a zero line, it's at least 10 foot to the next house, or you could have a variation thereof but, typically, it was either zero, 5-foot setback, or 7-and-a-half is pretty much your typical in subdivisions in the county. If we made that 18 inches, the gentleman that talked about the six inches, it would work. I don't know where he got the six inches, but I worked it backwards, and 18 inches -- MR. FRANTZ: I believe that there's some confusion based on the way the current standard is, which is a 3-foot encroachment into the standards -- into the side-yard setback, and they were encroaching an additional six inches. MR. BOSI: So what -- that 3-foot encroachment allows a 2-foot, basically, setback currently. It's a 2-foot setback from the property line, and I think he was saying he encroaches six feet -- or six inches into that 2-foot, so -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So 18 inches. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, your mic needs to pick up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Eighteen inches he would meet the requirement. Here's the real problem. By creating very strict standards, which we would, we create an enormous number of nonconforming structures in the county, which creates a problem if and when they want to replace the generator. They can't replace it unless they conform, or they have to get a variance. That's the only two options. MR. KLATZKOW: You'll never get a variance. There's no hardship to a generator. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. Where's the hardship other than I won't have power for three days? I don't know. I mean, that's the only option I could see is make that one foot -- just make it one-and-a-half feet, and I think we solve the problem so that the worst scenario would be three foot between two units if they were side by side in a -- in a development that had 5-yard setbacks. Mark, what do you think? I mean, is it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know what, I've got a portable generator, and I'm just happy as anything. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 82 of 91 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I'm coming to your house. You know that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's fine. I'm fine with that. So whatever we've got to work out so everybody's happy, I can live with that, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think the 18 inches would work, and it -- and we don't create a problem of this enormous number of nonconforming structures and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The issue that they're going to add about the drainage was the only issue I saw on the table, and if that gets added within a three foot, you can easily take care of the drainage. In the example that was shown to us at Cherry Oaks, I know that drainage would be fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, I'm very familiar with Cherry Oaks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. So I just -- I don't see a problem with the 18 inches. And, you know, the carbon monoxide issue, we're just going to have to tackle it. It's just going to be a burden on the applicant now to bring in all the true locations of the doors and windows next door. It won't be on the back of a piece of tissue. It's going to have to be something bonefide. So if that's the way -- they want to get that close, then that's part of the deal they're going to have to do to make sure the neighbor's safe, and that's something we'll have to watch. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I absolutely agree. And it's up to the applicant with the -- unless the industry does something that significantly -- or approved through NFPA or one of the other testing criteria where they can demonstrate that the -- that the CO or the carbon monoxide detector is not needed. But I honestly think the biggest issue with these are going to be neighbors with noise, but you've gotten no complaints, and Code Enforcement hasn't been out there hammering them. But, of course, during -- when the power's out, everybody's going to be looking for the noise -- where the noise is coming from so they can enjoy the air-conditioning in the house with the generator. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So I think what it boils down to, under this table in front of us, the initial draft submittal would be the numbers we'd go with with the exception of the first line where it says 1 would be 1.5. Is that something the motion maker accepts as an amendment to their motion? COMMISSIONER FRY: With a question for Jeremy. I see an exhibit that shows 29 inches typical -- it's in Exhibit D, illustration, it may be the generator pad, but we're making the assumption that the generator is two feet, two feet wide, 24 inches wide. Do we need to allow for generators that are up to 30 inches wide, in which case that 18 inches might need to be one foot in order to fit within a five foot? MR. FRANTZ: I think that there are a range of sizes of different generators. I can't speak really well to what is the most common size, but we tried to incorporate as many of the different types of generators as possible when we initially recommended one foot. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Let me ask a member from the industry again -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to come up to the mic. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you'd come up to the mic. Because typically with a 5-foot setback, these houses are 22 to no greater than 3,000 square feet. So you're not going to put a big generator to power those units, are you? MR. PIPIA: Dominic Pipia, All Phase Electric. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thanks. MR. PIPIA: That's correct. Typically what we're talking about here is air-cooled generators. We deal with Generac generators and Kohler. There's an 18-inch allowance, and typically they need -- to get the generator -- the air-cooled generators in, you need 43 inches. That's what you need. So after 43 inches, you tell us what we need after that to make the standard, and that's what we need to put it in to make it compliant. I do want to say one more thing, too, please. The standard for the 18 inches is for combustible walls. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. We're not talking about -- it's still going to be 18 inches from the wall. MR. PIPIA: I just want to make one comment. But the standard is 18 inches from a combustible 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 83 of 91 wall. In the garages, they're noncombustible walls. So I don't know if there's any kind of an allowance for that that we can look at, because they're noncombustible. You could actually put them right next to the wall. But that's something that we really haven't discovered -- talked about. But I think that's an issue that -- you know, there is another way of us doing this here if we look at it, and that's -- if you need anything else, I'm here. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, the IBC is -- is the building code looking at changing any of the requirements? They say 18 inches, but -- MR. PIPIA: Eighteen inches from a combustible wall. The garage wall is a noncombustible wall. It's a block wall. I mean, where is it going to go? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, most of the other homes down here are pretty much block wall as well, stucco, block wall. MR. PIPIA: Ninety percent of the generators that we put in are right next to the garage wall, so that takes care of a whole lot of them. COMMISSIONER FRY: When you say 43 inches, you're saying -- is that including 18 inches from the wall and 25 inches for the width of the generator? MR. PIPIA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: So that's 43-inch. That leaves 17-inches to a 5-foot property line. MR. PIPIA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: So with an 18-inch requirement, he could not put a generator in a 5-foot setback. It would need to be a 17-inch. MR. PIPIA: Yes, and that's the point I'm trying to make, too, so that you could see that. So we need a little bit more there. I mean, we're throwing six inches because it's a nice round number, okay, or 18 inches because it's a nice round number. So what's a couple inches amongst our friends here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, just to get past this and let the Board deal with it -- they'll have a lot fun with it -- why don't we -- MR. PIPIA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- consider accepting the original submittal, one, two, and whatever the numbers are and just send it on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I agree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have a problem with that? Would you amend your motion? Well, put that -- where's the other one, the colored one that was just up here? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What does -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So we're leaving as-is? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no. We had -- see the one on the right, the yellow one, that's where it went to. Now what we're suggesting is basically go back to the initial draft submittal and live with that. MR. FRANTZ: But I think if you maintain -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Six inches more than you want and six inches less than what Joe wants, so that's a compromise. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I still want to keep the 10-foot separation, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: How do you keep the 10-foot separation? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, between units. MR. FRANTZ: Between generators. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Two different units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I agree. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we're protecting the distance between generators, we're protecting the ability for emergency personnel to get through, we're protecting with carbon monoxide detectors, but we're allowing people a reasonable distance to put in a generator if they want one. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 84 of 91 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And just for clarification, you're using the text that's in this proposed amendment, but you're substituting the Table 1 with the table you saw in your first review as revised as discussed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're taking the -- I don't know -- the text that -- see where it says "initial draft submittal" on this chart? All of that column as it goes from top to bottom is what we're saying we're recommending. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, except for the -- instead of two, we'll go with the 10 as -- that's the distance between two generators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now I'm completely lost. Now, you know what, you sound like we're talking about the PACE program. You ever want to see something confusing, watch that program. So what is it now we're -- where are we at this time? Mike, can you help us? MR. BOSI: I think what's being suggested is you're taking the initial draft, you're taking all of the -- all of the things -- all the numbers, 1, 2, 4, 10, 5, 10, and 5. That's all the same. The only thing that's going to be changed is where you see 2, that's a separation, that's the separation between generators. You want that at 10. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. This is -- we see 2 down at the bottom, it says, distance to public and private road right-of-way, 2 feet. Why would we want that 10 feet, right? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. The distance between generators is shown as 10 feet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I got it. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we don't need -- I'm not requesting any changes to that table. That table looks -- matches my motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So are you willing to amend your motion to go to that table instead of your six inches? That increases you by six and deceases Joe by six. I'm just trying to get this off the plate today. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. We'll go -- I make a -- amend my -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, he's got to amend his motion first. Do you accept -- THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time. MR. KLATZKOW: Make a new motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying. MR. KLATZKOW: Somebody make a new motion. COMMISSIONER FRY: I amend my motion to adopt that table. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe seconded. MR. KLATZKOW: By "that table," are you referring to the initial draft submittal? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: As discussed. COMMISSIONER FRY: The initial draft submittal column, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, you're also accepting -- the only change we made to the language would include some language indicating that drainage flows have to be maintained. We spoke about that. MR. FRANTZ: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that okay with the motion maker? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe, you said -- okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, any further discussion? (No response.) 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 85 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It passes 4-1. (Applause.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I am so glad that one's over. Now, Jeremy, I think by 4 o'clock we need to be wrapped up today before we all lose our minds. Can you tell us what's the most sensitive for the remaining time we have left, the time-sensitive issues that we have? MR. FRANTZ: Well, we have two additional LDC amendments. One is related to gas station signage. That's one that you've reviewed before. You requested some changes. I believe that we've met or made all the changes that you requested. That is an amendment to Sections 5.05.05, 5.06.00, and 5.06.06. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is everybody ready to -- want to go to that one next then? Is that the most time sensitive one we've got left? Because we're not going to get to this now for two more weeks to finish this up, so... MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. I think we've been working with the industry on this one. It would be good to move this one forward. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then let's do that. What agenda item is it? Is it A3? MR. FRANTZ: Yes, this is still A3. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Jeremy, take it away. MR. FRANTZ: So there's just a couple of changes that we've made. Last time that you saw this we asked for some additional time to look at corner lots and the language related to when a second sign is allowed. We've made that change. We clarified the maximum height should be measured from the average elevation of the vehicle use area. We prohibited electronic message boards on directory signs. And then as discussed at the last meeting on March 7th that you reviewed this, we changed the maximum allowable sign height to 12 feet. There were concerns about the previous height of 15 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the -- I think the discussion at that time led to the 12 feet being what the Racetrac used in front of our building over on Horseshoe Drive, for example. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that was a City of Naples standard. MR. FRANTZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That sign seems to work pretty well. I'm not sure why we need it bigger. Did you have anything, Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: No. Did you say that that is the City of Naples standard, 12 feet? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's the City of Naples standard for that site. I don't know what else their standards are, but that's in their -- MR. KLATZKOW: They're lower as you get away from the county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In Paragraph C, the only thing that may become an issue is, how 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 86 of 91 many lines can be illuminated per sign? What I mean by that is, like diesel, leaded and unleaded, or do you have to specify how many places I can have -- MR. FRANTZ: We just specify the total square feet that could be a part of that LED gas price sign. We called it electronic messaging. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So no requirement in how many prices they can put on there then? Six if they want? MR. FRANTZ: Just whatever they could fit on that sign. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Do you think we should or -- MR. FRANTZ: I don't know that we can regulate to that level. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's the only question I have. I'll stay with the square footage, and if they want to put six on there that I can't see, then that's fine. If they want to put three on there that I can see, I guess I'll go with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions on the other -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think from the dating of these emails, it seems to me that the lawyer, Douglas Lewis, still believes that we've been preempted out of the ability of doing what is currently proposed; is that -- MR. FRANTZ: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- what he says? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, that's what he says. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I take it the County Attorney's Office is comfortable? MR. KLATZKOW: Hey. I cut a deal. If Dougie wants to go outside the four parameters of that deal, fine by me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we ought to stick to what's best for the code. If there's other issues outside of that, that's what we have a county attorney for. Do we have any -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion we approve as stated with the changes as noted. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before I -- is there any member of the public here for the item that would like to speak? And I don't see anybody in the audience -- well, there's a couple people here, but no one here for that. So with that, we'll close the public hearing. And a motion's been made and seconded. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Next most sensitive. MR. FRANTZ: The last item that we had was related to self-storage buildings instituting a separation requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, just -- we have a couple people in the audience. Is there anything that -- you guys are waiting for anything in particular? If you don't mind -- I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't want to keep you waiting any longer. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I just wanted to say thank you for your consideration today, and we appreciate everybody's time today. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 87 of 91 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you very much. I didn't want to keep you here any longer than you had to be. It's torture. Okay. So you want to go to the self-storage facility? MR. FRANTZ: Sure. And Eric Johnson is going to present on this amendment. MR. KLATZKOW: What's the basis for this separation? MR. FRANTZ: This amendment was -- I mean, I can let Eric speak to it. MR. JOHNSON: Sure. Good afternoon, Eric Johnson, principal planner. This LDCA is an implementation of the vision that was -- that the Board accepted last year. The actual name of that vision is the U.S. 41 Corridor Study summary of findings and recommendations to the Board. It was one of the recommendations, so this is an implementation of it; that's why we're coming forward with it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That vision statement, it didn't come to us first, it went straight to the Board, so we didn't -- I don't remember weighing in on it. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. No, the U.S. 41 corridor study was just a simple design, a preference study, that was conducted over a three- or four-month period with the residents of East Naples. It was presented to the Board of County Commissioners. One of the recommendations was an LDC amendment that was going to analyze the placement of self-storage facilities to ensure that the opportunity for neighborhood goods and services would still remain if a self-storage facility was going to be occupying a location simply because of the concern of the proliferation of these type of uses. And the perspective of the community, they weren't quite -- they didn't give to the neighborhood the necessary access to goods and services. They didn't interact with the neighborhoods in the way that our traditional commercial establishments would that sold goods and services. So they just wanted to make sure that they weren't going to extinguish those opportunities, that they were going to be able to -- there was still going to be a balance for neighborhood goods and services to be provided to close-in residential units along the strip zoning that proliferates U.S. 41. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? Eric, did you want to do any more formal presentation other than what Mike just said? I don't know if you had anything else to add to it or not. MR. JOHNSON: No. Just -- I had uploaded onto the CityView portal some of the exhibits that -- you know, instead of being printed out, I just put them on the CityView portal. So, you know, that's part of the record as well. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The CityView portal is part of the record? MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm just curious what you mean by that. I don't have a CityView portal in front of me. MR. JOHNSON: The GMD portal that everyone has access to. MR. KLATZKOW: If you want to make it on the record, you've got to put it on the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm trying to figure out how you're accomplishing what you just said to do. MR. BOSI: What Eric was trying to say, he placed the documents that were part of the package that you've received as part of the CityView portal as a part of the record. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a public hearing. You can't be saying we put a secret double probation thing on a secret double probation thing that the public doesn't have access to. MR. BOSI: It's part of -- the CityView portal is a public portal. It's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who would know to look there for -- (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) MR. BOSI: It's the way that Mark is provided the information that he takes for the meetings. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 88 of 91 Well, not Mark, the actual board. MR. KLATZKOW: We have a visualizer here. That's what it's for. MR. BOSI: It was an unnecessary statement by our planner. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I didn't understand it. I had to ask. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Eric, did you have anything you want to add to the discussion, any highlights you want to make sure about the particular issue at hand? MR. JOHNSON: Well, just that it would create a separation requirement between self-storage facilities within a certain segment of U.S. 41. We would also create a waiver process that would be heard either by the Hearing Examiner or the Board of Zoning Appeals. Go ahead, Mike. MR. BOSI: And another aspect is if -- the self-storage facility, if it was in location -- that it was in a quarter mile of another self-storage facility, it would not have to seek a separation requirement if it agreed to provide 20 percent of that square footage that would be dedicated to goods and service. MR. JOHNSON: Yeah, 25 percent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I saw that. MR. JOHNSON: And also, the intent of this whole -- well, part of the intent here is that existing self-storage facilities that are already here, ones that have been constructed or have an SDP, would be allowed to expand, and they wouldn't have to be subject to the separation requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And they're not nonconforming structures, or they are -- will they be considered nonconforming in the future? MR. JOHNSON: I don't think they would. I mean, Heidi would probably say no. I say no. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I believe he said that the -- that if they already have an SDP in the works or they're already existing, they wouldn't be subject to this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But if they were existing and this went into play and they couldn't be there because they failed the distance separation, say they burnt down or was 100 percent destroyed, are they considered nonconforming and thus could not be rebuilt? MR. FRANTZ: That's not the intention of the amendment. We can clarify that a little more in the applicability. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll put in a savings clause. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as we do that, then I'm fine. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The notice for the public hearing, is it only within 500 feet to the property owners? MR. JOHNSON: It would be 500 feet. It's the urban area, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what it is now. Yeah, that's what you get for PUDs in the urban area. Why would this rank higher than a Planned Unit Development or a rezone? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't know why it couldn't be 1,000 feet. We suggested it, 1,320. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. That's the distance separation, isn't it? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I know, but, no, that was the suggestion. This is what DSAC wanted is 500. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: DSAC -- I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, that's what I read. MR. BOSI: I think DSAC wanted to reduce the distance from the quarter mile to 500 feet. If they were proposed within 500 feet, then they would need the separation requirement. It's not really the notification requirement. It's whether they would be subject to have to go through the waiver process. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: In the last page of your packet you did provide a digital map that showed all the locations. Yeah, that's the -- and you have a digitalized version in the packet. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 89 of 91 MR. JOHNSON: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It certainly shows the location. I guess the real question is, is this a real problem, or was this just a problem -- it appears to be a perceived problem from the folks along U.S. 41. This was the East Naples Civic Association that did this, or this was part of the U.S. 41 overlay study, you said? MR. BOSI: This was -- and if you -- this is one of the common concerns expressed by Commissioner Fiala, that she feels that the storage facilities are proliferating in an abundance within the East Trail, and her concern is that they are going to displace your traditional shopping opportunities for neighborhoods. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. U.S. 41 and Collier. There's -- of course, there's one there. We just approved another one, just almost around the corner. MR. JOHNSON: Just past Collier Boulevard. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Next to Tractor Supply. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right next to Tractor Supply, which isn't on here. But I guess if it's a problem, fine. I mean, I'll leave it up to the community. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: This area has gone out to -- meeting's have been with the public, four meetings with the public. And this is one of their concerns is the storage, not just for Commissioner Fiala, but... MR. JOHNSON: Yeah. With respect to this map, this was -- the data from it was gleaned from a map that was made in 2018. With this particular map, the only radius that wouldn't be reflective of this code amendment is the one that encircles Vincentian. They don't have an SDP for a self-storage facility or a self-storage building, so -- but all the other circles are accurate. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, obviously, the industry is fulfilling a need. This is just going to tell them they have to find somewhere else to build them then. MR. BOSI: Or provide a portion of their facility for a more traditional commercial goods and services. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a warehousing. There's no reason they can't go in the industrial area, but it's cheaper for them to go here, and the problem is that they're using up space that should be utilized by restaurants and stores and other things that can't go in industrial areas. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no problem. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: So Section D.1.A, we touched on it, but I want to make sure I understand how this plays into it. You can apply for a waiver if within a quarter-mile radius of the proposed self-storage unit there are properties that have existing C2 uses or are zoned to permit C2 uses, if there's any business within a quarter mile either direction that's a C2, they can apply for a waiver, thereby -- that -- to me that seems like -- let's say there's a restaurant next door. That means that I could have storage unit, restaurant, storage unit, restaurant, storage unit, restaurant by that clause. MR. BOSI: These are only applicable to properties that are zoned C5. A C4 zoning, a storage unit would have to go through a conditional use process. A C5 zoning district -- so the applicability of this amendment is very limited. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Very limited. MR. BOSI: It's very limited. COMMISSIONER FRY: So nobody has a -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was exactly what Jeff said. It just prohibits the abuse, I guess, of the C5 zoning and making them just a warehouse. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It's not really abuse. It's land use. And we would want this land used for certain purposes. And this purpose really was intended to be more of an industrial use. COMMISSIONER FRY: So it just keeps them from crowding out other businesses that 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 90 of 91 support -- that provide services that are needed for the neighborhoods? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And it's limited to the certain areas, so it's -- you know, it's what that area has wanted and what the Board said they approved as their vision statement, so I don't have a problem with it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then there's a provision for an exception to policy. So I would recommend approval as proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before -- I didn't realize there's nobody here, so okay. I'm sorry, Joe. There's no member of the public, so they can't speak. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I recommend we forward this to the Board of County Commissioners for their review and approval. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. Jeremy, where does that take us? MR. FRANTZ: That's all. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No, I want to talk generators. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That takes us down -- there's no new business on the agenda, there's no old business, there isn't anybody here for public comment. Is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Make a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Joe, seconded by Karl. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 3:46 p.m. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) May 16, 2019 Page 91 of 91 COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 5-16-2019 CCPC Minutes (9294 : May 16, 2019 CCPC Minutes) 07/18/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.B Item Summary: June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes Meeting Date: 07/18/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 06/19/2019 9:02 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 06/19/2019 9:02 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 06/19/2019 9:03 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 07/18/2019 9:00 AM 5.B Packet Pg. 96 June 6, 2019 Page 1 of 48 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, June 6, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Gil Martinez, Principal Planner Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning Manager Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 2 of 48 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Welcome to the June 6th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. We have a couple people running late, so before we do roll call, Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your former position, was it lieutenant colonel? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Colonel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Colonel, would you mind telling us the specialty of today? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, today, of course, is the 75th anniversary of the Landings at Normandy Beach. Having toured every one of the beaches in Normandy and been to the cemetery twice, I can only just quote a famous general, Colin Powell, who said, when U.S. forces set off on their adventures, they never want to capture land. The only place they want is a place to bury their dead. And it's truly a humbling, humbling place to go to Normandy and walk through the gravestones in Normandy. There were other places as well, but that is officially U.S. territory. It's part of the Battlefield Monuments Commission that runs the facilities there. Truly impressive place. And it was -- I was running late because I was so enthralled in watching the activities this morning for the 75th anniversary, and it's just truly impressive. We have one airborne vet, 99 years old, was he? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Ninety-seven. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Ninety-seven -- who did his jump. And two of us jumpers here, 70 jumps myself, it's quite impressive to think -- I'd strap a chute on today and jump in there. But, anyways, to all those who passed and to the brave souls who attacked that beach, God bless. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Schmitt, thank you very much. I appreciate it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, let's move to the roll call. Everybody's here. Karl finally showed up. We can start the meeting. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was two feet ahead of Tom. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Ray, is there anything on the agenda that needs to be changed from staff's perspective? We good 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 3 of 48 to go? MR. BELLOWS: We're good to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Planning Commission absences; well, we're looking at a vacation for the Planning Commission. June 20th is going to -- is canceled. The room is going to be occupied by the BCC. We had one case scheduled for that date, but it wasn't going to get to the Board until the fall anyway, so they can be heard basically anytime over the summer. So it's going to go to our next regular meeting which won't be till July 18th, unless you all want to come on the 4th of July. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So does anybody know if they cannot make it on July 18th? That's actually a five-week break. That's rare this commission's had that much of a break. So I guess the Board gets their summer vacation. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, I'll miss you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can come here. We can have coffee together. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: July 18th I will not be here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Other than that, we will still have a quorum. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that -- I've been receiving a lot of emails -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: About? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I think it's the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Vanderbilt Commons. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- Vanderbilt Commons. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know when that's scheduled, but it eventually must be coming up sooner or later, so... COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But I will be -- I'll be absent that week. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: On the 18th. So, yeah. We won't hear it. If that one's coming before us, it's five weeks away at least. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. And they just had their NIM a few days ago. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. Okay. I appreciate it. And then with that, we don't have any minutes that have been sent to us, so there's no approval of minutes needed. Ray, BCC report and recaps. MR. BELLOWS: On May 28th, the Board of County Commissioners heard the PUD amendment for Esplanade, and it was approved on their summary agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And that takes us to Chairman's report. Rather than dwell on anything else, we're going to move ahead with the rest of the agenda. ***There is no consent, but we'll move into our first public hearing. It's Item 9A. It's PL20170002361. It's for an asphalt and concrete batch-making plant off of Tamiami Trail East. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission; we'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures outside of the correspondence in the public record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Ditto. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ditto. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Materials from staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I've had all of that plus a conversation with Dan DeLisi representing the applicant, and I had a pre-meeting with staff over some questions I had on the project so they'd be ready 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 4 of 48 for today. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. Same as everybody else. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Nothing. Dan didn't even contact me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll move into the applicant's presentation. Mr. DeLisi, please go ahead. MR. DeLISI: Thank you. For the record, my name is Dan DeLisi. I am a land-use planner here on behalf of the applicant today. This is a conditional-use application for a concrete batch plant. The property is located -- as you can see on the aerial, it's just north of U.S. 41 about a mile east of Fiddler's Creek. It's in an area that's fairly isolated. I'll get into that in a second when I talk about the surrounding uses. But as you'll come to see, you know, I've actually worked on a couple asphalt concrete batch plants in the past, and it's not always easy to locate these in this location. It's a very unique location in many respects, and it is one where we can address all compatibility concerns and make it fit. The future land-use category for the property is a mix of Rural Fringe Mixed Use District for a little over two-thirds of the property and rural industrial for that southern, roughly, quarter to a third of the property. You can see the Future Land Use Map on the screen. The conditional-use application is only for this northern section in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. And then the zoning categories follow from the Future Land Use Map. You could see the rural industrial area is zoned as industrial on the zoning map. The rest of the property is agriculture. You have the TTRVC zoning. Well, you have industrial to the east of the property, and then TTRVC to the east of that and agriculture up in this area, agriculture to the west, and industrial to the south. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What's to the right? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Ma'am, you're not allowed to speak from the public without being called up to, so please refrain. MR. DeLISI: And when I get into compatibility, I'll talk about all of those surrounding uses as well. This is the concept plan that we submitted with the application. It's changed a little bit from what's in your packet. We have identified the conditional-use area in the dotted line, the dashed line surrounding that property to the distance where the agriculture zoning, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use is, the area that's already zoned industrial where the use is allowed by right, is on the southern portion of the property outside that dashed line. There is -- we have located the building area for the batch plant at the southern end of the site close to the -- and partially within the industrial zoning district mostly for compatibility reasons to try and get it as close as possible to this auto recycling plant to the south, and then just to the south of that is another concrete batch plant. So we have the water management area and the parking area to the north. On the plan we've also identified the buffer, the enhanced buffer that we're proposing for the property, which is -- includes an 8-foot berm/wall combination. And we've added a couple notes since that time based on conversations that just identify where our access is, how we meet the access, and identify the buffer so that it's clear that we are providing that berm/wall combination at this location on the master concept plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before we -- while we're talking, it would be helpful, did you bring handouts for the new master plan, because we don't have that plan, and it might help to see that while you're talking and follow what you're saying that way, because this doesn't -- it's not readable right now. MR. DeLISI: Well, Chris -- 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 5 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Maybe if you put it on the overhead. Oh, is this -- yeah, it might help if it's on the overhead. You've just got to switch abilities. We can't -- we definitely can't read what's there. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Further to that point, when were these modifications made? How long ago? MR. DeLISI: Yesterday. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Some of the things you're seeing are the result of the conversation that I had asking them to be better prepared for today. I didn't want to ask questions and not have any answers. I'd rather they came with answers at the same time, so I suggested they might want to address some of them. MR. DeLISI: And the last thing, which is, you can see here, is the eagle setback. This is the 660-foot line. You could see how it crosses our property here. It is not -- it doesn't coincide with any of the building area. It just nips the corner of equipment parking area and mostly is where the water management area will be. So it's easily graphically depicted. How do we flip this over? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your setback lines, that -- how do we tell where your equipment and material processing setback lines are? I still -- I can see on the -- the material processing, it looks like your building setback is 30.2 feet, or is that -- I can't quite read it yet. MR. DeLISI: Yeah. That's 30 feet from the envelope area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Did you -- in your presentation, had you gotten to your last slide, or do you still have more? MR. DeLISI: I still have more. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We can flip back to it. I just wanted to make sure we could see as much of the detail, because that other slide did not. Thank you. MR. DeLISI: All right. So I just want to talk through the conditional-use application. The Growth Management Plan lists asphalt concrete batch-making plant as a use that's allowable in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District in a receiving land. So in the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan, it's listed as an allowable use. When you go to the conditional -- when you go to the implementing Land Development Code, the use is allowed as a conditional use, and conditional uses are subject to 10.08.00 as a review criteria. Now, the agricultural zoning district in and of itself has criteria for asphalt concrete batch-making plants for a conditional use. That's a little different than the rural fringe mixed-use. The rural fringe mixed-use supersedes that. There's language in the Comp Plan that talks about that. We've had this discussion with staff. And so we are trying to comply with the intent of the agricultural criteria, which is a compatibility criteria, and specifically addressing the rural mixed-use criteria. I will say, as far as conditional uses go, in general -- and this is not even Collier County specific. In general in planning world, a conditional use is an allowable use that -- where you have to do additional analysis primarily based on compatibility. It's a compatibility standard. And so compatibility is the number one issue that we look at. And when you look at the agricultural conditions, all of them speak to compatibility, how the site's laid out. Even the access condition. It's in order to make sure that you're not taking truck traffic through residential area or mixing it with other types of uses that would create a compatibility issue. So it's a compatibility standard, and that's how this was reviewed, and that's how we approached this application. The evaluation criteria for a conditional use are listed on this screen. There are four: Consistency with the Land Development Code and Growth Management Plan. Staff did an analysis of the Growth Management Plan, which is in -- as an attachment in your staff report. Again, it's also listed as a specific use in your Growth Management Plan. Ingress and egress is one of the criteria. And then the last two really have to do with compatibility of surrounding uses. The noise, glare, economic, or odor effects are typical criteria that we look at when we think 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 6 of 48 about compatibility. So compatibility and access. Again, this is something that staff went through in their staff report, but I'd like to touch on it for a moment here. The property is fairly isolated from other uses. You have a recycling facility to the south. It's an auto recycling facility. It is an industrial use. And then you have a concrete batch plant to the south of that. So when you come in off of 41, you're driving past another concrete batch plant, auto recycling facility, a lot of truck traffic to get to the subject property. To the north is an old mining area. That's part of the Six L's Farm now. To the west is vacant agriculture land, and to the east you could see there's -- it's a commercial-type operation. There's a lot of outdoor storage as best as I could tell on an aerial. It's hard to get back in from Trinity Place, but it's not a residential home. It's, you know, sheds and storage. Then there is residential along Trinity Place. And so when we look at compatibility and when we look at -- when we looked at the berm/wall condition -- and after the neighborhood informational meeting we tried to address where the compatibility could occur, and that's both within the area that is already zoned industrial where the use is allowed by right. And mind you, the buffer codes would look at industrial zoning to industrial zoning. We looked at enhancing this eastern boundary to ensure compatibility to that southeast of the subject -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Excuse me for interrupting, but just so that I get myself geographically oriented, to the north and west is a residential subdivision. Is that Trinity? MR. DeLISI: No; sorry. To the north, this is to the north of -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Northwest is what I'm talking about. MR. DeLISI: No. It's to the southeast. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What is the subdivision that is northwest of this? MR. DeLISI: So directly to the north is the Six L's Farm. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm saying the northwest. MR. DeLISI: How far northwest? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, it appears to be rather proximate when you look at Google Earth, and in one -- okay. Here it is. In one of the legends that was in the material, it shows up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think you're talking about -- that's the Habitat project. He's talking about the Habitat project over off Greenway. That's to the northwest by quite a distance. I don't think you have an aerial. At least the one you're showing doesn't show how that relates to your project. But I think that's -- I know that project. We just approved 119 units to be added to the west of that project. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So do we have a distance? MR. DeLISI: I don't. I could look that up for you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Stan can tell us. Greenway Road to this property. Do you have the measurement tool? You're so quick from sitting up here with Google. Is there a way for you to -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: This is going to tie into some questions that I'm going to ask at the proper time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's almost a section. So we're probably looking at a pretty sizable distance before you get to that Greenway Road, and even diagonally up to that Habitat project is even further. Go ahead. We'll -- Stan has a -- is able to get on Google from here, so he might be able to pull that measurement tool up and give it a shot. MR. DeLISI: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And to the -- when we did take measurements on Google Earth, just to give you a sense of scale, we were looking at about a thousand feet from any building area to any residential that would be to the east. So if you look at the proximate distance to the east, that's a thousand feet. And keeping in mind that the building area's at the southern portion of the site, you know, that's really where we looked at from a compatibility standpoint. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 7 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRYER: I apologize for interrupting. We'll have an answer to that in a moment, I think. MR. DeLISI: So I listed the criteria for evaluation in the ag zoning district. You know, a number of these things are things that we can certainly incorporate as conditions into the special-exception approval. We have gone over all of these internally. And the access -- again, the principal access from a street-designated collector or higher. This is not criteria that we're required to meet, but I think we meet the intent of that. We have an industrial road that has access directly to U.S. 41. So you're not mixing traffic with other types of traffic like commercial traffic or residential traffic. You're getting directly out on a road that's designed for truck traffic to U.S. 41. Hours of operation, we're fine meeting these criteria as well as the setback criteria. We did have a neighborhood informational meeting. We had a few residents there or surrounding property owners. I think the general understanding was that there is an industrial area right there. There's already a batch plant. There is the ability for this property to do a batch plant by right on the southern two acres. It would, albeit, be a much smaller batch plant. There was concern about noise, and that's where the berm/wall condition came in, to address those concerns. There was also a concern about doing asphalt. We're not looking to do asphalt. We're looking at doing concrete, so we're fine with committing to the residents that we're only doing concrete and not asphalt. And there were also questions about hours of operation. And, again, as I mentioned before, we would be fine with the condition on hours of operation that is consistent with the ag criteria. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, did you -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: It was about 5,900 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 5,900, so it's over a mile. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So that answers that question. MR. DeLISI: Okay. Thank you. And that's all I have. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Let's go right into questions then and, Ned, you're first up. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, thank you. I have several relatively minor issues, but I've got a major one that I'm going to lead off with, and it has to do with odor and emissions. And, first of all, my first question is, does CEMEX operate asphalt or just concrete? MR. DeLISI: Yeah, I think they just do concrete. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Is asphalt a use that you really want? I know in the NIM someone said that it would -- that you would look into it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think they just said they wouldn't do asphalt, and we can stipulate that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that's off the table. MR. DeLISI: That is off the able. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Let's see what else I have then. And the access is going to be off of Auto Village Road. MR. DeLISI: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Does that -- does that road need to be extended in order to accomplish that? MR. DeLISI: So the road comes to our property line. We would need to extend it into our property. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And they would -- oh, I know. The SIC code -- and maybe I should take this up with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you tell us the SIC codes you should have applied under? MR. DeLISI: Yeah, so -- yeah, I do have those. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRYER: 3273, I think. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 8 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 3271 and, I think, 3272. Then the one you applied under is for the manufacturing of the plant itself, not the plant's manufacturing, which is -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: The machinery. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Rather than the concrete. MR. DeLISI: Yes. You're absolutely correct on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And are we correct in assuming that you're going to do block from that plant? MR. DeLISI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you need 3271 and 3272. Is that what you've come to as a conclusion as well? MR. DeLISI: Yes. I looked that up the other day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does that get you there? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Somehow I came to 3273, which says, establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing Portland cement/concrete manufactured and delivered to a purchaser in a plastic and unhardened state. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's when you take the lime -- the material ingredients of cement and you send it to a place that converts it to concrete, which this place is doing. MR. DeLISI: We're primarily doing ready-mix concrete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. Aggregate. They'll use those raw materials to produce the concrete. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You've got it. Thank you. Let's see. That's it. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Go ahead, Stan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just had one question. On the staff report -- and I'm looking at, I guess, Page 2 of 10 or in our packet is Page 6. It just says material processing and building. I'm just -- it was kind of strangely worded. Material processing I understand, and building. I assumed from this the building is what -- the office or the control center or whatever? It didn't really describe the building. I don't know what building we're talking about. MR. DeLISI: I could have Chris or Kevin -- Chris is the engineer on the project. MR. MITCHELL: Good morning. Chris Mitchell. Yeah, the building is just where they run the operations out of. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's the operations center. MR. MITCHELL: It is the operations center. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It's a prefab building of some sort? MR. MITCHELL: Yes, sir. It's a prefab building. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Because it just never really clarified that. I couldn't find it anywhere in the staff report. I probably should ask Chris that, but I got it. But does the building require the conditional use as well for that area? I think the plant would, but does the building? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If it's accessory to the plant, it would be part of the operation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. It's an accessory to the plant. MR. DeLISI: I would assume so. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. That is correct; it's an accessory building to the use. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Dan, I noticed on the hours of operation it seemed to say two hours before sunrise to sunset. Why 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 9 of 48 is it necessary to start that early? And kind of a corollary to that question is what types of noise -- what level of noise is produced by this type of operation? Which was a concern expressed at the NIM. MR. DeLISI: So the reason why you start that early, and that's why the hours are written that way in the code, is typically you have trucks loading to get to construction sites at the start of the day, so they need to load early so that they can make it at the beginning of the day to a site. As far as noise, I mean, there is some noise loading, and that's why you have the wall as a barrier. I will say, you know, that the conditional-use criteria for an opaque vegetative buffer, you know, I think is kind of lacking, to be honest. I certainly think a concrete block wall is much better for sound barrier, because that's what you're trying to get at is a sound barrier. COMMISSIONER FRY: And is that what you're offering -- MR. DeLISI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- a concrete wall? MR. DeLISI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: How tall are the structures within the -- MR. DeLISI: I'm going to have to ask my client, Kevin, to talk about that. There is the building itself, and then there's equipment that he'll have on site. MR. EISENBATH: Kevin Eisenbath. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sir, yeah, you're going to need the microphone. MR. EISENBATH: Okay. Hello. I'm Kevin Eisenbath with SRM. The height of the structures that would be there would be similar to CEMEX within, you know, so many feet, a few feet. Typically they go from 45 feet and can go up to 75 feet in height. COMMISSIONER FRY: And I guess my question is, at what height is the noise produced? Is it simply the sound of loading the pallets of block onto trucks -- MR. EISENBATH: The noise is all low. COMMISSIONER FRY: The noise is all low, so the wall -- MR. EISENBATH: It's right at ground level. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- should be effective? Okay. Thank you. MR. EISENBATH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Tom. MR. EASTMAN: Do you know what percentage of the product will be installed locally? Are we a plant that services -- how far out geographically? MR. DeLISI: From what I understand, in my involvement with both this and the Corps permit, the reason why this site is needed -- and we've looked at other sites within Collier County -- is because it is a local service. We're not looking at driving east to Miami. You would have to locate a site farther east. It is really a local operation to service local needs. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I forget, when do they add the water to the mix? On the road, or do they add it at the plant? MR. DeLISI: At the plant. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: At the plant. So it's mixing all the way. And how long does it take the concrete to start setting up? An hour? MR. EISENBATH: Yes. We try to be on the job within 20 minutes, because at that hour mark, it's really depending on weather and the mix and all that. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you've got to be fairly close to where you're going to dump the product? MR. EISENBATH: A hundred percent correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So they're not going to carry it long distances? MR. EISENBATH: We probably deliver within 15 miles of the plant. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 10 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a few. Something you just said. The gentleman mentioned that the plant's going to be 45 to 75 feet high. The height limitation in the ag's district is 35 feet, and then I didn't see you asking for a variance. MR. DeLISI: So let me just try and find this. The height for -- MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. I don't believe the building itself is that tall, but if they're referring to mechanical equipment, they're not subject to the building height limitations if it's a crane or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, they're looking probably at the silos and things that store and mix the material. If it's 75 feet high, that's your principal use. You just said the building was accessory. So you're saying the principal use doesn't come out of the height code. MR. BELLOWS: If it is a silo, that's a different story. That's a structure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's what I'm trying to find out. I thought they came up and said that -- their primary mixing plant is the principal use. MR. DeLISI: Okay. So there would be a silo. We were, honestly, looking at that similar to Mr. Bellows. I always have considered a height as a building under truss that you habitate in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Our code is a little more stringent than that. If your principal use is the silos and you're in the industrial part of your site, you can go to 50 feet. But if you're trying to put that in a conditional-use side of the site, it's a height -- that's something you'd have to be requesting under the conditional-use aspect for the specific height so we know the compatibility issues. And agricultural is limited to 35 feet. So I've got to turn to staff to understand what they reviewed this to and where is this -- where would this silo go? Would it go on the south side of the site in the industrial park, or would it go in the north side on the ag section? MR. EISENBATH: I would have to ask Chris. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You'll have to use the microphone, sir; I'm sorry. MR. EISENBATH: We're going to have to ask Chris exactly where that line is, but I believe it will be on -- just to the north. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray? MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Gil brought to my attention Section 2.03.01.C.22 that has the criteria for locating asphalt or concrete batch plants. One item says that the height of raw storage facilities shall not exceed a height of 50 feet, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's different than what the gentleman was telling us, so -- and, also, I've got to understand what piece of your operation is intended to go above 35 feet. When you have aggregate piles, you could have piles of materials that are sitting there that could be 50 feet. That is there. But I'm not sure silos a raw material, unless you're storing it there. But it sounds like that's your mixing plant. Now, if you guys want, we can take a five-minute break while you confer and try to figure this out. It's going to be a pertinent question, and whatever you lock yourself into, you've got to make sure it works. Do you want to take a few minutes and -- whatever's easier. I want to get this resolved, if we can. MR. DeLISI: I appreciate that. And we had honestly looked at that criteria, the 50 feet, and thought that it would apply to a building, not the silo. But you're correct. So let's -- can we -- if we could take two minutes, that would be great. That's all we need. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Terri, we'll take a five-minute break and come back at 9:38. So we'll give you 5 minutes to try to resolve the issue, and we'll resume. MR. DeLISI: I appreciate that. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to resume the meeting. If you'll all take your seats, we'll move forward. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 11 of 48 We left off on a question of height of the principal uses of site, so let's move into that, and where they're located, so... MR. DeLISI: We think we can accommodate the 50 feet. It will be located just north of the rural industrial zoning but within the ag area most likely. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So you're going to accommodate the 50 feet outside the industrial but within a certain distance, and we'll have to lock that in before the meeting's over, into the ag portion of the property, but the 50 feet restriction is for what piece of the operation? What are we -- because I know what -- this says raw material storage. MR. DeLISI: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm not sure that's what we're talking about. I want to make sure we are, so... MR. DeLISI: The plant itself. The silo is the plant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So raw material storage, plant location, and general operations around the plant shall not be located or conducted -- well, no, that's the first one. The height of the raw material storage facilities shall not exceed a height of 50 feet, and that's what I'm trying to get at, the raw material storage facility. Is that what it is you're specifically asking for the 50 feet for? MR. EISENBATH: If the county considers the storage of our cement in the silo, that's the tallest thing on the property, because the cement falls into the trucks, and it's all overhead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the cement is a mixture of the raw materials, correct? It's not a raw material. You don't go out and buy cement and put it in a silo and put it in the truck. You buy the aggregate, you buy the lime, you buy the mixes, you put them in the -- they mix them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I break in here? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There are different types of concrete, you know, Class 1, Class 2, some of them have sulfate, some of them are high early strength, some of them have a lot of cement, some of them are 2,000 pound, 3,000 pound, 4,000 pound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, I did that for a living when I was younger. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. They get all this stuff. They take the cement out of the silo and mix it -- correct me if I'm wrong -- in each truck because each batch has to be per the spec of that project. MR. EISENBATH: Correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: So you keep the cement in the silo, and as you're going into the truck, you mix it with the sand and the coarse aggregate, which is generally a stone down here. They use lime rock, crushed stone. And that's why they keep the cement separate. So if that's what you're asking, that's -- that's how they do it. Now, did I say that right? MR. EISENBATH: Yes, you're correct. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So what is the raw material that you're putting in the highest element, the silo? MR. EISENBATH: It would be the cement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is the cement? Is it comprised of a multitude of materials, or what is it? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Portland cement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know. Stan, I physically know what it is. I've dealt with it all my life. I had a cement finishing company that I used to pour concrete with pumps all over the place. I know how to juice it up to make it go faster or go slower. I know all that stuff. I'm trying to find out specifically what is going in that silo; is it considered the raw materials for the product? That's what I'm getting at, because that's what the code's asking. MR. EISENBATH: Yes, it is a raw material, just like the rock, you know, the aggregate and all 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 12 of 48 that. It's part of the mix of soup, you might say. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was trying to find out, Stan. And that -- so that -- you're going to limit your silo for the cement or for any of your raw materials to 50 feet to meet that section of the code? MR. DeLISI: Yes. And, I mean, what we'd ask is 50 feet within the ag portion of the site. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I understand. So my next question is, how far north into the ag section of the site would you want that limitation to go? Because you're going to affect different areas as you go further and further into it. MR. DeLISI: Yeah. It would be within the -- within the material processing building area envelope. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And those items -- those squares are nice because they tell us how you're going to limit the uses to each area. We would typically then stipulate those uses are limited to those areas but without definition as to the distances from the dotted line that represents your separation by ag and industrial. We don't know how far those areas go, so we're going to have to get that established as well. MR. DeLISI: The southern -- the southern line of the material processing building area is 240 feet north of our property boundary. We have that dimensioned on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So up to 250 feet, did you say? MR. DeLISI: Well, 240 feet is where the -- is where the dimension starts, the building envelope starts, so to speak; 296 feet is where the industrial area ends, where the conditional-use area starts. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. See that dotted line on the south of the ag area that splits between the material processing building area, it kind of cuts the bottom? From that dotted line north, how far would you be needing that 50-foot height? MR. DeLISI: Let me do math quickly, sorry. Well, let me put it to you this way: It's 479.5 feet south of our northern property line dimensioned on the plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're going in the opposite direction to understand this thing. And that -- and is that intended to come out where that -- kind of like that red dot is? MR. DeLISI: Yes, yeah. Sorry about that red dot. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, that's fine. The red dot actually helps. So on a scaled plan or on a plan that you could produce to meet a stipulation, you could show a distance from the dotted line up to the top of that red dot that would reflect the same distance down from the north side that you just spoke about; is that correct? MR. DeLISI: Yes, we can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. DeLISI: If I was quicker at math, I'd do that right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You see, we try to lock everything in. I don't -- we never know who's trying to wiggle what way, so we try to make sure we minimize that. Likewise, with the equipment parking area, we would then want to see the number to the limitation on that, then, because the rest is water management. And that would kind of at least lock up how your site is intended to be used. And I'm going to move into the rest of the questions that I had, which I -- go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could I ask? Maybe this has been covered; I didn't pick up on it. Do we know how high the silos at CEMEX are? I mean, I know they can be 50 because they're in the industrial park, but how high are they actually? MR. DeLISI: We were actually thinking they were taller than that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, now, that is an old park. That was done -- let me see. Krehling owned it. Before Krehling it was another park. I forgot their name. That's been there for decades. So they may have come under the old 91-102 code instead of the 04-41, and there might have been changes that affected that. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 13 of 48 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: They look taller. MR. DeLISI: And they're also in an industrial zoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm trying to, yeah. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: They do. They look pretty tall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you've agreed to meet the 50-foot up to a certain point within the ag, so we know that's where your limitation will be. I also -- as I get into questions, we had -- for this panel's background, when a motion is made, regardless of which direction it's made in, it needs to be done as an EAC as well as the Planning Commission, just to give you a heads-up. The uses that you are providing are -- now, I don't remember what part of the code, but they're going to be -- they're in the report. Does staff have any problems changing the SIC number from 3531 to the other two numbers? MR. MARTINEZ: Absolutely not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There are two staff recommendations in the report. Have you read those? MR. DeLISI: The two conditions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. DeLISI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you willing to -- are you accepting those two conditions? MR. DeLISI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have some staff questions, but I'll wait till they do their staff report. The plan that you're going to provide us to use is not going to be the one with the blacked-out area. It's going to be one like the handout or like the one that's in front of us right now. MR. DeLISI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The equipment and parking area, does that mean it's all stationary? There's no manufacturing or product assembly in that area? MR. DeLISI: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm rolling through my questions to make sure they've all been asked. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not sure, Chairman, how the exact location of the 50 feet on the ag portion was resolved. Is it anywhere on the ag portion, or is it -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. They're going to limit it to a certain distance north of the industrial limitation line, and they're going to produce that -- that dimension, so we'll have that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No father north than X. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With an X, and that X is what we're going to work out before this is all over. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that X equivalent to the red dot? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I've been told; the top of the red dot. MR. DeLISI: Yeah. It's northern line of this processing -- material processing building area. COMMISSIONER FRY: So just above that in the square above it, the bottom text says, "material storage." MR. DeLISI: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: That I would have thought would be your silos, but you're saying that would no longer be material storage in that area? MR. DeLISI: Right there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Or is that something different? MR. MITCHELL: It would include at-grade bins that would hold the raw aggregate, but it would be -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Truck dumped bins where they bring the material in on the trucks, drop 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 14 of 48 it off. COMMISSIONER FRY: Much lower than 50 feet. MR. MITCHELL: Correct. It's open. It's got a cement floor, and then it's walled, and it's open. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the silos would all be that red dot or below? MR. DeLISI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Lighting. What kind of lighting are you having in your operations throughout the property? MR. EISENBATH: Minimal in the nighttime. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's nice to say. Okay. In your parking area, how high will your lights be? MR. EISENBATH: They haven't been designed yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What would you offer as a limitation on light height? Now, remember, you're going to have a berm and a wall around your side, especially facing east. So the objective is not to have light disperse onto neighboring properties. We do that with shielding and stuff like that. But no matter how much you shield something, you can still see that light if it's too high. So in your process to where you're going to have your equipment and parking area, what kind of -- are you looking at any parking lighting and nighttime/daytime lighting? MR. EISENBATH: There will be some out there, but, like I say, it hasn't been designed at this point. We really haven't addressed the lighting, but we'd certainly hold to whatever recommendations you guys have. The lighting isn't a big problem for us. We just need a few short ones around the plant to get going in the morning and, really, we're a daytime operation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That helps. Thank you. Karl, something you want to -- COMMISSIONER FRY: The most substantial noise that you generate during the day is prior to sunrise, as I understand, as you're loading the trucks; pouring the material into the cement mixers. MR. EISENBATH: I mean, it goes on throughout the day. We load trucks throughout the day. It is transit mixed. So when you load the trucks, you spin the drum up to load it, but then you leave with it right away, and it's actually mixing on the way. So the noise is somewhat limited per truck in that way. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you would be generating noise and the accompanying light in order for the trucks to be safely -- MR. EISENBATH: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- moved in and out. That would start two hours before sunrise. MR. EISENBATH: And it would concentrate, though, right in the center of our work areas. We don't need lighting -- big lighting all the way out on the outer edges of the property. COMMISSIONER FRY: So around the square where the red dot is located; is that what you're referring to? MR. DeLISI: Yeah. In that square where the red dot is at the northwest corner of that square. It's within the central part of that square, is what he's talking about. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, I see. MR. DeLISI: And, you know, just to note, we don't need to light the top of the silo. It's lighting the work space which is down lower. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you need, like, a parking lot lighting system? MR. DeLISI: Essentially. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Would it be safe to say -- and your nearest residential appears to be a distance away. Would it be safe to say you could limit all your lighting to no greater than 25 feet? MR. EISENBATH: Oh, yeah. No problem with that at all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because the code already basically addresses that. That's what I 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 15 of 48 was trying to confirm. Just so we understand your reaction to the language of compatibility that's in the code, I want to read them and see how they all fit again. The minimum site area shall not be less than 10 acres. And you're going to need to go back to that master plan, if you could. The total operation from top to bottom, including the industrial area, is it 10 acres? MR. DeLISI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What is the total? I mean, I know the ag is smaller than 10, but including the industrial it's still -- it's still like seven something. MR. DeLISI: Yeah, seven-point something. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Principal access will be from a street-designated collector or higher classification. And, basically, you've got a straight shot through nonresidential neighborhoods to get down to 41? MR. DeLISI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Raw material storage, plant location, and general operations around the plant shall not be located or conducted within 100 feet of any exterior boundary. That's what I'd asked for a blowup of this plan for, because I don't think you're meeting that, or are you? I mean, it looks like your squares -- one of them's 30 feet on the south side. So what's your intention from that perspective? What is the closest you'll be to your exterior boundary with any of those items? MR. DeLISI: We talked about that yesterday, and we can meet that as a condition. So just because the building -- the, kind of, envelope of the area shows a 30-foot setback, we can locate the processing facility and the silos such that we meet that 100-foot setback. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The height of the raw material storage we just talked about. That will be 50 feet, and you've limited that to a certain distance up from the industrial park. The hours of operation, we've talked about that; two hours before sunset (sic) to sunrise. And then the minimum setback from principal road frontage shall be 150 feet for operational facilities and 75 feet for supporting administrative offices and associated parking. I'm assuming that the road that comes in there is really going to be a driveway from your property on up. MR. DeLISI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The earthen berm achieved -- and earthen berm achieving a vertical height of eight feet or equivalent vegetative screen with 80 percent opacity within one year after the issuance of certificate of occupation shall be constructed or created around the entire perimeter of the property. Is that what you're intending to do? MR. DeLISI: No. What we're intending to do is -- and understand, I mean, that would be within the conditional-use area is what we're talking about. Obviously, we don't want to do it on the south side. But the compatibility area that we were most concerned about is here on the east side. So what we were proposing is to do a berm/wall combination to extend all the way into the industrial area where that buffer would otherwise not apply and constructed all the way to our southern boundary along the eastern property line. COMMISSIONER FRY: And all the way to the northern boundary, or only partially? MR. DeLISI: It would go partially up, as we show here; it would go about to this line here. And the reason for that is as a noise screen. We have it labeled; I believe it's 620 feet. The noise is not -- we're not really concerned with the noise in a northern direction. So, you know, it's a really long distance till you got anything in the northern direction. What we're concerned with is the people along Trinity Place that are to our east and to the south, and so we're buffering to the east, and we're buffering to the southeast. COMMISSIONER FRY: And from grade level, what exactly are you offering along that border? MR. DeLISI: Eight-foot berm/wall combination, so it would be -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So partly berm and partly wall. Together they add up to eight feet? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 16 of 48 MR. DeLISI: That's correct. And, I mean, the berm is just a water-management berm. The main thing is having the concrete block wall. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those kind of things we usually see on master plans or concept plans at least to determine compatibility, and I don't know. I can't read the printing on this one; it's too small. Did you have that on -- did you add it to the new plan? MR. DeLISI: I did add it to the new plan. I apologize for the clarity of it. You know, and, honestly, that condition came in probably about two, three weeks ago when staff was working on their staff report. So it wasn't part of the original materials. We did add that after the NIM to address concerns with the residents. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The last item under the ag section for compatibility, the plant should not be located within the green line area of concern for the Florida State park system as established by the DEP. I didn't see anything in here about that. Did you guys look at that? MR. DeLISI: We did. You know, I don't think there is a Florida park system anywhere within a thousand feet of the property. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just want to make sure it was checked out. Within the -- or within the area of critical state concern as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the GMP or within 1,000 feet of the natural -- of a natural reservation or within any county state or federal jurisdiction wetland area. Has any of that been verified? I mean, staff, did -- staff's review, you guys checked them out consistent with this or not? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, we did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And? MR. MARTINEZ: We found it to be consistent with that requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the -- MR. MARTINEZ: Analysis yesterday afternoon as well to identify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Use your mic. MR. MARTINEZ: Oh, I'm sorry. For the record, Gil Martinez, principal planner. Yes, we did verify this to be consistent. In fact, we found it not to be applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So when I ask environmental staff to come up they'll confirm that they have checked out the wetland areas, either county, state, or federal, within the thousand feet of this property? MR. MARTINEZ: (Nods head.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll hear that when we get to staff's section. And I think that takes us to the -- hours of operation, noise protection, sound wall. That seems to be all the issues I've made notes on so far. And anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What we'll do is we're going to go to staff report, ask questions of staff, then we'll have public speakers, then you'll have time to rebut after that. So with that, staff report? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, Mr. Chair, Commissioners, good morning, Gil Martinez. Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission approve Petition CC-PL2017002361 to the Board of Zoning Appeals subject to the conditions that are mentioned in the staff report and conditions that have been brought up throughout the course of this discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of staff? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I noticed that the -- and this is not a big point, but just -- it added a little bit of time to my work on this; that the project was described as being a thousand foot -- a thousand 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 17 of 48 feet west of Basic Road. Why didn't you say that it's abutting Auto Village Road? It would have been a little easier to find quickly. Just curious. MR. MARTINEZ: It's primarily a stylistic perspective of writing. I thought it was more important to speak to the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. MARTINEZ: -- major arterials. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I think that's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have a couple questions. County Attorney's Office review. We have asked, from this board, many times, don't produce products for us that don't have that responded to. This particular one did not. I'm telling you again, I would like to suggest this board refuse to hear anything without that paragraph filled in. The County Attorney's Office is critical for us to understand the review. And unless you can fill that space in, don't bring it forward. I think we've said that. If anybody disagrees, please say so. And, Ms. Ashton, since you're here, can you tell me, if you did get this review done and any changes, comments, or things inconsistent with your review that we discussed this morning? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I did have some changes to the staff report. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic's not working. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I did have some changes to the staff report to correct some of the factual information, but it doesn't impact your vote today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was that information provided to staff before the staff report was issued to the Planning Commission? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ray, can you please make sure this doesn't happen again? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We'll tighten up the process to make sure. We had a little change in process, but we'll make sure it -- all -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And is someone from the environmental staff here? COMMISSIONER FRYER: While the gentleman's coming up, I'll ask this question following up with our counsel. There's no issue about site control, Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: What do you mean about site control? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, there are various names used in here, the applicant that Smyrna and then somebody else, two or three names. Not that there's anything irregular about that. I just want to make sure that we've nailed down who the appropriate applicant entity is to be. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The owner and applicant is Smyrna Ready Mix. So one of my changes was to clarify that it was also the applicant. But it is the correct name and owner. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's been verified. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Good morning. MR. BROWN: Good afternoon. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it's still morning. You had me going there. You're telling us we're taking too long, right? MR. BROWN: That's my standard response when people say "good morning." CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh. I have a question for you. Under the Environmental Advisory Council recommendation, which this board is sitting as today, your -- the staff report said, Environmental Advisory Council recommendation: Environmental planning staff had reviewed this petition. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 18 of 48 Environmental Advisory Council review is required since the subj ect property is within 660 feet buffer zone of the eagle's nest. There is no preserve requirement. That doesn't sound like a recommendation. Did you guys, in your review, actually come up with a recommendation that you're making to this board concerning the environmental aspects of this? MR. BROWN: Yes, we are making a -- for the record, Craig Brown, environmental planning. We are making a recommendation of supporting this project. Our analysis of what's proposed: There are no wetlands in and around the proposed site, and there -- as long as they move forward, they accommodate the requirements for the eagle's nest, we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Your mic's not picking all your -- yeah, that's good. So the question I'd asked earlier about the within 1,000 feet of a natural reservation or within any county, state, or federal jurisdiction wetlands area, you don't -- you didn't find that to be applicable? MR. BROWN: I did not find that to be applicable. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the kind of answer I needed to hear. Thank you. And I appreciate your time. I think that's the only question I have unless anybody else has any other. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That gets us finished up with staff review. Thank you very much. And we'll move to public speakers. Ray, do we have any registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: One speaker has registered, Paul Rodinsky. MR. RODINSKY: My name is Paul Rodinsky. I live at 11231 Trinity Place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you spell your last name for the reporter, please. MR. RODINSKY: R-o-d-i-n-s-k-y. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. RODINSKY: I wasn't crazy about an asphalt plant when I first heard about it. I talked to the people who owned it. I talked to the people that are going to be building it, and they've addressed a lot of my problems, especially with the wall, especially not being an asphalt plant. I live approximately 938 feet from this piece of property. I have other neighbors that have property, agricultural property that butts up to this property, and it seems like everything in this county is agricultural, but when they want something, when we want to do something with our property, it always turns into residential agricultural property. So I'm glad that they're putting in the protections that we need for the noise. And as far as this -- the two hours before sunrise comes up, is that what -- is that what was said or -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MR. RODINSKY: When Krehling operated over there, I had little problems over there, because they were starting up at 4 o'clock in the morning, which was too early. They changed their time to more like 6 o'clock in the morning. No later than 6 o'clock -- no earlier than 6 o'clock in the morning. The place is like a hollow, and we pick up all the noise from that place. And since the Basics have a storage facility over there and they put up a sound barrier over there, we have 70 percent less of noise, so the barrier was really a big concern. My only other concern with this plant is the flooding problem in the area. The culverts along 41 haven't been cleaned out in the last 50 years. They're completely blocked. The farm -- the water can't go south. It has to go back to Henderson Creek. And they usually keep the gate closed down there so the water can't dump out. They just opened up Manatee school for the water to come back across the highway to my side of the highway again. They put a six-lane freeway in down past my house. They put things under the road that take the water from the Manatee side of the highway to my side of the highway, and then the farm starts pumping the water. Instead of the water going south, the water doesn't go south on 41. It goes 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 19 of 48 north on 41, and then instead of going down Trinity Place, it comes up Trinity Place and fills up my property like a toilet. And that's what's going on there right now. And that's before the plant is built. And when that plant is built, that dude pit over there where the farm pumps their water into, comes back around the Basic's property, around that junkyard and floods my whole backyard. It's like a waterfall coming in from the Basic's property. It's not the Basic's fault, and it wouldn't be the people who built the plant's fault. It's because there's no water can get out the other side of the highway on 41 because they haven't cleaned out anything on the other side of the highway in 85 years to let the water flow through Fiddler's Creek, which you know there's nothing that flows through Filler's Creek. They're not going to let any water flow through their place. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can tell you from personal experience, since I built that, we do accept all the flow from north of 41. In fact, the farmers -- farm dikes did not accept as much as Fiddler's Creek has opened up to the spreader swale at the south end of their property. And Mr. Schmitt, who has done a lot of work on that particular project, I'm sure, can confirm that. So that statement is wrong, I can flat out tell you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I've done a control analysis of the -- I've done a complete analysis of the water flow for that area and a permit application, and the water does flow south. You're correct, the water flows north along 41. There is a control structure there at Henderson Creek. That is the -- actually, the headwaters of the creek that eventually does lead into the -- what was called the old Collier Canal that runs through Fiddler's Creek, and that water does and was part of an extensive review when they actually built U.S. 41 when they improved it, and the water does flow through -- south through Fiddler's Creek across the spreader swale, so that -- MR. RODINSKY: I don't ever see any -- I've gone down there -- I even had the company that built the highway down there take me all over. They're showing me holding ponds and stuff like that. But there's -- any of the outlets I have down towards my place or this particular industrial park, they haven't been cleaned out in 48 years. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's a different issue. (Simultaneous speakers speaking.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your statement about the flow-through for Fiddler's Creek to the south, I know from personal experience, is wrong. So I just wanted to make that for the record. MR. RODINSKY: You look at the problem during this next rainy season, and come to my house. Why would water be coming up Trinity Place if it's going south? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't know, but we'll get answers from staff on the water flow from this as soon as -- MR. RODINSKY: Appreciate it. And other than that, I'm very happy with the way the plant is. And, like I said before, I'm, like, 900 feet away from this thing. I'm going to hear this thing, and I'm very happy they put a sound barrier up, and I'm happy that the planning board took protections against the neighborhood there, because we are -- you know, even though it's agricultural, we're only allowed one house on a five-acre tract of land there. And I thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Ray, do we have any other registered public speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are there any members of the public here that would like to speak on this item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, I'd like to ask the engineering staff, water -- yeah, stormwater in specific, if someone is here from stormwater who could answer a question. Mike, you don't need a jacket. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, he can loosen that tie as well, if he wants to. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 20 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRYER: We've got standards here. MR. SAWYER: We do, in fact, have standards. Good morning, Mike Sawyer from Transportation Planning. We do have stormwater in our department, and what I can do is take the gentleman's information and have somebody get back to him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What I would like to make sure is that there's -- your department's fully confirming that the water that they would generate from their site will stay on their site and discharge where it's supposed to be and not necessarily discharge on someone else's property as our South Florida rules require. MR. SAWYER: Definitely, sir; yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I was looking for, Mike. And if you could maybe get that gentleman's name and address before he leaves and confirm with him that you've checked all that out, or your stormwater division has, that would be helpful. MR. RODINSKY: Yes, sir, no problem. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Ned, and then Tom. COMMISSIONER FRYER: If it turns out that your expectations or your assessment is incorrect, what remedy would the gentleman have? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Couldn't get a permit. I mean, the plant couldn't get a permit if they were dispensing outside their property; is that fairly accurate? MR. SAWYER: Correct. And we would not approve the associated SDP that's going to be required for the plant as well. I mean, it's just one of those rules that have to be followed. It's not possible to, you know, to have your stormwater flow out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: After permitting is complete, construction is done, and the operations are ongoing and it turns out that there is a significant increase in water flowing into the gentleman's property, what recourse would he have? MR. SAWYER: Quite honestly, I don't have an answer for that, and I would need one of our stormwater experts to address that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would imagine, I'd start with code enforcement, and they would do the research to see if there was some imperfection in the manner which the calculations were done for the stormwater management disbursement, because they're going to -- they have a big stormwater management pond to the north of the property, and I'm assuming that's going to be their primary collection point. And it looks bigger than what would be there now based on the wetland line that was shown on their survey. So I think in a head, they're going to end up retaining more water than they currently do, so that would produce less impact on the surrounding neighborhood. MR. SAWYER: I would agree with that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Tom, and then Joe. MR. EASTMAN: Mike, given the testimony, it sounds like the water's designed to run south, but maybe it's not doing that because the drainage improvements have not been cleaned out. Could that be specifically something you would look into as part of the inquiry? MR. SAWYER: It certainly would be, and it would probably also involve, potentially, FDOT as well, because they certainly have the right-of-way in that area for 41. So it would also be something that our stormwater people would certainly look at and, if need be, work with whoever we need to at FDOT. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. As far as any -- the wetlands, there was no jurisdictional determination required for this. I assume, though, that they will still have to submit for an environmental resource permit through the Water Management District, and I know Dan certainly is well aware of the requirements. So if there's any stormwater issues or runoff, the ERP should help resolve some of that; is that 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 21 of 48 correct? MR. SAWYER: Correct; I would agree. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. And the only other point I have to make is I know the county, there's an initiative to rehydrate the Picayune Strand. That project is going through some public comment right now. This area will probably be impacted by some of that initiative, but that's probably a little ways down the road. That's Gary McAlpin, his project, to rehydrate some of the Picayune Strand. I don't know if you're aware of that. But the water will eventually flow down into that control structure at Henderson Creek and, subsequently, some of that water will end up going into the Fiddler's Creek Canal. So I don't know if that will alleviate some of the problems in regards to the water there, but that's a future issue. But all this will go through Environmental Resource Permit review when they submit the ERP. Is there an ERP required for this? Yes. Okay. So... Those kind of issues will be addressed. MR. SAWYER: Correct. At the point where they go to get approval for their SDP. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- anybody else? Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If I understood Mr. Rodinsky's comments, I don't -- I'm not concerned about their water management at all, and I don't think he is. I think he's concerned that he gets flooding from everything else that's been done in the area. And for some reason, he seemed to think that it was Fiddler's Creek, which, you know -- as an aside, I used to live in Golden Gate City. The D1 Canal comes into the halfway point of Golden Gate City under Green Boulevard. The D1 Canal is supposed to flow south. On occasion, I have seen the D1 Canal flow north over the weir because they got more rain down there than they got up there. Well, when we do studies, we don't do a heavy rain here and no rain there. That land is so flat that you could get a bad rain in one area and you could get backflow anyway. I would like to see -- when Mr. Rodinsky talks to your department, he's going to talk to one of your people. Whatever they answer him, I would like it in writing, and I would like to see a copy. Is that possible? MR. SAWYER: Anything is possible, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else have any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Mike. Thank you. MR. SAWYER: I'll pass it along. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, I think we wrap up our staff discussion. Is there any rebuttal by the applicant? I've got at least one question of you, so... MR. DeLISI: Go ahead. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Do you have anything you want to rebut? MR. DeLISI: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The berm requirement you're -- and vegetation requirement, you had said -- and a wall requirement. So what is this -- you're going to have a distance going up inclusive of the industrial area that you're using plus all the way up to the midpoint, I think it is, of the equipment area. Is that how I'm understanding this sound wall, berm/wall? MR. DeLISI: Yeah. On the plan it's dimensioned from the very south end of the property line, 620 feet north to this location right up here. Essentially, as you said, to the midpoint of the equipment parking area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, what will that be? MR. DeLISI: That will be a water management berm with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Water management -- 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 22 of 48 MR. DeLISI: So it's an 8-foot berm/wall combination. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the height of the wall and the berm combined will get to eight feet. MR. DeLISI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the wall will be of masonry? Concrete block? MR. DeLISI: Block, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And you mentioned earlier that -- in the beginning that you thought our plantings -- some of our vegetation was kind of lacking, and you had said to one response up here that you're going to improve that. What exactly are you going to do? MR. DeLISI: So my only point with that is when you're trying -- when the main issue is noise with an asphalt plant and you're trying to create a noise barrier -- a barrier, an 80 percent opaque vegetative buffer at eight feet isn't quite going to get you there. It's not a visual screen that we're looking at. So we're choosing the wall because it's a noise barrier. If we were to stand here today and say we're going to meet the 80 percent opaque vegetative buffer, I'd be misleading you to say that that's going to do anything to buffer the noise. The other thing I would note about that is that's not the buffer requirement for the area that's industrial, because remember there is also industrial zoning on the east side of that property. That's a Type A buffer that's required there. We're going to extend that berm/wall combination all the way to that southern border because we're trying to block sound going southeast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. When you had answered that previous question, it sounded like you thought we were asking for much less vegetation than we should and you were going to give us more. But I'm not sure why you would want to do that in the middle of nowhere, but I was going to take it if you were going to give it. And that's all the remaining questions I have. If you have no other rebuttal, what I would like to do is read the stipulations so that you are in agreement with them and we are on the same page as getting them written. MR. DeLISI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. You're going to accept the staff recommendations. MR. DeLISI: Yes, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're going to do concrete -- cement and concrete products only, which will include your block, but you're going to do no asphalt. MR. DeLISI: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Building height will be 50 feet for the raw material storage, and that will go up to about 250 feet north of the industrial site location. You're going to refine that number, but it's approximately to the top of that red dot as to where it was located previously. It's a moving red dot, by the way. The exterior lighting will not exceed 25 feet in height, and it will be shielded. You're going to meet the hours of operation. And I wanted to talk to you about that separately in just a second, which is in No. 4 of the list of things on Item 22 under conditional uses. And the berm/wall combination will be at least eight feet, and it will go south from the south point of the industrial section that you're involved with up to the midpoint of the equipment and parking area, and you're going to delineate that, and it's about 620 feet north. And your hours of operation, which is the one in four I wanted to talk about, it says, sunset -- it says two hours before sunrise to sunset. So you tell your employee -- your employees to come in by the sun? So I'm sure they have set hours. So why don't we just tell what hours you're going to be there. That might make everything a lot simpler. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Could I just ask a question here? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 23 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Generally, when you have a long day, these guys start work early because the contractor wants to get his concrete poured so it will set up, then your finishers have to go on it. You know the drill. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I do. I built two concrete batch plants just so you know. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know, I know. But you need to have them start almost with the sun because you don't want to start -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know, Stan. All I'm saying is I don't think they tell their employees to come in -- watch the sun, when it comes up, come up two hours before and make sure you go home two hours after. So I'm just saying, what are their hours? That's all. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There's a website where you can look up where sunrise is, if you really want to get that technical. But I think having them -- okay. I'm -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: But, Mr. Chair, could I jump in real quick to defend my friend, Stan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm not -- I'm just saying, there might be a simple answer. The gentleman's ready to give it, and we don't have to -- we're getting like other boards in the county right now. Go ahead, Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Don't ever lump us in with the other groups. I think both you guys are trying to say the same thing. I mean, it's just common sense will prevail. It's about productivity. So in the wintertime when it doesn't get light out till 7:10 or now where it's light out at 5:55, I think your hours are pretty much going to be relatively ballpark the same. So I think what Mark's asking is, fine tune that so whether it doesn't get light till 8 a.m. or 6 a.m., you guys are still able to be productive and pump that concrete, say, starting at 6 a.m. or whatever time you're going to lock in as opposed to where the crows fly and what time the sun rises. MR. EISENBATH: Right. We do not have a problem with setting a time, say, 6 a.m., but in saying that, we do need to get people on the property because there's people out on a job site waiting for us when the sun's coming up. So we have to be proactive in addressing that with our customers. And, of course, it dictates as to this whole area, there are limitations on when those guys can start in the morning. So it kind of rolls down from that. So if there's a 7 a.m. curfew, you know, to start work in Naples, then -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Most places. MR. EISENBATH: -- 6 o'clock, hey, if we can get out of there an hour early, we're great. So that's how it varies for us. And it does -- we'll stagger people in different times, you know, 15 minutes apart or whatever just to accommodate getting the trucks out to the job sites. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, what I was worried about are the extremes. Right now at sunset -- and June 21st, I think, is the peak sunset period of time, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: 8:22. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: 8:22. So you could actually operate this plant till almost 10:30 at night. Is that what your intention is? MR. EISENBATH: No, it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we just say, under extremes, what's the earliest you would need open -- start the plant and what's the latest you would go? Just so we have some range. I don't want someone coming back saying, well, you guys, why didn't you think -- they're operating 10 o'clock at night. Why'd you let them do that? Well, because the code says they can. Well, no. We can question that. So can you just give us a range that works for you? MR. EISENBATH: Say, six to eight, and normally that 8 o'clock hour would not be actually producing that much noise. It's more people -- 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 24 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your wind-down. MR. EISENBATH: -- generally doing maintenance and things at the plant. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And those are hours of operation, not necessarily the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: People showing up. MR. EISENBATH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So hours of operation, not before 6 a.m. and not after 8 p.m.; does that work for you? MR. EISENBATH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all we're trying to get to. MR. EISENBATH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We got there. Thank you. Anybody have anything else? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Did you mention setbacks in your -- in the conditions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mentioned the -- well, they're going to meet the setback of 100 feet. No, I haven't got that far yet. So the setback for -- which is 4. Number 4 is, I said you're going to meet the conditions of No. 4, which is the raw material storage facility, and that's limited to 240 feet, approximately, north of the industrial, and it will be not located or conducted within 100 feet of any exterior boundary. You're okay with that? MR. DeLISI: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll close the public hearing, and we'll entertain a motion. Does anybody have a motion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could I make a joint motion on behalf of the Planning Commission and the EAC? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's up to Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion jointly with the stipulations that have been discussed just now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all for your time today. We appreciate it. And as far as consent goes, we didn't vote to have a consent. If the Board so wishes -- since they're going to have to change the details we've asked on the master plan, I don't mind reviewing it on this board's behalf before it goes to the BCC. Is that okay? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll make that motion if you want it in the form of a motion. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 25 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't need a motion, just consent. Yeah. You guys okay with that? COMMISSIONER FRY: Sounds good. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Agreed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we're good. Thank you very much. ***And let's move on to the next item today. Next item, 9A2, PL2018002619, the Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club Planned Unit Development. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. If you're going to speak, just please stand up and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Only materials from staff. Oh, I'm sorry, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I already spoke. It was an extra cup of coffee. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I'm doing the same thing. And I had spoke with staff. I also talked with Gina and heard her frustrations, and I also talked to a gentleman from the country club this morning and equally heard his. So with that, we'll go to Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just emails and correspondence with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Gina, it's all yours. MS. GREEN: Good morning. Gina Green, engineer, for the record, representing Naples Heritage. This PUD Amendment is to convert 2.9 acres of existing conservation easement to recreation area. This petition is being asked for due to safety concerns at their club. They are an older club. They have a demographic change as far as the use of their main clubhouse facility over the years, and they now are having congestion problems during season for parking for the tennis center, swimming, golf, you know, which when -- this predominantly was golf when it was originally built back in the late '90s. They do have letters from the Fire Department citing them for the parking violations, people parking in the aisleways at the end of islands, creating congestion for first responders if they do need to come into the site. They also have letters from their insurance company in regards to the safety issues in their parking lot, so they're trying to remedy this situation. And the only way they can do that was to remove one of their amenities from the site to create more parking area on the main clubhouse site. And so this 2.9-acre area, which is adjacent to their existing driving range, is a great location to place their tennis facility and relocate that amenity off their main clubhouse site. The PUD already has excessive, above Collier County standards for their native preservation standards of about 50 acres, so this 2.9 acres does not violate any Collier County codes for this. We have already been reviewed by South Florida Water Management District and Army Corps, and they have accepted our wetland impacts that this creates. They are ready to issue a permit. We are actually going to the June 13th governing board with South Florida for the release of this 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 26 of 48 conservation easement, which is also in favor of South Florida, and Army Corps will be -- once that ERP is approved and that release is issued, Army Corps will be issuing their permit for the impacts. We also have been providing -- through that ERP and Army Corps process, we are providing 5.21 acres of adjacent property which was -- if everybody remembers back a couple years ago, was where we wanted to put the tennis site, but we had opposition and got turned down by the Board. So we've gone through the whole process with Army Corps. It's taken about 18 months to be allowed to impact this 2.9 acres. So we are providing that 5.21 acres for mitigation, and we also are buying off-site credit at the mitigation banks to offset these impacts. We do have residents here that are willing to speak in support of the project, and Ken Gaynor, the president of the Board, would also like to give you-all a few comments also, and we'll be all here to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Before we -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could you give a little more detail about the 5.2 acres and the deal with the Army Corps? MS. GREEN: Yes. And, actually, I'll put up a map that delineates where all this is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Where is that red dot there? It's been great to help in other ones. COMMISSIONER FRYER: We're going to put a silo there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. So that red dot, Ray? What's that red dot? Did Troy put that there as a trick? MR. BELLOWS: The last applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He put a red dot on everybody's. Here's Troy. The mystery red dot. Thank you, Mike. MS. GREEN: Okay. This right here is a map that was prepared by the environmentalist. That shows the conservation areas across this whole area. And it's a great map because it does show the continuity of all the conservation areas. And if you look, the red area is our 2.98-acre area that we're going to impact. And if you look at the blue square that's kind of mid central, that's the 5.21-acre parcel that Naples Heritage has owned since the middle 2000s, and that is the area that's going to be turned into mitigation and made into a conservation easement in favor of South Florida Water Management District as part of the mitigation for the 2.9-acre impact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm clear. And I will have more questions after you're finished. MS. GREEN: I'm finished, so -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MS. GREEN: -- I would like Ken Gaynor to come up. He has a few comments he'd like to add in. MR. GAYNOR: Thank you, and it's still morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Only except -- unless you're in the environmental world. I think we -- Craig -- MR. GAYNOR: My name is Ken Gaynor, and I'm the unpaid president of Naples Heritage. Two years ago this commission unanimously approved a similar proposal but in a different location. It was rejected by the County Commissioners because there were objections from a handful of our residents. Our dangerous parking problems have been well documented. Prior to the required vote to expand our campus, we conducted three town hall meetings with over 600 residents in attendance. We had lots of questions but no objections. The vote was taken, and 85 percent of the people voted in favor of our campus expansion project. As was required, we conducted a neighborhood information meeting again. No objections. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 27 of 48 As a 20-year-plus community, our need to improve is critical to all of our residents and, in particular, to protect our property values and the safety of our residents due to this parking problem that we have; therefore, as the staff has recommended, we respectively seek your approval for our application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And Joe, and then Ned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just refresh my memory. Two years ago when -- it was almost two years ago, I believe, when -- MR. GAYNOR: It was two years ago February, I believe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- this came before the board, and essentially it's the same two pieces of property, is it not, that -- MR. GAYNOR: Well, this -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And then it was approved, but the Board turned it down? Because of what? Because of the easement that needed to be -- MR. GAYNOR: The tennis -- the objections were from six residents that the tennis courts were too close to their homes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Oh, down at the end of that street. MR. GAYNOR: That's the five acres. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There was going to be parking problems along that street. Yeah, okay. MR. GAYNOR: They complained. We tried to reconcile their issues, but we failed to do so, and the County Commissioners voted 3-2 against us because of their objections. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And now all of that has been resolved? MR. GAYNOR: Well, what we're doing is we're moving the tennis courts -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tennis courts to the -- MR. GAYNOR: -- to a new location. THE COURT REPORTER: I can only get one at a time, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Go ahead. So the tennis courts are not going to go -- originally they were at the blue dot on here, the blue parcel. Now that will become preserve, and what was preserve, because it had a conservation easement -- that was the reason a couple years ago why you couldn't put the tennis court there originally; is that correct? MR. GAYNOR: That's absolutely correct. We didn't think we'd get the approval from the Army Corp, but now we have a tentative approval because of everything else we've done. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So this solves all the residents' problems; no traffic down at the end of the street; you'll be able to enlarge the parking lot as needed and then still have -- construct new tennis courts. MR. GAYNOR: That's correct. We're adding at the -- by the removal of the tennis courts and building of new fitness center, which we need. We're going to add 69 parking spaces by the clubhouse, another 20 parking spaces by the tennis courts. So that should definitely alleviate this dangerous problem that we have. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: But the real issue here is this is a companion item to a vacation of easement that will go to the Board of County Commissioners then. MR. GAYNOR: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: First of all, with respect to the easement vacation, what consideration is the county getting in return for that since the 5.2 acres is going to another entity? MS. GREEN: Based upon the review, because we're already in excess of our native preservation for Collier County on the site already, we have about 243 acres of preserve -- we're only required to have 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 28 of 48 195. Because we're above the required, we still meet and exceed the county code. So the 2.9 acres does not diminish the requirements of the code. We're not going below the required. So we're not giving anything back to the county per se, because we already meet or exceed their criteria. COMMISSIONER FRYER: How does the County Attorney feel about that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Does the county -- we don't own this. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The vacation is a separate petition that goes to the Board of County Commissioners, and we do have a resolution of is criteria that the Board does consider at the time that they hear it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So it doesn't come through us? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: No, it does not. MS. GREEN: Can I make one more statement? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. MS. GREEN: Well, I was just going to say, we were actually asking for a vacation of another portion of this property that's a public right-of-way at the point that the county is no longer -- was no longer going to use two years ago in order to compensate even for the 5.21-acre parcel when we were going to put the tennis center there. But since then, the Stormwater Department and with the LASIP project that's to the south boundary of this, they wanted to keep a portion of that right-of-way, so we took that out of the mix to leave it for the county's consideration so that they could do any kind of future stormwater improvements in this area as a regional benefit. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I won't comment further on the vacation issue if that's not properly before us, but I will say this; that the material that was submitted is presenting a safety issue of some kind as a justification for doing this, and the safety issue really, seems to me, arises as a result of your members parking illegally. MR. GAYNOR: If I might comment on it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Please. MR. GAYNOR: It is -- what has happened over the past 22 years since Naples Heritage was built, our demographics have definitely changed. Fitness has become more popular. Tennis has gone from 10 members to 200 members on our racket association, including pickleball. We just have so much more traffic, and we were under -- parking was at a very minimum when we originally started. We've encouraged carpooling. We have some outside events. And when we had, for instance, our town hall meetings, we even shuttled people back and forth, and we still had a parking problem. We were just undersized for parking initially, and it just gets worse and worse as our demographics change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you make a strong -- that's a strong business case for doing it. I'm surprised you only got 85 percent approval, because your business case is very strong. And I understand that golfing is being reduced in popularity and tennis and fitn -- all of that I get. But the part that I just am commenting upon is these references to safety issues as if these are caused by the county when, in fact, I think they result from the changing demographics and your individual members parking in a way that would block emergency response vehicles. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I'm just wondering -- and, Ned, I'm just kind of curious. What difference does it make? I mean, we don't own the underlying property. It offers no value to the citizens of Collier County. The only possible value it might be, for the people of that community, and if they, by majority, want to see an expansion of the recreation facility and still put up an equal amount in a better location that will at least appease some people who previously were concerned. I mean, is there an issue that I'm missing? I didn't read it the way you did, and I'm trying to understand where you're coming from. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll primarily responding to a lot of verbiage that is included in the materials having to do with safety issues. And these are -- these are safety issues that arise as a result of 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 29 of 48 people parking, perhaps, where they shouldn't park. So that's why I made that comment. But the other thing that I remain concerned about is -- well, put this in the form of a question. The preserve area that is being carved away at -- and I understand that it already exceeds the minimum, but that's an easement in favor of the county, correct? MS. GREEN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And so is that preservation area -- is that publicly accessible? MS. GREEN: It's only publicly accessible to the people within Naples Heritage. It's a private community. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That answers my question. I don't have any -- MR. GAYNOR: If I may have just one comment about -- on the 85 percent. If you know what happens by bylaws, you have to have a vote. And the 85 percent was, quite frankly, a mandate by our community. We're asking people to assess -- have an assessment of $5,600. And, you know, some of the reasons were not objections to what we're doing; objections to the fact that they'd have to pay for it, quite frankly. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I get it. And just so -- the Chairman probably already understands, but where I was coming from, if the preservation area was publicly accessible, then I would be concerned, and I would be more concerned about the vacation, but now I understand it's not. So it's not taking away any public access. MR. GAYNOR: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, then Karl. MR. EASTMAN: The blue piece, which will now be in preservation -- and if I read the north directional arrow correctly, to the south and to the west, is that conservation that you'll be in connection with as well? MS. GREEN: Yes. It will be contiguous to existing conversation areas on Naples Heritage. MR. EASTMAN: That's wonderful. And 85 percent in this context is a huge approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, though, you were asking to the south, to the west. If you look at the north aerial, south and west is off the Naples Heritage property, I believe. And I thought that was just -- those are areas that could potentially be developed in the future. MS. GREEN: Right. Well, the 5.21-acre parcel is zoned agricultural. So if somebody -- if Naples Heritage didn't own it and wanted to sell it, somebody else could come in and do -- and actually build on that rather than -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But -- so the preservation, Tom, to answer your question, on the south and on the west, based on the north arrow that is not directional in a way that project is, is not preserve. MR. EASTMAN: Okay. Okay. So it's contiguous to off-site preserve. MR. GAYNOR: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. That's what I think the question was, and that wasn't the one that was answered, so... MR. EASTMAN: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Having been -- I also know Ned, as well, highly unpaid leader of a community, highly unpaid, 500 homeowners, if we could get 70 percent response in favor of any idea, I was able to sleep at night; 85 I would have felt like it was close to 100 percent approval. You have members that are willing to pay an assessment. MR. GAYNOR: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: You're giving up five acres that could have been built on. MR. GAYNOR: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the packet it says you're paying $121,000 for off-site mitigation credits, I guess. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 30 of 48 MR. GAYNOR: Panther Island. COMMISSIONER FRY: Panther Island. I guess I had a couple just ancillary questions. To me it sounds like you've done all you can to get approval. MR. GAYNOR: We've been working hard. COMMISSIONER FRY: You've established that, in my mind at least. You're adjacent to a driving range. And I just wonder, do you have any concerns, does anybody have concerns about errant golf balls invading the tennis area? MR. GAYNOR: No, no. COMMISSIONER FRY: How much is pickleball a part of your new facility? MR. GAYNOR: It's become huge. As a matter of fact, we started, and 22 years ago we had 10 members of what we call the tennis association. Three years ago we had to change it to the racquet association because we have a pickleball center right now, and we have four courts. And there are actually more pickleball players than tennis players right now. COMMISSIONER FRY: That seems to be the trend -- MR. GAYNOR: It is. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- these days. That's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, thank you very much. We'll move to staff report. MR. GAYNOR: Thank you. Thank you all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. MARTINEZ: Gil Martinez, for the record. Staff recommends the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL2018...2619 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, are there any members of the public registered to speak, Ray, or Gil? MR. MARTINEZ: Yes. Ms. Georgiann Schulte. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Waives. MS. SCHULTE: I waive. MR. MARTINEZ: Mr. Gary Lukens. MR. LUKENS: Waive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Waives. MR. MARTINEZ: And R.M. Rogan. MR. ROGAN: Waive. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Waives. Okay. Is there any member of the public who was not registered that would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, there's probably no need for rebuttal by the applicant. It's going in the right direction. So we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Anybody? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Make a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 31 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you for the second time around. We appreciate it. (Applause.) MR. GAYNOR: Thank you very much. I'll sleep better tonight. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll take a 10-minute break until 10:55; actually, it will be 11 minutes. So we'll take an 11-minute break and come back at 10:55. (A brief recess was had, and Commissioner Chrzanowski has left the boardroom for the remainder of the meeting.) MR. BOSI: Sorry to interrupt. You have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, everybody. Welcome back. ***The next item up is PL20180000261/CPSP-18-2. It's the Golden Gate Area Master Plan restudy adoption hearing. And I believe this -- Heidi, this is still legislative, but do we need disclosures and swearing in? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes, it is legislative, and there's no disclosures required or swearing in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because it was adoption, I didn't know if that changed. Kris, I don't know what you plan to present, but I might as well start out so the rest of the Planning Commission knows at least where my concerns are. You sent a document out that has changed radically from the last time it came here, and that's the Board's right to do what they want, and that's fine, but I would have liked to have seen that document presented in a manner to us that had a strikethrough and underline of the changes that were made in the verbiage. And after I brought this up to David Weeks yesterday, I know he must have told you, and I think I told you in writing, too, that I was concerned about a couple of things. You followed up last night with some paper that we're supposed to read on one hand and then match up to the changes on the other. That isn't what staff normally provides to this board. We normally get a strikethrough and underline. The other fact is that all of the paragraphs in the former master plan, apparently, all of them, were cut and pasted to the three new sections to where someone thought they were relevant. But I don't know if those pastes were changed as well because everything is underlined and everything is one color. I'm not used to that after the 18 years on this board. We've never -- that's not the way things have been done. And for my perspective, I'm not going to go back and take those two pages you sent and match them all up to the paragraphs as I read three different sections now and match them up three different times. We shouldn't be doing that. It should make it a little bit easier for us. And if it's easier for us, it will be easier for the Board of County Commissioners. So with that said, I'm really not thinking we're going to get too far today. But I kind of wanted to tell you and have this Planning Commission hear my comments so we can all know by -- I need to know by 11:30 if we're going to go on today or not; not for my benefit but for some others in the room as far as scheduling goes. So from that perspective, why don't -- I'll just open it up for discussion to the Planning Commissioners first, and then we can get staff's reaction. The rest of you, are you prepared to go through this thing today based on how you received it, or is it -- I need your comments. And, Karl, you're from the Estates. You've got a section of this. You're actually going to be in the new section that was going to be Urban Estates. So I don't know how you followed it along. Were 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 32 of 48 you satisfied or -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I had the same challenges in having strikethroughs and then -- and, personally, because I was not here the first time this was reviewed and, as I understand, this is some changes, not huge changes to something you've reviewed previously. So I'm just trying to catch up and try to pick the relevant sections out where I do have some comments. Certainly, from the Oakes Estates area, it's mentioned in there more or less in passing in a minor reference a few times. But I'm willing to do whatever is the pleasure of the Board today. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I did not look at -- I know they got an email yesterday early. I did not look at any of that material because I already spent time reviewing what was in our packet. So I guess the -- if you just want to give me an idea of what the new documents are versus what we got in our packet, I guess I could get a clear understanding, then, of which document you want us to review. MR. VAN LENGEN: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And last question, though; is this going to get before the Board before they go on vacation? MR. VAN LENGEN: It is not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So no matter what we do today, it's not going to get before the Board until sometime in September or October. MR. VAN LENGEN: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a suggestion, then, Mr. Chair. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You need to bring the mic closer, too. COMMISSIONER FRYER: In keeping with the needs of others to leave a little early, why don't we spend our time -- because I've got a lot of questions and a lot of issues, but if I -- if I am able to raise them and pose them without waiting for lengthy answers, I can get through that in maybe 20 minutes, and perhaps that's the way we do it so that staff, then, has the advantage of knowing what our issues are so when it comes back for further consideration those issues can be addressed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Works for me. I mean, I'm fine with that. But with that having been said, Kris, why don't we go your direction and see what you're thinking. MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, I think we're at your disposal. I'm glad this is -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disposal? I don't want to go that far. MR. VAN LENGEN: We definitely are. And good early afternoon, good late morning, Kris Van Lengen, project manager for the restudies. We're talking here about the adoption phase of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Would it be helpful to you for me to just go over the history very briefly? I believe there are two members who were not here for the original transmittal, and I'm just going to do this very, very briefly, and then it would be helpful to hear the questions that you all have. I don't know when you wanted me to address the document issue. I know that Joe just asked about that. I think, you know, as staff, at least -- and perhaps I live in my own bubble, but as staff we worry about giving you enough information and we worry about giving you too much information, because sometimes too much can be somewhat destructive. So the document, Commissioner Schmitt, is what I would consider an interim document; in other words, it's a document that was provided that was massaged through staff and with the help of the County's Attorney's Office to implement the recommendations or the direction, I should say, from the Board of County Commissioners when they went through at the transmittal hearing. Those are the documents that were sent at 5 p.m. yesterday following Chairman Strain's request or concern that what I sent him earlier in the day was not sufficient. We're happy if you -- if everyone feels that they need to review that interim document in order to 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 33 of 48 find that we have done our job in completing every directive from the Board of County Commissioners, that would be fine. My thought, when I put together the staff report, was that the changes directed by the Board were pretty simple. There was an issue about neighborhood churches which needs some discussion. There was an issue about the major intersections, which were simply removed, so that's a simple removal in the document, and that's the -- I mean, we can talk about that, but those were conditional uses at major intersections. They were added in; Board wanted them taken out. So that leaves us to the major change which was the pulling apart, if you will, of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan into three -- really, four parts. One is the plan itself, and, essentially, three sub-elements: Golden Gate City, Urban Golden Gate Estates, and Rural Golden Gate Estates. And that's what we intended to do, and we did it in a way that we thought was ministerial in nature. In other words, we used no discretion in doing it. We worked as a team. We worked with the County Attorney's Office. And we simply divided that material only on the basis that certain provisions or policies or land-use designation descriptions applied only to one area or only to another. If they didn't -- if they weren't specific in that geographic sense, they went in both urban and rural estates areas. And, by the way, Golden Gate City was already separated by that time. So that was my thinking, but however you want to proceed, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to do so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if we can simplify it, I'm fine. But someone made the decision to take certain parts of the overall Golden Gate Master Plan and break those up into three different sections. I don't know how those decisions were made, and I can't tell easily what part was moved where, because everything's underlined. I would -- I had hoped that maybe we would have gotten a master plan and then for -- let's say for the Urban Estates and Rural Estates, those sections that apply to one or the other were separately crossed out, and maybe we would have had to repeat the document, but at least we could see through the cross-throughs what your team was thinking was needed for each section or wasn't. Then we could dwell on that and say, well, we agree with that, or maybe this one should be there, too, for whatever reason. Now that can be done, but we're going to have to open up multiple documents and start comparing them side by side multiple times. That's more than a seven-day or a six-day exercise, at least when we had two other cases today, and we just got this last week. So I think your two pages will be helpful, but that wasn't my only concern of omissions, strikethroughs, or changes. If somebody in cutting and pasting made some changes that maybe they did inadvertently or maybe they thought it was a clarification from their perspective -- but we don't know it. I would -- I mean, I can't not go back and read the same paragraph in three different documents to make sure it fits in each one as it should. That's what I thought you guys were going to do, and a succinct resolution of that would be, when we read that paragraph three times and we put it in these three documents, it didn't need any changes and, therefore, there was no strikethrough on it or underline, but they're all underlined, so I don't know that. And I had also seen many of those paragraphs contain a reference to two years. Was it two years starting now because it's new language, because it's underlined, or is that old language from 2001, and are we way past the two years, and if we are, why are we leaving the two years in? So those are the kind of pieces I was more concerned about than the paper you sent last night. I was fully aware and I fully have no problem with what the Commission is recommending for the changes. That's not an issue. And I was aware of how those changes came about. I was more concerned about the -- either the inadvertent or maybe in -- purposely possible cleanup changes that happened by the cutting and pasting. And if they didn't happen, then why are we still dragging over things that say two years when the two years would have started in 2001? So we probably need to go back, if we're going to change that much, and start cleaning up that stuff as well. It's a helpful suggestion, not a hindrance. It just needs to have a little more detailing done on it. That's where I was coming from. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 34 of 48 MR. VAN LENGEN: Sure. And just for your information, all of the two-year provisions are new, so none of those are left over from the 2003/2004 period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that is new language? MR. VAN LENGEN: That's all new language. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's exactly the issue that I've got. MS. JENKINS: It's included in transmittal. They've seen that before. MR. VAN LENGEN: As Anita's pointing out, it was included in your transmittal packet as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it's new language -- the whole paragraph is new or just the two years? MR. VAN LENGEN: The policies that reflect an initiation of a consideration within two years of adoption are all new policies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, if that's the case, it's fine but, again, everything appeared new in what you sent us. It was all the paragraphs were underlined. MR. VAN LENGEN: And I think -- and just to make a potential point of confusion here. You received two sets of documents yesterday. I suspect that you might not have gotten the second set, because once I understood that you weren't satisfied with the line-by-line identification of how we pulled apart the urban and rural sections, I did send that working document that we used that includes -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't got that. MR. VAN LENGEN: -- for each -- okay. It should be in your in-box as of 5 p.m. yesterday. If it's not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wouldn't have seen it then. I couldn't get any -- I was on the road to different meetings at 6:30 this morning, so I just didn't get it. MR. VAN LENGEN: Hopefully it's not in your junk mail. But I understand it's very late in the day to do that and to take a look at it. If that's easier for everyone, that's fine. It would have been my judgment call, and I apologize that that makes it more difficult for everyone. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just want to make sure we understand what we're signing off on because I do think the Board relies on our review, and I want to be careful with it. And not only that, I happen to live in this particular area, so it does get a little additional concern from my perspective on how I make sure I understand it all. So I think Ned's idea -- if you're willing to, I think Ned's idea was good; we just put our questions on the table right now, not a lot of feedback back and forth unless it's something you flat out know you can't do. Ask to have that considered, and then anything you can give us well in advance of the second meeting in July, we schedule this to be finished up in the second meeting in July. Would that -- I mean, I don't think you have a schedule you're pressed on in this one, are you? Since you're not going to the Board until the fall. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. It would be satisfactory. It's the only other meeting we have other than today's meeting, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. If that's okay with you, that would work better for all that new information that was sent out in response. And I think there's a general -- a couple general other things, and I'll just say those, because then I'll let Ned go next. I found where you provided a separate map for the city of Golden Gate. Did you -- I can't -- maybe it's somewhere in the 682 pages, but I didn't find in the -- when you started out each subsection, I would have expected to see the map of that subsection. So when someone's reading that subsection, they say, oh, yeah, there is the rural estates. So if you're on the east side of Collier Boulevard you know it. Did you have a map that separates on -- I would suggest the very first map that you start with before you subdivide it out, it shows the subdivisions in bold lettering and lines on the maps. See, this is where the line is for eastern urban, and this little box is the city. And then when you start each subsection up, you pull that section up so people know right away 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 35 of 48 that's the only area it applies. That is one clarification that I think for the public's purpose is, to really understand how this applies; they can see it more readily. And that would be something I had planned on asking anyway, so I just thought I'd put that on the table now. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Excuse me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I'd like to do is at about 11:30, we'll see where we're at. And there is one individual that needs to leave, if we can, by noon. Yes, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I just wanted to point out that if you continue it to the second meeting in July, it's beyond the five-week time period. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but we've done that before. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So it would have to be readvertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We've done that before for other, and it hasn't been an issue. I thought the resolution was it can be continued indefinitely, I mean, for longer period of -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It has to be readvertised. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. Okay. Well, I mean, I don't know -- I'm not prepared. Well, whatever the Board wants to do, I'll go along with the rest of the board members. I'm just not -- myself, I'm not prepared to finish this today, so -- had never been. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, you could continue it to the second meeting in June, see if there's any discussion, and if you need further information, then continue it to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We don't have a second meeting in June, and we don't have a first meeting in July. That's the problem. We're not meeting again till the second meeting in July. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So is that still the case then; we'd have to readvertise? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, I'll have to work with Anita and Chris, so we'll take care of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'll just run through these. MR. VAN LENGEN: Sir, I apologize for interrupting you. I'm just thinking in terms of the rollout today, because of the confusion that we have, would it be helpful for me -- because we had two members that were not at the transmittal hearings -- just to go through a really brief history of how we got from there to here, or would you like to go first? I don't mean to interrupt you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't need that briefing. If others do, that's -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Who are the two new members? It would be Karl and who else is new here today? MR. VAN LENGEN: I believe Joe was not at that -- you weren't at the transmittal hearing. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I was there. MR. VAN LENGEN: You were. Okay. My apologies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl, are you -- COMMISSIONER FRY: In the interest of time, Kris, I can catch up with you afterward. As I understand, it went through transmittal, and now you broke it into separate sections for different areas. MR. VAN LENGEN: That's right. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I intend to move forward and -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think the history is well documented in the material. MR. VAN LENGEN: All right. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Multiple times, in fact. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. The first thing -- and I'm going to refer to pages of my 942-page material. The Chairman mentioned 600 and something, so I hope we're not going to get into that trick bag. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you got more than I do now. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 36 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRY: But only the last 600-and-some pages were for this item. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The last six hundred -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's true. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- 682 pages for this item. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good, okay. But my -- all right. Well, that will work then. Okay. On Page 261, which it would be Page 1 if I had received this separately, but I received it as part of the three matters, it is the beginning page of the Growth Management Plan amendments. And my question has to do with the stretch of road Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston and Santa Barbara. When we were at transmittal, there were a number of residents here who were concerned that there was something new being proposed or something new that was being enabled by reason of these GMP amendments in that stretch. And I believe at transmittal I heard someone say that, no, there is going to be no change, and I just want that confirmed, if I could have that, please. MR. VAN LENGEN: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Good. All right. So then I go to -- on Page 263 in the introduction it begins by saying, the proposed Growth Management Plan revisions, blah, blah, blah, but it refers to Board action on January 25 of 2019, and that didn't happen. The Board met on 22 January and then continued it to 12 February. So I think you need a cleanup. The January 25 date appears on a staff memo, but it was not the date that the Board met. Then I go on to -- and that same thing is the case again, but I'll flag that when we come to it. Here it is on Page 264. Again, the January 25 date should refer to the January 22 and February 12 dates. Then my next question -- and I'm just throwing these out. We're not going to have detailed answers today, but there was reference, I think at transmittal, and certainly at the BCC level, that you all would be pretty far along with the LDC amendments so that we'd have a pretty clear idea of what those would be at the time that we had our final look at the GMP amendments. And, of course, the first issue is going to be how the term "neighborhood churches" is going to be defined. I assume that's an LDC question, but it's awfully important to what we're considering at the GMP level. So next time this comes up in July, I'd like to have a better idea of what the definition of neighborhood is going to be, and I think that's also going to require a close look by our County Attorney's Office to be sure that what is being proposed is constitutional. And just the more general point, the idea of having a draft of the LDC amendments in front of us or more flesh on those bones or some flesh on the bones would help guide me in the judgments that I would want to make at the time that we take our final action on adoption in July. Let's see. The Mike Ramsey document; at first I thought it was not included, but it actually was in there. So then -- okay. In Exhibit A on Page 270, it says, "to update and reorganized the current Golden Gate Area Master Plan." I think there's a superfluous "d" on the word reorganized. I think what you meant to say was to update and reorganize. So then the -- and I did have a chance to took at what came over the transom yesterday, so I know where the differences are and, primarily, it was changes of nomenclature, like, from Golden Gate Estates area to Golden Gate Estates and some other things of that nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I would like to have seen. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. So one of my main points this afternoon or today was going to be, how can we function without having that information? But we got it and, fortunately, for me at least, I had time to look at it, and quantifiable and qualitative, I didn't think they were significant but, obviously, we all would like to have had that earlier on. So the bifurcation -- my questions about bifurcation have been answered; that it was with the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 37 of 48 exception of a few things like deleting the word "area" and some other things that are, in my personal opinion -- others may disagree -- are not of substantial consequence. I don't have that level of concern over the bifurcation. Then there's a whereas clause. And on Page 334, that says, whereas, Collier County has gathered and considered additional information, data, analysis, including the following: The Collier County staff report, documents entitled Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment, and other documents, testimony made part of the record at today's meeting, and then going forward when it comes back to county Planning Commission. And my question, which I was in the beginning of asking the Chairman but couldn't get too far into it because of Sunshine, but I think I understand that given the significant changes which have been made since we saw this at transmittal, that really everything, once again, is on the table, that the scope of our review is not limited by the fact that much of this we have encountered before. And so I'm saying that rhetorically to be sure that -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I guess that's -- the County Attorney can respond to that better than anybody else. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: You're not limited. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mic gives you a lot of trouble; I can tell. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I'll just yell. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So that answers that question. Then let's see. I go to more bifurcation which has been answered, so I don't need to ask that. Oh, just as a general question, and this pertains to the Golden Gate City where you've created new subdistricts, and this has to do with grandfathering and nonconforming uses and vested rights and all of that stuff. Is it fair to say that no uses that existed under the previous -- assuming this has changed -- under the previous zoning language, that no uses have been taken away, that no vested rights are being removed by the re-verbalization or re-expression of the subdistricts; is that fair? If you can answer yes or no now, fine. If it takes a long answer -- MR. VAN LENGEN: I would answer just with a couple words. No zoning rights have been changed, so anybody who is presently zoned is able to keep that zoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. There's going to be an issue, though. If somebody, say, hasn't broken ground, you're taking away potential uses that they could have. We don't need to address that now, but that's going to be a question that I would like to have addressed at the proper time. And the -- because Policy 1.1.5 is the grandfathering provision and it says, which was in effect at the time of approval. So that whole grandfathering thing is something I'm going to want to discuss and have presented in July. Then in goal -- Policy 1.4.2 -- and this is also Golden Gate City -- it says, the County's Code Enforcement Board shall strictly enforce the Land Development Code and the legal operation of commercial activities, and I'm just wondering if that's consistent with what I take to be the BCC's position on relaxation of zoning standards for Airbnb-type occupancies and the like. And so should that language be reconsidered given the relatively new direction that we've all gotten from the County Commission? I don't know. Then in Goal 2 on Page 341, a safety issue comes up. We're talking about promoting a walkable community, and then we're providing for walkways in the alley. And I want to be sure that we address safety either by mentioning safe walkways or mentioning lighting that -- maybe not there now but needs to be referred to. And the same thing with walk -- both bicycling and walkability. I think the word "safety" needs to be included where we use those words to be sure that, for instance, in complete streets, if that's an objective, that the additional walking and biking has taken account not only of safety but also of a 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 38 of 48 reduction of automobile traffic and how that might affect commercial activity is a concern that I expressed at transmittal and would want to have revisited when the time comes. Again -- let's see. Oh, I know. There was a Fox 4 story posted on its website on May 30 saying that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said that 16 percent of the 783 cyclist deaths that occurred in the United States, fully 16 percent were people killed in Florida. And I really -- this gets back to safety. I think we need to address this and be sure that we -- that we show that we are considering the issues of safety when we increase walkability and when we increase cyclists activity. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to have cyclists or walking, but I just -- you know, we've got to deal with the fact that 16 percent of all the deaths in the nation occur in Florida, cyclists. Then there's a reference in Policy 2.1.5. This is a two-year period. It says, established within two years to ensure compatibility of auto-oriented uses. And in many other cases we say "initiated" rather than "established." So I think that word "established" in 2.1.5, to be consistent with other places where we've used the word "initiated," gives staff more flexibility rather than to have gotten it finished, to at least to have started it, and "initiated" shows up in a number of other places that I won't need to cite to. On 343 it shows up a couple or three times. Then you're expanding sewer and water service in Policy 2.3.1 as an objective. I'm going to want to have a discussion on who's going to pay for that. Safe walkability, again, occurs on Page 343. Alleys on Page 344. Pedestrians on Page 344. Safety is an issue. Then let's see my note. In Golden Gate City, you're proposing the subtraction of any permitted or conditional uses or just the addition of uses, and I think we're going to get into -- we'll get into a discussion about zoning and whether we're taking away opportunities from people who, for instance, haven't broken ground or somehow sought to give affect to the current zoning that would be taken away. I'm going to want to know a lot more about that. Supporting medical facilities comes up on Page 345. Supporting medical facilities such as physicians' offices. I'm going to be concerned about how we would go about doing that, and also there's a reference to Golden Gate Urgent Care Center as an -- Golden Gate Urgent Care as an example, and I'm wondering, is that -- is it appropriate to spec in or to mention one particular proprietary use like that? Just curious. Then I go to density bonus rating system on Page 346. The last sentence of B, density bonuses, it says, in no case shall the maximum permitted density exceed 16 residential units. Well, of course, we know that these are discretionary, not entitlements, and I think rather than the word "shall," I think we want the word "may," and we want to provide "not greater than the following densities" so that we all know and so that people don't get the idea that they're entitled to the full 16 each and every time. So that would be a wording refinement that I'm asking for at that point. Then again on Subsection A, 3.A, downtown center commercial subdistrict, the boundaries -- or bicycle and pedestrian. Again, please address safety or include the word in there that it shows that it's being looked at. Greenways; the way this was addressed in 3.1.3 seems to work for me, but others may have concerns. I know it was talked about at some length. I am personally satisfied with the way that's dealt with, but I'm only speaking for myself. And the -- I go to -- oh, and I think the eminent domain language meets my concerns. I think it's been adequately addressed again. I think Peter Gaddy, who was a speaker representing a residents association, indicated that he was in agreement, and I think the county board also, at least tacitly, agreed with the concept that eminent domain would not be used for greenways. I'm satisfied that that language works; others may or may not be. Then in the Rural Golden Gate, under Estates designation, it's group housing includes the following type facility. This is on Page 411. And I think "includes" is a broader word than you want. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 39 of 48 You follow by family-care facilities, group-care facilities, care units, et cetera. And I think rather than "includes," the word you want it "means," because I think we want it limited to the things we specify rather than just say this is just for example and it could include a lot more things. If there are more things intended to be covered, they should probably be referenced there. Then in A.2, the Estates mixed-use district on Page 411, there's a reference to basic goods in the neighborhood centers. And are we intending to include big box stores? That's a question that I think should be addressed when we talk about this in greater detail. And I see now that the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, we've mentioned three quadrants because they're neighborhood centers, but then the fourth quadrant, the northwest quadrant is a shopping center. I guess that is a -- that is an entitlement that's already in existence, I believe. So I understand that. I didn't at first, but I do now. Then on Page 413, the criteria for land uses in Sub 4, romanette iv, it says, a single project, and I think the word you're looking for, the concept is a development where you say project. That maybe could use some straightening out. Then in romanette x on Page 413, which is the criteria for land uses at the centers, in romanette x the sentence says, this provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. Well, we're talking about the -- we're talking about the Rural Estates, so that sentence could come out, because having bifurcated this, everything is east of Collier Boulevard. So I think that sentence can come out. It's not needed here. And the -- in romanette xvi -- oh, that also appears in romanette xv, the sentence, this provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. Well, since you bifurcated, all of this only applies east of Collier Boulevard, so that can come out. Then there is a reference to fences or walls should not exceed five feet in height. I'd like to hear some explanation of how that number was arrived at. Same with romanette xvii, projects -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Mr. Fryer? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Staff is jotting down the comments as you're speaking, but please note that they're going to look into addressing some of your comments, but the changes need to be directed by a majority of the Commission. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I understand. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And you've got -- I mean, your comments, for them to respond to each one at a public meeting, we'll spend all day just on your comments, and that won't get to the rest of us. And I don't mean this meeting; I mean the future one. Is there a possibility, because of your newness to this map, let's say, this plan, that you would be able to sit down with Kris and Anita -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Certainly. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- outside of this meeting and try to get maybe 90 percent of yours resolved? Because I've lived under the plan as it is for a long time, and I don't doubt you've got questions and concerns, but it might expedite the whole process at a public meeting if some of those just got explained at a private meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would be more than happy to do that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that takes us to 11:30. I'm not trying to cut you off. I just want to have a question here for a minute. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I need to know now, so I can let others know, are we going to be going past 12 o'clock? Is that the consensus or not of this board? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I would tell you it seem likes we're going to, and I think we need to -- if we're not going to get this thing in till July, I think it's time to potentially adjourn and wrap this up; pick this back up in July. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you don't see us going past 12? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 40 of 48 COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I do see us going past 12. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: If we continue. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- if we continue. What I'm suggesting is, we've given staff some direction. Obviously not -- I don't think there's enough here for me to even vote on it today. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: There's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I would expect that now that staff's gotten some direction, they can come back with a package that's got a little more of the things we need to review. I don't have a need. I've got -- I just counted. I've got over 59 comments on different sections of this. I am not going to bring those up today. I already brought up the generics that I need answered. If I can get a strikethrough like I'm asking for, most of mine will go away. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Understood. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So with that, I have no other questions. Do you have, Patrick? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Do not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just would like the final document for us to review and the one we're going to vote on, because I'm still -- I heard what Kris mentioned, and we have the four plans, they're now separated. Just clarity on what we're voting on, and I'll review whatever we're voting on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karen, did you see us -- do you have any issues you need to bring up today, or would you defer to the -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'd rather wait. Just one: What you sent yesterday in the email was what was transmitted to the State from the Board on the ordinance from March 8th? It's the same as what you sent yesterday, but that was the transmittal. MR. VAN LENGEN: That is what we used to create the document that we sent to State. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So that's the same -- MR. VAN LENGEN: That's an interim step, because it's a strikethrough/underline. And we sent to the State, I believe -- is that correct -- the final ordinances as you see them in this packet. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So the one in our packet that was transmitted was dated March 8th that was signed by the -- that was transmitted -- MR. VAN LENGEN: Went to DEO, yes. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Tom, are you comfortable waiting till the July meeting? MR. EASTMAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, having -- I think being the only member that wasn't here for the transmittal hearing, I do see some value in us laying out basic issues for them to think about, unless you're suggesting that we each have private meetings. I plan to do that regardless, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I don't think you'll have the extent -- the questions to the extent Ned has. Ned has a lot of detailed questioning, and I respect that a lot, because that's generally what I do. I have the opportunity to meet with staff more than you do, and so a lot of my stuff I air with them ahead of time, so I can take it off as a question because it's explained. I'm suggesting when we have that extensive amount, it might be best to catch up with them, get those explanations, and then bring the meat of the changes that we really need to discuss at a public meeting to the public meeting. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think because I was not here the first round, I have just a few thematic kind of questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think I have a solution to that, and it helps you and it helps me and maybe the others. What we talked about months ago on the transmittal went from us to the Board, and it got substantially changed, and that's fine. That's what the Board's prerogative is. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 41 of 48 But to keep track of it, I would like to see the original strikethrough that was presented to us and then formatted to the Board with not only our original transmittal requested changes so I can see which ones were changed the first time, how they affect this reworking of all -- re-jumbling of all the paragraphs the second time and at the same time see the changes that the Board did on top of that, which were the ones suggested by people in the audience. So we would basically, then, have the package that you didn't see the first time, Karl, re-presented this time. In addition, we'd have the things the Board added to it so we could see all of the changes. Then, in addition, any changes the staff's made in cutting and pasting without the -- not underlining old language. Just new language. MR. VAN LENGEN: Let me understand. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Isn't that typically what we usually get? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. That's why I'm bringing it up. Mike? MR. BOSI: I just want to provide a clarification for anyone who's maybe watching. The Board of County Commissioners accepted what the Planning Commission provided as -- at adoption -- or transmittal with two significant changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. I know. MR. BOSI: The two changes were related to the intersections of conditional uses and the inclusion of neighborhood churches. That's the difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, no, no. They broke it up into three different subsections. We never discussed that, Mike. MR. BOSI: That's the difference between the substantive policies that were presented to the Planning Commission and where the Board made a direction. Then they had the additional direction to break it up into three parts. And I understand that the Planning Commission's concern is how those three parts were broken up. And you're looking to have a better understanding, and we will strive to provide for how that came about. But from what it sounds like, it sounds like we want to go back and have an evaluation of every one of the policies and the goals that were adopted just so we could have an understanding of the scope and the breadth of where the Planning Commission would like to go. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. BOSI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, we have a -- if you're going to open the whole thing up by breaking it up and saying each section's got its own separate standing by itself, I think we have a right to look at each section separately now. MR. BOSI: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's what I'm getting at. MR. BOSI: Please understand, that's the direction the Board of County Commissioners -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's fine, yeah, but I think they rely on us to make sure everything is vetted as carefully as it possibly can. And I'm sure they did this kind of on the fly. I mean, they did it without us even knowing about it, and that's their prerogative. I'm not complaining about that at all. But I am suggesting, now that it's done, someone better make sure it's -- the checkoffs are there at some public body in a public meeting, and that happens to be us. MR. BOSI: And understood. And we will provide you those documents. But just for clarification, there's no -- there's no substantial policy, goals, or objectives that are altered by that trifurcation. All it was was at the arrangement. You want to know how that arrangement was and if there was any wordsmith going on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I want -- I want proof so when someone asks me, well, why'd they do this? What was changed? I want to be able to say nothing. It was just reorganization. I can't say that now because I can't track it the way it was presented to us. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 42 of 48 MR. BOSI: Sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know somebody cut and pasted a bunch of stuff and they underlined the whole thing. Underlines to us means new language. Is it all new language? I'm suggesting to you, use those cut and pastes, don't underline the language unless it's new, and that's -- that will clarify everything, and that may make most of my questions go away, because I didn't anticipate this. I didn't anticipate going through a process. I thought this adoption would be fairly simple. I knew what the language changes were, but I can't figure them out now that it's been done this way without going back and reading every paragraph multiple times to check it. That's all I'm asking. That will take a lot of mine away. Ned has got -- he's got a lot of questions that are in detail. I'm hoping that you guys can answer a lot of those on a one-to-one. He brings the remaining back to this board. We'll go through them in a public meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, if I may. I do have some questions that could be capable of being answered by "because that's what the LDC says," but I also have a lot of comments such as the inclusion of the concepts of safety that I mentioned. And to Heidi's point, and I think it's a good one, if I sit down with staff, staff is only getting my point of view, which they are hearing at that time but the other Planning Commissioners aren't hearing, and I'm just -- so it limits the staff's ability to act upon what I'm asking, and I just -- I'm not sure exactly how to proceed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I mean, Ned, you've got -- well, if we could have a meeting all day just to answer -- they will take a lot of time to go through explaining your questions. I've lived with that master plan way before I started living in Golden Gate Estates. I don't have a lot of problems with the issues that are there. I do have problems with any new language that I don't know about. That was my only concern. I understand your concern to understand how that language came about and the history and the word "safety" and all that. I don't need the LDC language. I don't even think that's possible to bring LDC language forward before all the GMP language is complete and still have the stakeholder meetings that that language needs to have before it comes to us. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Except it was offered to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By who? COMMISSIONER FRYER: By staff. I think -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To bring the LDC language before the GMP language is done? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, no. That there would be an initial draft of LDC language at the time of adoption. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys -- MR. BOSI: The only initial draft that we will have of the LDC language relates to some of the changes within Golden Gate City that we've been working with that community about, but the -- we can have a discussion about the nuances of how we were going to define neighborhood churches. But in terms of the process to get the draft LDC language in the stakeholder meetings, the Chair's correct. It would be -- unless we delay this activity for a substantial amount of time, they're not going to be able to be aligned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I'm not proposing any delay. I'm just recounting what was said. And I'm not going to take up the time to try to find it, but I can find chapter and verse of where someone -- and I thought it was Kris -- maybe I'm wrong -- said that we're going to make every effort to have some structure of the LDC language coming along with -- did you say that, Kris? MR. VAN LENGEN: I said -- I talked about the LDC zoning overlay language, and hopefully that's in the record, because that's what we meant, and that's what we're actually working on at this very time. And whether it's available or not by the time, you know, we get through this, I'm not sure, but that was our intention. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 43 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, perhaps all I need is to see how you're going to define "neighborhood." MR. VAN LENGEN: Well, that's almost impossible unless we delay this another year. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It could take you a year to define "neighborhood"? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, it will take him a year to do -- the LDC language? It will take a long time to write from -- MR. VAN LENGEN: By the time we get back to this venue, it will take quite a number of months. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, what I'm going to try to do is I'm going to try to meet with staff and get all my questions answered and to offer my concerns and my comments recognizing that they're -- that they haven't been heard by the rest of the Planning Commission yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and I would offer to the rest of the Planning Commission, if you've got questions to the extent Ned has, then I would suggest you try to him -- someone needs to tell me before we reschedule if we need two or three or four days to resolve this, because I really don't have more than probably -- if I can get the strikethroughs that I'm asking for, I have an hour's worth of interaction with staff, and I'm done. And I have -- I just don't -- I don't have any more to go than that. But if we're going to be getting into the extent that you're asking, I think we're going to be here a lot, lot longer than that. Just your response to each one of those is going to take time. And I don't say we shouldn't give it -- shouldn't provide it, but I want to make sure we plan for it. I'm certainly not -- I'm not realizing we need that kind of time to finish an adoption up. So -- and I do -- I started this out by saying I wanted to get something accomplished by 11:30. Are we going to be here past 12? The rest of us have answered -- Karl, you've answered. Have you heard an explanation that either tells you you need more than the next 20 minutes to resolve your issues with today's effort or not? And it's not a pressure. Just yes or no, because we're going to take a lunch break if you are. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a short list of questions about intent and implementation within the plan, not having been here for submittal. Those questions could be asked now if you saw value in it, or I could wait and meet with -- I don't know if it's Kris or Anita after the fact. And it's more or less bolstering my understanding and what I believe the purpose of this document is and trying to address issues that I -- potential issues that I see. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, Ned, are you going to have more to discuss today? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I don't see the point in it because, I mean, I will sit down with staff and take as long as it -- as much time as is needed to get myself -- my points communicated to staff and my questions answered. I think I have more comments than questions. So when it does come back, I'll probably end up having to take some time, but we'll see. COMMISSIONER FRY: I might have 10 minutes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. At that rate, I think we'll agree that right around 12 o'clock we will adjourn for the day, and we will continue this one to the second meeting in July. In the meantime, Terri, do you need a break for a couple minutes? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes, just one second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Let's take a break till 11:45. Just a couple minutes. Terri's got to line up the court reporters to the extent they're needed or not needed. (A brief recess was had.) MR. BOSI: Chair, you have a live mic. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What we're going to do is we're going to try to see how we can wrap this up in the next 15 minutes. Karl, if you wanted to have an opportunity to voice any concerns you have right now, and then if you don't, we'll let Ned fill out the rest of the 15 minutes, and then we'll quit at 12. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 44 of 48 COMMISSIONER FRY: I certainly have some things that -- when I ask these, you may all have already understood the context of them, whereas, I may not because I'm new to this process. So I yield to you in how you'd like to use the remaining time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I can just tell you that -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Mine are not specific section, page number, romanette reference type questions. They're more general in nature. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What I would suggest is if you've got some large items, just put them on the table right now so -- not necessarily to seek an answer, but when staff comes back, they know what to expect, and then they'll give you a more concise answer. Because the best thing we can have is the staff knowing ahead of time what we're looking for, and they can come with the right answers. Anita? MS. JENKINS: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out, you do have one public speaker, so you might want to save just a few minutes before you adjourn for that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then we'll -- do you mind, fellows, if we cut into that first? Whoever's is the public speaker, would you call them? MR. BOSI: Rae Ann Burton. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ms. Burton, if you'd come up to the microphone and state your name for the record, and we'll be glad to hear from you. MS. BURTON: My name is Rae Ann Burton. I am the Rural Golden Gate Estates. And I found the issue very confusing. I started at about 11 o'clock yesterday trying to read everything. And if you can give me a better synopsis, I can give you a better speech. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, ma'am, we're going to try that because, you know what? These documents should be written so everybody in this county can understand them, and they're not. MS. BURTON: I couldn't find any difference in what was changed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, and that's what we need -- MS. BURTON: And I just checked Rural Golden Gate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We'll get a -- hopefully we'll get a little bit more structured document that will make that quick -- more quickly apparent then. MS. BURTON: I appreciate it. Got to bed at 2 this morning. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I got up at 2. Kris, I think what we're going to do is Karl is going to just give you a couple bullet points where he's -- some of the general items he's concerned about so you're better prepared for those next time, and then we'll finish the time out with Ned. The public speaker that we had registered spoke. The only thing I want to suggest in this time frame that we have is, first of all, this idea of giving us back the changed language that occurred during transmittal and after transmittal with the Board and then when changing to the paragraphs that were moved around. Is that agreeable to you all? MR. VAN LENGEN: Yeah. We've already got that done. We just might need to put it in front of you, and we'll make sure that you -- and I'll make sure you're happy with it. I don't think we can merge it all into one single document. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't care if you give me multiple documents. I just want to see the document that you're asking for us to review for approval in a manner we can find the changes so we're not going and looking -- and going into the areas that -- MR. VAN LENGEN: It should be in everyone's in-box. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: So I would like to clarify for the record, if I could, the answer that I gave to Mr. Fryer earlier as to revisiting the provisions of the Growth Management Plan. When I said that it's opened up that you can look at it, that was meant more in terms of have we gone astray with certain policy decisions that are in there and we want to change our recommendation. The County Attorney does prefer that between transmittal and adoption there are minimal changes. So with that clarification, we would be looking at the amendments in July. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 45 of 48 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But, Heidi, how can there be minimal changes when after the Planning Commission saw it last time, the one document was broken up into three separate documents with new plans? I mean, I don't know those can't be significant for us to have to start over with. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's different. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: During transmittal you saw a document, you saw certain language on policies, you made a recommendation, the Board looked at it, the Board made a few changes, and the documents were broken up into three parts. I'm not saying that you can't look at the language that staff modified to make the document flow, which I understand are minimal, or you can't comment on what the Board asked for with the prior redaction; I'm not saying that. You certainly can, but if you already saw a policy and you made a recommendation on that policy and the policy was not changed and it was put in the correct section, then that's where the preference is not to change the language unless we made a big policy mistake or there's a big error in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because there is a difference between seeing a policy that applies to a large planning area and now seeing that same policy in three separate small planning areas, and that's the -- that's the -- I thought we could weigh in on concerns over that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yes. I would agree that if they've put in the wrong place -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Not wrong. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- it doesn't read correctly because now it's been modified to fit a smaller area -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- you can certainly make those changes, but -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So if we find something that has language that fits a broader picture but it doesn't fit the smaller picture, that's one of those things we could point out? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Yeah. That's a policy decision that we've gone astray on -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- as opposed to -- we'll walk through it as we get there, but... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: Based on counsel's direction, I believe that my questions are best saved to review with you, because they more go to the intent and implementation of the plan rather than reviewing and, I guess, attacking it in the way that you're describing, meaning mine are not really substantive changes. It's more really understanding the intent and implementation within the plan, so I will defer my questions to meet with -- who should it be? Who should I meet with? MR. VAN LENGEN: Start with me, if you would, and then we'll go from there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Very good. I'll defer the rest of my time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the only -- I have one other comment before we'll go back to Ted -- or Ned, I'm sorry. Ted, Ned. It rhymes, you know. If you go to Page 291 of just the overlay document, just the master plan document, or 552 of the whole submittal, that's the kind of map, Kris, that I was -- I mean, that simple red lines with lettering telling you how to separate the Estates up is all I'm suggesting you add to the main plan that introduces us to this whole breakup issue that I started out with talking earlier, and that's why I remembered to bring it up is because of that page there. Okay. It's just a simple way of introducing people to how we've now structured Golden Gate Estates and Golden Gate City. And with that, we've got about eight minutes left. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I have -- one thing I've noticed in reviewing packets at times, there are figures and maps, and some of them are historical in nature. They might be two years old, three years old, but they don't always seem to name a date. So I look at these figures, and I'm not quite sure 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 46 of 48 how recent they are. It would be nice if the figures and maps had dates on them. It would be helpful to me, at least. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Ned, do you have anything you want to add before we break for the day? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I could continue along the previous lines, or I could just reserve all of it for when I meet with staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, I'm not -- I think it would be more productive if you meet with staff for the sake of our time, because we all may not be on the same concerns that you have. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's fine. I would ask for a little more clarification, because I watched the County Commission, and I heard -- listened closely to the interchange between Mr. Klatzkow, and I think it might have -- well, was it Mr. Solis? -- over the extent to which, when the matter comes back to them and, therefore, to us, that really we don't get or shouldn't want to have or shouldn't have a second bite at the apple. And one extreme would say that the only thing that we could review was any comments from Tallahassee, and we didn't get any comments from Tallahassee. The other extreme would be that everything is wide open. And I'm happy to play within the framework, and I'll certainly have fewer questions if they're limited to sort of new concepts that have arisen since we previously looked at this. But are we really all of one mind what our mission is for adoption hearings, generally? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, this plan is a little bit of an aberration, because usually we have a Growth Management Plan amendment text, you look at it, the Board approves it, it goes to Tallahassee for their comments, and it comes back in the same form. So you're essentially seeing the same language twice. This is different because now modifications were made, and it needs to be revisited in the sense you need to see were mistakes made. Did we go astray with the policy decision? Does, you know, neighborhood church not apply here, or do we not recommend the neighborhood church? I mean, you can certainly look at those types of issues. The preference would be if a policy -- because what staff tried to do is they tried to go through the plan and say, this policy applies to all three, it applies to one, and they kind of had to go through that function. So to the extent you don't think they got it right, you should be looking at that. So -- but the idea is not that we rewrite the plan or we decide we want to phrase it a different way but it's the same concept unless we've, you know, made an error or the addition that the Board added we don't agree with. Does that help with the clarification as to what we're trying to do? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Somewhat. To paraphrase what I think you may be saying is that we really shouldn't get a second bite at the apple unless something seriously wrong has been done; that even though we might technically have been able to see it the first time around, we didn't. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, with that said, I do think that if we made a mistake, I mean, it would be ministerial, and it wouldn't even come back to you if you weren't able to say, we made a mistake here, we need to recommend this policy, you know, either be withdrawn or modified. I mean, I think you're allowed to raise those issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think part of the problem is, I read a lot. I read everything the first time, and then I read everything the week, the night before at least once, and then sometimes three times. Every time I read something I find something else I question. By breaking this up into three separate sections, you've taken most policies and added them three times. We're reading every one of those policies three times. And I can tell you questions are going to be brought up. Unfortunately, that's the nature of the beast. And we are probably going to have questions we wouldn't have had if we just read it one time and went on with life. But with that said, Kris, another helpful thing might be you've got an opening master plan and you've got three sections below it. So I think you got really, what, four sections? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 47 of 48 MR. VAN LENGEN: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: If you break those up into four separate documents, it might help understand how they're to be looked at. Like the member of the public who spoke, the public is the one that's supposed to understand this. We still understand it from a technical level to put it together but, my goodness, they're the one living there. So I somehow need this -- I agree it needs to be simplified. It's way too complicated. Please don't give us 682 pages again. But whatever we do for next time, it would be helpful to just have a succinct document. So I don't know if anything else needs to be said, gentlemen. Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The -- and just -- I'm trying to get clarification so that, frankly, I don't spend a lot of time on something that is outside our scope, although I already have spent a lot of time on it. The reference to the cellular towers is something that we talked about at transmittal, and it's something that the County Commission talked about at transmittal. And it's come back now in a form where in response to, I think, some concerns that were expressed by the neighbors, that they want to absolutely rule out certain areas from the permissible places where you could put a tower. And my point that I made back then, and I would like to make again, is I don't see how you can predict where dead spaces are going to be until you actually have a configuration up and running and someone says, you know, when I drive this segment of road I'm disconnected. So, I mean, I don't see how we can take any area completely off the table. And even though we talked about that last time, is that -- is that something that I would be able to talk about next time? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Do you want to answer it, or do you want me? MS. JENKINS: Well, that was a policy we made a change to, right? So we did put some qualifiers on where cell towers could be located. So it seems to me that if a change was made to a policy, then they're able to look at that again, right? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would agree with that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. But in that particular case, hasn't it all been preempted by the federal government? MR. BOSI: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, we'll talk about it then at that time. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And with that, let's close the discussion on this. We'll look forward to finishing it on the second meeting in July. So with that, there is no new business scheduled. There's no old business scheduled. Any further members of the public wish to comment on anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a motion to -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Patrick. Seconded by Ned. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) June 6, 2019 Page 48 of 48 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 12:00 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN ATTEST CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT & COMPTROLLER These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented ________ or as corrected ________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 6-6-2019 CCPC Minutes (9396 : June 6, 2019 CCPC minutes) 07/18/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: PL20180001174: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to add 5.85± acres from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to increase the maximum square footage from 764,478 to 878,889 square feet, to increase the maximum number of independent living units from 355 to 431 units, to increase the maximum number of assisted living beds from 35 to 47 beds, to add sales and marketing as a permitted indoor accessory use, to reduce setbacks from the south and west property lines, to reduce the minimum square footage of assisted living units, to increase the landscape buffer on the south property line, to revise the Master Plan to reflect the additional acreage and modified site layout, to add one deviation and remove one deviation relating to landscape buffers, and to modify developer commitments. The subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive, just east of Airport-Pulling Road, in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.10± acres; providing for repeal of the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD, Ordinance Number 92-75, as amended; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA] Meeting Date: 07/18/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 06/03/2019 1:50 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 06/03/2019 1:50 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 06/03/2019 5:10 PM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 06/05/2019 1:09 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 06/06/2019 4:01 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review item Completed 06/12/2019 8:14 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/24/2019 2:16 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 06/24/2019 4:49 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 07/01/2019 10:47 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 07/18/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 145 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 146Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 151Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 152Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 153Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 155Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 156Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 157Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 158Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 159Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 160Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 161Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 162Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 163Attachment: Attachment A-Staff Report Siena Lakes 6-6-19A (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 172Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 173Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 174Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 175Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 176Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 177Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 178Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.bPacket Pg. 179Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment B-Proposed PUD Ordinance - 052219 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) ORDINANCE NO. 18- 0 6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 09-65,THE SIENA LAKES CCRC COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO APPROVE AN INSUBSTANTIAL CHANGE TO THE CPUD, TO RETAIN THE EXISTING TOTAL NUMBER OF PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUT REVISING THE RATIO OF PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL UNITS BY INCREASING THE NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, INCREASING THE NUMBER OF ASSISTED LIVING BEDS AND DECREASING THE NUMBER OF SKILLED NURSING BEDS AND MEMORY CARE BEDS; AND TO REVISE THE MASTER PLAN BY CHANGING THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, THE ENTRANCE LOCATION, AND THE SITE, LAKE AND BUILDING CONFIGURATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 29.25±ACRES,LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORANGE BLOSSOM ROAD BETWEEN AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. [PDI-PL20160003125]. WHEREAS, on December 1,2009,the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance No. 09-65, which established the Siena Lakes CCRC Commercial Planned Unit Development CPUD) zoning district; and WHEREAS, ELP Naples, LLC, represented by Paula McMichael, AICP, of Hole Montes, Inc., and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq., filed a petition to request approval of an insubstantial change to the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, which was approved by the Collier County Planning Commission on January 18, 2018. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT TO THE CPUD DOCUMENT ATTACHED TO ORDINANCE NO. 09-65, THE SIENA LAKES CCRC CPUD. Exhibits A, B, C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-5, of the CPUD document attached to Ordinance No. 09-65, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, are hereby amended as shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 17-CPS-01632/13 86420/1]92 1/18/18 Siena Lakes PDI-PL20160003125 Page 1 of 2 Text underlined is added;text is deleted. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) SECTION TWO: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this a-7 day of r•i r 2018. ATTEST: BOARD i C` NTY C' er ' IONERS DWI T EBROW CLERK COL R '. * r ',/, IBy. Deput ti:seas to Chairman's By. • ndy Solis , Chairman signature only., Approve as to fo -and legality: Scott A. Stone ri ii Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A: Exhibit A-List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B -Development Standards Exhibit C-1 -Master Plan Exhibit C-2-Line of Sight Exhibit C-3 -Landscape Buffer Elevations Exhibit C-4 -Cross Sections and Details Exhibit C-5 -Site Amenities This ordinance filed with the Secretary of State's Office the ay of f-4 m'; ' 30 I and acknowfedgemen ,o# that filin received this ` l day of Cc..Or _ 9-c.)8 Deputy Ci.+i< 17-CPS-01632/1386420/1P2 1/18/18 Siena Lakes PDI-PL20160003125 Page 2 of 2 4U Text underlined is added;text struck through is deleted. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) Exhibit A EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD PERMITTED USES A maximum of 764,478 square feet shall be permitted. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: Residential uses for persons aged 62 and over shall be permitted consisting of 340 355 independent living units and an assisted living facility comprised of 20 35 assisted living beds, and 4-5 30 total skilled nursing beds and-l3 memory (dementia) care beds. A minimum of 72,000 square feet of various associated amenities shall be provided so residents may age in place. Personal support services shall also be provided to the independent living residents. Density Development shall be permitted at a combined maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.60. A. Principal Uses: 1. Independent living units (ILU). Units such as houses, duplexes, town houses or apartment residences for residents who do not require special medical assistance; however, the same services offered to the dependent population shall be made available if they choose to use them. 2. Assisted living units (ALU). Assisted living is a long-term residence that provides care in a residential setting. It is designed for those who need help in their day-to-day lives but who do not require 24-hour skilled nursing care. 3. Alzheimer Special Care or Memory Care Units (SCU). SCUs are usually a floor or units inside of a much larger ALU to meet the special needs of residents with dementia. 4. Skilled Nursing units Facility (SNF). A residence that provides a room, meals, and help with activities of daily living and recreation. Residents would generally have physical or mental problems that keep them from living on their own and, therefore, usually require daily assistance. 5. Any other commercial or professional use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted uses and consistent with the purpose and intent of the district as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals,pursuant to the LDC. Page 1 of 5 Words underlined are added;words struckgh are deletions. H:\2015\2015035-SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD(PDI-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) B. Indoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities: 1. The following uses shall comprise a minimum of !. ' , : - - . : k :: project(approximately 72,257 72,000 square feet): Maintenance Building; Lobby; Administrative Offices; Housekeeping; Public Restrooms; Coat Room; Main Dining Room; Cocktail Lounge; Private Dining; Central Kitchen; Bank; Postal Outlet; Library; Game/Card Rooms; Business Center; Billiards Room; Arts Studio; Beauty/Barber Shop; Resident Social Director's Office; Receiving Room; Nurse Practitioner's Office; Woodworking Studio; Convenience Store; Coffee Shop; Ice Cream Parlor; Auditorium; Exercise Studio; Physical Therapy; Physician Office; Locker Room and Showers; Swimming Pool (enclosed); Aerobics/Group Fitness Room; Resource Center/Classroom; Massage/Spa Therapy; Beauty Salon (AL & SNF); Exercise Physiologist Office; Resident Services Director's Office; Resident Services Staff's Office. Page 2 of 5 Words underlined are added;words struckgh are deletions. H:\2015\2015035-SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD(PDI-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx fit,® 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) C. Outdoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities: 1. Parking facilities; covered loading dock; guard house; outdoor recreational facilities such as swimming pool and deck and similar facility; walking trails; signs and water management facilities; hardscape, seating, trellis and decks; lawn games — croquet, badminton and lawn bowling; deck and trellis; putting greens; courtyard, garden and landscaping; swimming pool and deck. D. Miscellaneous Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities: 1. Any other accessory and related use that is determined to be comparable in nature with the foregoing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the LDC. Page 3 of 5 Words underlined are added;words struck through are deletions. H:\2015\2015035-SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD(PDI-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx C 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. I.DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DISTRICT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA N/A N/A MIMINUM FLOOR AREA: ALU*609 sq. ft. N/A SNF 305 sq. ft. N/A ILU 830 sq. ft. N/A MINIMUM SETBACKS 3-and 4-story structures From south property line 100 feet 60 feet From west property line 60 feet 45 feet From east property line 90 feet 25 feet From north property line 80 feet 25 feet All other structures 25 feet 25 feet INTERNAL DRIVE 10 feet 0 feet SETBACKS from edge of pavement) LAKE SETBACKS 20 feet(except where adjacent to 20 feet(except where adjacent bulk seawall, 0') to seawall, 0') MIMINUM DISTANCE 35 feet N/A BETWEEN STRUCTURES MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALU(2 stories)* 42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH SIF (2 stories) 42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH 30 feet ZH II,U(3 story) 41.5 feet ZH and 48 feet AH 35 feet AH ILU(4 story including 53 feet ZH and 60 feet AH parking) 53 feet ZH and 60 feet AH ILU(5 story, incl. parking) Commons (up to 2 storyies) 42 feet ZH and 45 feet AH ALU-Assisted Living Units (which includes Memory Care Units) ZH=ZONED HEIGHT SNF-Skilled Nursing Facility AH=ACTUAL HEIGHT ILU-Independent Living Units II. LANDSCAPING STANDARDS 1.To provide an enhanced buffer, trees shall be installed at less than 25 feet on center(OC) to allow for clusteringto provide a more effective buffer. Page 4 of 5 Words underlined are added;words struck through are deletions. H:\2015\2015035-SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD(PDI-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 2.The quantity of trees proposed shall be an additional 20% over what is required. 3.Tree heights shall exceed the required 10-foot overall height (OAH) minimum. Canopy trees shall be at 16-18 feet OAH and Slash Pines 14-18 feet OAH. Cabbage Palms shall exceed the required 10-foot clear trunk (CT) minimum by specifying 15-20 feet CT with an additional 10 feet of crown. 4.Plantings shall occur on both sides of the required buffer walls with the additional plantings being installed on the residential side of the walls. Ultimately, this will create a staggered "green wall" to effectively screen the buildings. The type D buffer along the western property line shall meet LDC requirements. The following standards have been added to each buffer along the north, east, south and west property lines (see also Exhibits C 2 and C-3 for further details): NORTH PROPERTY LINE 15-foot wide Type B buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25 feet OC and a single row hedge of 10 gallon material at time of install, at a minimum of 5 feet in height (HT) with a 3-foot spread, placed a maximum of 4 feet OC. 1672 linear feet(LF) = 67 Trees, 418 Shrubs required 81 Trees, >418 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing EAST PROPERTY LINE 15-foot wide Type B Buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25' OC and single row hedge of 10 gallon material at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3' spread, placed a maximum of 4' OC. 728 LF = 30 Trees, 187 Shrubs required 36 Trees, >187 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing SOUTH PROPERTY LINE (Enhanced Type B buffer to be installed vs. the required Type D buffer, for improved screening) 4420-foot wide Type B buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25 feet OC and a single row hedge of 10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3-foot spread, placed a maximum of 4 feet OC. 1677 LF= 67 Trees, 420 Shrubs required 81 Trees, >420 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing WEST PROPERTY LINE 15-foot wide Type B Buffer with trees spaced no greater than 25'OC and a single row hedge of 10 gallon material, at a minimum of 5 feet HT with a 3' spread, placed a maximum of 4' OC. 721 LF = 30 Trees, 187 Shrubs required 36 Trees, >187 Shrubs provided, using lesser spacing Page 5 of 5 Words underlined are added;words struck through are deletions. H:\2015\2015035-SL\WP\PDI\10-18-2017\Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD(PDI-PL-20160003125)(10-18-2017).docx C 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) II/fti fu re Ir d 1 IF 1.1g ii 1I illy • 11 IRf_,f I". itiaiA6l gi AiiibxMlil , it ; 11 1 11 1 illjIret9ill>{Htl9liilrfil 0 .} `.':04".l... I'I:." r ` ! rtif p i IIRIIN MIII'Y11011 i10[a ItSi i. I y1 ,II11 I,I(,11(111;III IIIii I.•,I'1 ! p' ' '•.• ( i 1 1 ' ••140`• tllfi r1.. - b r. i• fiViliori,101114:11iillibliiiiiig„ I1x1.) 4,f t! 4I '!'' 11'I'1' u 1 '' II O• L. Y ,. c' ,,,,„,,,,4,,..,„1.,.; ! 11' I r ,r 1.1• A I,i,;,m i,,P! • anl.11 I' a1'' lI t ti til. 14 I !iiu 7 Y, 1 Ill ',+ 1 I: ;; . 1-r I 1 ",nf • l•fill.!. I I 11 I' I • 1 _ y. S'.r lj • 1 0, it I.11NI h__..• p yyc,,„,,..,..,{ rS i Ili!III) Igl;;.!'ll I• Y r--ti !1'lI!r}. Ip0 I 1! na,'!ll!l''I!jll"./ p r,,r . Iop' ?.i !riff , r; I. x, 1 liiii Iii 1' L 11 I P1r,i1 ; liii1 iiii'i'I 1,1mg .iii 0 , 1fIloili,Iy „I, I: a 6 t t ih7!j': hi 11111011,,;I;!i • ' I '•, ! N al sum i 1 ''. 1 ii 4LáiI1lA s .;,! i itli!Ill • rk l i >i F'!Il i !! !1' 111111!Illi;%,a ` I • 1 n 1i( I lis r 1 li htdirilp1Pi "Ili• 1'1_11.W1 fl, Well e I P j q r I/II,,I'i'rl >, 'IIk I.I 1 I i 1 4KM II 1 ppyy77 1 7.1 I{ .!,r0_ yr, VIII,,.,., O i'si!III11t:1.. I, X8" 11 • II l I i ro yp t e G IIIur l I lllrl 11 (I. Y 4.'\ r {oh y 1i1I' 'r1 I lq,44 '11. re8 eml lmmAY i'; r i1, 1111 I I'!>1(1('1' l I R !HIP p d1 F p f'yr N ! ': Ilill`111111101111, /RA411111, 1111111' 11.111,'.14111:. g o i o ll i3 kllxrr d 8 It r r! i`111..1. tl;! rrr A II 41 1, 1111, I N d dail 'tr`° 1, 1 1'x";;,,11`1 ll!' 1 ' 'L 1 11111-11111iii.: .Ia:. ! F 0i ri !II;IiH•,41!11 I. iv,iiiipial.,iipqN.l: l (1I jI a A 1ll ( I r x11111i ,` lnr '•u!'. • I/• .,1,I h ! 11' i ..a!i Illifilri r!:' A 11, l.a 1 {1111 1 1 yu illi+ • 14111011111 I;i I11. 1 ,11111111111111111010 F ill i'• I Il it i'•','`t ` AI! 1 1 ijig 33,z 1 11i!iII 1; 11111.1Illlil1,11l l lip.1; 1' 1 i 7 w r I+,1'!1,11111 1 1111 S 1'r,;l;,iii yp/ fig w.P di .ll . 0I '!Ili1 P iij14illlf. ., I,' y(` 1ptlA t Y!! 1 ; 'Y1 i1l(iill 1111 IIII !i 1:., I crlifi. r tIIli!I' iii : I Y a. 61. 111: I h I1(,. If; Ulir:a k I d,,.. 4g1g 1f 11;1)111r. .Sgi; r I 'llll' ' ' i pail1d ii i 1 li; !1!1 III fp 1ii, e . F1 ' ) l; R' 1 g•• 11 I E I E 11 1 i i II •;};1 Ai ''). i d d I ll 41111 II l 11 11 r.f' 1,11111:.'" I I i l pgi xl r E.li llNIJ11 t r: r ^;,i t.lqv\I kF. l+ -. d'I. I dl !II lI(I 111 1 I` it}tl• '` a •4 1! 11 Z 1 f I.' 'ill C. 11 I I,I 1i O; 1< ` i ; Ir, ;: : :1 - 20• I 1!r 1 _ iij ; ::" r VI ftit1 ,1 f31 r) 11 I 1 IMIi# i1riQy ri . yit • rr8ik. g xo1111 li gits- €7! Q 1 A 1 .7 • 40444.41 lw ti Gl Lwl1•M V,y•'f!'t IwV1.T.r•a•W I..* .U tIMI* .S WIMMIaFN$?. I CND9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 194Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) on=Iv YV.M NjIIJhib1111I•Iii 1 s1111 i[ r Ii'IdJii ii lbf r Tr ii r f rl i rr 1 r 1 ( 1 . [ 111111111 las Tillt! A,',' 1.;" 1 1 I ph 4•.,ii ''1 I/1: 'f( ilif. f - .s ' fli- 4 'd 111111 17 lok. • ' 1' ... " 2 .. t1S47::;.:!1. .i.0- 11 z tgl 00:41,;,,,,,,„;71 6 li.,. ';:';;: ii: ;::. r? . 1 i i 1 On:4 .... / i III j i ii 3; r,"',ii ~ilii I i1 : i'l 'i ;II . lS. b.ir 1 IiiiT . r! pi Ali ir r jail Ill, !y, 1$ Li (] 8 8 e 1 RwNn" i r Ili 1 MI_ li v 0 430 Ii . 1 i .] q as >r 1 i9. 1 l J Ii.. 0,-,---i-; • Ho I ' 01 1 loll lio fill f " I . i t'- ' r.r.*u•ut,.rN.i+wV lixu/Y x r ' 09.A.1.cPacket Pg. 195Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) JI 1 i r'.I' I 11I1fIYIii 11111 11 I III f1 Jib' if il i , '4 : \--- II li III C'I'It' ip. ' .-: . I 11111,11 0111111 i,iII' it ' I i P, t,(,, 0, 11114111111111 1 D ib il 1 • g f _,, .1). ..,,,A . : .ill, 1P-'--:.\‘):\A .. . ki ,-,., — . ,, , ( if..., ,„A.,I,, g. r? ” N il 1 ' 1.44t--. '..... . ii I R = .'' bii. 1111 I ' ' '11:411 ;j A 11:1 it:.,47:40.1/4: : 7 i b li rrr i If •J ii .. d I ..,.. i iiii, 1( ‘:::.'14 mwi lip aro 1111r ii I!!! fill. ---]----- . I tIk0 ; IIi' 1 iiill i ' e Amiki 4 iii 1 1 S1 1 A9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 196Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) r MJ 4 1izillIlb r . J. ; III x 4 p it 1 h 13 I1J... a 11ei15 Ih P1. 10- Ill pi 1-til ii If il k i i V. ,I V.i it t! I., • rt`II Jfft I II. h ill! i 111$ 8•illL_______-)wfil illi 1 41 k 1,4 ! ....11, . a ra Ili) 111111 M c,lo 1 -J.ljm il 1 11 III iI .1. • 1 ' ;''IV 2.4n1 h•W W.•&MfW iw..4.W,r.,li w.wwwwa.wnwG.wlUwwuwW. 4n1 I 19.A.1.cPacket Pg. 197Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) wv....ma Eg 1iiii'f.r.-17 . j....,..t,,: _.,.. ,..,;'?4,....".1 ie...!na:,if,,t',,,',1,.. •Z..,.i ;...7.5;t4.4/.,1,4.,N,L•4'.M04•41\\111,!ii/II ., . . ..iii I,t . 0)..‘9,kiif..Z;,A$.41;11..; :. crial.r 9..0 44. . ,,,, Nil, „.lo: . !air .•' • k :,,k-tei•••111••W.t1P."11 47,141,.illiski .*1. ttli.114 11. 4:=7. 744t•T.4,:l EEA' ' it• .4-4.41•4$'' );4414, .g1,:::••,• .iti.ii,14,11,„,!..1.,,.g .,;•5:'etcritd...t,t5.1,1 - ' c! 111111t341::: •;'))1:1..:5;''.:!:1.-i ..17'..1.,". .. ' 1 1I.,1.:,...;; .17 i..I.....;;... , 1,14.*) L%,i. ,1.) ,tirtitlt.'1:1,411 j,:;.^..'''q i:'/a..;', 01 ' liiolt••••,,,:.,ii„.,.,t.,...4cd! ....iif44xt...., , 4,-.:„0;.•tit, 1, ,, ; m tr.•. .••,-....-:"-:• .f t;,:fri,; ..--;,„-.;4.1,,i,,.4 111.. leY's."'•tirif''-,. •...' 'IL*.i.c',„" :7.12.4.12)1 Vitj al...1 ei '• !•ei A'.". it'S 4.' .'t; t. • .,.1 Nitre,: I 'it,.1, I:1 ;1 ,;/1.144..lib lit 1 li 1 1 ••• t,.At ,1, /1•L'it ' 11 ',i•t• ik.V. k•,,,I; ;,:si. ...i.'.41 Ii.",,I..1..1.i '141/4.t,1•••' ."iii, 1-%113'1,;,11,k.'11V1 1\ili: 'leak( '1) 341-*/' ','••,.'.1 7,....,,,,,..„,„„,„.„,.......,irl;: iriT'ATAFTg, , k -4, 13•-• ieffi. ti; • tr. .. A.i., •,c,1,.....,,,,,ris,,,,. IL 1 1 .tit....%if„IN .; @ liAJ .11_ .4.1 .1k:i.,Iipip.7' '',P., 1 1 ‘-''• . •k. ""AT .,41 .•v. • 4. 4 oirar.....; 1•Iii,i'll'r ' 4.•4,41N410:1'..4 Z 0a,:i „;•:i• Vil . di,T7 ..i,,.'11-...:7A,.-I?!'..1.I Al, t,..,; i.:....=. ., .0,?..? g,.! ;t:11,..'ir,.•,1........••,.,.... lta,.;,., fit;.', .1:74?.rt4e11'......:=1i,1:11,4,,L..i,,‘ It',2, 45 rir".., 4..':‘,;:, g,.;:.,,":",4.!,..i I 'a., "• _..'7.ii.• ./1•••.Z t6.A4t:ii.,jit t''Aftto 8 i.l.a... 117A....,":7'31t.. tk,:10,41jiTir;.§..:...':.:',/,',,)1.,?:' i .p ,..,.., ./... 1)1'lir.. ' iv- crii :':"41:4; , 0 :. I1 . ' 4`•7.•‘,"" - ,• c 1. -t t 1..• .1V;`,41,;? 11.4' I't•;,..1• ve, ..• /,.•'' 1,.,,,, ' .,A1'24141114;'?...\+;'.i 1.4 111',A$st•t••;.•ill'F.-ie • cP.• NI-if f4' • r trzn... 7.'fait : '',..v• /1 1111104.'Il. t'lidc.•,.;•,.:., • ''':.,.,1311...."!•, i 1 t rttiftit..--.• '•it-4*101..ki.:,X,'" II..4.1':' ''• ,Ii4it'apInt;..g.iiiVfifey"4. of 1,4',,i.V.!;,,,t- s••,4;.",'.:4.4,A,4,...'''•Y grill!tN %al:di i •,':1It1iiAelf'1 1'''.1 •,••••„ ,,A, ;--i-1,1':,:-....., ••.....1";11,4.x.,;„/...,„).„,. •...- ..;5%,...;.:iik,11,/ ,... ,.... i !g--...14.',. 11 1,;;P••'`..1.4''.' ''.1 • •641tkeitth..yg.,:' •., -':1: '., ''• v.t.'lli..,...41 , :,.... z.,.! :fii .1!.1...1P., i1„ fllit(',lbItli,Vir% al 1 k..;\h Aw k 1 • .. • ,..:., ti „A . .t.... . .• 1 '•.: jk.41., - 4:)1•.: • 4.. ty Itlifc4\4:'., 49.1a• \'‘ t\i',,„ ' • f jic. ttlAlt,), 4.•',X.:,•1,., I 'i' •..'ii'''''4 ..,0- 1. 1 if..i&V,..".. • '.!.:4 OIL ''i ' 7 J eljfi,;11;1;i4illf.:1;'• IN'Oill'i.0 14. • J.141.1::1A1?.‘, i' .:"44.••.•T I S ',1 k„ ,..410,:,. ,!0....i....v..v,-,..t..„,,,,„I .4 4,.10 I 4.4.,i.7:.'frAt it,:;.;;;,0),(;., g1,,,„"litigyt,--v• ' •- "'.- *.•::. ..:1, it, .." it,'• till 'in%tit\• -•''•..14)e.,4A•e:1;k:41414i. 3 i.?„';i•,,',V,'fri,h.h. AV.,.1 4‘,,,,.., ;• ,e're;ta,1 ,"• :.•;: i,sitir".:... 74:::%; Iil:.1./..,''Ai.•Z',.ii,4..,, 7; ,cp.'31,,,, . 11,-f, . ,101 I-•• c•iii/01,4,1 ,spo:Yiscf:•; ,..-.1,14i Al. ; i r..,"'.1: i .. v.% .,li..„.1 ii..4.,.....4,,,,,,,,,,z•-1,1#1t4..,,:.:: ir/'Ns,. t i, . 1!::,iZI. A ; l r 1 •,, 61-•-:101 t...,„4....„ 4.1i\ t..0k-.,.) ,, f...••-I s ••• t.124441, 01411*lit il ... it ...A iv Asi.,6,0„.:......,:.,,, - r.01 0 E ...Ivry:: .'it •.•8 IIEf.. ...... „.iirdil.:10 ,..,44.. , 44 . z..1•'•ip ,r:f.'ff--'..••1.,.„.41 , , 4e:.0. 4,• •.4.1-...t.ls::.',.' ;,:' ...k til t IP•• A s.•-1....,t.i..11' i e lo,s;7-7,4 ce,'if...'• `4. I( i#tfkur....•••• .- 01 ••1 1 •.t 1\‘ : 1\„11'11i.•`C :J' •••••;1/1A.%L 1, ..".....,..:0;,.,..4,„0.....• ... ..... N,,,0' -!,,,,. 4 T.N..."..;,,N.,, 11.44.‘,, ow()4 t..;.•-•/,'••.:". h..-1, •.. r.e,tliir.b. I. ',), '';%4.,,,,;01:•...!•‘, .- ' 7411111, r,, Ii.. 4**,•;ii, 8 iik( ),r 1:110 , I vs.,..— ,v , p.:71; •. 4..q.41.,,. .t '1,1 , 11.; 44 P,,r, fr" u..,.. 1, .i AbliAl \ 4; vNt.titi... / ::. " .1,•-•••;:,‘,., !ii,.., It 'i 1/ 11. 1.! I rt 1 • N a) aLiSzoil :4*(;,. ':.. i 1,. IZi.'• ,i \ 1I ' d i Q 1(:1.:1:) — I1'6 eat-e-' 44-- 7dtly,.:! , ' •••\it.'/,-- 4. . Ir_i_.1.—• .z.T.-•,../ „;.%.1.7.i •vt.,13/44,mtsn.,'.1 q. - " w•..e„,..,.... 1/4, • . I SO;.0 t.4 ;•) ‘.. t .•-, Nk. P B; i if:..,„„,;;;-- .;f.Kk '.....;• t•,1,,,i . •'.;'' ..?l 4--;-.. .,,,it.... 1.,' 'tivi 6' 11100iillA1,11. , lir i ! 1,'(. 11 1'4:1' .47' • " --..iiAi.,0,,44, .611.:c' • 1. ' .•Ist, --,, v,,,,v,,__.*,,,,I....,14„,„11,. • ,,m.:., -,,,,., F. 1 i. . N'l',!:•44k.1111-:('''.... 6titIV ....,I:111,4$1,ii_..1 ... ,....-.....-..r.-,..: 44 ,I 1,1`At.(el• .:APPO'244'04 t(4.•• 4...1 ' '7 • •• 1 :01•4•fe,••-• iy,.,,i „, I.,' , •• V•-• ti• C .(3‘9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 198Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 111."C6-L8'SOd*P '8'd II is lI 11 7- N3NO11Nf1 'AVE]?J31VM3001LI8 S a I I r P t$WfINIWOON00 AllINVd-u ni ('and 03NOZ)ONI NOW/10066V S.133NM0 I M , _ g^ g1183d0>dd AVE)a31bM3OOI S 3AO8O)IVO u ^ L4 Yl q N ro1N5 IWd 55Il5, se.1l'Ire)fiaor• aIll I CQ7 iiligI0Qg gjj S',I IN I I O Z 1 J NIla , 1 0 iy ih, II y N c6O117 ---, /, ,, ) r) f•-• -7. 1, 1 ; , aLL01IIAinis1I1OaIiyI13if4 ,O • IA IQJm1IaIt1IdI I QI11dIIgJ L...j.. b a' 6 M yp ppI I al I I LL g I ' I It 6 m 11 1 1' C, 1 I, I g y my1 Y. N `. l Z xJ r I ' g ?§w Q13 p \ r4' m iiii 1 I 6 Pi Z I rn a ; I I I g iCOn a I_ j S i I06 4 J N I' I ^ Z N IM 1 I R2 Jwoypi-1 1w I W o° pp 2maIM ' I .61y n1- ¢ D,11 N 1 r IIa I I 2- .. U R JYl S. to SS M• 1 '/' / 1 I O d WN = y Z iN 1 , Oavi ~O 1- q]gm VI ZII- N z . N 41ri1lkOiik M I w Da G a Z 1 • 1d rnI Opm 0 1 1y1 I Z a K^Z i M ' I —Lou Ulb 00 . rR h v1 I Y= I r:e WWaln m ii .Ja pa [\ a 0ZLL10M J0O,n a p m Z b O I a N IzN1a (° $ M0 m O i N w ip W a J Z Q E il is IIIW1 I 0 LL-, S, j m O Z1 ,W IIM 1 xui lif N N iri i N R g- R+$ I p U / a io , u d a-2-3^-4 I u=iViI , Z LI e ... ,"„W - g 11 Pi' Y y C7 O 4:- n I M I I X m , V 1 11. ii, \ I • , 0 1 I W Y 2 Z Z ZIIawco0000 I'I Z H Il CO m m m a 1 1 so 11 IFk O Z w cc a' IY a' N I I fG II 0 LL 0 N M - Z ; I I 1 ik # : N El EA 7; co 0 IN E e 4 q Q) C7 0 AO II^yU u? ri, 4ip I I H m 1 a' ia r oN01 4 z.6..1)I F- 1— S J IZ el it Q i LL -- 1 , to r w w Z I I N 1-Z a 02 i i Ii I11 i H w D O 0 00 w R k' O- Y , ii, ' z a 0 a ¢ w w i 8 30... -1 1 I D w Z > In cc WI I 1 LL > O W to 6 I 1 r Y" Z m fn W p .1 i_ 1 z D 0 0 L 1 N 02'46V6'W 760.89' y i„,--0 1p ___________ __ _ N _J 1M W 0 a Z 0 < W t >?p IIII fir- nl IN I- CO w W H I- 3 g l 0 1P11 I — ----..--% j-z li Mal I I N 0 CO Si CO CO 0 1 c C N 11 '— -- O— IT)-- 7 I CI) z 0 Y J W W Y ZZL4'Od'Z49£ ao 0 a g Z ' J ' C000081,9£Z00'ON 130LIVd w C 1NVOVA ('0.n.d •.03NOZ) w Si m Z Q Q i SN302IV0 WOSS018 3ONVaO Si < Si J U) z9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 199Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) n.s N If)Y C bkNoF° 0 0azezDO 8 vgiga ° d ocoWazWNOzZ° NF-OWmw W ~W Z wilCI) cc> F-awpj w 6g!a w .0w`-`2 ® Ww a ppFN kis qw02QdWW-4' )...CC 0 W m H M o Z t a0 ]WQp p .10 J Z JzZmmzW (Y°o I1^11 U co 0 WQ0JcaF= W0mN0WW „ W I- j U O co100aNxzaxNZD0I_ 0 ZCQU) aw~m} -Y Q o O CO NZ J n QD aoWI-wx> vg == o u tnW >< map a.04 O w ce w0illOW 0))1 ww ix L(-1 zt W aU aU a- Z W W<NZj dO ZZ N LLO=ZN w co 0 OLL Qm H a WpZ)a Oz oo a00 mW_Jo Co W 22 m` X Z W J Z a Q 0 J— J J z w p Z I F- Z (J W w aa¢ 0 mm :wwW Co Z -r3 m W 2 cc pv)ww a 5 pav)Z W a co2u.cow w°. 22 gm zw- ap 0 0 /amaW 0z W JZ_avYi O 4J vx n I 0 W t=1 HN o Q g NZ_ wLLI Q h c 0 22 20 1 "' W Z 2 y 0 N pi V N 0 0 N V Ing wd2 II U 0 J N 5 444f4N N O n CO o 0 F_ w ill 5Ce) p Z W m r ) CD Z N Y a U Q w W x W Q 0 O u) w F- LL LL co a m J W w D 0 m m D w z a > 0 w NW a w o > rn F- aQZ > z Z w 0 0 w 2 0 aU < 0 N H Y w 0 - U w a F- o W Cl) O n N co _ 0 a 5 0 < 5 w w 2Qz c z 1- Z Z WIaW •- o N 0 0 0 Q LU F- w 0i z Z >- Wa a Wp CC 0_ N N Q w 0 0 a 0 m m Q 3LLlO co N 0 0 0 0 u) _1 W yay m }a} a}} > w 7ZWr) 0 a d d Y CC U U p F J F F W = e . $ cc D' k CO w w N < 0 o. 0¢ m u. W 0 ~= 0 W x 0 R R+n U' z Q Q z (] 0 Z 0 Z LLO N 0 0 ¢ 171:11- e z w a a Y wcomma Q ¢ O z ¢J <J 0 D a 0 D z ¢ 0 0 a Q Co z F- Z< a R.O0w zQ z LLO F= yy Z r. J a } Y Y W O F- K 00 K W O S LLI j Ce W 0 w 3 W 3 = Z pp29:",;, 12.:,i'. g ® g® Z N p u) z 0 Q Q d Q O a w W 0 ~ 0-F-_1 p 2 p( R a Bmf dm ZD z w t p a a a x Z c p W 3= tr Inp ' 3= 3= M C7 a N Q Q Q 0 < coy) a 00' is < H Q O -is Nis o 00 0 0 N 00 _ 0 g 00000 00 O O 00 Q) F- H H H H H H ' 1.3W0000000z1OomNNo00wz wt., .- 0 cM co 0 ww O.Op vCO 2 WNWULLKH3-CO I CO a LLIliDOFF mLL a 44 +I 44 41 -H +I H >WQ Ow .i 11 O O LL A Y O ti w < I .II 0 N•QW 3C 0 to si Z Q 0 Y I 1 No m N w00.-I 0_20 Y I Ur m 3 5Zm + IN wU W W N W [° QJ a Z w - UwaQ ciO aW2a 0 N W 0 mU Cr Y o < J 2 W Q o 0-' Q W O z 0 N N W r-Q a s (7 N 0 + __ 0 in;; -) a W> j 0 Z z w r e a a 2 a - Y } w W N O + 11 J N W 5op F- } < Q G Q Y`" >~w w 0 = 5 I-z z Q a W agcna,nQ pOUp x m m pw r W ?j w J O N NioN W~O/7 F- x ^ D L W N O U ww )aNN F BUY u0) O N w NmCU 0 a +-w Lc.)I- J m ¢OJ<woo° 2oDw 0 F- v zO 1; V) z O w a JO)Q-MM F- ax z aQ w w Rx Y:0 z N z Z >Q> p N J J 0 el fh 0 F-C O w w a tJ w W w > O w z Q z QO(00 www i 0 0 Q w Z J 0 w o w 0y w F- WWF F-N 0 x W a cc (n () a. Q mazaN g0 0 0001 Ozm3°CO 1,. .-.u.u.Sy.Ong,-0.401.0 arki-smmx.n.e,.)u <-•Aw4„ CNC.9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 200Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) iLdb Ku,,zz,,, `\\ ii -IONLLO4,Ph1 N U //----J J N 1 , 1 4 IHO Z1 I f f Nas2wmmwtXL1qu.K in,yy,, I Ny j dz Nf Wa- Y f4xoLIJih9iW Iwihh jmN'aW \ / Z U' O II U1 yup}l1 p m pW I,1pO1- rzgm j ° coT UU W° O U• R c\sear a 1 nu rzwowwwRI `v v" II 1 + .xowww o°F \ u yW• J aLLgE5R6( o I IY IY I r / ccOZN°3mWpZ cn1 `\____ N X X j Wop20Zwwwao10% ww 1^° Wo 7/' asozWwww ' Z/ I WW o g° °° x$$ I/ y411 ,! IY°aFgzWm8 W W xO e W OS KO ,Okg O Lim UWOaNOWJ y m=. 00.--,-.– 1 I Ndo IYN iaV Lux ca fL. Joo . w/ I N h wLL 3 I h o0 I QJ2w N xN I 1-» w1Y I a 3odZ I u aa m ly I)h 2j 8N. 2.III N N O 7 1 I l x .. x x —W W x x 1 NJULLZ W C7w > I 11 K W W == •/-:.,1 n NN W IY i II W .0i W O LLN- I W R NN !II1 \ 1lL1 M.7 Lu.,-p p p II Z LL N N o F Z LL 1- II w F,-1- I .K1.AI,1, YL I. LL 0^ N... tD 11 z' oou,NO W W W>Q II ... ... I 11 { m7b t0 aD yO LL1D aD OC . II J i w Z =J W m° T II D''''M M a. 1 11 11 11 11 11 11 II 11 Z II Z LL Ur W N F-IY Z (/ II CO 11 II 11 H )- VW ,``' Yy, II LL LL mLL lel 7,00-0001,w0 n i0 U- LL ZQ 1- MIftvi I J J mJ N_ Ix 1 Z_ Z J J RN I I N N { J 1I x N~a Qa ~3 ZTS_ N I }}N N N Q W m 11 { p},1^O- b G}.W. Ct 1+1 i www 0O NU WOOF b 1 i^ yM w it F N M 1-11 1i ju. Wmow7,AW IiK I F II , I mzx°V omwcc- Zw Oa Ij 1 t h! f'w ,. I iWNwl'O W I OL} 2FwotirCiJ2gK {IA111w-,I l1A 1 I, -w °U F x F° m d LL3 D1111= rwnz w 0 W°wHf w N w o En L O a w 0 CCZrx1ICOI.'" s tiJ0.zizCLr0Wo. a ° 0. O 0 ii wwz o a g O ra rw wZOmwO m 1 Q mW N aWQ F– Y 1 W WWZ f{I Rill Jmo ° ai( - °W m J O J AM-a. x yyx o w J O f-)o lilti.ht1fre.;ir-:171:771,1111111: pb a•Ox- (n z x 0 W 71TE D Q 4 a0 0 O cc^3Q2 W /-I a1 o Z N amLLl<ozow' w'w q M ii T% < I t't4l' Yn S W of 1 FW- 1/' Sm z°Wv7) i0o H - Z/ F o ° g o reWOWIY ' '/ ° a H .I / ° x Y:N (n - I o C Dui CJ) iu J/ 3rn D w /J U j J / w aw°wa J / r N i '‘`'-1 J o Vo Qa Q. z r U w aZ§w a o< ,,\-,i x N w_ a ` Q a 40.0 z a wa o I 1 , oma ., 1 ted ; a__,., g //' 7, m U z Z LL N a Z zm0 h z CO wawm>f 1_ H. Y z¢ Q---- t° 7 r w zNK° O>ZO 3a o.F.. CCF w-0w0Z OOia a Z> o- h r wiOo O• NZMW oaz Ph1 VJ zo U co w m 141 mWW E E re AkO > wwwON ItYIN mU l apa OC b 0z006---, N J d m w 41444 t r.-.w a W.1.-H..-•u.a.e.wv'1-,.P..ypu.yca.0-.,4.7-u-.0-.A....\'.-=.or unA.u.,..w,<-aviwnvac, ^ille9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 201Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) glwaNIgypsb y P giWihV) INiglWPriIlikatriywa2aco- J0g> aw& u& ,' a wFw OaW a ZZO p NK to a 1 jQa ' Ci p co w E m t,I -1 111 W v. n O O d t7 aJ m I I W r ' gg OZvi G € Q ROD 2 Lu Zvi r O Z y2 H. w `S wwu w O Lg U gRrrtOZz^ w f u'CO CCOUQzWEw00OaoLUQw cc U moS3a?5 s "CO!n Q21wg ZJ OZ Nt6m0Javww3 ti wzw out Q w¢8¢..-- U o Z a a O N .-e 4 n a ul g iii dd z LL moi. p, ON z CC c_ O J O Z 5 }I N C IN FOF-- O w= Z Q Y'W M K 1 O'VII F- o> 2 W Qa N u W 4 w 11 Z J Z Z CL3Wce O LLW o iZmII, 2 II IllaW J i v Qij o O w O a'O(nwO N w\ d OoFW W II,Q JN J Z _ Piow 8ii. iw 1 J wWw1Qm II 2 u u K a R $3 o a aW E ` Id ti .Iz3D. z.r J r-r=r_ d n d w 8 8 d W I=- i 'l J aWZU—' J W 1 Ci LiE.- O and o1 0 a$1.Q O Qpm f>« Q N a'O WQzWII DQt0+ 1 II m 11.1Ya' ,, 2 W> W J Z g 11 Z m J J a J E2 w EO 1- W OW IN 0O r- 0 Q K J ZtZt Z 0 3 N N Z c, U W C' w Z 0^m II, 7 0H 1 co Cl)• • LU Jd 0 L 7/ IZ CO C Q) w'w o w=_ L irm- o c (.00_, e0_, - 2 ao m 0WZW z J O O 46 Z Jd Z 41 J N 0Woa,w,N 2 0 y I I 2, w z 2 5 N W 3 88p Q .a. W 174..: 1= 1----7 ZJ a _Z w ZQaW 'L W co Z ao Z v? OQ QQ 4411\ e IT_wQ Z w OK4 O Z t0 K m O CV 44, QQ / d d t mLLo f— w o 0 3 w I 00 2www, 0 ZO,2 'a wi-w LU W n Z N2- 20N4w F w U>> ZZ 4 Z" w K F N 20M 4 iw f ¢W w QN < 2 a Z J Y J F U' w 6 O 0 EU ce G Dzo 4 aw 20 ow J N9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 202Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) y /`w 4. 4,,,,,, . .i U, 0NitiidwIF, . ,_1,.11dilikc-fi ...,...p.., , aIE.,t ofss ' Imo.. " 0 4y.a P,. " Ali i Btdt- ! .gyp„ I 1 LI l: - \ 1 ' z.... . .t,":.,1, ‘,-,, l '.g 1 Fwi -r Z• ',COvr j W in wk A Q cal- t• xr y try N.r t i, 4 ,,':;, C, 1-''';'4 m ' IRR,• i rzem inr.v a f R '• y r i 4.,i t r•5'I ' r f tri; r d`" ti ri -t 51 6, s 99,,,, ii t-,..,,,,,,,,,, t- r}, y'. Q yii 86 L 4, 4, gtr, G p,at: . a I ,,,en 21i i } p.. I I 1 d F egt to r. i.,wi e - yrs 2 V ii T Tr U CO 1 f J I i ° 4 N 4.-..kiii..,‘ 11 p .114:p , 4E,r", 4•°'` ..- Zilt ' '1\ri... il.i.ti_ -'---„ i:11.- jet If 2 1,1; I. i'..i..,.'_,,,.-„, rr i li it I w++ "j G '. 1 ._____. II itrz,,:,.....„,_._....„........_ __Ici.,, Ao..____L'' i: \...:..,a, 4I9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 203Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) Cyt ii" Si31 a P, 5{ iic n firit.ttti . q 1r,41 iiµ' FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State February 28, 2018 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101-3044 Attention: Ms. Teresa Cannon Dear Mr. Brock: I Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes,this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 18-06,which was filed in this office on February 28, 2018. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Attachment C-Ordinance 18-06 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page - 1 - of 3 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, PLA # 1244, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: April 23, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review APPLICATION NUMBER: PUDA-20180001174 Review 5 APPLICATION NAME: Siena Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment REQUEST: To amend Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, approved via Ordinance #09-65, as amended via Ordinance #18-06, to add an additional ±5.85 acres by amending the PUD boundaries to include the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD and to allow 76 independent living units on the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD site . The petition proposes Siena Lakes CPUD for a total square footage of 878,889 square feet, and a total number of independent living units of 431 (increase of 76 independent units to be located on the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD site) and an assisted living facility comprised of 47 assisted living beds (increase of 12 assisted living units), and 30 total skilled nursing and memory (dementia) care beds. The Master Plan states the total number of units is 508 for this CCRC with a 30% overall open space including lakes. The petition also proposes to amend the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Master Plan and the Legal Description and the list of “B. Indoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities” to add a ‘sales and marketing’ use and reduce lake setbacks to “0”. This petition also requests amendments to “Exhibit E, List of Deviations” to add clarifying language on location in Deviations #4 (reduce the private roadway width within the western portion of the property from 60 feet to 30 feet), #5 (only have a 6-foot sidewalk/bike path on the east side of Siena Lakes Drive, and #6 (to reduce the buffer size from 20 feet to 15 feet along Siena Lakes Drive) was removed in submittal 3. The petition proposes to add a 7th deviation to eliminate required perimeter landscape buffers where shared Stormwater lakes exist with adjacent properties. Three general developer commitments (Exhibit ‘F’ Section I) are proposed with this petition (1. Managing Entity responsibilities, 2. Responsibilities of the applicant with county, state and federal issuance, 3. Applicant must obtain all state and federal permits prior to commencement of the development.) Additional amendments are proposed in other sections, including: Exhibit F: Development Commitments, • Transportation Requirements, Section II, adding a new #4 to reserve 44 feet as public right-of-way along the southern portion of the PUD, for the expansion of Orange Blossom Dr., and • #11. Intensity of uses is limited to 146 trips pm peak hour trip entering /exiting generation rates, 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Attachment D-FLUE Consistency Review 4-23-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 3 • Section IV, Landscaping and Site Design added an exception on the buffer areas and walls • Environmental, Section V, added a second condition • Added Water Management, Section VIII, SFWMD may allow shared stormwater to cross boundaries LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of Orange Blossom Drive just east of St Katherine Greek Orthodox Church, approximately 570 feet east of Airport-Pulling Road in Section 1, Township 49 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is approximately ±35.09 acres and is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. According to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.10, “Group Housing, which may include the following: Family Care Facility, Group Care Facility, Care Units, Assisted Living Facility, and Nursing Home, shall be allowed within the Urban designated area…” The FLUE states, “Urban designated areas will accommodate (allow) group housing.” The applicant is proposing a variety of group housing which may include independent living residential units, assisted living units, skilled nursing units, and memory care units as principal uses for Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD. The petition is requesting an amended total of 431 multi-family dwelling units for independent living, plus 47 assisted living units and 30 skilled nursing and memory care units. The development shall be permitted at a combined maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.58, with a combination of a FAR of 0.60 in the existing Siena Lakes CPUD – 29.24 acres and a FAR of 0.45 in the former Orange Blossom Gardens PUD – 5.85 acres west of Siena Lakes Drive. The Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD petition is also proposing a variety of uses, including commercial uses, under “B. Indoor Accessory Uses, Structures and Amenities” (i.e. beauty/barber shop, ice cream parlor, postal outlet). All of the uses listed in “B” are intended to support the residents. Some of the independent living residential units will be located in the western portion of the PUD (previously the Orange Blossom PUD). Although the revised Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Master Plan, ‘Exhibit C-5.c - Site Amenities,’ is conceptual only, it currently depicts a pedestrian orientation to serve the multi-family units and allow residents to move about from one building to another and access the accessory uses. Select FLUE Policies are given below, followed with [bracketed staff analysis]. FLUE Policy 5.6 “New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).” [It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff, as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis.] FLUE Objective 7 “In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable.” FLUE Policy 7.1 “The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code.” [Siena Lakes CCRC Exhibit ‘C-1’ and ‘C-5’ CPUD Master Plan indicates one (1) direct access connecting the subject property (located in the center of the subject site) with Orange Blossom Drive to the south, identified as a major collector roadway in the Transportation Element of the 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Attachment D-FLUE Consistency Review 4-23-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3 Growth Management Plan. There is a secondary access point shown in the western portion of Siena Lakes CPUD located off the west side of the north-south roadway easement, labeled as Sienna Lakes Drive in the Master Plan.] FLUE Policy 7.2 “The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.” [Siena Lakes CCRC – Exhibit ‘C’ CPUD Master Plan shows a loop road that travels all the way around the development – connecting all of the multi-family residential units. This internal access will allow Siena Lakes residents to travel throughout the CPUD without having to utilize nearby collector and arterial roads.] FLUE Policy 7.3 “All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Exhibit ‘C’ - Master Plan indicates a shared north-south access roadway easement labeled Siena Lakes Drive. Siena Lakes Drive is shown on the Master Plan running between Orange Blossom Drive in the south to a gated entrance in the north, adjoining the community, Lakeside of Naples at Citrus Gardens, which is a PUD of multi-family residences. The Master Plan shows a proposed emergency east-west access interconnect between St. Katherine’s Greek Church and Siena Lakes. The Master Plan notes that the northern portion of Siena Lakes Drive gate, drive and sidewalk are to be constructed by Lakeside of Naples. The Master Plan shows a sidewalk in Siena Lakes CCRC leading to the western boundary with Longview PUD.] FLUE Policy 7.4 “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.” [Common open spaces are shown on Siena Lakes CCRC Exhibit ‘C’ - CPUD Master Plan (i.e. labeled as ‘Garden’ and ‘Lawn games Courtyard’. Civic uses are not specifically listed as a Permitted Use in “B. Indoor Accessory Uses, structure and Amenities”, but this use might take place within one of the many spaces for gatherings. Deviation #2, which was previously approved with Ordinance #09-65, is to allow a sidewalk only on one side of the proposed internal access drives and entrance to the project as shown on the CPUD Master Plan. The Master Plan shows the sidewalks running on one side only, but also shows a ‘Walking Path’ around part of Lake 3 on the subject site. Siena Lakes CCRC will offer several types of housing within the CPUD.] CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond Bellows, Planning Manager, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL2018-1174 Siena CCRC CPUD R5.docx 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Attachment D-FLUE Consistency Review 4-23-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) Page 1 of 2 C:\Users\puig_j\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\26123.docx NIM SUMMARY Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD Amendment (PUDA-PL-20180001174) December 4, 2018, 5:30 p.m. Collier County Public Library Headquarters, Sugden Theater 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida, 34109 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows: 1) An amendment to Ordinance Number 09-65, as amended, the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to add 5.85± acres from the Orange Blossom Gardens PUD to the Siena Lakes CCRC CPUD, to increase the maximum square footage from 764,478 to 917,112 square feet, to increase the maximum number of assisted living units from 355 to 431 units, to increase the maximum number of assisted living beds from 35 to 47 beds, to add sales and marketing as a permitted indoor accessory use, to revise the minimum lake setback, to reduce the minimum square footage of assisted living units, to revise the Master Plan to reflect the additional acreage and modified site layout, to amend deviations relating to landscape buffers and minimum floor area ration, and to modify developer commitments relating to transportation, landscaping and site design, environment and water management. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio/video recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of Applicants: David Archibald, Erickson Communities Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes Paula McMichael, AICP, Director Planning, Hole Montes Richard Yovanovich, Esq, Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Barry Jones, PE, Hole Montes Norman Trebilcock, AICP, PE, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions County Staff: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Approximately 39 members of the public attended. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. He explained the NIM process, the process for approval, and provided a brief history of the site and an overview of the project. Following Mr. Mulhere’s presentation, there was approximately forty-five minutes of questions from the public in attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves (primarily) as residents of Lakeside to the north, Bridgewater Bay to the east, and Walden Oaks to the south. The following issues were raised: Traffic Questions were asked regarding the future widening of Orange Blossom Drive. Collier County will be expanding Orange Blossom Drive to four lanes between the Airport Pulling Road and Livingston Road intersections. The applicant is in discussions with Collier County to try and accelerate the expansion 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Attachment E-NIM Summary (12-11-2018) (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) Page 2 of 2 C:\Users\puig_j\AppData\Roaming\IQM2\MinuteTraq\colliercountyfl@colliercountyfl.IQM2.com\Work\Attachments\26123.docx projects timeline so that the widening correlates with the completion of Phase I of the Siena Lakes project. A resident of Walden Oaks requested that the Orange Blossom Drive expansion include a wall adjacent to their community. Mr. Mulhere explained that the County is responsible for the design and implementation of the expansion, and suggested members of the public reach out to Collier County while they are still in the design phase. Stormwater Management Several questions were raised regarding stormwater management. Mr. Jones explained that SFWMD and Collier County regulations require that no stormwater is discharged outside of the property. There is an interconnected system of lakes on site that will collect water. Concern was raised regarding flooding on Orange Blossom Drive. Mr. Jones stated that flooding concerns in regard to the right of way should be sent to Collier County. Buffering Several residents requested the height of the wall along the property boundaries be increased to eight feet to provide additional screen due to the proposed building heights. Mr. Mulhere explained that the proposed building setbacks to the property line exceed PUD requirements, and these setbacks in conjunction with the proposed landscape buffers will provide adequate visual screening. Mr. Mulhere went on to state that the applicant will take the request into consideration. Development Timing Questions were raised regarding the estimated timeline for completion of construction. Mr. Jones stated that earthwork is estimated to begin in January 2019 and estimated construction to begin in July or August of 2019. He went on to explain that all landscaping and water management must be installed before construction can begin. Mr. Archibald explained that construction will be market driven and will begin once fifty percent of the units are reserved. He went on to estimate that the first phase will open the first quarter of 2021. General/Misc. General questions were asked regarding the location of the lift station and sewer connection. The lift station is located within the southeast corner of the property, the furthest away from surrounding residential development. Once constructed, the County will take ownership and take over maintenance. The sewer connection will run adjacent to and be part of Orange Blossom Drive. Mr. Mulhere indicated that application materials are available to the public via the county website. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:30 PM. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Attachment E-NIM Summary (12-11-2018) (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 210Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 211Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 212Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 213Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 214Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 215Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 216Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 217Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 218Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 219Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 220Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 221Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 222Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 223Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 224Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 225Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 226Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 227Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 228Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 229Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 230Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 231Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 232Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 233Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 234Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 235Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 236Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 237Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 238Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 239Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 240Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 241Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 242Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 243Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 244Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 245Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 246Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 247Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 248Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 249Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 250Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 251Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 252Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 253Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 254Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 255Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 256Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 257Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 258Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 259Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 260Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 261Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 262Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 263Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 264Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 265Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 266Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 267Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 268Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 269Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 270Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 271Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 275Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 276Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 277Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 278Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 279Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 280Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 281Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 282Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 283Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 284Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 285Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 286Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 287Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 288Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 289Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 290Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 291Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 292Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 293Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 294Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 295Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 296Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 297Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 298Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 299Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 300Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 301Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 302Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 303Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 304Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 305Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 306Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 307Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 308Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 311Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 312Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 313Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 314Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 315Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 316Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 317Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 318Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 319Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 320Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 321Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 322Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 323Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 324Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 325Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 326Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 327Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 328Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 331Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 332Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 333Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 334Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 335Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 336Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 337Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 338Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 339Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 340Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 341Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 342Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 343Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 344Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 346Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORSSiena LakesALUL.B.E.ILUSNFASSISTED LIVING UNITSLANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENTINDEPENDENT LIVING UNITSSKILLED NURSING FACILITYILLUSTRATED ELEVATION (EXHIBIT C-3)GENERAL CROSS SECTION (EXHIBIT C-4)DENOTES R.O.W. RESERVATIONDEVIATION ( SEE EXHIBIT E )FLAG NOTE / SETBACK ( SEE SHEET 3 )COVERED PARKING1 STORY BUILDING2 STORY BUILDING3 STORY BUILDING4 STORY BUILDING ( 3 Floors Over Parking )PROPOSED EMERGENCY ACCESSLEGEND10ORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE (Existing Road)NUMBERLETTER1.THIS C.P.U.D. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND ISSUBJECT TO MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.2.SEE EXHIBITS C-2 FOR NOTES AND C-3 FOR LANDSCAPEBUFFER NOTES AND CALCULATIONS AND SIGHT LINES.11S 89°46'53" E 1672.39'N 02°48'48" W 760.89'SERVICEYARD1 Story GarageLAKE 1POOL220'LAWN GAMESCOURTYARDYOGALAWNLONE OAK [ WALDEN OAKS ]ZONED: P.U.D. ( USE: SINGLE FAMILY HOMES )P.B.25, PGS. 84- 87 & P.B. 25, PGS. 88- 89LAKESIDE OF NAPLES AT CITRUS GARDENS( ZONED: P.U.D. )USE: MULTI - FAMILY CONDOMINIUMP.B.15, PGS. 83-8876523LAKE 33NOTES :GARDENSEAWALLDECKWALKINGPATH##PROPOSED SIGN86.82'9ILU(3 Story)ILU(3 Story Over Parking)ILU(3 Story Over Parking)N 89°43'00" W 1677.50'2COMMONS(1 Story)ALU/SNF(2 Story)61.71'60.11'152.68'59.02'LAKE 532342112.46'458789LAKE7LAKELONGVIEWZONED: P.U.D.(USE: VACANT)ST. KATHERINE'SGREEK CHURCHZONED: ACOMMONS(1 Story)ILU(3 Story Over Parking)ILU(3 Story)SIENA LAKES DRIVE512118'MATCH LINE FOR CONTINUATION, SEE SHEET 2120.34'11GUARDHOUSE9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 347Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORSSiena LakesALUL.B.E.ILUSNFASSISTED LIVING UNITSLANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENTINDEPENDENT LIVING UNITSSKILLED NURSING FACILITYILLUSTRATED ELEVATION (EXHIBIT C-3)GENERAL CROSS SECTION (EXHIBIT C-4)DENOTES R.O.W. RESERVATIONDEVIATION ( SEE EXHIBIT E )FLAG NOTE / SETBACK ( SEE SHEET 3 )COVERED PARKING1 STORY BUILDING2 STORY BUILDING3 STORY BUILDING4 STORY BUILDING ( 3 Floors Over Parking )PROPOSED EMERGENCY ACCESSLEGENDORANGE BLOSSOM DRIVE (Existing Road)NUMBERLETTER1.THIS C.P.U.D. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND ISSUBJECT TO MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.2.SEE EXHIBITS C-2 FOR NOTES AND C-3 FOR LANDSCAPEBUFFER NOTES AND CALCULATIONS AND SIGHT LINES.S 03°11'19" E 763.07'COURTYARD1 Story Garage(Typical)LONE OAK [ WALDEN OAKS ]ZONED: P.U.D. ( USE: SINGLE FAMILY HOMES )P.B.25, PGS. 84- 87 & P.B. 25, PGS. 88- 89LAKESIDE OF NAPLES AT CITRUS GARDENS( ZONED: P.U.D. )USE: MULTI - FAMILY CONDOMINIUMP.B.15, PGS. 83-88OAK GROVE BRIDGEWATER BAYPROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION INC.( ZONED: P.U.D. ) MULTI - FAMILYCONDOMINIUMBRIDGEWATER BAY, UNIT ONEP.B. 34, PGS. 87-93FIRST BAPTIST CHURCHOF NAPLES( ZONED: P.U.D. ) WATER MANAGEMENT LAKEPARCEL NO. 00236171004O.R. 2193, PG. 2175LAKE 23LAKE 33LAKE 43NOTES :SEAWALLDECKWALKINGPATH81PAVILIONDRAINAGEOUTFALL PIPE##1 CARPORTS( TYPICAL )SEAWALLEND OF EXISTING WALLBEGINNING OFEXISTING WALL93.96'ILU(3 Story Over Parking)ILU(3 Story)N 89°43'00" W 1677.50'COMMONS(1 Story)59.02'143.89'1069.73'68.14'911MATCH LINEFOR CONTINUATION, SEE SHEET 1 ILU(3 Story Over Parking)90.19'S 89°46'53" E 1672.39'29.A.1.fPacket Pg. 348Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 950 Encore Way Naples, FL. 34110 Phone: (239) 254-2000 Florida Certificate of Authorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS Siena Lakes AREA (Ac.±) PERCENT BUILDINGS ACCESS EASEMENT ROADWAY INTERNAL ROADWAYS / PARKING ( DOES NOT INCLUDE PARKING UNDER BUILDINGS ) LAKES OPEN SPACE TOTAL LAND USE SUMMARY 8.13 ± 23.2 % ± 0.50 ± 1.4 % ± 4.54 ± 13.0 % ± 6.75 ± 19.2 % ± 15.18± 43.2 % ± 35.10 ± 100.0 % DEVELOPMENT NOTES and STANDARDS OVERALL OPEN SPACE CALCULATION : OPEN SPACE + LAKES + AMENITY WALKWAYS / TOTAL AREA LESS 30' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (15.18 Ac. + 6.75 Ac.) = 21.93 Ac. 21.93 Ac. / (35.10 Ac. - 0.50 Ac.) = 34.60 Ac. 21.93 Ac. / 34.60 Ac. = 63.0 % NOTE THAT THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE CALCULATION IS BASED ON THE TOTAL PROJECT AREA LESS THE 30' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (0.50 Ac.) PROVIDED FOR THE LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT. LIVING UNIT TYPE INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS ( ILU ) ASSISTED LIVING UNITS ( ALU ) SKILLED NURSING AND MEMORY CARE PARKING SUMMARY # UNITS / PARKING PARKING SPACES BEDS REQUIREMENTS REQUIRED . 431 1.0 / UNIT 431 . 47 0.75 / UNIT 36 . 30 2 SPACES / 5 BEDS 12 . 479 . 546 . 11 . 19 . TOTAL PARKING SPACES REQUIRED TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED* * HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES REQUIRED PER L.D.C. TOTAL HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACES PROVIDED DEVIATIONS - SEE EXHIBIT E 1 CARPORTS 2 30' WIDE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT (SIENA LAKES DR.) 3 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ENTRANCE 4 GATED ENTRANCE FOR RESIDENTS, EMPLOYEES AND DELIVERIES. 5 10' WIDE TYPE 'D' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH 6' HIGH WALL/FENCE. 6 CAR TURN-AROUND 7 THIS PORTION OF THE INGRESS / EGRESS DRIVE (SIENA LAKES DR.), SIDEWALK AND THE GATE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE LAKESIDE DEVELOPMENT. 8 15' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH 6' HIGH WALL. 9 20' WIDE ENHANCED TYPE 'B' LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH 6' HIGH WALL/FENCE. 10 40' RIGHT-OF-WAY RESERVATION ( 1.30 Ac. ± ) 11 COMPENSATING RIGHT-OF-WAY ( WIDTH VARIES ) 12 10' WIDE TYPE 'A' LANDSCAPE BUFFER FLAG NOTES 1.THIS C.P.U.D. MASTER PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO MINOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS. 2.SEE EXHIBIT C-3 FOR LANDSCAPE BUFFER NOTES AND CALCULATIONS. GENERAL NOTES 3 and 4-STORY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES: FRONT (SOUTH) BUILDING SETBACK = 60 FT. REAR (NORTH) BUILDING SETBACK = 80 FT. SIDE (EAST) BUILDING SETBACK = 90 FT. SIDE (WEST) BUILDING SETBACK = 30 FT. ALL OTHER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES: 25 FT. FROM PROPERTY LINE SEE EXHIBIT B FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SETBACKS 1.NO PRESERVE AREA IS SHOWN, NO PRESERVE AREA IS REQUIRED. 2.30 % OVERALL OPEN SPACE IS REQUIRED OPEN SPACE INCLUDING LAKES = 64.0 % ± 3.MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT ( ZONED ) = 53 FEET MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT (ACTUAL) = 60 FEET 4.COMBINED MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO= 0.58 Ac. NOT INCLUDING PARKING UNDER BUILDINGS, PLEASE ALSO SEE NOTE 1 AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1 OF THE P.U.D. DOCUMENT. 5.TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS = 508 UNITS 431 INDEPENDENT UNITS 47 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS 30 SKILLED NURSING / MEMORY CARE UNITS 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) LINE OF SIGHTPROPERTY LINELINE OF SIGHTEXISTINGHEDGEDRIVEWAY, PARKING & SIDEWALKONE STORYGARAGETWO STORY CONDOMINIUMS15'TYPE 'B' BUFFER& 6' HIGH WALL6'30' OAHNOTE #1:A TYPE 'B' BUFFER IS A 15' WIDE LANDSCAPE AREA WHICH SHALL INCLUDETREES SPACED 25' O.C. EIGHTY PERCENT (80%) OPACITY SHALL BE ACHIEVEDWITHIN ONE YEAR AND SHALL CONSIST OF: 6' WALL, FENCE, HEDGE, BERM ORANY COMBINATION THEREOF. HEDGE MATERIAL MUST BE 10 GAL., AT AMINIMUM OF 5' HT WITH A 3' SPREAD PLACED A MAXIMUM OF 4' O.C.NOTE #2 : PROPOSED BUFFERSIN ORDER TO CREATE AN EFFECTIVE LINE OF SIGHT BUFFER, PROPOSED CANOPY TREES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 16'-18' OAH,INTERSPERSED WITH CABBAGE PALMS AND SLASH PINES FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. THE CABBAGE PALMS WOULD BEINSTALLED AT STAGGERED HEIGHTS OF 15'-20' CT WITH AN ADDITIONAL 10' OF CROWN. THE SLASH PINES WOULD BEINSTALLED, ALSO STAGGERED, AT HEIGHTS OF 14'-18' OAH. PROPOSED TREE PLANTINGS WOULD BE INSTALLED AT LESS THANTHE REQUIRED 25' MAXIMUM SPACING ALLOWING FOR CLUSTERING OF THE CABBAGE PALMS AND SLASH PINES ANDRESULTING IN QUANTITIES WHICH EXCEED THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENT. PLANTINGS WILL OCCUR ON BOTH SIDES OFTHE WALLS WITH REQUIRED PLANTINGS BEING INSTALLED ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THE WALLS. IN THE END, THIS WOULDCREATE A STAGGERED, 'GREEN WALL' TO EFFECTIVELY SCREEN THE APPROXIMATELY 65' TALL BUILDINGS. WHERE POSSIBLE,EXISTING SPECIES IDENTIFIED ON THE TREE SURVEY SHALL BE RELOCATED ON-SITE. NATIVE SPECIES WILL BE RELOCATEDPRIMARILY TO THE BUFFERS WHILE NON-NATIVE SPECIES WOULD ONLY BE RELOCATED ELSEWHERE.BUFFER PLANTING:CANOPY TREES, PALMS & SHRUBSLANDSCAPEAREAPROPOSED3 STORY OVER PARKING INDEPENDENTLIVING UNITS60'UNDER BUILDINGPARKINGCARPORTAVERAGECENTERLINE OFORANGEBLOSSOM DRIVEELEV. 13.5±15'PROPERTYLINEGARAGELINE OF SIGHTEXISTINGBUFFERDRIVEWAYEXISTINGROADWAYEXISTINGBUFFEREXISTING 6'C.L. FENCETWO STORY CONDOMINIUMS6'30' OAHPROPOSEDPLANTINGPROPOSED3 STORYINDEPENDENTLIVING UNITS47'LANDSCAPEAREATYPE 'B' BUFFER& 6' HIGH WALL20'PROPERTY LINETYPE 'B'BUFFEREXISTING 60' R/W 40' ROAD RESERVATIONPROPOSED3 STORY OVER PARKING INDEPENDENTLIVING UNITSDRIVEWAY & SIDEWALKLANDSCAPEAREA15'±ONE STORYSINGLE FAMILY HOMESEXISTING5' HIGH WALL60'LINE OF SIGHTLINE OF SIGHT30' OAHPROPOSEDPLANTINGUNDER BUILDINGPARKINGAVERAGECENTERLINEOF ORANGEBLOSSOM DR.ELEV. 13.5±ILLUSTRATED EAST ELEVATION 1-1SCALE: 1" = 10'ILLUSTRATED NORTH ELEVATION 2-2SCALE: 1" = 10'ILLUSTRATED SOUTH ELEVATION 3-3SCALE: 1" = 10'950 Encore WayNaples, FL. 34110Phone: (239) 254-2000Florida Certificate ofAuthorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS Siena LakesTYPE 'B' BUFFER: ( EAST )±728 LF = 30 TREES REQUIRED (30 x .20 = 6) = 36 TREES PROVIDED±728 LF = 187 SHRUBS REQUIRED = 187 SHRUBS PROVIDEDTYPE 'B' BUFFER SHALL CONSIST OF 14'-18'OAH TREES AND 15'-20' CT PALMS TO BEPROVIDED AT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED 25'ON CENTER. AN ADDITIONAL 20% OVERTREE CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEENPROVIDED.TYPE 'B' BUFFER: ( SOUTH )±1,677 LF = 67 TREES REQUIRED (67 X .20 = 14) = 81 TREES PROVIDED±1,677 LF = 420 SHRUBS REQUIRED = 420 SHRUBS PROVIDEDTYPE 'B' BUFFER SHALL CONSIST OF 14'-18'OAH TREES AND 15'-20' CT PALMS TO BEPROVIDED AT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED25' ON CENTER. AN ADDITIONAL 20% OVERTREE CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEENPROVIDED.AVERAGECENTERLINE OFORANGEBLOSSOM DRIVEELEV. 13.5±TYPE 'B' BUFFER: ( SOUTH )±1,672 LF = 67 TREES REQUIRED (67 X .20 = 14) = 81 TREES PROVIDED±1,672 LF = 418 SHRUBS REQUIRED = 418 SHRUBS PROVIDEDTYPE 'B' BUFFER SHALL CONSIST OF 14'-18'OAH TREES AND 15'-20' CT PALMS TO BEPROVIDED AT LESS THAN THE REQUIRED25' ON CENTER. AN ADDITIONAL 20% OVERTREE CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEENPROVIDED.9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 350Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) VARIES DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ( VARIES ) 30' PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT AND ROADWAY MINIMUM UNDER-BUILDING PARKING FINISHED FLOOR ELEV.= 13.0± MAX. ENGINEER: W. TERRY COLE, P.E. LICENSE No. 42347 SECTION F-F N.T.S. SECTION B-B N.T.S. WATER CONTROL ELEV.= 10.0 VARIES ( 20' MIN. ) SECTION C-C N.T.S. WATER CONTROL ELEV.= 10.0 MINIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR (1st FLOOR) ELEV.= 14.0± MINIMUM PROPOSED BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR (1st FLOOR) ELEV.= 14.0± VARIES ( 20' MIN. ) SECTION E-E N.T.S. RETAINING WALL ( TYPICAL ) MINIMUM UNDER-BUILDING PARKING ELEV.= 13.0± (MAX.) PROPOSED BUILDING FINISHED FLOOR (1st FLOOR) ELEV.= 26.00± WATER CONTROL ELEV.= 10.0 TYPICAL MINIMUM ROADWAY ELEV.= 13.0± DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ( VARIES ) VARIES ( 15' MIN. )40'VARIES SECTION A-A N.T.S. MAXIMUM ZONED BUILDING HEIGHT 53.0' ELEV.= 13.5 ± 1 4 1 2 20' 10' MIN. PER CODE 10' SLOPE BREAK ELEV.= 0.0 LAKE BOTTOM ELEV.= (-) 10.0 20' LAKE DEPTH ELEV.= 5.0 10' 20' 10' MIN. PER CODE 10' SLOPE BREAK ELEV.= 0.0 LAKE BOTTOM ELEV.= (-) 10.0 20' LAKE DEPTH 40' NOTE : F.E.M.A. FLOOD ELEVATION IS 'ZONE AH' PER FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP (F.I.R.M.), DATED: MAY 16, 2012 'ZONE AH' IS DEFINED AS, AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION BY 1-PERCENT-ANNUAL-CHANCE SHALLOW FLOODING (USUALLY AREAS OF PONDING) WHERE AVERAGE DEPTHS ARE BETWEEN 1 AND 3 FEET. BASE FLOOD ELEVATIONS DERIVED FROM DETAILED HYDRAULIC ANALYSES ARE SHOWN IN THIS ZONE. MANDATORY FLOOD INSURANCE PURCHASE REQUIREMENTS AND FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT STANDARDS APPLY. = NORMAL WET SEASON WATER LEVEL WATER CONTROL ELEV.= 7.0 TO 8.0 = NORMAL DRY SEASON WATER LEVEL COMMONS INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS VILLA MAXIMUM ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT 60.0' MINIMUM FINISHED FLOOR OF LOBBY AT PARKING LEVEL ELEV.= 14.0± INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS 6' HIGH WALL .. 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 2' 10' LANDSCAPE BUFFER 8' EXISTING TOP OF LAKE BANK ELEV. 10.0± 1 4 WIDTH VARIES 6' WIDE SIDEWALK & BIKE PATH 6' WIDE SIDEWALK 24' ACCESS ROADWAY A B C D LETTER DATEREVISIONS DATE HORIZONTAL SCALE DATE DATE VERTICAL SCALE CHECKED BY DRAWN BY DESIGNED BY THESE DRAWINGS ARE NOT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS SIGNED BELOW: DATE OF SHEET NO.PROJECT NO. REFERENCE NO.DRAWING NO.H:\2015\2015035 - SL\DW\PERMITS\PUD 2017 Zoning\5035_DET.dwg Tab: C-4 DETAILS May 14, 2019 - 2:38pm Plotted by: EricNeil950 Encore Way Naples, FL. 34110 Phone: (239) 254-2000 Florida Certificate of Authorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS Siena Lakes 2015.035 4869-5 5 6 SIENA LAKES 2015.035ELEV.= 13.5± 3' 6' HIGH WALL 1 4 1 2 1 4 2 LAKE BOTTOM ELEV.= (-) 10.0 20' LAKE DEPTH SLOPE BREAK ELEV.= 0.0 1 TYPICAL MINIMUM ROADWAY ELEV.= 13.0± REVISED PER COLLIER COUNTY COMMENTS 01/2019 D D D WATER CONTROL ELEV.=8.75 1 4 1 4 WATER CONTROL ELEV.=8.75 ELEV.= 12.4 (±)ELEV.= 12.4 (±) METAL HANDRAIL METAL HANDRAIL D 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 950 Encore Way Naples, FL. 34110 Phone: (239) 254-2000 Florida Certificate of Authorization No.1772ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS Siena Lakes Key Map of Site Amenities 1 Central Lake and Commons Area 2 Wellness Center and Commons Area 3 Villas - Trellis Area 4 Walking Paths, Putting Greens and Trellis Seating Area 5 Entry Landscaping 1 42 5 3 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 353Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 354Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 355Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 356Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 357Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 358Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 359Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 365Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 366Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 367Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 368Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 369Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 370Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 371Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 372Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 373Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 374Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 375Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 376Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 377Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 378Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 389Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 390Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 391Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 392Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 393Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 394Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 395Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 396Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 397Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 398Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 399Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 400Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 401Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 402Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 403Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 404Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 405Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 406Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 407Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 408Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 409Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 410Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 411Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 412Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 413Attachment: Attachment F-Application 6-6-19 (9186 : PL20180001174, Siena Lakes CCRC PUDA) 07/18/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20170004419/CP-2018-1: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed-Use District, to allow up to 304 multi family dwelling units, and providing for transmittal of the adopted amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the south side of Veterans - Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.57± acres. (Companion to PL20170004385) (Adoption Hearing) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 07/18/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 07/01/2019 10:03 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 07/01/2019 10:03 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 07/01/2019 2:12 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 07/02/2019 11:36 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 07/03/2019 9:26 AM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 07/08/2019 2:57 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 07/08/2019 3:26 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 07/18/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 414 Agenda Item #9.A.2 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS 2018 CYCLE 1 (FULL SCALE) AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) Project/Petition #PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 (ADOPTION HEARINGS) CCPC: July 18, 2019 BCC: September 24, 2019 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: CCPC COVER (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) TABLE OF CONTENTS 2018 Cycle 1 GMP Amendment Adoption PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 CCPC July 18, 2019 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report w/Affidavit of Sign Postings & photos 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENT: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps) 3) TAB: Transmittal Executive Summary DOCUMENT: Executive Summary 4) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: Staff Report: 5) TAB: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Resolution 2019-054 6) TAB: Project PL20170004419/ DOCUMENT: Application/Petition Petition CP-2018-1 7) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 8) TAB: Transmittal Correspondence DOCUMENTS: Petition of Objection (& Emails) 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Table of Contents - CCPC (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Page 1 of 4 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: July 18, 2019 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20170004419/CP-2018-1, 2018 CYCLE 1 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [ADOPTION HEARING] (Companion to PUDR-PL20170004385) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE PROPOSED AMENDMENT Petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 is a large-scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to establish a new Subdistrict in the FLUE text, and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the FLUE by amending: 1) Policy 1.5 of the Urban - Mixed Use District to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict; 2) the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District to establish the new Subdistrict provisions; 3) the Future Land Use Map Series listing to add the title of the new Subdistrict map; and, 4) the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The petition proposes the new Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District that: allows residential density up to 8.55 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 304 DUs; requires the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); and limits residential development to 249 multi-family units (7.0 dwelling units per acre (DU/A)) until two or more Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategy facilities and/or interconnections [approved by companion RPUD Development Commitments] have been completed. The subject property comprises 35.57 acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection. The non-corner property fronts approximately 660 feet on east side of Livingston Road and 660 ft. on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The property lies within the North Naples Planning Community, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. Note: A companion PUD amendment petition is scheduled for this same hearing. Transmittal hearings on the amendment were held on January 17 and February 7, 2019 (Planning Commission) and on March 26 (Board of County Commissioners). The Transmittal recommendations/actions are presented further below. Within CCPC materials provided, you will find the Transmittal Executive Summary from the Board hearing, and the Transmittal CCPC staff report for the petition, which provides staff’s detailed analysis of the petition. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-2018-1 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Page 2 of 4 In accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3)(b)1., F.S., pertaining to the Expedited State Review Process, this Transmittal package was provided to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and other reviewing agencies on December 20, 2017. REVIEW AGENCY COMMENT LETTERS After review of the proposed GMP amendment, the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO), the Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) rendered Comment Letters indicating “no comment” within the agencies’ authorized scopes of review, or found no adverse impacts to State resources would result. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) conducted a planning level analysis and rendered comments within their authorized scope of review. FDOT recognizes the amendment will result in an increase in p.m. peak hour trips in the area, and understands if the proposed use results in additional impacts to State facilities. [They point out how the TIS study area did not extend to State facilities, and concede the Department could not quantify the number of trips accessing I-75.] In recognition of the localized impacts, FDOT provides three Technical Assistance Recommendations. In brief, the technical recommendations encourage 1) the County to advance the Veterans Memorial Boulevard roadway extension project*, 2) the applicant/developer to evaluate pedestrian and bicycle facilities, together with, the County to analyze signal timings and operations – to improve the intersection and provide a safer environment in proximity of existing and proposed schools; the applicant/developer to work with CAT and the County to enhance the multimodal network within the transit plan with additional service and transit stops along Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard; the County to support and indorse more roadway connectivity, and 3) the County to [more intently] monitor the speed of traffic on Livingston Road (again, to provide a safer environment in proximity of existing and proposed schools). * Note: The Veterans Memorial Boulevard capacity enhancement project (60198) appears in the 2018 AUIR as a new 2-lane roadway extension to relieve increasing congestion Immokalee Road between Livingston and Goodlette-Frank Roads. This project involves right-of-way acquisition and advanced construction scheduled during fiscal years 2020 through 2022, with construction slated for FY 2022. FDOT Growth Management reviewers’ comments and recommendation may be seen in their entirety in FDOT’s review letter of May 29, 2019. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) conducted a geographic information system (GIS) analysis and rendered comments and recommendations within their authorized scope of review. FWC confirms the potential for listed species to be found onsite, in particular, Big Cypress fox squirrel and Florida bonneted bat. In addition, the project area is located near, within, or adjacent to: • Potential Florida Black Bear habitat • Big Cypress fox squirrel nest • Florida bonneted bat and other Federally listed species In recognition of these potentially affected resources, FWC provides recommendations specific to each of their concerns. FWC Office of Conservation Planning Services reviewers’ comments and recommendations may be seen in their entirety in FDOT’s review letter of May 3, 2019. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-2018-1 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Page 3 of 4 The Comments Letters received are located within materials provided to the CCPC. The remaining reviewing agencies did not provide Comment Letters. TRANSMITTAL • STAFF RECOMMENDATION: to Transmit to DEO. • CCPC RECOMMENDATION: to Transmit to DEO (vote: 4/2; Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fryer opposed). The CCPC recommended limiting the maximum residential density to 8.55 DU/A, yielding 304 DUs, and limiting the units to market rate only. • BOARD ACTION: Transmit to DEO (vote: 4/1), per CCPC recommendation; Commissioner Taylor opposed. The Board limited the maximum building height to three (3) stories. ADOPTION Within CCPC materials provided is an Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text (and maps) for the petition; this exhibit reflects the text as approved for Transmittal by the Board. No revisions have been made to the exhibit Transmitted by the County and reviewed by reviewing agencies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION That the CCPC forward the single, 2018 Cycle 1 petition to the Board with a recommendation to adopt and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and reviewing agencies that provided comments. LEGAL REVIEW This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on TBD, 2019. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-2018-1 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Page 4 of 4 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Adoption Staff Report_signed_CP-2018-1 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 421Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting-Sign Photos (6-28-2019) (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting-Sign Photos (6-28-2019) (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting-Sign Photos (6-28-2019) (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East - 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to approve by Resolution the single Petition within the 2018 Cycle One of Growth Management Plan Amendments for an Amendment specifically Proposed to the Future Land Use Element to Establish the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for Review and Comments Response. (Transmittal Hearing) (PL20170004419/CP-2018-1) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to approve the single petition in the 2018 Cycle One of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government’s adopted Comprehensive Plan. • Collier County Resolution No. 12-234 provides for a public petition process to amend the GMP. • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the “local planning agency” under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for the 2018 Cycle 1 petition on December 6, 2018, January 17, 2019 and February 7, 2019 (one petition only, PL20170004419/CP-2018-1). • This Transmittal hearing for the 2018 Cycle 1 petition considers an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). The GMP amendment requested is specific to a non-corner 35.57-acre property, fronting approximately 660 feet on the east side of Livingston Road and 660 feet on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East (North Naples Planning Community). The approximate northerly 660-feet portion of the property (17.25 ac.) is zoned A, Rural Agricultur al, and is undeveloped. The southerly portion of the property is zoned RPUD, Della Rosa Residential Planned Unit Development, approved for 107 DUs (7 DU/A), and is undeveloped. An ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. This petition seeks to amend the GMP, adopted by Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the FLUE by adding a new Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District, revising the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict, and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The new residential subdistrict will: allow a maximum residential density up to 8.55 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 304 DUs; require the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); limit allowable uses to multi -family rental dwelling units of market rate housing; and, utilize Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. In Summary, the new Subdistrict derives its residential density using the Density Rating System as follows: Base Density of 4 DU/A + Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Bonus of 3 DU/A = 7 DU/A. The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus – in this case, utilizing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. These 7 DU/A applied to the subject site’s 35.57 acres allows up to 249 DUs. The additional density of 1.55 DU/A is derived not from the FLUE’s Density Rating System, but from the ask within the amendment itself. Subdistrict provisions require TDM strategies to be written into PUD Developer Commitments. The Subdistrict limits project development to 7 DU/A until the facilities and interconnections associated with the TDM strategies are completed (such as, providing an on-site Collier Area Transit shelter and interconnection(s) to abutting commercial development). 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) - 2 - In preparation for the December 6, 2018 CCPC hearing, the staff based their analysis of this petition on the originally-requested 420 dwelling units. The initial Subdistrict proposal allowed a maximum residential density up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A), yielding 420 DUs, required the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD), limited allowable uses to multi-family rental dwellings, and required utilization of two TDM strategies. Based on the review of this petition, including the supporting data and analysis, staff made the following findings and conclusions: • The subject site is undeveloped, partly zoned A, Rural Agricultural and partly zoned Della Rosa Residential PUD. An ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. The entire site is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUM, and lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where the Plan encourages compact urban development and utilizes transportation demand management strategies to reduce traffic impacts. • Analysis indicates that projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments. • At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is appropriate for the site. The rezone petition to implement the proposed Subdistrict will need to address specific compatibility measures. • No issues or concerns regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services have been identified. • The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). • The Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools have a combined Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111% capacity). Enrollment at Gulf Coast High School is being monitored and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. • People attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting expressed a strong consensus that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project, and this specific development is opposed. The applicant explained that changes they made in November 2018 to their companion PUD application materials included reducing intensity from 420 to 350 DUs. Additional time was needed to properly prepare for similar changes in GMPA materials, and the applicant requested to continue this hearing to a later date. At the January 17, 2019 CCPC meeting, changes presented by the applicant would limit the maximum residential density to 9.8 DU/A, yielding 350 DUs. Numerous speakers presented extensive public testimony, expressing concerns related to intensity, density, compatibility and traffic congestion. Transportation Planners reported further that the reduced number of dwelling units [to 350] affects their findings differently, and commented: • According to the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), Livingston Road is currently and projected to operate at an acceptable level-of-service. • Additional improvements within and near the TCMA will assist in maintaining the acceptable level-of- service on a link specific basis as well as areawide. These improvements include: Veteran’s Memorial Boulevard is slated to be constructed between Livingston Road; Old 41 Project Development and Environmental study from US 41 to the Lee County line to determine future improvements; and, Logan Boulevard improvements will soon be completed from Immokalee Road to Bonita Beach Road ‒ another parallel north-south connection that will provide relief. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) - 3 - • Due to the project’s location within the TCMA, if the project were to impact a deficient or projected deficient roadway, the project would be eligible to seek an exemption from link by link concurrency. • Though the applicant does not need to seek an exemption for link-specific concurrency (as there is sufficient capacity on links identified and the link that does have a projected deficiency would have a de minimis impact at this time for transportation consistency purposes, the applicant has committed to executing at least two transportation demand strategies to gain an additional 3 DU/A density. • A second exit-only access on Livingston Road is proposed [by the companion PUD] which does not meet access management distance separation requirements. The Access Management Policy (Resolution 13-257) represents desirable requirements; however, the ultimate goal is to exceed these standards. Transportation Planning staff does not recommend approval of the second access point as it is not consistent with the Access Management Policy. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with the Access Management Policy if the second access point on Livingston Road is removed from the companion PUD master plan. The CCPC continued this hearing to February 7. At the February 7, 2019 CCPC meeting, the applicant proposed to provide 10% of the dwelling units as affordable housing at 80 to 120% of median income. Numerous speakers presented continuing public testimony with the same concerns as previously as well as concerns about affordable housing units. Changes presented by the CCPC recommended limiting the maximum residential density to 8.55 DU/A, yielding 304 DUs, and limiting the units to market rate only. The proposed Subdistrict text, as recommended by the CCPC, is depicted in Resolution Exhibit “A”. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impacts to Collier County result from this amendment, as this approval is for the transmittal of this proposed amendment. Petition fees account for staff review time and materials, and for the cost of associated legal advertising/public notice for the public hearings. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of the proposed amendment by the Board for transmittal and its submission to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies will commence the Department’s thirty (30) day review process and ultimately return the amendment to the CCPC and the Board for its Adoption hearing tentatively to be held in late Spring of 2019. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Growth Management Plan (GMP) amendment is authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Community Planning Act, and by Collier County Resolution No. 12-234, as amended. The Board should consider the following criteria in making its decision: “plan amendments shall be based on relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue.” Section 163.3177(1)(f), F.S. In addition, Section 163.3177(6)(a)2, F.S., provides that FLUE plan amendments shall be based on surveys, studies and data regarding the area, as applicable including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of non- conforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) - 4 - g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The need to modify land uses and development patterns with antiquated subdivisions. i. The discouragement of urban sprawl. j. The need for job creation, capital investment and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. And FLUE map amendments shall also be based upon the following analysis per Section 163.3177(6)(a)8.: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. This item is approved as to form and legality. It requires a majority vote for approval because this is a Transmittal hearing. [SAS] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: That the CCPC forward petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the Board, with the maximum residential density up to 9.8 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 350 dwelling units; as heard at the January 17, and February 7, 2019 meetings, and to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC heard this petition at their January 17, and February 7, 2019 meetings, and voted [4/2] to forward the subject petition to the Board, with the maximum residential density up to 8.55 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 304 dwelling units; with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies. There is public opposition to the petition and therefore it cannot be placed on the Board’s Summary Agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS: To approve the draft Resolution and transmit petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required review agencies, as recommended by the CCPC. Prepared by: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, and David Weeks, AICP, Gr owth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division, Growth Management Department 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: Transmittal BCC Transmittal Ex. Summary (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 062819 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 062819 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 062819 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 062819 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 062819 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 433Attachment: Adoption Ordinance - 062819 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 1 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE REVISED STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: JANUARY 17, 2019 – CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 6, 2018 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1, 2018 CYCLE ONE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE (FLUE) APPLICANT/AGENTS: Applicant: Keith Gelder, President SD Livingston, LLC 2639 Professional Circle, no. 101 Naples, FL 34119 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises 35.57 acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection. The non-corner property fronts approximately 660 feet on east side of Livingston Road and 660 ft. on the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The property lies within the North Naples Planning Community, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 2 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to establish a new Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text, and Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) by amending: 1) Policy 1.5 of the Urban - Mixed Use District to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict; 2) the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District to establish the new Subdistrict provisions; 3) the Future Land Use Map Series listing to add the title of the new Subdistrict map; and, 4) the Future Land Use Map to depict the new Subdistrict and adding a new Future Land Use Map Series inset map that depicts the new Subdistrict. The Subdistrict language proposed by this amendment is found in Resolution Exhibit “A.” PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petition proposes the new Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District that: allows residential density up to 12 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 420 DUs; requires the property to be rezoned to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); limits allowable uses to multi-family rental dwellings; and, requires utilization of two Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. SURROUNDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS, ZONING AND LAND USES: Subject Property: The entire subject property, which comprises 35.57 acres, is designated Urban ‒ Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, which generally provides for higher [land use] densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The entire subject property lies within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where traffic management strategies are employed to reduce traffic impacts. This TCMA is bounded by the Collier-Lee County Line on the north side; I-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. From the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection, Livingston Road (CR 881) extends north beyond the Collier-Lee County Line and continues northerly in Lee County; Livingston extends south, approximately 10 miles, to terminate at its intersection with Davis Boulevard; Veterans Memorial Boulevard extends east approximately 4,400 ft. (.80 mi.), to terminate at entrances to residential developments on the west side of I-75. Veterans Memorial extends west approximately 2,390 ft. (.45 mi.), to terminate at an entrance to a residential development. The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTP), both Financially Feasible and Needs Projects, depict this road extending west to US 41. The approximate northerly 660 ft. portion of the property (17.25 ac.) is zoned A, Rural Agriculture, and is undeveloped. The southerly portion of the property is zoned RPUD, Della Rosa Residential Planned Unit Development, and is undeveloped. See the complete analysis of this PUD under the Background and Analysis section below. A ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 3 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Surrounding Lands: North: The Future Land Use Map designates land immediately north (and east) of the subject property Urban ‒ Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. Land further to the north (and northeast) of the subject property, across Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is also designated Urban Residential Subdistrict, is zoned PUD, Mediterra, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. East: The Future Land Use Map designates land located immediately east of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. The Future Land Use Map designates land lying further east and northeast Urban Residential Subdistrict. This area is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. South: The Future Land Use Map designates land lying immediately south (and southeast and southwest) of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned RPUD, Brandon, and is developed/developing with single-family dwellings. Land lying further to the southeast is zoned Royal Palm International Academy PUD and developed with a private school and residentially. A small property lying immediately south is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. Another small property lying to the southwest (on Livingston Rd.) is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, with a Conditional Use for a fire station; it is developed with the North Collier District 48 Fire Station. West: The Future Land Use Map designates a small property lying immediately west of the subject property Urban Residential Subdistrict. It is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is undeveloped. Adjacently north of this parcel, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is another small property, designated Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict; it is zoned C-1, Commercial Professional and General Office, and is undeveloped. Land to the west (and northwest and southwest) of the subject property, across Livingston Road, is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict. These lands are zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and undeveloped - except for the entrance road to Veterans Memorial Elementary School, and zoned RMC-Enclave RPUD, and undeveloped. Further to the west, along the south side of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, lies the North Naples Middle School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural, then the Sandlewood RPUD, developed residentially. Further to the southwest, across Livingston Road, lies Veterans Memorial Elementary School, zoned A, Rural Agricultural. Land to the northwest of the subject property, across Livingston R oad and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, is zoned PUD, Mediterra, and is developed with a residential/golf course community. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and zoning , in the area surrounding the subject property are primarily urban residences or residential lots in all directions, with public services and schools located nearby, and one small commercial parcel. Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 4 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan am endments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent, necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2.: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 5 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. Also, the state land planning agency has historically recognized the consideration of community desires (e.g., if the community has an articulated vision for an area as to the type of development desired, such as within a Community Redevelopment Area), and existing incompatibilities (e.g. presently allowed uses would be incompatible with surrounding uses and conditions). It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as necessary, that data and analysis. BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: Residential development in the Urban – Mixed Use District is regulated by the FLUE’s Density Rating System. A portion of the underlying property − 15.38 acres of the 35.57-acre subject property – is zoned Della Rosa RPUD and approved for 107 DUs (7 DU/A). This density was derived using the Density Rating System as follows: Base Density of 4 DU/A + Residential In-fill Density Bonus = 7 DU/A. One Residential In-fill criterion is that the project must be twenty (20) acres or less in size. Because the 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 6 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE entire subject site exceeds twenty acres, it is no longer eligible for the Residential In-fill bonus. Because market-rate housing is proposed, the site is not eligible for the Affordable Housing density bonus. The only density bonus the site may be eligible for if the criteria are met, is the TCMA density bonus of 3 DU/A. This petition requests 420 DUs; the net effect of this amendment is depicted below, with and without meeting the TCMA density bonus criteria. (Note: The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus.) Density with TCMA Bonus GMP Amendment Increase 7 DU/A x 35.57 acres = 249 DUs 420 DUs requested – 249 DUs eligible = 171 DUs via GMPA Density without TCMA Bonus GMP Amendment Increase 4 DU/A x 35.57 acres = 142 DUs 420 DUs requested – 142 DUs eligible = 278 DUs via GMPA Appropriateness of the Site and the Change: The Meyers Research Rental Apartment Needs Analysis (June 2018), is part of the supporting data & analysis submitted with GMPA application materials (Exhibit V.D.1.). The Meyers Research analyzes the [specific] need for market-rate rental apartments, revealing that a healthy apartment market is evidenced by rental rates for market-based apartments that steadily increased from the beginning of 2011, by several projects at lease-up stage, and by market-rate rental apartments historically hovering near full occupancy rates. The Analysis indicates that the projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments, with the ability to absorb from 14,900 (2020) to 16,700 residents. At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is appropriate for the site. The rezone petition to implement the proposed subdistrict will need to address specific compatibility measures. These could include maximum building height; landscape buffers, preserve area location, and open space; building locations and minimum setbacks; building massing and orientation. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: The subject property lies within Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA), an area where intensive development exists, or such development is planned, bounded by the Collier-Lee County Line on the north side; the west side of the I-75 right-of-way on the east side; Pine Ridge Road on the south side; and, the Gulf of Mexico on the west side. In addition to Comprehensive Planning staff’s review of applicable FLUE Policies, Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition and contributed the following analysis and findings: 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 7 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE FLUE Policy 2.3 states: “Deficiencies or potential deficiencies… [require] a developer to construct the needed facilities or defer development until improvements can be made or the level of service is amended to ensure available capacity.” Transportation Planning Staff finding: The applicant’s April 12, 2018, Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) indicates that it will impact Immokalee Road from Airport Road to Livingston Road which has been projected to exceed the adopted level of service in 2023. Based on this information, the developer shall either construct the needed facilities or defer development until improvements can be made. The 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report and associated Capital Improvement Element proposes the construction of a parallel facility, Veterans Memorial Boulevard from Livingston Road to Old 41. Therefore, in order to be found consistent with this provision of the Comprehensive Plan, the applicant shall either construct the Veterans Memorial Boulevard or defer development until the roadway is complete. FLUE Policy 6.1 states: “Development within a TCMA shall occur in a manner that… [ensures] an adequate level of mobility, [discourages] the proliferation of urban sprawl, [protects] natural resources’ [and] historic resources, [maximizes] the efficient use of existing public facilities, and [promotes] public transit, bicycling, walking and other alternatives to the single occupant automobile. Transportation Element (TE) Policy 5.6, especially as it pertains to “requirements for utilizing Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies” and its parallel FLUE Policy 6.5 state, “[i]n order to be exempt from link specific concurrency, new residential development or redevelopment within [TCMAs] shall utilize at least two of the following Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, as may be applicable: a) Including neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing transit shelters within the development (must be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connections to abutting commercial properties. d) Providing vehicular access to abutting commercial properties.” The Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA) Bonus is available to residential redevelopment or infill development that meets the criteria established in Policies 6.1 through 6.7 of the Future Land Use Element, and… may add three (3) residential units per gross acre. Staff previously suggested utilizing additional TDM strategies if the new Subdistrict was to allow residential density greater than the three (3) residential units [seven (7) DU/A total density] allowed by the TCMA Bonus. The Density Rating System does not provide for any additional density if more than the minimum required two criteria are met; staff was suggesting the petition go “above and beyond” and offer something extra to benefit the larger community rather than simply asking for additional density. Application materials do not offer any additional commitments, rather just request the greater density via this GMPA. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 8 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE It is Transportation Planning staff’s opinion that the first two TDM strategies do not apply for the proposed development. The applicant has not proposed a commercial use within the development. The development is located outside of the Collier Area Transit (CAT) service area (no service expansion is identified in the adopted Transit Development Plan or the 2040 Long Range Transportation Cost Feasible Plan). Therefore, to meet the two required TDM strategies both c) and d) must be provided. Staff will be requiring a developer commitment for both of these TDM strategies and require that the adjacent commercial development be constructed before this development reaches 30 percent occupancy as part of the companion RPUD petition for this development. A Transportation Impact Statement (TIS), dated April 12, 2018, prepared by TR Transportation Consultants, Inc., was submitted with this petition (Exhibit “V.E.3”). (A revised TIS, dated November 16, 2018, was submitted for the companion PUD rezone petition [which is not under formal consideration with this GMPA Transmittal hearing] which reduces the number of dwelling units to 350 for studying alternative transportation impacts.) It should be noted that a reduction in units could change staff’s findings of this petition as thresholds may not be exceeded that would trigger additional requirements. However, since the GMPA was not revised to reduce units, staff has continued its review based on the original request of 420 units. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT: In evaluating this project, Transportation Planning staff reviewed the applicant’s April 12, 2018, TIS for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project ’s significant impacts on all roadways.” 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 9 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed rezoning to allow a maximum 420 multi-family residential units (residential condo/townhouse) will generate a projected ±176 PM peak hour, two-way trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and Livingston Road. Veterans Memorial Boulevard is a two-lane facility and is not currently tracked for capacity in the AUIR. Following is a table that provides information related to the current operations of the impacted roadway network: Link ID # Link From/To P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume 2017 P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Volume Remaining Capacity Level of Service (LOS) Petition has significant impacts? 51.0 Livingston Road Imperial Street to Immokalee Road 3,000/North 1,279 1,721 B Yes 42.1 Immokalee Road Airport Road to Livingston Road 3,100/West 2,795 305 D No 42.2 Immokalee Road Livingston Road to I-75 3,500/East 2,489 1,011 C No Link ID 42.1 (Immokalee Road from Airport Road to Livingston Road) is projected to become deficient by 2023. While the petition will impact Link ID 42.1, it will be a de minimis impact to the link as defined in Policy 5.2 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Therefore, the subject petition may be found consistent with this section of the GMP. However, the petition is subject to further evaluation as it relates to the applicable Transportation Concurrency Management policies. Policy 5.2 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. Authorization of development with a de minimis impact shall be pursuant to Section 163.3180(6) Florida Statutes.” Staff finding: The petition is projected to impact Link ID 42.1, a projected deficiency, however, it is anticipated to be a de minimis. However, the petition is subject to further evaluation as it relates to the applicable Transportation Concurrency Management policies. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 10 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA): Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “...In order to be exempt from link-specific concurrency, developments within the TCMA must provide documentation to the Transportation Planning Section that at least two (2) Transporation Demand Management (TDM) strategies utilized meet the criteria of the LDC...” Staff finding: The applicant is not required to seek an exemption for link-specific concurrency as the there is sufficient capacity on links identified and the link that does have a projected deficiency, the petition would have a de minimis impact. Therefore, TDM strategies are not required by this policy. This does not negate that TDM strategies may be required to fulfill other requirements of the GMP such as density bonuses. Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards described in Policies 1.3 and 1.4 of this Element. If any Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for a proposed development indicates that fewer than 85% of the lane miles in a TCMA are achieving the LOS standards indicated above, the proposed development shall not be permitted where such condition occurs unless modification of the development is made sufficient to maintain the LOS standard for the TCMA, or the facilities required to maintain the TCMA LOS standard are committed utilizing the standards for committed improvements in Policy 5.3 of the Capital Improvement Element of the Plan.” Staff finding: Per the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report, the Northwest TCMA current has 98.9% of the lane miles operating at an acceptable LOS. Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Should the TIS for a proposed development reflect that it will impact either a constrained roadway line and/or a deficient roadway link within a TCMA as determined in the most current Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), by more than a de minimis amount (more than 1% of the maximum service volume at the adopted LOS), yet continue to maintain the established percentage of lane miles indicated in Policy 5.7 of this Element, a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment shall be required as follows: a. Congestion mitigation payments shall be calculated using the formula established in Section 163.3180(5)(h), Florida Statutes. The facility cost for a constrained roadway link shall be established using a typical lane-mile cost, as determined by the Collier County Transportation Administrator, of adding lanes to a similar area/facility type as the constrained facility. b. Congestion mitigation payments shall be utilized by7 Collier County to add trip capacity within the impacted TCMA, road segment(s) and/or to enhance mass transit, or other non- automotive transportation alternatives, which adds trip capacity within the impact fee district or adjoining impact fee district. c. Congestion mitigation payments under this Policy shall be determined subsequent to a finding of concurrency for a proposed project within a TCMA and shall not influence the concurrency determination process. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 11 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE d. No impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOD standard of any affected designed hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Hurricane routes in Collier County are shown on Map TR7. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA are maintained.” Staff finding: The proposed development’s area of significant impact does extend to link 42.1, Immokalee Road from Airport-Pulling to Livingston Road. This is an identified hurricane evacuation route. Transportation Planning staff will be requiring a developer commitment for the proportionate share congestion mitigation payment consistent with Policy 5.8.d above as part of the companion RPUD petition for this development. Based on this condition, the proposed development can be found consistent with these policies. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system’s capacity and integrity.” Staff finding: While the GMPA application does not provide the level of specificity to review this provision, the applicant has submitted for concurrent reviews of both the Planned Unit Development and associated Site Development Plan. The development proposes a main access on Veterans Memorial Boulevard which is a ‘Class 7’ facility. This access is approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Livingston Road and meets access management minimum standards of 125 feet. This access will require a right turn lane and c ompensating ROW. A second exit- only access on Livingston Road is also proposed which does not meet access management distance separation requirements. The Access Management Resolution 13-257 represents desirable requirements; however, the ultimate goal is to exceed these standards. Transportation Planning staff does not recommend approval of the second access point as it is not consistent with the Access Management Resolution 13-257. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with this Policy if second access point on Livingston Road is removed from the plan. Policy 7.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall implement, through its Land Development Code and Code of Laws and Ordinances, the provision of safe and convenient onsite traffic flow and need for adequate parking for both motorized and non-motorized vehicles as a primary objective in the review of Planned Unit Developments, Site Development Plan, and other appropriate stages of review in the land development application review process. Coordination shall occur with County Engineering staff where traffic circulation is outside the limits of the public ROW.” Staff finding: The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project as noted above. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required. This TIS will be required to analyze major intersections that are part of the significantly impacted roadways, major intersections that are within 1,320 feet of the site access, and all site-access intersections. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations and Transportation 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 12 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Concurrency Management Area requirements when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets.” Staff finding: While the GMPA application does not provide the level of specificity to review this provision, the applicant has submitted for concurrent reviews of both the Planned Unit Development and associated Site Development Plan. The proposed developments master plan and subsequent site development plans must provide for potential-future interconnection to an adjacent undeveloped commercial (C-1) parcel to the west. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with this Policy and notes that the interconnection is tied to the TDM strategies related to the density bonus. Policy 9.5 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall encourage projects which provide local resident, pedestrian, bicyclist and motorist movement between and among developments on neighborhood streets in a deliberate balance with its efforts to route cut-through traffic away from neighborhoods and to the arterials and collectors designated in the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan.” Staff finding: As noted above in Policy 9.3, while the GMPA application does not provide the level of specificity to review this provision, the applicant has submitted for concurrent reviews of both the Planned Unit Development and associated Site Development Plan. The proposed developments master plan and subsequent site development plans must provide for potential - future interconnection to an adjacent undeveloped commercial (C-1) parcel to the west. The specific design of the neighborhood street will be addressed in the companion PUD document. Transportation Planning staff finds that the proposed development can be found consistent with this Policy and notes that the interconnection is tied to the TDM strategies related to the density bonus. Transportation Planning Staff Recommendation: Transportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP with the noted development commitments staff will recommend as part of the companion Allura RPUD PL2017-4385, and further recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) forward Petition PL2017-4419 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval for transmittal. [Michael Sawyer, Principal Planner, Transportation Planning Section Trinity Scott, Planning Manager, Transportation Planning Section, and Amy Patterson, Director, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management] 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 13 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Public Facilities Impacts: A Public Facilities Report, dated July 13, 2018 (Exhibit V.E.1), and a Public Service Facilities Map, dated July 11, 2018 (Exhibit V.E.2), were submitted with this petition. • Potable Water System: The subject project lies in the County’s Water Service Area, and development will be served by Collier County potable water treatment services. The anticipated average daily demand for potable water for the residential project is 147,000 gallons per day (gpd) [198,450 gpd “Peak”]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide water services. • Wastewater Collection and Treatment System: The subject project lies in the North County Wastewater Service Area, and development will be served by Collier County wastewater collection and treatment services. The anticipated average daily demand for wastewater collection and treatment for the residential project is estimated at 105,000 gallons per day (gpd) [141,750 gpd “Peak”]. Collier County has sufficient capacity to provide wastewater services. • Solid Waste Collection and Disposal: The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2018 AUIR notes that the County projects more than 50 years of remaining landfill capacity. • Stormwater Management System: The 2018 AUIR does not identify any stormwater management improvement projects in the vicinity of the subject property. Future development will comply with the SFWMD and/or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of stormwater events by both on-site and off-site improvements. • Park and Recreational Facilities: The availability of community and regional park facilities is sufficient to meet the demand generated by proposed residential development. • Schools: The subject site is within the E8, Northwest Area 2 CSA for elementary schools, the M4 Northwest Area CSA for middle schools, and the H4 Northwest Area CSA for high schools. The E8 CSA includes two elementary schools, Laurel Oak and Veterans Memorial. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,793 students, a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 1,739 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 1,789 students (100% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for fiscal years 2018 through 2037, the opening of a new charter school in the 2017-2018 school year is anticipated to affect enrollment in this CSA. The enrollment at Laurel Oak is being monitored. Long-term re-locatable classroom capacity was added to the permanent capacity in 2010. The H4/M4 CSA includes Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools, and North Naples, Oakridge, and Pine Ridge Middle Schools. The high schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111% capacity). The middle schools have a combined capacity of 3,361 students, a peak enrollment in 2016/2017 of 3,015 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 2,977 students (89% capacity). According to the CIP, enrollment at Gulf Coast HS is being monitored, and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. • Emergency Medical (EMS) and Fire Rescue Services: The subject property is located within the North Naples Fire & Rescue District, with collocated services at District Station 48, located at 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 14 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 16280 Livingston Rd., which is located along Livingston Rd., adjacent to the southwestern portion of the property. Collier County Public Utilities Department, Planning and Project Management Division staff reviewed this petition and identified no issues or concerns regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services. [Eric Fey, PE, Senior Project Manager, Public Utilities Engineering Department] Environmental Impacts: A Vegetation Map, Soils Map, and Listed Species Table, dated July 2018, prepared by DexBender Environmental Consulting, were submitted with this petition (Exhibits V.C, V.C.1, and V.C.2). Environmental review specialists with County Development Review Division, Environmental Planning Section, reviewed these documents and provided the following comments: The subject property is 35.57 acres. The acreage of native vegetation on site has been field verified by staff during review the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project. The existing ST Overlay located on the property will be removed as part of the PUD approval process. The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and Section 3.05.07 of the LDC. [Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist Environmental Planning Section Development Review Division] NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING SYNOPSIS The application team held a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) in the Sugden Theater of the Collier County Public Library Headquarters, located at 2385 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples on September 6, 2018, at 5:30 p.m. as required by Section 10.03.05 F. of the LDC. This NIM was advertised, noticed and held jointly for this GMP amendment petition and companion PUD rezone petition [which is not under formal consideration with the transmittal hearing]. Approximately 60-80 members of the public attended the NIM, in addition to the applicant’s team and County staff. The agent (Bob Mulhere) representing the applicant (Gelder) gave a presentation and responded to questions and comments. Mr. Mulhere pointed out location near Livingston Rd./Veterans Memorial Blvd. intersection. The location of the project’s main access point is onto Veterans Memorial Blvd., with a point of egress only onto Livingston Road. He explained landscape buffer types (referencing a display panel); project development, with six buildings, with freestanding garages (referencing a display panel). Several members of the public spoke, asking questions/seeking more information, expressing concerns, and expressing opposition for the proposed project. Many of them identified themselves as being residents of the neighboring communities of Mediterra, Barrington Cove, Tallis Park or Sequoia Reserve (near the school, west across the intersection). Their comments and concerns included: 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 15 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE • Traffic congestion; inc. the age and validity of the traffic counts used in the proposal’s studies, and the additional traffic placed on the road system by the Seed to Table commercial location opening soon; the agent explained the County’s requirements and standards for Transportation Impact Studies, and how County personnel account for each new development as it’s proposed. • School population & student counts generated from this rental project; the agent answered that School District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on schools and have addressed these concerns. • Proposed 4-story building heights, and the resulting loss of privacy imposed on neighboring properties; the agent addressed the project is designed with garage locations & setbacks designed to minimize this possibility. • Project characteristics, apartment unit sizes and the percentage of each, proposed; the agent described an upscale project, with about 35% one bdrm. and 55% two bdrm. apartment styles. Concerns regarding the general transient nature of tenancy, problems with management companies and the vetting of potential renters [shared personal worst-case scenarios], and lower standards rental properties; the agent and applicant addressed these concerns, with examples of their existing projects, general nature of their expected tenants, and their management offices. • The incompatibility of this high-density project with the established surrounding low-density residential area (single-family, coach homes), as now planned and expected by previous homebuyers and neighbors; the agent pointed out how the County’s Plan, along with incentives within the TCMA’s work to encourage such development. • Asked if the developers are prepared [or should be] with alternate plans to the high density/intensity of current proposal? • Impacts on the neighborhood taxes? The agent explained how affects are minimized, as Impact Fees paid by the developer absorb the costs of new or additional services required by the development. • Emergency services and the conflicts of introducing new traffic onto Livingston Road are where problems already apparent; agent answered that Fire District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on their ability to provide services and are addressing these concerns. The strong consensus was expressed that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project and this specific development is opposed. The information meeting was ended at approximately 6:40 p.m. This synopsis provides the annotated NIM proceedings. An audio and a video recording of the entire Neighborhood Information Meeting are available on the County’s “I” drive, at I:/GMD/Comprehensive Planning/NIM Recordings & PREAPP Notes. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 16 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The subject site is undeveloped, partly zoned A, Rural Agricultural. The southerly portion of the property is zoned Della Rosa Residential PUD. A ±8.5-acre portion of the property is also designated ST, Special Treatment Overlay. The entire site is designated Urban Residential Subdistrict on the FLUM and lies within the Northwest TCMA, an area where traffic management strategies are employed to reduce traffic impacts. • Analysis indicates that projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments. • At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is appropriate for the site. The rezone petition to implement the proposed subdistrict will need to address specific compatibility measures. • No issues or concerns regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services have been identified. • The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). • The Barron Collier and Gulf Coast High Schools have a combined FISH capacity of 3,606 students, and a 2016/2017 peak enrollment of 3,888 students, and a projected 2021/2022 enrollment of 4,000 students (111% capacity). Enrollment at Gulf Coast High School is being monitored, and temporary alternatives to address overcrowding may be implemented prior to permanent relief with the opening of a new high school in 2023. • The only density bonus the site may be eligible for if the criteria are met, is the TCMA density bonus of 3 DU/A. This petition requests 420 DUs; the net effect of this amendment is to request an increase of 171 DUs or 278 DUs, with and without meeting the TCMA density bonus criteria, respectively. (Note: The Density Rating System states that density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are dependent upon meeting the criteria for each respective density bonus.) • People attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting expressed a strong consensus that developing the property was not opposed, but the proposed intensity and density of this project and this specific development is opposed. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2 and 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes. [SAS] 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 17 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Based on the analyses provided within this report, staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, subject to the following revisions to the proposed subdistrict, mostly for proper format, use of code language, succinctness, and clarity. (Note: single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double strikethrough text is deleted, as proposed by staff.) Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of ±35.57± acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard and is within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 12 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 420 units. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.5 by providing two or more of following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. Occupancy of multi-family dwelling units shall not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the total number allowed until after these bicycle, pedestrian and vehicular facilities are constructed and the functioning connections and interconnections are provided. d. The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses. e. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 2.3 by either constructing Veterans Memorial Boulevard or deferring development until the roadway is complete. f. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with Policy 5.8 of the Transportation Element by providing a Congestion Mitigation Payment at the time of the first development order approval. 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 18 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE Staff provides the following reminder: This GMP amendment follows the Expedited State Review process. Chapter 163.3184 (3)(c)1, Florida Statutes, provides that the County Board (local governing body) shall hold its Adoption (second public) hearing within 180 days after receipt of agency comments, unless extended by agreement with notice to the DEO (state land planning agency) and any affected person that provided comments on the amendment. This notification, review and comment process period is approximately 7.5 months (225 days) from the time the County Board holds its Transmittal (initial public) hearing. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.3 ‒ 19 ‒ PL20170004419 / CP-2018-1 For a Residential Subdistrict in the Urban ‒ Mixed Use District in FLUE 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Staff Report_Rev_FNL (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) RESOLUTION NO. 19 - 5.4 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AMENDMENT TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89-05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES TO ADD THE LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT TO THE URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, TO ALLOW UP TO 304 MULTI FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, AND FURTHERMORE DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VETERANS- MEMORIAL BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF LIVINGSTON ROAD, IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 35.57± ACRES. PL20170004419] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, SD Livingston, LLC, requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map and Map Series to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed-Use District; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2019 and February 7, 2019, the Collier County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, F.S., and has recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing approved the transmittal of the proposed amendment to the state land planning agency in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, various State agencies and the Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) have thirty (30) days to review the proposed amendment and DEO must transmit, in writing, to Collier County its comments within said thirty (30) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and 18-CMP-01000/1460584/1197 3/27/19 Page 1 of 2 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-054 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DEO must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment within one hundred and eighty (180) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.; and WHEREAS, the DEO, within five (5) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendment, must notify the County of any deficiencies of the Plan Amendment pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), F.S. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Economic Opportunity and other reviewing agencies thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendment prior to final adoption. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion, second and majority vote this alp day of M cf-eAt" 2019. ATTEST: BOARD OF J COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K: KI ZEL, CLERK COLLIE 4 04 I i 'IDA I Iia .i_ BY: 1-_ [ ChairmaVn Wi f am L. Mc an1e1, Jr., Ch" an it as to a signature only. 'Q ,,,-.. Appr1 ed as to form and legality: lir , Scott . tone' Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A—Proposed Text Amendment& Map Amendment 18-CMP-01000/1460584/1197 3/27/19 Page 2 of 2 e 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-054 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Transmittal Exhibit PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY text break *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: A. URBAN — MIXED USE DISTRICT Page 9] text break *** *** *** *** 18. Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict 19. [RESERVED] 20. Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict 21. Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict text break *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION text break *** *** *** *** I. URBAN DESIGNATION text break *** *** *** *** A. Urban Mixed Use District Page 49] text break *** *** *** *** 21. Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict The Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict consists of 35.57 acres and is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard and is within a Transportation Concurrency Management Area TCMA). The purpose of this Subdistrict is to allow for a multi-family development at a density of up to 8.55 units per acre and to fulfill the intent of the TCMA, as stated in FLUE Policy 6.1. Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 304 units of market rate housing. c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.1 by providing two or more of the following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; 1 Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-054 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) Transmittal Exhibit PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multi-family units (a density of 7.0 units per acre) until the applicable facilities and/or interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. d. The RPUD shall include development standards and buffers to insure compatibility with surrounding land uses. e. Buildings shall be limited in height to a maximum of three stories. As an alternate to all of the above, this Subdistrict may be developed in accordance with the Urban Residential Subdistrict. text break *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES Page 147] text break *** *** *** *** Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map Livingston RoadNeterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map 2 Words underlined are added;words struck-through are deleted. 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-054 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) aS I T46S I T47S I T48S I T49S I T50S I T51S I T52S I T53S0NaUWiEaS8m-8 R s _ _ - pSeHRsN ap p5T 0-- n'mow iJ 7,w dw l% w.6OiS{O{ o;WI or wuS=n wi:Od ou.'v =jndIIOo02 =o 202 npry0OaIIII3 { w o_°w°woos oawow oo°aoa oEwo oo zo°z$o io ioio io id gb?o QoZgQq ' aile= 11 a sa $ << a a a < < a < a a a < a a < a a a a a < a < aiNioSJhed3iBsIi$i i _0J aadMoiRNno ycdcoa ot -liiii 00[10®o w3Cr0 a iY2N fi I m it 12 j ; re 111f11'1- 1z111 S; CO R' e sa $s g s $ a $ jiw F#i 4 i w a g a .b la as a$w t I '1 pi a1 €i - I'll'gg Igl(; 1 u s ,4 t $a ep3s(pd z a a ao € als _ = s I gyp w f- • ® Ra11111 11111, i(¢ r p W 1 I M K I w I J Q I e' m S W i W cc Es n 1 E..... ._7 W § A u a g i r W o CO k a w ro_ rc w ICC 1 Imi rIrA*11 Pg p w of tt CM IL G = wj I 3f. i W o' 1111101111E ' 1 W r ek '.to qa im C•1 , ' o ¢acca la CO t N 7 J/ is.1 / /.rrr.-. .. ixb re NZ Z. c wNo o Q r U aw w U O N 1 w W Ci 5'' a err Gast iv %/ Lre 0 1J 3 CO iiimiiipiiil , J// m wwnprwNn1i, CO ff N N 6-0'.=Q VA; N re D o < Iillt Obi. Svm.. .,.M e x ti Co kik LL 1 o < i i, s r lvi 7465 T47 T48S T49S T50S T51S T52S T63S rilW9.A.2.hPacket Pg. 457Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-054 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict EXHIBIT A PL20170004419/CP-2018-1 1 LIVINGSTON ROAD/VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD os-_____:--EAST RESIDENTIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA i ter' --- -~T tI 21 1 L_ x-11 s*•••••••.„.. .) 1 i 1 ! \\ '..%. , 1 f: , 1 .......\--- 1 O I T i 1 \ , '<? k: 1 I ' 1 1 I 1 ,...... ......1/ 1ieefriaCT.rj y cy) Veterans Memorial BLVD r- I i- 1rI1 Y 1 r I ! I l 1 r 4,11 11 , , ,1_,....____ _____......,7 1_ 1__.--.1_.._______..___T.------ .---- d, PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT i 1 1------------- 1 II j i Aber- i en i VE ;.,:. I 11— 1 ! __— 1_ 1 ! Learning I.__. — I,T- h. T/X 7N,III111Ij l11J\ I 1 I T y / rF7-", r=j ! f I ADOPTED-XXXX,XXXX LEGEND Ord. No. XXXX-X) 0 250 500 1,000 Feet t i PROPOSED SUBDISTRICT I I I I I I I 0 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution 2019-054 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 717 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 719 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 722 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 819 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 821 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 859 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 863 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 864 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 868 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 869 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 892 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 893 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 894 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 898 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 899 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 903 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 951 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 952 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 953 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: 009_Petition-Application_PL20170004419-CP-2018-1-vs.4 (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: CCPC Ad & Affidavit (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.j Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: CCPC Ad & Affidavit (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1030 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1031 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1032 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1033 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1034 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1035 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1036 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1037 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1038 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1039 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1040 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1041 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1042 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1043 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1044 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1045 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1046 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1047 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1048 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1049 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1050 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1051 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1052 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1053 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1054 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1055 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1056Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1057Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1058Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1059Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1060Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1061Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1062Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1063Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1064Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1065Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1066Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1067Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1068Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1069Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1070Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1071Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1072Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1073Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1074Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1075Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1076Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1077Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1078Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1079Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1080Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1081Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1082Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1083Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1084Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1085Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1086Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1087Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1088Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1089Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1090Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1091Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1092Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1093Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1094Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1095Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1096Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1097Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1098Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1099Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1100Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1101Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1102Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1103Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1104Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1105Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1106Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1107Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1108Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1109Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1110Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1111Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1112Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1113Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1114Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1115Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1116Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1117Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1118Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1119Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1120Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1121Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1122Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1123Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1124Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1125Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1126Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1127Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1128Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1129Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1130Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1131Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1132Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1133Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1134Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1135Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1136Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1137Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1138Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1139Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1140Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1141Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1142Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1143Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.kPacket Pg. 1144Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1145 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1146 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1147 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1148 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1149 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1150 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1151 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1152 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1153 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1154 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1155 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1156 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1157 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@me.com> Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2018 10:09 PM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Fwd: Stock development off Livingston and Veterans From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@me.com> Subject: Stock development off Livingston and Veterans Date: December 22, 2018 at 9:59:03 PM EST To: markstrain@colliergov.net Dear Mr. Strain, Due to the cancellation of the Stock Development session on the afternoon before the December 6th meeting many of the neighborhood residents could not attend. Many took time off work of flew in for the meeting. We have over 1000 signatures on the petition to deny this development. We have contacted the Planning office unsuccessfully to see when the meeting has been rescheduled. I visited the Stock Lely “inspire” development off Rattlesnake Rd and toured inside and outside. It is a huge 4 story 5 buildings facility over many acres of land. I was surprised to discover that there are only 5 large buildings for 304 apartments. The Stock proposal at Livingston and Veterans is 20% larger! 350+ apartments and 6 buildings. It does not belong in the Livingston neighborhood of one story homes for many reasons. Please read over my 4 minute, 50 second talk I had planned to give on December 6th. Thank you for your consideration. Tim Diegel (Barrington Cove) timdiegel@mac.com GOOD MORNING. I’m Tim Diegel from Barrington Cove. The intersection at Livingston and Veterans Memorial is a very unusual intersection because Veterans is a dead end each way. It goes nowhere. Eventually it may extend West to 41 which will increase our traffic significantly. This type of intersection creates unique problems. All traffic on Livingston can’t leave the road to any exit to dissipate the traffic in a 4 mile stretch between Bonita Beach Road and Immokalee Road. Barrington Cove and the proposed development are about 1/2 way between these two roads. The congested Immokalee Road is also a Hurricane Evacuation Route. Each long established single family home development on Livingston will now be affected by the increase in traffic. That’s extended time to drive and more stress involved for the all residents. The addition of cars and motorcycles from this sub-district will enter only on to Livingston adding to the present congestion today and additional new noise pollution. Livingston is a 4 mile “race track” described by some, since even outside traffic of the 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1158 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) neighborhood uses it as an alternative to 75 and 41, especially in the rush hours. There are only two stop lights on this 4 mile stretch & most travel at 50 to 60 miles per hour and rush the lights on yellow with some going through on red due to their speed. Last Wednesday at 8:10 in the morning the left turn lane was backed up almost to the Fire Station for about 1 & 1/2 blocks. The backup was close to the proposed new exit of the sub-district. Cars were overflowing into the active left fast lane. In the afternoons, cars can be backed up from Bonita Beach Road back to Talis Park & Mediterra limiting their resident’s egress on to Livingston. These are present problems we now deal with. When all the cars that exit from this highly dense development go on to Livingston in the mornings, probably half will go North toward Bonita and half will go South toward Naples. I’m not sure what the zoning is for cars per unit in Collier but in Jacksonville it is 1.75 cars per unit. For 330 to 400 units discussed here - that’s up to 700 cars. How many will exit during the peak hours? 700? 600? 500? The Traffic analysis supplied by the developer states the answer IS - 83. NOT surprising, there is no documentation for this subjective and arbitrary number but final conclusions in their analysis are made based this and other numbers. Their conclusion is that there will be NO new traffic issues at all. Hard to believe. I question the validity of this analysis and for many reasons. Part of this analysis may have mixed up from another unrelated analysis because at the top of each page 34 through 37 it states that the location studied was in Bonita Springs which is in Lee County with probable different guideline numbers that were used. Those cars that would egress daily from the new development going South will have to cross over quickly to make a left U-turn to go south on Livingston. This is a very dangerous maneuver. It is also dangerous to exit with the oncoming traffic from the South and then to turn in front of the oncoming traffic from the North to make the U-turn. Each way high speed is involved. Then consider distraction, texting, not seeing motorcycles, visual issues, impaired drivers and other additional factors. 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1159 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration states that a left turn causes 50% of all auto crashes across the United States. Other studies support this statistic. There is even a lawyer in Miami that calls himself a “left turn lawyer”. The 59 page traffic analysis supplied by the developer had errors of COmmission - a chart showing that ZERO U-turns will aoccur during the peak hours ( page 34) and Omissions - the intersection analysis was conducted AFTER the start of school (page 7). School starts at 8:25 when the peak traffic is tapering down. No mention of the left turn lane issue was ever reported. Any expert should agree that a significant increase in crashes will occur at this left turn. With such an increase in traffic on an already congested road, especially in the mornings and afternoons with parents driving their kids. There would be no surprise that an increase in crashes will happen. In addition, there is a risk for pedestrians and kids walking to school. There are 3 schools within a mile from the sub-district. There are nine lanes to cross at this intersection. One is a standby left turn lane. The “pedestrian hit” risk is directly related statistically to the number of lanes that have to be crossed. 9 is a lot.The State of Florida is number 1 in bicycle accidents. These will also increase. I feel that such a high density sub-district does not belong in this neighborhood for safety reasons and many other reasons you are hearing today. Thanks. 9.A.2.k Packet Pg. 1160 Attachment: Transmittal Emails and Petitions Against ALLURA Apts. (9397 : Livingston Veterans Memorial East Subdistrict GMPA) 07/18/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: PL20170004385: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida 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, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) known as the Della Rosa RPUD, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Allura RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 304 multi-family dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans-Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 35.92± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance No. 07-73; and by providing for an effective date. (Companion to PL20170004419) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 07/18/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 06/25/2019 2:13 PM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 06/25/2019 2:13 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 06/28/2019 9:35 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 07/01/2019 2:54 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 07/03/2019 9:31 AM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 07/03/2019 12:52 PM Zoning Judy Puig Review item Skipped 07/03/2019 12:59 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 07/08/2019 2:57 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 07/08/2019 3:25 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 07/18/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 1161 TO: FROM: HEARING DATE: JULY 18,2019 SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS SION ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT PUDR.PL2OI 70004385 ALLURA PUD COMPANION GMPT/GMPA, PL2O 1 7 -OOO44I9ICP-20 1 8- 1 PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT : Owner: SD Livingston, LLC. 239 Professional Circle #l0l Naples, FL 34119 Applicant: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, V.P. Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP, V.P. Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman, Yovanovich, Koester 4001 Tamiami Trail N. suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 REOUESTED ACTION: The applicant is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone the property from PUD Della Rosa and Agricultural zoning district to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Allura zoning district. The property consists of several parcels. There is a companion large scale GMPA for 35.57 acres related to this request. The total acreage for the PUD rezoning request is 35.92. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County (see location map, page 2). The proposed Master Plan is included in the PUD Ordinance, Attachment A. PUDZ-PL2O170004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25, 2019 Page 1 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1162 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) o_(o o)C'- oN Lr) @ c.)$ooot- oNJ o_ o -o EJz c .o 0)(L = o-(5 Co (5ooJ P UDZ-P L2O1 7 OOO4385; Allura PU D Revised: June 25,20199.A.3.aPacket Pg. 1163Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting to rezone 35.92 acres to allow multiple-family residential dwellings in a PUD. The rezoning proposal includes part of an existing PUD (Della Rossa), which is 15.38 acres. The remainrng2}.54 acres of land is zoned A-Agricultural. The name of the proposed PUD is Allura. The base density is 4.0 Dfu per acre, and there is a companion GMP Amendment to allow a proposed density of 8.46 DAJ per acre. The existing Della Rosa PUD was approvedin2}}T with a density of 7.0 Dfu per acre (107 units) and consists of 6 parcels at the southern portion of the proposed site. Della Rosa was approved with a base density of 62 units and 45 additional units using TDR credits for the extra units. The entire site is within the Urban Residential Subdistrict. The applicant states that the existing agricultural zoning is generally considered a "holding" land use designation until an appropriate development scenario is determined. The proposed site does have access to central water and sewer, as well as other public utility services. The applicant has stated that the proposed multiple-family development will include market-rate apartment units with one, two, and three bedrooms. They have neither proposed, nor are they seeking affordable housing density bonus units. The surrounding PUD projects with approved acreage, dwellings units and densities are listed here: Mediterra - 1,168 acres - 750 units - 0.56 DU/A Brandon - 51 .10 acres - 204 units - 3.99 DU/A Sandalwood - 20.58 acres - 60 units - 3.1 DU/A RMC-Enclave - 40.55 acres - 162 units - 4.02 DUiA Royal Palm International Academy - 178 acres - 600 units -3.37 DU/A Marislea Villas - 10.25 acres - 27 uruts -2.63 DU/A Della Rosa - 15.38 acres - 107 units - 7 .0 DUIA Agricultural - +10 acres - vacant - 0.2DUlA Allura -35.92 acres - 304 units - 8.46 DU/A A density map of the surrounding PUD projects and the respective densities for each project has been included as Attachment B. PUDZ-PL2O170004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25, 2019 Page 3 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1164 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: South: East: West: Residential single-family, zoned Meditena PUD Residential single-family & Fire Station, zoned Agriculture-CU, Brandon PUD Residential single-family, zoned Brandon PUD Vacant undeveloped, zoned Agricultural PUDZ-PL2O1 70004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25, 2019 Page 4 of 17 aru:Imo<C BLVII I 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1165 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: The Allura PUD rezone petition is contingent upon approval of the companion Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) petition PL201700044191CP-2018-1. The GMPA will establish the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict, and was approved on March 26,2019 for Transmittal by the Board of County Commissioners with the following Subdistrict language (in part), followed by staffanalysis in brackets: Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). [This petition is for a PUD.] b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 304 units of market rate housing. [The PUD restricts dwellings to multi-family rental units and a maximum of 304 units.l c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.1 by providing two or more of the following: a. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; b. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; and, c. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multi-family units (a density of 7.0 units per acre) until the applicable facilities and/or interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. These provisions, by Resolution 2019-54, were transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and the review agencies in accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. REVIEW OF PUD and PUD-RELATED DOCUMENTS: The Allura Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezone captures the necessary Subdistrict provisions as Development Commitments. However, Transportation Commitment 3.C. commits, "a transit shelter shall be provided by the Developer in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Department. The shelter shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for residential use or by a later time certain if acceptable to PTNE Department." Staff points out that such a commitment does not insure a transit shelter will be provided. The subject property is not known to be located on a current or planned transit route. and the ability to provide a transit shelter that would fulfill the requirements of TDM strategies does not appear PUDZ-PL20170004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25, 2019 Page 5 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1166 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) to be an effective proposal. PTNE personnel commented how an upcoming long-range planning process will be updating transit routing in this area, which may include this north-south route. While public transit is of general benefit, it cannot be determined whether a transit shelter would be approved without an analysis provided from the developer. If left written as proposed, Transportation Commitment 3.C. would not qualify as a TDM strategy commitment for purposes of the policy to qualiff for a density bonus. Relevant FLUE objectives and policies are stated below, followed by staff remarks. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Comprehensive Planning reviewers leave this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject property, the compatibitity analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, and so forth. The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. The Board of County Commissioners held a workshop earlier in2019 to revisit these (and other) Smart Growth policies and practices, which resulted with a renewed support for and re-emphasis on them. Each Policy is followed by staffanalysis and comments [in bold italicized textJ. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The Allura Master Concept Plan (unlabeled Exhibit C, updated to 4/29/2019), depicts a subject property that fronts Livingston Road (classiJied as a major urterial road) and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Veterans Memorial is an unclassified two-lane undivided roadway - where all traffic mav enter and exit. The Master Concept Plan depicts connection to Veterans Memorial Boulevard with its main point of "vehicular ingress/egress.' No connection is depicted to Livingston Road. (Submittal I document, RPUD Evaluation Criteria, is outduted where it explains how this [projectJ provides access to both roadways through an interconnected internal driveway system-)J Policy 7.2: PUDZ-PL2O170004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25, 20'l 9 Page 6 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1167 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) The County shall encourage intemal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traflc signals. [The "interconnected internal driveway syslem" are the traffc lanes that link together vehicular parking lots, providing lenants with access lo the multi-family residential buildings. This internal access, in combination wilh TDM mitigation strotegy commitments (discussed obove), are offered to mandge congestion in this orea.l Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless ofland use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The property abuts Livingston Road (lo the wesl) and veterans Memorial Boulevard (to the north). Application materials (Submi al I document, RPLID Evaluotion Criteria) express a willingness to "accommodate intercohnection,, with the vacant adjacent C-l zoned proper\) to the northwest. The Allura Master Concept Plan (unlabeled Exhibit C, updated to 1/29/2019), depicts interconnection lwitl, a double-ended arrow, ltbeled for "vehicular ingress/egress"J h,ilh this adjoining vdcant properq, @tong with an accompanying note, indicating this "interconnection... may be relocated [southu,ardJ in the everrt lhe adjacent AG parcel is rezoned to commercial." These connections are part of the TDM strateg) commilments required by the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict (discussed above), under the Review of PUD and PUD-related Documents. The Master Concept Plan does not depict conneclion with/lo the local streets and./or interconnection points in adjoining neighborhoods or other developments to the east or south - where it does not appedrfeasible to interconnecl.J Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces! civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types. [Mth respect to providing walkability, this Policy promotes development where it is safe and convenient to walk and encourages pedeslrian dctivity. The Allura Masler Concepl Plan (unlabeled Exhibit C, updated to 1/29/2019), does not depict the arrangement of apqrtment buildings and parking structures, or the driveway and walkway network connecting them- The Allura RPUD Document, (Exhibit A. updated to 6/18/2019), and Exhibit E, Development Commitments, do not include/address sidewalk, walkway, or pathway - eitlrer internal or fronting roadway - commitments. Exhibil E, Deviations, dnd otlrer submittal documents, however, do not propose deviations from LDC requirements, with respect to sidewalks, wdkways, or pathways, which the applicant provides as required per the LDC. Exhibit A, the Allura RPUD Document (updated to 6/18/2019), Permitted lJses, describes various active and passive recreational uses and facilities, including clubhouse/recreation buildings. P UDZ-P L2O 1 7 OOO4385; Allura PU D Revised: June 25, 2019 Page 7 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1168 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) With respect to providing a blend of densities, this policy promotes projects that offir a range of housing prices snd types. Submittal I document, RPUD Evaluution Criteria, explains how this development will allow one- two- and three-bedroom market-rate apartments. Exhibit B, Development and Design Standards (updated to 6/18/2019), Table l, Development Standards, does not provide for separate minimum Jloor areas for the one-two- and three-bedroom apartments. The single standard dwelline unit size proposed is 650-sq. ft. minimum floor area for all apartment configurations. No other submittal documents appear to propose or require that some combination of these different apartment styles and Jloor areas be provided. It is assumed there will be a mk of unit sizes and number of bedrooms with associated dffirences in rental prices.J CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, this proposed PUDR ma), not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, the petition may be deemed consistent if and when the companion GMP Amendment (PL201700044191CP-2018-1) is adopted and goes into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date consistent with the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. Stipulations: 1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the FLUE if the companion GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. 2. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. The Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review Memo has been included as Attachment C. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant's April 30, 2018, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: "The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportotion system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application PUDZ-PL20170004385; Allura PUD Revised; June 25,2019 Page 8 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1169 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) has significant impacts if the trqffic impoct statement reveals thot any of the following occur.' a. For linlrs (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal lo or exceeds 2oZ of the adopted LOS standard sertice volume; b. For linl<s adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project trffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume,. and c. For all other links the project trafic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3'% of the adopted LOS standard service yolume. Mitigoting stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the trffic impact statement that oddresses the project,s significant impacts on all roadways. " Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition the proposed rezoning to allow a maximum 304 multi-family residential units (residential condo/townhouse) will generate a proj ected +l- 129 PM peak hour, two-way trips on the immediately adjacent roadway link, Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Livingston Road. Veterans Memorial Boulevard is a two-1ane facility and is not currently tracked for capacity in the AUIR. Livingston Road adjacent to this proposed development is a six-lane divided facility, with a current service volume of 3,000 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 1,721 trips, and is currently operating at LOS ,,B,,,as identified in the 2017 AUIR. Immokalee Road from Airport-Putling Road to Livingston Road is a sixlane divided facility, with a cunent service volume of 3.100 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 305 trips and is currently operating at Los "D" with an expected deficiency in 2023. Immokalee Road from Livingston Road is a sixJane divided facility, with a current senyice volume of 3,500 trips and a remaining capacity of approximately 1.011 trips and is currently operating at LOS "C.' Therefore, the subject roadway links have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project within the 5-year planning period. Staff notes that the development is within the Northwest Transportation concurrency Management Area (TCMA), and this rezone request has committed to using at least two Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies for residential developments area are as follows: a) Include neighborhood commercial uses within a residential project. b) Providing tansit shelters within the development (shall be coordinated with Collier County Transit). c) Providing bicycle and pedestrian facilities with connections to adjacent comrnercial properties. d) Vehicle access to adjacent commercial properties with shared commercial and residential parking. It is transportation staff s opinion that the first TDM strategy does not apply for the proposed development because no commercial use is proposed within the proposed development. Staff will be requiring a developer commitment for the TDM's, and the Developer Commitments for TDM's have been included in the Transportation Section ofthe PUD. P UDZ-P L2O 1 7 OOO4385i Allura PU D Revised: June 25, 20'19 Page I of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1170 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Additionally, Transportation Planning has provided a memo related to their Consistency Findings for Planning Commission review. The Transportation Findings memo has been included as Attachment D. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 33.49 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 8.37 acres (25oh) preserve is required, however, 15.07 acres of preserve and shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specihcally noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Reporr (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC's recommendation. Drainaqe: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project's stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address environmental concems. The PUD preserve requirement is 8.37 acres (25% of 33.49 acres). The PUD Master Plan provides atotal of 15.07-acre preserve, which meets the minimum 25 percent native preservation requirement in accordance with LDC 3.05.07. No listed animal species were observed on the property; however, the property has suitable habitat for various listed species. A potential nesting site for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) was observed in the north central portion of the site. Prior to the site clearing stage of the proposed development, additional observations for Big Cypress Fox Squirrel nests will be needed. The proposed project is located within the Federal Wildlife Service (FWS) consultation area for Bonneted Bat (Eumops floridanus). Two cavity trees where observed onsite with the potential to contain Bonneted Bat; however, no evidence was found indicating the trees were being utilized. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) wildlife data indicates the presence of Black Bear (Ursus americanus /loridanzs) in the area. A black bear management plan will need to be included at PPL or SDP review. Additionally, Butterfly Orchid (Encyclia tampensis) and Stiff-leafed wild-pine (Tillandsiafasciculala) listed as a less rare plants, have been observed in the proposed preserve area on the subject property and shall be protected in accordance with LDC 3.04.03. finds this petition consistent with the GMP, and Planning Commission (CCPC) forwards Petition Transportation Reviev)'. Transportation staff fuither recommends that the Collier County PUDZ-PL20170004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25,2019 Page 10 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1171 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Allura PUDR-PL20170004385 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval. The Transportation Division also requires Developer Commitments for Transportation Demand Management Strategies. Landscape Review: The applicant is not proposing any deviations pertaining to landscape. The buffers labeled on the Master Plan are consistent with LDC requirements. Staff visited the site to evaluate the condition of the preserve. Based on the density of the existing plantings, the size of the preserve, and the quantity of existing native vegetation within the preserve, it is staff s opinion that the buffer requirements will be met by the preserve once exotics are removed and supplemental planting if needed, is provided. The applicant is proposing an enhanced Type 'B' buffer where abutting portions of the Barrington community to the East as shown on Exhibit C-1. School District: At this time, there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years for the purposed development at the elementary, middle, and high schools. At the time of site plan or plat, the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area, the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the north wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District. Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure along the project's frontages on Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. System capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review, and a commitment to provide service will be established upon pennit approval. Zoning Services Review: Zoning Division staff has evaluated the proposed uses related to their intensity and reviewed the proposed development standards for the project. The Zoning Division also evaluated the location and orientation of the proposed multiple-family development project. The project site area was increased from 15.38 acres to 35.92 acres. The project arca now fronts along two roads Livingston and Veterans Memorial Parkway with ingress-egress proposed only along Veterans Memorial Parkway. The proposed project area includes part of the previously approved multiple-family PUD project, Della Rosa, which allowed a total of 107 dwelling units. Initially, the applicant had proposed 420 multiple-family units for the Allura project. However, during the Comprehensive Plan large scale amendment process, the total number of units was reduced from 420 to 304 dwelling units. While 304 units is a large increase in density over the approved Della Rosa PUD, it is a reasonable increase based on the increased land area that is proposed. Additionally, during the GMPA process, the applicant originally proposed building the principal structures with heights of 4-stories at 50 feet zoned height and 60 feet actual height. The applicant, however, reduced the proposed principal structure heights to 3-stories at 40 feet zoned height and 50 feet actual height. Again, the proposed principal structure heights are greater than the surrounding residential home structures. However, the reduced number of stories and reduced building height is more compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhoods than the originally proposed higher structure heights. PUDZ-PL20170004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25,2019 Page1lof17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1172 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) The intensity of the proposed residential project is reasonable related to the surrounding uses. While the proposed multiple-family residential density, at8.46 DU/A, is significantly higher than the surrounding densities, it is important to note that a single concentration of higher density within a lower density area of development is an appropriate mix of density. The applicant has attempted to address the higher density near the Brandon PUD along the east property boundary with an alternate and enhanced buffer. The proposed alternate buffer is denser than is required by LDC provisions. Specifically, the addition of l2-foot-tall fishtail palms spaced 10 feet on center provides greater opacity. Additionally, the applicant has proposed a larger setback for the residential single-family property to the east at Brandon PUD. The eastern perimeter boundary setback is 125 feet. A similarly large PUD setback for perimeter boundary was recently approved for the Baumgarten PUD at Immokalee and Collier Boulevard (951). The PUD eastem and southern perimeter boundaries for pools or dumpsters were set at 105 feet. Also, an additional 1-foot of setback is required for every 1-foot a building exceeds 50 feet. With respect to the remainder of the Development Standards, the proposed standards are appropriate based on the multiple-family residential use. As stated, an enhanced perimeter boundary "altemative type B buffer" is proposed at the eastern boundary. The other perimeter buffers are a standard type B buffer for the lake area and the Livingston and Veterans Memorial buffers are type D buffers, which meet the provisions of the LDC. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08": (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold). The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. ZoningDivision staff has reviewed the proposed rezoning request and finds the uses, and property development regulations are compatible with the development projects approved in the area. The Public Utilities Division further states that water distribution/transmission and wastewater transmission mains are readily available within the Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard rights-of-way, and there is adequate water and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the proposed PUD. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitabitity of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office PUDZ-PL20170004385; Allura PUD Revised: June 25,2019 1. ) Page 12 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1173 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -t. and demonstrate unified confol. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the petition and analyzed it for consistency with goals, objectives, and policies ofthe GMP. They have lound the proposed amendment to be consistent with the GMP, if stipulations related to transit shelter location, commercial interconnectivity, and maximum certificates of occupancy, and if the companion amendment is approved. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed PUD Document buffering, and screening standards include altemative buffer types. They have been reviewed and are acceptable. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. There is no deviation from the required usable open space as submitted. Compliance with approved standards would be demonstrated at the time ofSDP. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations is required, including but not limited to, plat plans or site development plans. The Public Utilities Division further states that Collier County has sufficient treatment capacity for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Most of the surrounding area has been developed. There is adequate supporting infrastructure to accommodate this project, including Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains. Adequate public facility requirements will be addressed when future development approvals are sought. The Public Utilities Division further states that the area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including adjacent Collier County Water-Sewer District potable water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, oras to desirable modifications ofsuch regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations. PUDZ-PL201 70004385; Allura PUD Revised; June 25, 2019 1. Page 13 of '17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1174 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) No deviations are proposed in the request to rezone to PUDR. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistentwith the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff has determined the petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP, if stipulations related to transit shelter location, commercial interconnectivity, and maximum certificates of occupancy, and if the companion amendment is approved. 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattem related to surrounding properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning sectron ofthis report. The proposed uses will not change the existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is zoned Della Rosa PUD and Agricultural. The application is to rezone to PUDR, which would not create an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUDR boundaries are logical and appropriate. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary. It is a request to rezone by the property owner. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. This criterion is not specifically applicable as the proposed change is not within a neighborhood. The proposed change, ifapproved, changes vacant to improved land. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or PUDZ-PL20170004385; Allura PU D Revised; June 25, 2019 Page 14 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1175 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 8. create fypes of traflic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak yolumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases ofthe development, or otherwise affect public safety. The Transportation Division states that the roadway inflastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that the rezone request to PUDR will create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Bnvironmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County environmental staif will evaluate the stormwater management system and design criteria at the time of SDP or PPL. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas, The proposed rezone to PUDR is not Iikely to reduce light or air to adjacent areas. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is generally a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect the property values. Generally, market conditions prevail. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Most ofthe adjacent property is already developed as residential use. The approval of the rezone request from PUD-Agricultural to PUDR is not likely to deter development activity of surrounding property. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed rezone to PUDR complies with the GMP (if companion amendment is approved) and is found consistent, then it is consistent with public policy and the change does not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is determined to be consistent with public welfare. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. PUDZ-PL2O'170004385: Allura PUD Revised: June 25,2019 Page 15 oI 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1176 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the applicant cannot use the property as they have proposed without rezoning to PUDR. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The Zoning Division staff determination is the proposed uses are not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The application was reviewed and found compliant with the GMP (if the companion amendment is approved) and the LDC. The Zoning Division staff does not review other sites related to a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the proposed rezone request to PUDR would require significant site alteration. The site is vacant, and construction would be required. The development standards would be applied during the SDP and plat process. 17. The impact of development on the availabilify of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project must comply with the criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF) and must be consistent with applicable goals and objectives of the GMP related to adequate public facilities. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no adverse impact on public utilities facility adequacy. This petition has been reviewed by Comprehensive Planning staff for consistency with the GMP as part of the amendment process, and they find it to be consistent if the companion amendment application is approved. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is not seeking deviations from the requirements of the LDC. PUDZ-PL2O170004385; Allura PU D Revised: June 25, 2019 Page '16 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1177 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on September 6, 2019,5:30 PM, at the Collier County Public Library Headquarters Sugden Theater at 2385 Orange Blossom Naples, FL. For further information, please see the NIM Summary information in the back-up material. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAO RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attomey's Office has reviewed this staff report for content and legal sufficiency. RECOMMENDATION: Zonrng Division staff recommends the CCPC forward petition PUDR-PL20170004385 Allura PUDR to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to relocating Developer Commitment: 3.C. "Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multiple-family units until the applicable facilities and/or interconnections described above have been completed" to Permitted Uses: 1.B. following subsection A., the maximum number of permitted dwelling units. Attachments: A) Proposed Allura PUDR Ordinance B) Density Map, Allura Surrounding Projects C) FLUE Consistency Review D) TransportationPlanningConsistencyFindings P UDZ-PL20170004385 ; Al lura P U D Revised: June 25, 20'19 Page 17 of 17 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1178 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) DATE ON - ZONING SERVICES SECTION REVIEWED BY: .''n'zr'A RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ZONING DIVISION _ ZONING SERVICES SECTION ' /44 MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR ZONING DIVISION APPROVED BY: A-,+ FRENCH, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT HEAD GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 7-g - , q DATE 7-q -r? DATE 7 - 7- /7 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 1179 Attachment: Final Staff Rept Allura 7.9.19 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1180 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1181 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 1 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx EXHIBIT A ALLURA RPUD LIST OF PERMITTED USES PERMITTED USES: TRACT R – RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY: 1. Principal Uses A. A maximum of 304 multi-family rental dwelling units (8.46 units per acre). 1. Accessory Uses A. Customary accessory uses and structures to residential units, including carports, garages, utility and maintenance buildings, hand carwash area, and garbage and recycling receptacles. B. Community clubhouse, indoor and outdoor recreational uses and facilities such as swimming pools, tennis courts, pickle ball courts, bocce ball courts, volleyball courts, walking paths, picnic areas, dog parks, playgrounds, fitness centers, and community administration. These uses shall be permitted throughout the R designated areas of the PUD. C. Temporary sales trailers and model units, subject to LDC Section 5.04.05, as applicable. D. Entry gates and gatehouses. E. Stormwater management treatment facilities, conveyance facilities, and structures, such as berms, swales, and outfall structures. F. Parking structures. TRACT P – PRESERVE: 1. Principal Uses A. Preservation of native habitat. 2. Accessory Uses A. Uses identified in and subject to the requirements and conditions set forth in LDC Section 3.05.07.H.1.h., Allowable uses within County required preserves. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1182 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 2 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx EXHIBT B ALLURA RPUD DEVLOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS The table below sets forth the development standards for the RPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat, as the case may be. 1. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITY RECREATION FACILITIES PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MIN. LOT AREA 10,000 S.F. N/A MIN. LOT WIDTH 100 FEET N/A MIN. FLOOR AREA 650 S.F./D.U. N/A MINUMUM REQUIRED YARDS FROM LIVINGSTON ROAD 50 FEET 50 FEET FROM VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. 40 FEET 40 FEET FROM THE EASTERN PERIMETER BOUNDARY 125 FEET 125 FEET FROM ALL OTHER PUD PERIMETER BOUNDARIES 20 FEET 20 FEET FROM PRESERVE 25 FEET 25 FEET FROM WATERBODY 1 0 FEET 0 FEET MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 20 FEET 20 FEET MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED (ZONED) 2 3-STORY 40 FEET 35 FEET MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED (ACTUAL) 2 3-STORY 50 FEET 42 FEET ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FROM LIVINGSTON ROAD 50 FEET 3 N/A FROM VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. 40 FEET 3 N/A FROM ALL OTHER PUD PERIMETER BOUNDARIES 15 FEET N/A FROM PRESERVE 10 FEET N/A MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10 FEET N/A MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED (ZONED) 35 FEET 4 N/A MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT NOT TO EXCEED (ACTUAL) 42 FEET 4 N/A 1. Measured from lake maintenance easement or bulkhead. 2. Inclusive of any under building parking. 3. For one-story parking structures, garages, carports and trash compactor enclosures, which do not exceed 15 feet Zoned and 20 feet Actual height, the setback from Livingston Road and Veteran’s Memorial Blvd. shall be 20 feet. 4. The maximum actual height for parking structures is limited to 35 feet. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1183 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 3 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx 2. DESIGN STANDARDS A. PUD access points shall be gated. B. Buildings shall be constructed with Concrete Masonry Unit construction or concrete construction. C. Roofs shall be cement or slate tile roof or approved equivalent (asphalt shingles prohibited). 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1184 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 4 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx EXHIBT C PUD MASTER PLAN 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1185 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 5 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 1186Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 6 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx EXHIBIT D ALLURA RPUD LEGAL DESCRPTION PARCEL 1 - OR 3876 PG 1542 THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ALSO KNOWN AS LOT 11 IN UNRECORDED BRYAN ACRES SUBDIVISION. PARCEL 2 - OR 3876 PG 1546 THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48, SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WESTERLY 15 FEET THEREOF, PARCEL 3 - OR 4744 PG 3049 THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, LESS THE WEST THIRTY (30) FEET THEREOF RESERVED FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PURPOSES, SHOWN AS TRACT #2 OF UNRECORDED PLAT OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER. PARCEL 4 - OR 3675 PG 1026 THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER (NE1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST ONE-QUARTER (NW1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST ONE- QUARTER (NE1/4) OF SECTION, 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 5 - OR 4908 PG 204 THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER; AND THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCELS 6 - OR 4596 PG 980 THE WEST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1187 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 7 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AND THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 7 - OR 4865 PG 2180 THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 8 - OR 5601 PG 1876 THE WESTERLY FIFTEEN (15) FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48, SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL 9 - OR 5522 PG 1562 THE WEST THIRTY (30) FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER (NW 1/4) OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 1,564,706 SQUARE FEET OR 35.92 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1188 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 8 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx EXHIBIT E ALLURA RPUD DEVIATIONS No deviations from the LDC are requested. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1189 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 9 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx EXHIBIT F ALLURA RPUD DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 1. PLANNING A. One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the RPUD. At the time of this PUD approval, the Managing Entit y is SD Livingston, LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document, to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgement of the commitments required by the RPUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity will not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the RPUD is closed out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments. B. Issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. C. All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained befo re commencement of the development. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL A. The Allura RPUD shall preserve a minimum of 8.37 acres on-site (25% of 33.49± acres of existing native vegetation). B. The Developer shall adhere to the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Black Bear Management Plan, as applicable. The informational brochure created by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and titled “A Guide to Living in Bear County” will be distributed to future homeowners and construction/maintenance personnel. Residents will be provided with information on how to secure their garbage containers to discourage bears from foraging in trash receptacles and the project will utilize bear-proof dumpsters 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1190 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Page 10 of 10 H:\2017\2017092\WP\PUDZ\6-18-2019\Allura RPUD Document (PL-20170004385)(6-18-2019).docx in locations to be determined at the time of Site Development Plan (SDP) approval. 3. TRANSPORTATION A. The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 129 two- way PM peak hour trips, based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDP A or subdivision plat approval. B. The Developer shall make a payment to Collier County for the development’s proportionate fair share of the cost of operational improvements to the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. This payment shall be made prior to approval of the first Site Development Plan (SDP) or subdivision plat for this PUD, whichever occurs first. C. The Developer shall provide a minimum of two (2) of the following: i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multi - family units until the applicable facilities and/or interconnections described above have been completed. D. Developer shall make a payment of $7,524.33 in lieu of providing compensating right-of-way for a turn lane on Veterans Memorial Boulevard. This payment shall be made prior to approval of the first Site Development Plan. 4. LANDSCAPE BUFFERS A. Developer shall install an alternative Type B landscape buffer along the eastern property boundary in the locations depicted on Exhibit C, the Master Concept Plan, and in conformance with the minimum specifications depicted in Exhibit C -1, Enhanced Type B Landscape Buffer. 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 1191 Attachment: Attachment-A PUD Ordinance Allura-062419 (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) RPUD RPUD Veterans M em orial BLVD En t r a da AV ECorso Medi t erra CI RCabreo DRLearning LN Cellini LN B u o n a s e r a C T Aberdeen AVE Ca m de n L ak es C IRLucarno WAYRa vi n a WAY Ba rcl a y C T Caldera LNMonterosso LN Ce l eb r i t a C T Winfield LN Felicita CTVilloresi WAYZoning: A Zoning: PUD Zoning: PUD Zoning: RPUD Zoning: RPUD Zoning: PUD Zoning: RPUD Zoning: RPUDLIVINGSTON RDDocument Path: C:\GIS\Data Request\GIS Request\Density Map\Allura RPUD Density Map.mxd Map Date: 3/4/2019 Growth Management DepartmentOperations & RegulatoryManagement Division I 0 325 650162.5 Feet MediterraDensity: 0.56 Density: 1 per 5 ac. SUBJECT PROPERTY:ALLURA RPUD GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA)ALLURA RPU D ANDSURROUNDING PROPERTIES (PL-2017-4385) Della RosaDensity: 7 RMC-EnclaveDensity: 4.02 BrandonDensity: 3.99 Royal Palm International AcademyDensity: 3.37 Royal Palm International AcademyDensity: 3.37 RMC-EnclaveDensity: 4.02 Density: 1 per 5 ac. C-1 ZONING: A Density: 1 per 5 ac.ZONING: A Marsilea VillasDensity: 2.63 SandlewoodDensity: 3.1 Allura RPUD 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 1192 Attachment: Attachment-B Allura RPUD Density Map (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ‒ 1 ‒ 17-4385, Allura PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR) » Consistency Review Growth Management Department Zoning Division C O N S I S T E N C Y R E V I E W M E M O R A N D U M To: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: June 24, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Planned Unit Development Rezone PETITION NUMBER: PUDZ-PL20170004385 [REV: 5b] PETITION NAME: Allura Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezone REQUEST: This petition requests a rezone from A, Rural Agricultural and Residential Planned Unit Development (Della Rosa) zoning districts to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) to develop a multi-family residential project of up to 304 units of market rate rental housing – or, up to a maximum density of 8.55 dwelling units per acre. LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of ±35.57 acres, in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Allura PUD rezone petition is contingent upon approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL20170004419/CP-2018-1. That GMPA will establish the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict, and was approved on March 26 for Transmittal by the Board of County Commissioners with the following Subdistrict language (in part), followed by staff analysis in brackets: Development in this Subdistrict shall be subject to the following: a. The Subdistrict site shall be rezoned to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). [This petition is for a PUD.] b. Allowable uses are limited to multi-family rental dwellings and shall not exceed 304 units of market rate housing. [The PUD restricts dwellings to multi-family rental units and a maximum of 304 units.] c. The RPUD shall demonstrate consistency with FLUE Policy 6.1 by providing two or more of the following: 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 1193 Attachment: Attachment-C FLUE Consistency Review Allura (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ‒ 2 ‒ 17-4385, Allura PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR) » Consistency Review i. A transit shelter within the RPUD in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Division; ii. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities, with connection to the abutting commercial property to the west; and, iii. Vehicular interconnection to the abutting commercial property to the west. Certificates of occupancy shall not be approved for more than 249 multi-family units (a density of 7.0 units per acre) until the applicable faciliti es and/or interconnections, as described above and approved as Development Commitments in the RPUD, have been completed. These provisions, by Resolution 2019-54, were transmitted to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and the review agencies in accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. REVIEW OF PUD and PUD-RELATED DOCUMENTS: The Allura Residential Planned Unit Development (PUD) Rezone captures the necessary Subdistrict provisions as Development Commitments however, Transportation Commitment 3.C. commits, “a transit shelter shall be provided by the Developer in a location and design approved by Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement (PTNE) Department. The shelter shall be installed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for residential use or by a later time certain if acceptable to PTNE Department.” Staff points out that such a commitment does not insure a transit shelter will be provided. The subject property is not known to be located on a current or planned transit route, and the ability to provide a transit shelter that would fulfill the requirements of TDM strategies does not appear to be an effective proposal. PTNE personnel commented how an upcoming long range planning process will be updating transit routing in this area, which may include this north-south route. While public transit is of general benefit , it cannot be determined whether a transit shelter would be approved without an analysis provided from the developer. If left written as proposed, Transportation Commitment 3.C. would not qualify as a TDM strategy commitment for purposes of the policy to qualify for a density bonus. Relevant FLUE objectives and policies are stated below, followed by staff remarks. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Comprehensive Planning reviewers leave this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff notes that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses/intensities on the subject property, the compatibility analysis is to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties with regard to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, and so forth. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 1194 Attachment: Attachment-C FLUE Consistency Review Allura (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ‒ 3 ‒ 17-4385, Allura PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR) » Consistency Review The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. The Board of County Commissioners held a workshop earlier in 2019 to revisit these (and other) Smart Growth policies and practices, which resulted with a renewed support for and reemphasis on them. Each Policy is followed by staff analysis and comments [in bold italicized text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [The Allura Master Concept Plan (unlabeled Exhibit C, updated to 4/29/2019), depicts a subject property that fronts Livingston Road (classified as a major arterial road) and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Veterans Memorial is an unclassified two-lane undivided roadway – where all traffic may enter and exit. The Master Concept Plan depicts connection to Veterans Memorial Boulevard with its main point of “vehicular ingress/egress”. No connection is depicted to Livingston Road. (Submittal 1 document, RPUD Evaluation Criteria, is outdated where it explains how this [project] provides access to both roadways through an interconnected internal driveway system.)] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The “interconnected internal driveway system” are the traffic lanes that link together vehicular parking lots, providing tenants with access to the multi-family residential buildings. This internal access, in combination with TDM mitigation strategy commitments (discussed above), are offered to manage congestion in this area.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The property abuts Livingston Road (to the west) and Veterans Memorial Boulevard (to the north). Application materials (Submittal 1 document, RPUD Evaluation Criteria) express a willingness to “accommodate interconnection” with the vacant adjacent C-1 zoned property to the northwest. The Allura Master Concept Plan (unlabeled Exhibit C, updated to 4/29/2019), depicts interconnection [with a double-ended arrow, labeled for “vehicular ingress/egress”] with this adjoining vacant property (along with an accompanying note, indicating this “interconnection… may be relocated [southward] in the event the adjacent AG parcel is rezoned to commercial.” 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 1195 Attachment: Attachment-C FLUE Consistency Review Allura (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ‒ 4 ‒ 17-4385, Allura PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR) » Consistency Review These connections are part of the TDM strategy commitments required by the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict (discussed above), under the Review of PUD and PUD-related Documents. The Master Concept Plan does not depict connection with/to the local streets and/or interconnection points in adjoining neighborhoods or other developments to the east or south ‒ where it does not appear feasible to interconnect.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [With respect to providing walkability, this Policy promotes development where it is safe and convenient to walk and encourages pedestrian activity. The Allura Master Concept Plan (unlabeled Exhibit C, updated to 4/29/2019), does not depict the arrangement of apartment buildings and parking structures, or the driveway and walkway network connecting them. The Allura RPUD Document, (Exhibit A, updated to 6/18/2019), and Exhibit F, Development Commitments, do not include/address sidewalk, walkway, or pathway – either internal or fronting roadway – commitments. Exhibit E, Deviations, and other submittal documents, however, do not propose deviations from LDC requirements, with respect to sidewalks, walkways, or pathways, which the applicant provides as required per the LDC. Exhibit A, the Allura RPUD Document (updated to 6/18/2019), Permitted Uses, describes various active and passive recreational uses and facilities, including clubhouse/recreation buildings. With respect to providing a blend of densities, this policy promotes projects that offer a range of housing prices and types. Submittal 1 document, RPUD Evaluation Criteria, explains how this development will allow one- two- and three-bedroom market rate apartments. Exhibit B, Development and Design Standards (updated to 6/18/2019), Table 1, Development Standards, does not provide for separate minimum floor areas for the one- two- and three-bedroom apartments. The single standard dwelling unit size proposed is 650-sq. ft. minimum floor area for all apartment configurations. No other submittal documents appear to propose or require that some combination of these different apartment styles and floor areas be provided. It is assumed there will be a mix of unit sizes and number of bedrooms with associated differences in rental prices.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, this proposed PUDR may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, the petition may be deemed consistent if and when the companion GMP amendment petition (PL20170004419/CP-2018-1) is adopted and goes into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date consistent with the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 1196 Attachment: Attachment-C FLUE Consistency Review Allura (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ‒ 5 ‒ 17-4385, Allura PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR) » Consistency Review Stipulations: 1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the FLUE if the companion GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. 2. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division G: Comp\Consistency Reviews\2019\PUDR \\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2019\PUDR\PL2017-4385 Allura Con Rev memo_REV5b.docx 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 1197 Attachment: Attachment-C FLUE Consistency Review Allura (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 1198 Attachment: Attachment-D Allura Trans Consistency Findings (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 1199 Attachment: Attachment-D Allura Trans Consistency Findings (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 1200 Attachment: Attachment-D Allura Trans Consistency Findings (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 1201 Attachment: Attachment-D Allura Trans Consistency Findings (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 1202 Attachment: Attachment-D Allura Trans Consistency Findings (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 1203 Attachment: Attachment-D Allura Trans Consistency Findings (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1204Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1205Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1206Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1207Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1208Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1209Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1210Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1211Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1212Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1213Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1214Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1215Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1216Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1217Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1218Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1219Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1220Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1221Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1222Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1223Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1224Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1225 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1226 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1227Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1228Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1229Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1230Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1231Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1232Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1233Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1234Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1235Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1236Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1237Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1238Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1239Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1240Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1241Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1242Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1243Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1244Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1245Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1246Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1247Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1248Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1249Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1250Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1251Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1252Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1253Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1254Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1255Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1256Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1257Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1258Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1259Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1260Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1261Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1262Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1263Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1264Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1265Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1266Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1267Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1268Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1269Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1270Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1271Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1272Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1273Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1274Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1275Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1276Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1277Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1278Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1279Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1280Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1281Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1282Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1283Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1284Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1285Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1286Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1287Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1288Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1289Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1290Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1291Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1292Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1293Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1294Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1295Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1296Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1297Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1298Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1299Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1300Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1301Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1302Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1303Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1304Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1305Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1306Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1307Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1308Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1309Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1310Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1311Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1312Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1313Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1314Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1320Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1321Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1322Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1323Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1324Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1325Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1351Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1352Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1353Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1355Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1356Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1359Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1366Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1374Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1375Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1376Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1377Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1379Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ALLURA RPUD Rezoning Environmental Information (January 2018) The Allura RPUD project is 35.57± acres in size. The majority of this site consists of forested lands with varying degrees of exotic infestation. The site was hit by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. Prior to the hurricane, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) was common in the canopy and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) was common in the mid story. Throughout the property the hurricane force winds blew down many of the melaleuca and also at least temporarily reduced the density of Brazilian pepper in the midstory via defoliation, uprooting, or crushing by fallen trees. Numerous native trees, primarily bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and to a lesser extent slash pine (Pinus elliottii), were also either blown down or snapped off. This has resulted in a somewhat open canopy and a very open midstory. There is currently 33.49± acres of native vegetation (as defined by Collier County LDC Section 3.05.07.A.1) on the property. This consists of all of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System Codes except for 450, 619, and 740 as shown on the attached Vegetation Map. Please see the attached Protected Species Assessment for a discussion of the current site conditions. Craig M. Smith of DexBender prepared the Protected Species Assessment. Mr. Smith has been employed as a full time environmental consultant in southwest Florida since 1987. A copy of his credentials is attached. Y:\STOCK-17\County\Zoning\County Zoning Info.Docx 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1395Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ALLURA RPUD Sections 12 and 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East Collier County, Florida Protected Species Assessment January 2018 Prepared for: Stock Development, LLC 2639 Professional Circle, Suite 101 Naples, FL 34119 Prepared by: DexBender 4470 Camino Real Way, Suite 101 Fort Myers, FL 33966 (239) 334-3680 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 1 INTRODUCTION The 35.57 acre project is located within a portion of Sections 12 and 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The parcel is bordered to the north by Veterans Memorial Boulevard, to the east by the Barrington Cove residential development, to the south by the Barrington Cove residential development and undeveloped land, and to the west by Livingston Road, a fire station, and undeveloped lands. SITE CONDITIONS The majority of this site consists of forested lands with varying degrees of exotic infestation. The site was hit by Hurricane Irma on September 10, 2017. Prior to the hurricane, melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) was common in the canopy and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) was common in the mid story. Throughout the property the hurricane force winds blew down many of the melaleuca and also at least temporarily reduced the density of Brazilian pepper in the midstory via defoliation, uprooting, or crushing by fallen trees. Numerous native trees, primarily bald cypress (Taxodium distichum) and to a lesser extent slash pine (Pinus elliottii), were also either blown down or snapped off. This has resulted in a somewhat open canopy and a very open midstory. VEGETATIVE CLASSIFICATIONS The predominant vegetation associations were mapped in the field on 2017 digital 1” = 200’ scale aerial photography. The aerial depicts pre-hurricane conditions. The property boundary was obtained from the Rhodes and Rhodes Land Survey, Inc. and inserted into the digital aerial. Twelve vegetation associations were identified using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS). Figure 1 depicts the approximate location and configuration of these vegetation associations and Table 1 summarizes the acreages by FLUCCS Code. A brief description of each FLUCCS Code is also provided below. Table 1. Acreage Summary by FLUCCS Code FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 411E1 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (10 – 25%) 1.85 411E2 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) 1.78 411E4 Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (76 – 90%) 0.73 450 Exotic Upland Hardwoods 0.41 618E Willow Invaded by Exotics (5 – 9%) 1.73 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 1.00 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1398Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 3 FLUCCS CODE DESCRIPTION ACREAGE 619 Exotic Wetland Hardwoods 1.00 621E2 Cypress Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) 3.74 621E3 Cypress Invaded by Exotics (51 – 75%) 6.40 624E2 Cypress - Pine Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) 0.57 625DE2 Drained Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26 50%) 14.90 625E2 Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) 1.79 740 Disturbed Land 0.67 Total 35.57 FLUCCS Code 411E1, Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (10 – 25%) Upland pine flatwoods are present in the western portion of the site adjacent to Livingston Road. Slash pine and scattered melaleuca are present in the canopy. The midstory consists of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and swamp bay (Persea palustris) with scattered areas of moderately dense Brazilian pepper. Ground cover is dominated by saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) with scattered bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) and grape vine (Vitis sp.). FLUCCS Code 411E2, Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) The ground cover in portions of the upland pine flatwoods are dominated by a mosaic of saw palmetto and cabbage palm less than five feet in height. Slash pines and melaleuca are present in the canopy while Brazilian pepper and native shrubs are present in the mid story. FLUCCS Code 411E4, Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (76 – 90%) The canopy of the pine flatwoods in the western portion of the site along Livingston Road is dominated by melaleuca with scattered slash pine. Scattered Brazilian pepper and cabbage palm are present in the midstory. Ground cover consists primarily of leaf duff with scattered patches of grape vine, swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), and saw palmetto. FLUCCS Code 450, Exotic Upland Hardwoods In several locations, the uplands are dominated by exotics in both the canopy (melaleuca) and midstory (Brazilian pepper). Native trees as shown in the 2017 aerial photography have largely been blow down. FLUCCS Code 618E, Willow Invaded by Exotics (5 – 9%) The center of the cypress dome was a marsh that has become overgrown by willow (Salix caroliniana). Widely scattered bald cypress, pond apple (Annona glabra), Brazilian pepper, and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) are also present. Ground cover consists of open water, mosquito fern (Azolla caroliniana), duckweed (Lemna sp.), fireflag (Thalia geniculata), primrose willow (Ludwigia sp.), and smartweed (Polygonum sp.). 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 4 Water levels were in excess of two feet along the perimeter of the area at the time of the listed species survey. FLUCCS Code 619, Exotic Wetland Hardwoods In several locations, the wetlands are dominated by exotics in both the canopy (melaleuca) and midstory (Brazilian pepper). Native trees as shown in the 2017 aerial photography have largely been blow down. Additional species present include swamp fern, cabbage palm, and climbing cassia (Senna pendula). FLUCCS Code 621E2, Cypress Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) The majority of the south central portion of the site consists of an old cypress dome. The canopy of the northern portion of this area is dominated by bald cypress with widely scattered melaleuca. The midstory consists of a mix of both native species (myrsine (Rapanea punctata), cabbage palm, and cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco)) and exotic species (Brazilian pepper). Ground cover consist primarily of swamp fern and shield fern (Thelypteris sp.). FLUCCS Code 621E3, Cypress Invaded by Exotics (51 – 75%) The southeasterly and southwesterly portions of the cypress head also have a canopy of bald cypress with scattered melaleuca. The midstory is dominated by Brazilian pepper with relatively few native species present. Ground cover consist primarily of swamp fern and shield fern. FLUCCS Code 624E2, Cypress - Pine Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) A small area with both bald cypress and slash pine in the canopy is present in the southwest corner of the site near the fire station. The hurricane winds appear to have substantially reduced the density of standing exotics within this area. FLUCCS Code 625DE2, Drained Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) The northern portion of the site was historically transitional pine flatwoods. However, changes to the area’s hydrology caused by the surrounding developments have effectively drained this area such that it is no longer a functional wetland. The area is dominated by slash pine with varying densities of melaleuca. The midstory consists of bald cypress, cabbage palm, and myrsine with moderate levels of Brazilian pepper. Ground cover consist primarily of leaf duff, widely scattered patches of saw palmetto, swamp fern, and grape vine. FLUCCS Code 625E2, Hydric Pine Flatwoods Invaded by Exotics (26 – 50%) The outer northern and western edges of the cypress dome are still hydric pine flatwoods. The areas are dominated by slash pine with varying densities of melaleuca. The midstory consists of bald cypress and cabbage palm with moderate levels of Brazilian pepper. Ground cover consist primarily of swamp fern. FLUCCS Code 740, Disturbed Land The land immediately adjacent to Livingston Road along the west property line appears to have been cleared as part of either the road construction or maintenance of a powerline 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5 easement. The area is dominated by weedy species such as pusley (Richardia sp.), whitehead broom (Spermacoce verticillata), beggarweed (Desmodium sp.), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), fingergrass (Eustachys petraea), coyote thistle (Eryngium sp.), bracken fern, and torpedo grass (Panicum repens). Scattered small melaleuca, slash pine, Brazilian pepper, and cabbage palm are also present. SURVEY METHOD Based on the general habitat types (FLUCCS Codes) identified on-site there is a very low potential for a limited number of species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to potentially occur on the subject parcel. These species include gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), red- cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), a variety of wading birds, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), Florida bonneted-bat (Eumops floridanus), and Florida panther (Felis concolor coryi). The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), which has been delisted by the FWC and FWS, is still protected by other regulations and was therefore included in the survey. The Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus), delisted in 2012, is still protected by the Florida Black Bear Management Plan and was also included in the survey. Please see Table 2 for additional listed species included in the survey. In addition, per Collier County regulations three species of orchids (Cyrtopodium punctatum, Encyclia cochleata, and E. tampensis) and four species of wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata, T. utriculata, T. balbisiana, and T. flexuosa) which could potentially occur on-site were included in the survey. In order to comply with FWC/FWS survey methodology guidelines, each habitat type was surveyed for the occurrence of the species listed above using meandering pedestrian belt transects. Observations for listed species were made during a specific protected species survey event. The meandering pedestrian belt transects were spaced approximately 95 feet apart. Additional observations were made from the perimeter of the willow pond. The approximate location of direct sighting or sign (such as tracks, nests, and droppings) of a listed species, when observed, was denoted on the aerial photography. The 1" = 200’ scale aerial Protected Species Assessment map (Figure 1) depicts the approximate location of the survey transects and the results of the survey. The listed species survey was conducted during the mid-day hours of December 6, 2017. The weather at the time of the survey was warm and sunny with a light breeze. Prior to conducting the protected species survey, a search of the FWC listed species database (updated in June 2017) was conducted to determine the known occurrence of listed species in the project area. This search revealed no known protected species occurring on or immediately adjacent to the site. The database indicated that Florida black bear have been recorded adjacent to the property (Figure 2). The Florida black bear is listed as threatened by the FWC but is not listed by the FWS. The property is 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Perm it Use Only - N ot For ConstructionProperty b oun dary is approximate.Map b ased o n dat a o bt ain ed fro m th e F lorida Fish and WildlifeConservation Commission. All ur a RPUD Section: 24Township: 45Range: 24 ³ Fig ure 2. Nui sa nc e Bear Calls M ap nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm nm nm nmnmnm nmnmnm nm nmnmnm nmnm nmnm nmnm nm nm nmnm nmnm nmnm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnmnmnmnmnmnm nmnm nm nmnmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnm nmnm nm nmnmnmnmnmnm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nmnm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nm nmnmnm nmnmnm nmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnmnm Sour ce: Esr i, Dig it alG lobe , G eoE ye, Eart hs ta r G eog raphics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Ge tm a pping, Aer ogr id, I G N, I G P, swiss to po, and the GIS User Community 1/1 6/2018 1 0:02:23 AM Y:\STO CK-17\GIS_GPS\BearMap.mxd Fort My er s (23 9) 334-3680 - 0 0.25 0.50.125 Mil es6Legend nm Bla ck Be a r Nu is ance Calls Su bje c t Parcel Livingston RoadVeterans M em ori al B oul ev ard 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 7 within a wood stork core foraging area but not within panther Priority 1 or 2 zones. The property is also within the Florida bonneted bat consultation area. Table 2. Listed Species That Could Potentially Occur On-site FLUCCS CODE Percent Survey Coverage Species Name Present Absent 411E1 411E2 411E4 80 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Southeastern American Kestrel (Falco sparverius paulus) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 450 80 None 618E 50 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Reddish Egret (Egretta rufescens) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) √ √ √ √ √ 619 80 None 621E2 621E3 80 American Alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Wood Stork (Mycteria americana) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 624E2 80 Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) √ √ √ √ √ 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 8 FLUCCS CODE Percent Survey Coverage Species Name Present Absent 625DE2 625E2 80 Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) Little Blue Heron (Egretta caerulea) Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Tricolored Heron (Egretta tricolor) Big Cypress Fox Squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia) Florida Black Bear (Ursus americanus floridanus) Florida Panther (Felis concolor coryi) √ √ √ √ √ √ √ 740 80 None SURVEY RESULTS Florida Bonneted Bat One dead slash pine and one live bald cypress containing potential cavities entrances were identified (Figure 1). No evidence of bat utilization (bat vocalization/chatter from within the potential cavities or guano on or around the snags) was observed. No artificial structures were observed on-site. An acoustic survey will be performed per FWS guidelines. Big Cypress Fox Squirrel One potential Big Cypress fox squirrel nest was observed within a melaleuca in the north central portion of the site. Future monitoring (prior to site clearing) will be required to determine if the nest is being actively used by Big Cypress fox squirrels. Collier County Plants Both butterfly orchids and stiff-leaved wild-pines (T. fasciculata) were observed in various locations across the site. Both species occur within the preserves and therefore, pursuant to Collier County LDC Section 3.04.03, there is no requirement to relocate butterfly orchids or stiff-leaved wild-pines into the preserves. Other Listed Species No other species listed by either the FWS or the FWC were observed on the site during the protected species survey or during other site visits. There is the potential for periodic opportunistic foraging by both listed and non listed species of wading birds within the wetlands. However, the amount of vegetative debris on the ground within the wetlands 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9 (other than within the willow dominated area) caused by Hurricane Irma reduces the foraging opportunity for wading birds. In addition to the site inspections, a search of the FWC species database (updated in June 2017) revealed no additional known protected species within or immediately adjacent to the project limits. Y:\STOCK-17\County\Zoning\PSA.docx 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Current Responsibilities Project Manager providing an array of environmental studies and services related to land development and property evaluation in south Florida. These activities, performed for private landowners and public entities, include vegetation mapping, binding and informal state and federal wetland jurisdictional determinations, wetland functional assessments using UMAM, WRAP, and MWRAP, habitat evaluations, establishing seasonal high water elevations for wetlands using biological indicators, threatened and endangered species surveys, and wetland (COE, DEP, and WMD) permit applications. Additional services include threatened and endangered species relocation and management plans, wetland mitigation (creation, restoration, enhancement, and preservation) plans, and the design and implementation of wetland monitoring plans. Experience Joined the firm in 2003 bringing over 16 years of experience as an environmental consultant in South Florida. More than 274,000 acres of land has been mapped and evaluated since 1987. Individual properties ranged in size from less than one acre to more than 5,000 acres located in Collier, Lee, Charlotte, Sarasota, Polk, Hardee, Brevard, Martin, and Dade Counties. Projects have included agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial land uses, new and expanding roadways, and wetland restoration (wetland mitigation banking). Wetland permitting experience includes wetland delineation, preparation of state and federal permit applications and supporting documents, responding to agency questions and third party concerns, and negotiating mutually acceptable wetland mitigation plans. Surveys and management plans have been conducted and prepared for gopher tortoises, eastern indigo snake, bald eagle, red- cockaded woodpecker, Florida bonneted bat, and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Has authorization from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to conduct surveys, prepare permit applications, and relocate gopher tortoises as an Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent. Is qualified as an expert witness by the Lee County Hearing Examiner, Collier County Environmental Advisory Council, Collier County Planning Commission, and City of Bonita Springs Zoning Board on environmental issues. Recently completed and ongoing projects for the public and private sectors include monitoring of the Lely Area Stormwater Improvement Project’s (LASIP) Serenity Park, Craig M. Smith, Senior Ecologist 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) wetland enhancement plan development, implementation, and monitoring for projects such as Barrington Cove, Marsilea, and Verona Pointe Estates, gopher tortoise permitting and relocation for several projects in Collier and Lee Counties, wetland permitting for Naples Heritage Golf and Country Club and Estero Crossing, and bald eagle management plan preparation for the Calusa Cay CPD on Pine Island. Education and Certification Master of Science, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 1987. Bachelor of Science, Clarion University of Pennsylvania, 1984. Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America Professional Wetland Scientist (No. 238), Society of Wetland Scientists Certified Arborist (No. FL-6255A), International Society of Arboriculture Authorized Gopher Tortoise Agent (Permit No. GTA-09-00011E), Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Qualified Bald Eagle Monitor, City of Cape Coral Provisionally Certified Wetland Delineator, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Certification Program, 1993. Continuing Education Florida Master Naturalist Program – Freshwater Wetlands. University of Florida IFAS, 2012. Native Trees, Shrubs, and wildflowers for Central and South Florida: Zones 9-11. Florida Association of Native Nurseries. 2011. Unified Mitigation Assessment Method 201 Training. South Florida Water Management District. 2010. Florida Statewide (62-340 FAC) Wetland Delineation Training Program. Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. 2007. Wetland Plant Identification Training Program. Richard Chinn Environmental Training, Inc. 2007. Unified Mitigation Assessment Method Training. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2005. The Florida Master Wildlifer. University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 2003. Basic Prescribed Fire Training. Hillsborough Community College. 1992. Florida Wetlands Successful Creation, Restoration, and Enhancement Training Course #1. Natural Resources Training and Certification, Inc. 1991. Florida Hydric Soils Workshop. Florida Association of Professional Soil Classifiers. 1991. Affiliations Ecological Society of America Society of Wetland Scientists 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) VISION • SOLUTIONS •PERFORMANCE Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard Naples, Florida Prepared For: Mr.Christopher Johnson Stock Development, LLC 2647 Professional Circle Naples, FL 34119 Prepared By: A•C•T Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 1875 West Main Street Bartow, Florida 33809 Your Compliance Partner! Report Date: December 29, 2017 A∙C∙T Project No.18972 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -ii- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATIONS The observations and research conducted in this investigation were based upon methods and procedures in general conformance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Designation E 1527-13, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”,and other practices which are customary and typical for the profession. Exceptions and deletions to the Standard Practice are described in detail where appropriate throughout the text. This Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed under the supervision of the environmental professional in accordance with Designation E 1527-13 (7.5.1). I attest that this Report is an accurate and authentic representation of the observations and Recognized Environmental Conditions encountered during the investigation. ____________________________________________ Michael A. Madonna I declare that, to the best of my professional knowledge and belief, I meet the definition of an environmental professional as defined in Section 312.10 of 40 CFR Part 312. I have the specific qualifications based on education, training, and experience to assess a property of the nature, history, and setting of the property. I have developed and performed all appropriate inquiries in conformance with the standards and practices set forth in 40 CFR Part 312. ________________________________May 8, 2017 James D. Stump, PG Copies of the qualifications for the environmental professionals who prepared this Report are found in Appendix A. December 29, 2017 _________________ Date December 29, 2017 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -iii- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A∙C∙T Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.(A∙C∙T) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Designation E1527-13, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”on the Livingston Assemblage located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Naples, Florida (the Subject Property, as described in Section 2.0 of this Report). Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice is described in Sections 1.7 and 4.0 of this Report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions in connection with the Subject Property. This summary does not contain all the information that is found in the full Report. The Report should be read in its entirety to obtain a more complete understanding of the information provided and to aid in any decisions made or actions taken based on this information. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -iv- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATIONS .....................................................................................................................II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................................................................III 1.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................6 1.1 Purpose and Objectives ......................................................................................................................6 1.2 User Contract and Warrantee .............................................................................................................7 1.3 Limitations of Assessment ...................................................................................................................7 1.4 Data Gaps ...........................................................................................................................................8 1.5 Authorization ........................................................................................................................................9 1.6 Access and Additional Information Sources ........................................................................................9 1.7 Deviations ..........................................................................................................................................10 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................11 2.1 Location and Legal Description .........................................................................................................11 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics ........................................................................................................12 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION ..................................................................13 3.1 Federal and State Regulatory Databases .........................................................................................13 3.2 Unmapped Facilities ..........................................................................................................................14 3.3 Local Records/Interviews ..................................................................................................................14 3.3.1 Subject Property Owner and User Interviews ............................................................................14 3.3.2 Collier County Fire Department ..................................................................................................15 3.4 Site History and Documentation ........................................................................................................15 3.4.1 City Directory Search .................................................................................................................15 3.4.2 Aerial Photography Review ........................................................................................................16 3.4.3 Property Appraiser Records .......................................................................................................17 3.4.4 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps ....................................................................................................18 3.4.5 Soil Survey of Collier County .....................................................................................................18 3.4.6 Vapor Migration ..........................................................................................................................19 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE .................................................................................................20 4.1 Concerns from Surrounding Properties Review ................................................................................22 4.2 Other Potential Recognized Environmental Conditions ...................................................................22 5.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS ................................................................................................23 6.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................24 7.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................25 ACRONYMS .............................................................................................................................26 DEFINITIONS ...........................................................................................................................27 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -v- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE LIST OF TABLES Table 1:Regulatory Database Search Results .........................................................................13 Table 2:Aerial Photograph Review ............................................................................................16 Table 3:Site Reconnaissance Summary ...................................................................................20 Table 4:Adjoining Sites Information ...........................................................................................22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1:Site Location Map Figure 2:Topography Map Figure 3:Site Plan Figure 4:Adjoining Properties Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A:Environmental Professional Qualifications Appendix B:Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Proposal Appendix C:Collier County Property Appraiser Information Appendix D:EDR Report Appendix E:Environmental Questionnaires/Interviews Appendix F:Historical Aerial Photographs,Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Soil Survey Map Appendix G:Photographic Documentation 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -6- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 1.0 INTRODUCTION This introduction establishes the purpose and objectives for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) described below. It identifies special terms, conditions, and limitations inherent in the methods used to conduct the assessment.Moreover, it describes the relationship between the users and A∙C∙T Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.(A∙C∙T ) and our warrantee that the investigation reflects a commercially prudent and reasonable inquiry to assess the environmental condition of the subject units of commercial real estate. Finally, it contains information on authorizations, access, and sources of certain data used in preparation of this Report. 1.1 Purpose and Objectives The purpose of this investigation is to provide a Phase I ESA Report for the Livingston Assemblage located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Naples, Collier County,Florida (the Subject Property).The Phase I ESA was conducted to identify, to the extent feasible, Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) in connection with the Subject Property.RECs are defined to mean the presence or likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at a property,due to any release to the environment,under conditions indicative of a release to the environment,or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. Activities performed for this Phase I ESA included the following:a site visit to evaluate the current condition of the site and identify the presence of unusual conditions; an off-site reconnaissance and windshield survey of the surrounding properties; a review of historic information associated with the site and surrounding properties; regulatory research including a review of federal,state, and local regulatory records and databases for the site and regulated properties within a specified distance from the site; review of local pertinent agency records to determine the status of the site and sites listed in the database search as being of concern to the site; and personal interviews with individuals who have knowledge of the site and its use.Users of this Report, other than those listed in Section 1.2 of this document, should be aware of the limitations set forth in that and other sections. This Phase I ESA will contain four components, which form the basis of the Phase I ESA and are required to meet “All Appropriate Inquiry” (AAI) into the environmental status of the site in general 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -7- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE accordance with ASTM Designation E 1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments:Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”. This ASTM Standard Practice meets USEPA requirements under 40 CFR 312. The four components of the assessment are: records review, site reconnaissance, interviews, and report preparation. The purpose of the records review is to obtain and review site-specific regulatory and historical records that will be useful in identifying RECs in connection with the site. The objective of the site reconnaissance is to obtain directly observable information from reasonably accessible locations indicating the likelihood of identifying RECs at the site or on adjoining properties. Interview activities with individuals knowledgeable with the site provide information regarding the historical and current usage of the Subject Property. 1.2 User Contract and Warrantee The user of this Report is Stock Development, LLC.A∙C∙T warrants that findings and conclusions contained in this Report were accomplished in general accordance with methods set forth in the ASTM Standard Practice described above. These represent good commercial and customary practice for conducting a Phase I ESA of a property for the purposes of identifying RECs and contain the limitations inherent in the methods which are referred to in the ASTM Standard Practice and some of which are more specifically set forth below. The contractual obligation between A∙C∙T and Stock Development, LLC is intended to provide a truthful, overall assessment of the environmental condition of the site.The exchange of information about the site between A∙C∙T and Stock Development, LLC is unique and serves as the basis upon which this Report was prepared.Obligations to third party users are outside the scope of this contract and unauthorized reliance on information or conclusions contained in this Report will be at the third party's risk. 1.3 Limitations of Assessment No environmental assessment can totally eliminate uncertainty; however, the ASTM Standard Practice used in this assessment is intended to reduce uncertainty, to lessen ambiguity, and to exercise discretion regarding the environmental condition of the site. It should not be construed as an exhaustive assessment of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -8- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE Future environmental assessments should not be used to judge appropriateness of this assessment based on hindsight, new information, or use of developing technology and analytical methods. Methods used to gather information contained in this Report generally meet the standards of All Appropriate Inquiry contained within the ASTM Standard Practice and may be reliable for subsequent assessments, but such reliability should not be presumed. Although the reliability of information from public documents and other databases are assumed accurate, this assumption is also presumed for information from private sources. If conditions on the site change or if new information becomes available, subsequent inquiries may be necessary. Additionally, as noted by the legal analysis, some substances may be present on a property in quantities and under conditions that may lead to contamination of the site or of nearby properties but are not included in CERCLA’s definition of hazardous substances (42 U.S. c. §9601 (14)) or do not otherwise present potential CERCLA liability. As a result,there may be environmental issues or conditions that parties may wish to assess in connection with commercial/industrial real estate that are outside the scope of ASTM Designation E 1527-13 referred to as “additional issues” and the user may wish to assess the additional issues as a “business environmental risk”. 1.4 Data Gaps A data gap is a lack or inability to obtain information required by ASTM Designation E1527-13 despite good faith efforts by the environmental professional to gather such information. Data gaps may result from incompleteness in any of the activities required by this practice including, but not limited to, access issues associated with site reconnaissance, and the availability of appropriate personnel for interview activities. A data gap by itself is not inherently significant. A data gap is only significant if other information and/or professional experience raises reasonable concerns involving the data gap.Data gaps were identified during the preparation of this Phase I ESA. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -9- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE A copy of an Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement was provided to Mr. Christopher Johnson of Stock Development, LLC, the Client, to forward to the various Property owner representatives. The purpose of this document was to obtain information from an individual with knowledge regarding historical and current usage of the Subject Property.As of the date of submittal of this report,A∙C∙T had not received a copy of a completed Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement from respective Property owners. The lack of completed Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement from the respective Property owners is considered a Data Gap per ASTM Standard E 1527-13. Mr. Christopher Johnson of Stock Development, LLC, was provided a copy of the User Questionnaire for the Subject Property, which requests specific information for a party seeking to qualify for Landowner Liability Protection to CERCLA liability. As of the date of submittal of this report,A∙C∙T had not received a copy of a completed questionnaire from Mr. Johnson.A copy of the User Questionnaire provided to Mr. Johnson is included in Appendix E.The lack of completed User Questionnaire is considered a Data Gap per ASTM Standard E 1527-13. 1.5 Authorization Authorization to perform this Phase I ESA was provided to A∙C∙T in the form of an agreement for services executed by Mr.Christopher Johnson of Stock Development, LLC on December 15, 2017 (Appendix B).The Project was initiated by A∙C∙T on December 18, 2017. 1.6 Access and Additional Information Sources In addition, the following information was provided to or collected by A∙C∙T: Site Plan Collier County Property Appraiser Legal Description Collier County Property Appraiser Key Site Contact Not Applicable-Vacant Densely Wooded Land Property Owners Various Owners-Thirteen (13)Parcels 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -10- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 1.7 Deviations The scope of services for this Phase I ESA specifically excludes work efforts related to the following items: Lead based paint testing Wetlands delineation Radon testing Cultural and historic resource evaluations Lead in drinking water testing Endangered species surveys Testing for airborne contaminants in interior spaces or HVAC Ecological resource evaluations Operational or regulatory compliance Health and safety evaluations Environmental audit services Industrial hygiene surveys Biological agent surveys Soil and/or groundwater testing activities Asbestos-Containing Building Materials surveys Mold testing High voltage powerline evaluations 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -11- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 2.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 2.1 Location and Legal Description The Subject Property referred to throughout this document consists of the Livingston Assemblage, located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Naples,Collier County,Florida, as shown in Figure 1 -Site Location Map. According to the Client, the Subject Property includes 13 parcels of real estate, totaling approximately 35-acres. The Collier County Property Appraiser (CCPA),Parcel Identification Numbers for the Subject Property are referenced below. Additional information referenced by the CCPA,including the applicable parcel/property owner,parcel legal description,and parcel acreage for each parcel associated with the Subject Property is reproduced below. The CCPA and Client provided information is included in Appendix C. Parcel ID #,Folio Number,Property Owner,Legal Description and Acreage Parcel 1 -This parcel was referenced in the Client provided information and located adjoining to the west of Parcel 2 on the northern portion of the Subject Property.The parcel details are not referenced by the CCPA.No additional information was available or provided for this parcel. Parcel 2 -Folio Number –00149200004 -Marc L Catalano Rev Trust;13 48 25 NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 LESS W 30FT;2.27-acres Parcel 3 -Folio Number –00150280000 -RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLE TRUST;13 48 25 NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1496 PG 625;2.5-acres Parcel 4 -Folio Number –00150160007 -MARC L CATALANO REV INTE TRUST;13 48 25 SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1510 PG 2233;2.5-acres Parcel 5 -Folio Number –00150560005 -MARC L CATALANO REV INTE TRUST;13 48 25 SW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 814 PG 1813;2.5-acres Parcel 6 -Folio Number –00148280009 -PARRISH, DOREEN L,DENNIS G BAAR REV LIV TRUST;13 48 25 SE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 + SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 5 AC OR 249 PG 583; 5.0-acres Parcel 7 -Folio Number –00150520003 -MARLAC LLC;13 48 25 W1/2 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 5 AC OR 752 PG 1030; 5.13-acres Parcel 8 –Folio Number –00149840008 -MARLAC LLC;13 48 25 NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4; 2.5-acres Parcel 9 –Folio Number –00150400000 -MARLAC LLC;13 48 25 NW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 837 PG 26; 2.5-acres 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -12- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE Parcel 10 –Folio Number –00150440002 -MARLAC LLC;13 48 25 SE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1324 PG 929; 2.5-acres Parcel 11 –Folio Number –00149080004 -MARLAC LLC;13 48 25 SW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1768 PG 1688; 2.5-acres Parcel 12 –Folio Number –00150600004 -MARLAC LLC;13 48 25 NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 297 PG 86; 2.5-acres Parcel 13 –Folio Number –00148200005 -LIVVET LLC;13 48 25 NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 800 PG 1362; 2.5-acres 2.2 Site and Vicinity Characteristics According to the CCPA and information provided by the Client,the Subject Property is comprised of thirteen (13) contiguous parcels, which combined total approximately 35-acres of real estate. The CCPA has classified the parcels of the Subject Property with Property Use Codes 0 –Vacant Residential, and 99 –Acreage Not Zoned Agricultural.There were no physical addresses referenced by the CCPA for the 13 parcels of real estate associated with the Subject Property. The Subject Property was observed as undeveloped and densely wooded during site reconnaissance activities. The surrounding parcels currently consist of residential subdivisions, the North Naples Fire Department #48,and wooded/undeveloped land.The local land surface elevation of the Subject Property is approximately 11 feet above sea level (NGVD), as depicted on Figure 2 - Topography Map. The regional topographic relief in the vicinity of the Subject Property is generally flat and reportedly toward the east-southeast.Preserve areas and stormwater retention areas were observed associated with the Barrington Cove residential subdivision, located adjoining to the east, south, and southeast of the Subject Property.Stormwater (dry) retention areas were observed adjoining to the north of the Subject Property across Veterans Memorial Boulevard. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -13- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 3.0 RECORDS REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION 3.1 Federal and State Regulatory Databases Information from standard federal and state environmental record sources was provided through Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). Data from governmental agency lists are compiled into one database, which is updated as these data are released. This database also contains postal service data in order to enhance address matching.Records from one government source are compared to records from another to clarify any address ambiguities. The demographic and geographic information available provides assistance in identifying and managing risk. The accuracy of the geocoded locations is approximately +/-300 feet. Regulatory information was reviewed from database sources to identify regulated properties within the ASTM minimum search distance from the site.Results of this database search identified regulated properties within the search distances from the Subject Property.A copy of the regulatory database report is included in Appendix D.The environmental status of the facilities identified within the regulatory databases in the vicinity of the Subject Property is presented in Table 1. Table 1: Regulatory Database Search Results Facility and Address Distance and Direction from the S.P. Potential Impact to the S.P. Comments N. Collier Fire CTRL & RESC DIST #48 16280 Livingston Road Adjoining W Low The N. Collier Fire Department Station #48 located adjoining to the west of the Subject Property was identified within the AST database.One,1,500-gallon diesel fuel AST was reportedly installed at this fire station in January 2015. Based on the review of the Storage Tank Facility Site Inspection Report dated June 6, 2017, this facility was reported operating in compliance with applicable AST regulations per Chapter 62-762-F.A.C. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -14- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE Facility and Address Distance and Direction from the S.P. Potential Impact to the S.P. Comments Regency Farm –Countyline Farm State Hwy 858 ~1200’ E Low This facility was identified within the AST database.Seven, 550-gallon ASTs for fuel oil were reportedly installed at this facility in August 1986 and in service at this time. Based on capacity, the ASTs associated with this facility are not regulated per Chapter 62-762, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) 3.2 Unmapped Facilities Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway was identified as a disaster debris staging area and was identified approximately 10-miles south of the Subject Property. Based on distance and regulatory status this facility does not appear to have the potential to impact the Subject Property at this time. 3.3 Local Records/Interviews The following agencies and/or knowledgeable parties were contacted concerning available information with regard to the Subject Property and the activities of other entities in the vicinity of the Subject Property. 3.3.1 Subject Property Owner and User Interviews A copy of an Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement was provided to Mr. Christopher Johnson of Stock Development,LLC,the Client, to forward to the various Property owner representatives.The purpose of this document was to obtain information from an individual with knowledge regarding historical and current usage of the Subject Property.As of the date of submittal of this report,A∙C∙T had not received a copy of completed Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement from the Property owners.A copy of the Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement provided to Mr.Johnson to forward to respective Property owners is included in Appendix E.The lack of a completed Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement from the respective Property owners is considered a Data Gap per ASTM Standard E 1527-13. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -15- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE Mr. Christopher Johnson of Stock Development, LLC, was provided a copy of the User Questionnaire for the Subject Property, which requests specific information for a party seeking to qualify for Landowner Liability Protection to CERCLA liability.As of the date of submittal of this report,A∙C∙T had not received a copy of a completed questionnaire from Mr. Johnson.A copy of the User Questionnaire provided to Mr. Johnson is included in Appendix E.The lack of a completed User Questionnaire is considered a Data Gap per ASTM Standard E 1527-13. 3.3.2 Collier County Fire Department Based on the email correspondence dated December 20, 2017, received from the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District, there have been no reported incidents to the Subject Property in the past five (5) years for fires, petroleum releases,and/or hazardous waste spills.A copy of the email correspondence received from the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District is included in Appendix E. 3.4 Site History and Documentation 3.4.1 City Directory Search City directories from 2005 through 2017 for the site vicinity were obtained and reviewed during the preparation of this Phase I ESA.No city directories for the site vicinity prior to 2005 were available for review.The Subject Property is located in a historically rural and undeveloped area of Naples, Florida.Based on information obtained from the CCPA, there are no physical addresses for the 13 parcels of real estate associated with the Subject Property. Review of the city directories for the property located adjoining to the west at 16280 Livingston Road indicate that this property has been occupied by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Station #48, since at least 2017. This address was not listed in the city directory listings reviewed prior to at least 2014. Review of the city directories for the property located in close proximity to the west at 15960 Veterans Memorial Boulevard indicate that this property has been occupied by Collier County School District-Veterans Memorial Elementary since at least 2008. This address was not listed in the city directory listings reviewed prior to at least 2007. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -16- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 3.4.2 Aerial Photography Review Available historical aerial photographs of the Subject Property and surrounding properties were examined for the years 1944, 1952, 1958, 1962, 1968,1975, 1980, 1986, 1993, 1999,2005 2006,2007,and 2010.Copies of the historical aerials reviewed are presented in Appendix F.A summary of the aerial photograph review is presented in Table 2. Table 2:Aerial Photograph Review Aerial Photograph Date Subject Property Adjacent Properties 1944 The Subject Property appeared wooded and undeveloped. The adjacent properties appeared wooded and undeveloped. 1952 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1944 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1944 photograph. 1958 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1952 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1952 photograph. 1962 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1958 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1958 photograph. 1968 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1962 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1962 photograph. 1975 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1968 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1968 photograph. 1980 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1975 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1975 photograph. 1986 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1980 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1980 photograph. 1993 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1986 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1986 photograph. 1999 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1993 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1993 photograph. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -17- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE It should be noted that the aerial photographs reviewed by A∙C∙T provide a gapped sequence of events about the subject property and adjoining properties. While these aerials may or may not reveal any specific environmental impacts, it must be remembered the information appearing in these aerials represents only a brief glimpse at historical activities in the area at the time the photos were made. 3.4.3 Property Appraiser Records There was no information in the Property Appraiser’s records that would identify RECs associated with the current use of the site.Information from the Property Appraiser’s records is found in Appendix C. Aerial Photograph Date Subject Property Adjacent Properties 2005 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 1999 photograph. Livingston Road appeared constructed to the west of the Subject Property and Veterans Memorial Boulevard appeared constructed adjoining to the north of the Subject Property. The adjacent property to the north appeared cleared for residential development, including roadway infrastructure. The adjacent property to the northwest appeared developed with a residential subdivision. The adjoining properties to the south, east,and west appeared wooded and undeveloped. 2006 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 2005 photograph. The Collier County Elementary School property appeared under construction in the regional area to the west of the Subject Property. Residential dwellings appeared constructed in the subdivision located adjoining to the north of the Subject Property. 2007 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 2006 photograph. The Collier County Elementary School property appeared active, and additional residential dwellings appeared constructed within the residential subdivision located adjoining to the north of the Subject Property. 2010 The Subject Property appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 2007 photograph. The adjacent properties appeared relatively unchanged compared to the 2007 photograph. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -18- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 3.4.4 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps are utilized to locate potential areas of environmental impairment as they often identify dry cleaners, service stations, or other facilities containing flammable materials. A search of available Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps was conducted by EDR for the Subject Property vicinity. In correspondence dated December 18,2017,A∙C∙T received information revealing that no Sanborn Fire Insurance Map coverage was available for the Subject Property (Appendix F). 3.4.5 Soil Survey of Collier County A review of the Soil Survey of Collier County revealed that the soils located on the Subject Property have been identified as Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (14);Boca fine sand (21); and Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum and Copeland fine sands, depressional (25), as included in Appendix F. Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum (14)–consists of nearly level and poorly-drained soil located in sloughs and poorly-defined drainage ways. The slope is 0 to 2 percent. The permeability of this soil is moderate to moderately slow. The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is within a depth of 12 inches for 3 to 6 month during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 12 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. During periods of high rainfall, the soil is covered by shallow, slowly moving water for about 7 days. Boca fine sand (21)–consists of nearly level,poorly-drained soil located on flatwoods. The permeability of this soil is moderate. The available water capacity is low. Under natural conditions, the seasonal high water table is at a depth of 6 to 8 inches for 1 to 6 months during most years. During the other months, the water table is below a depth of 18 inches, and it recedes to a depth of more than 40 inches during extended dry periods. Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum and Copeland fine sands, depressional (25)–consists of level,very poorly-drained soil in depressions, cypress swamps, and marshes.The permeability of the Boca soil is moderate and the available water capacity is very low.The permeability of the Riviera soil is moderately rapid to moderately slow, and the available water capacity is low. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -19- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE The permeability in the Copeland soil is moderately slow, and the available water capacity is moderate. 3.4.6 Vapor Migration Vapor migration refers to the movement of hazardous substances or petroleum products in any form, including solid and liquid at the surface or subsurface, and vapor in the subsurface.A∙C∙T conducted a Tier 1 Vapor Encroachment Screening for the Subject Property in accordance with ASTM E2600-15. This screening process utilizes information collected as part of these Phase I ESA activities at the Subject Property.There were no regulated facilities identified within the minimum search distances of the Subject Property during these Phase I ESA activities.Based upon results of the Tier I screening, there are no vapor encroachment conditions (VECs) located in the vicinity of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -20- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 4.0 SITE RECONNAISSANCE The site reconnaissance was conducted by Mr.Michael Madonna of A∙C∙T on December 19, 2017. The environmental professional walked the perimeter of the Subject Property, which including the adjoining property boundary land berms, and municipal sidewalks and roads located in close proximity of the Subject Property. The roadways observed in close proximity to the Subject Property include Livingston Road to the west, Veterans Memorial Boulevard to the north,and Barclay Court,Aberdeen Avenue, and Aberdeen Way, which are located within the Barrington Cove residential subdivision, located adjoining to the east, southeast,and south of the Subject Property.During site reconnaissance activities, dense invasive trees, groundcover vegetation, and uprooted/downed trees (due to Hurricane Irma),were observed throughout the central portions of the site. The dense vegetation and uprooted trees limited access to the interior/central portions of the site during site reconnaissance activities.No access roads were observed leading onto the Subject Property from the perimeter roads located in the regional area of the Subject Property. During the site reconnaissance activities, the natural grade/elevation of the Subject Property was lower with respect to the municipal roadway elevations, and the elevation of the Barrington Cove subdivision, located adjoining to the east,southeast and south of the Subject Property. A∙C∙T conducted a survey of the surrounding areas from the site boundaries, recording observations and photo documenting the site and vicinity features.A site plan illustrating conditions observed during site reconnaissance activities is included as Figure 3.Photographs of the current site conditions are presented in Appendix G.A summary of the site reconnaissance is presented on Table 3. Table 3:Site Reconnaissance Summary Observations Present Comments Hazardous Substances No No evidence of hazardous substances was observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Petroleum Storage No No petroleum storage systems were observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Other Substance Storage No No other substance storage was observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -21- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE Observations Present Comments Stains or Corrosion No Stains and corrosion were not observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Heating/Cooling No No buildings were observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Floor Drains or Sumps No Floor drains or sumps were not observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Stressed Vegetation No No evidence of stressed vegetation was observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Storm Water and Sewage No No storm water or sewage activities were observed during site reconnaissance activities.Storm water retention areas were observed within the Barrington Cove residential subdivision located adjoining to the east, southeast and south of the Subject Property. Regional stormwater (dry)retention areas were observed constructed adjoining to the north of the Subject Property across Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Sanitary sewer manholes and lift stations were observed within the ROW easements along Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Highway. Tanks, Pipes, and Vaults No Tanks, pipes, and vaults were not observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Electrical Transformers or PCBs No No transformers were observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities.Various municipal utility service providers including electric overhead power transmission lines, pole-mounted (non-PCB labeled) electric transformers,sanitary sewer, potable water,reclaimed water lines, natural gas transmission, and fiber optic communication system infrastructure were observed within the ROW easement at the intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard,and on Veterans Memorial Boulevard along the northern Property boundary. Wells No No water wells were observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Dense vegetation and uprooted trees limited access to and observations of the interior/central portions of the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Odors No No odors were observed during site reconnaissance activities. Pools of Liquid No No evidence of pools of liquid was observed on the Subject Property during the site reconnaissance activities. Drums No No drums were observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Pits, Ponds, and Lagoons No No pits, ponds, or lagoons for industrial purposes were observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -22- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE Observations Present Comments Solid Waste Minimal A minimal amount of solid waste, primarily convenience store rubbish,was observed discarded on the western and northern Property boundaries and the ROW associated with Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Waste Water No No buildings were observed on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. Waste water is not generated at the Subject Property at this time. Septic System No No evidence of a septic system was observed located on the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities.Dense vegetation and uprooted trees limited access to and observations of the interior/central portions of the Subject Property during site reconnaissance activities. 4.1 Concerns from Surrounding Properties Review Adjoining properties were investigated from the site during the site reconnaissance.Surrounding properties include a Greater Naples Fire Station, residential subdivisions,and wooded/undeveloped land.A summary of the adjoining sites observed during reconnaissance activities is listed on Table 4 and Figure 4. Table 4: Adjoining Sites Information Direction from Property Sites Use North,Northeast and Northwest Residential Subdivisions and Golf Course Communities Residential East Residential Subdivision and Wooded/Undeveloped Land Residential and Undeveloped South Residential Subdivision Residential West Wooded Undeveloped Land,North Collier County Fire Station #48 Residential 4.2 Other Potential Recognized Environmental Conditions The site reconnaissance of the Phase I ESA revealed no evidence of other potential RECs from the site. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1429 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -23- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 5.0 FINDINGS AND OPINIONS Known or suspect environmental conditions identified during these Phase I ESA activities for the subject property have been summarized below: Review of regulatory records and historical resources revealed the presence of two regulated facilities within the ASTM minimum search distances from the Subject Property. However, based upon the database information for these facilities and/or their distances from the Subject Property, potential impacts from these regulated facilities are not expected to cause a Recognized Environmental Condition associated with the Subject Property at this time. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -24- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 6.0 CONCLUSIONS A∙C∙T Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc.(A∙C∙T) has performed a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) in conformance with the scope and limitations of ASTM Designation E 1527- 13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”for the Livingston Assemblage located at the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Naples, Collier County,Florida (the Subject Property). Any exceptions to or deletions from this practice are described in Sections 1.7 and 4.0 of this Report. This assessment has revealed no evidence of Recognized Environmental Conditions in connection with the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -25- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE 7.0 REFERENCES American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM)Designation E 1527-13, “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process”. Environmental Data Resources, Inc.;The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck,Livingston Assemblage,Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Naples, FL 34110; Inquiry #5140197.2s;December 18, 2017. Environmental Data Resources, Inc.;Certified Sanborn Map Report,Livingston Assemblage, Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Naples, FL 34110; Inquiry #5140197.3; December 18, 2017. Environmental Data Resources, Inc.;The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package,Livingston Assemblage, Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Naples, FL 34110; Inquiry #5140197.5;December 19, 2017. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service;Soil Survey of Collier County, Florida; 1998. Collier County Property Appraiser Office Website. United States Geological Survey 7.5 minute Topographic Quadrangle Map –Bonita Springs, Florida Quad; obtained from National Geographic Topographic Quads software. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -26- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE ACRONYMS AST Aboveground Storage Tank ASTM American Society of Testing and Materials AULs Activity and Use Limitations CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System CERC-NFRAP Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System, No Further Remedial Action Planned CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Coal Gas Former Manufactured Gas (Coal Gas) Sites CORRACTS Corrected Action Report Delisted NPL National Priority List -Delisted EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency ERNS Emergency Response Notification System FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FINDS Facility Index System HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System NPL National Priority List NPL-Liens Federal Superfund Liens PADS PCB Activity Database System RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracing System RCRIS-SQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Small Quantity Generator RCRIS-LQG Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Large Quantity Generator RCRIS--TSD Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Treatment Storage and Disposal ROD Records of Decision SHWS State Hazardous Waste SWF/LF Solid Waste Facility/ Landfill Database TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USGS United States Geologic Survey UST Underground Storage Tank NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1433 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road Naples, Florida A∙C∙T Project No.18972 -27- VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE DEFINITIONS ASTM Designation E1527-13 defines a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) as the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products, in, on or at a property,due to any release to the environment; under conditions indicative of a release to the environment; or under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment. De minimis-The term REC is not intended to include de minimis conditions that generally do not present a threat to human health or the environment and that generally would not be the subject of an enforcement action if brought to the attention of appropriate governmental agencies. Conditions determined to be de minimis are not RECs nor controlled RECs. A Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) is a REC resulting from a past release of hazardous substances or petroleum products that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority (for example, as evidence by the issuance of a no further action letter or equivalent, or meeting risk-based criteria established by regulatory authority), with hazardous substances or petroleum products allowed to remain in place subject to the implementation of required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). A Historic Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is a past release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products that has occurred in connection with the property and has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or meeting unrestricted use criteria established by a regulatory authority, without subjecting the property to any required controls (for example, property use restrictions, activity and use limitations, institutional controls, or engineering controls). “Property” is defined as the real property that is the subject of the environmental site assessment described in this practice. Real property includes buildings, and other fixtures and improvements located on the property and affixed to land. Fire Insurance Map -The term fire insurance maps means maps produced for private fire insurance map companies (in example Sanborn™ Fire Insurance Maps) that indicate uses of properties at specified dates and that encompass the property. These maps are often available at local libraries, historical societies, private resellers, or from the map companies who produce them. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) FIGURES 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1435 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ­0 10.5 Miles Legend Approx. Property Boundary Figure:1 18972 1" = 1 Mile 18972_Fig1.arc IJT 12/29/2017 JS Site Location Map Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard Naples, Collier County, Florida OpenStreetMap Date: Scale: ArcMap File: Created By: Project No.: Approved By: Source: 1875 West Main StreetBartow, Florida 33830P # 863.533.2000F # 863.534.1133 © OpenStreetMap (and) contributors, CC-BY-SA ^_ ^_Approx. Property Location 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ­0 1,000500 Feet Legend Approx. Property Boundary Figure:2 18972 1" = 1,000' 18972_Fig2.arc IJT 12/29/2017 JS Topography Map Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard Naples, Collier County, Florida USGS Date: Scale: ArcMap File: Created By: Project No.: Approved By: Source: 1875 West Main StreetBartow, Florida 33830P # 863.533.2000F # 863.534.1133 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ­0 300150 Feet Legend Approx. Property Boundary Figure:3 18972 1" = 300' 18972_Fig3.arc IJT 12/29/2017 JS Site Plan Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard Naples, Collier County, Florida Labins Date: Scale: ArcMap File: Created By: Project No.: Approved By: Source: 1875 West Main StreetBartow, Florida 33830P # 863.533.2000F # 863.534.1133 Veterans Memorial Boulevard Livingston Road9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ­0 500250 Feet Legend Approx. Property Boundary Figure:4 18972 1" = 500' 18972_Fig4.arc IJT 12/29/2017 JS Adjoining Properties Map Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard Naples, Collier County, Florida Labins Date: Scale: ArcMap File: Created By: Project No.: Approved By: Source: 1875 West Main StreetBartow, Florida 33830P # 863.533.2000F # 863.534.1133 Undeveloped Land Undeveloped Land Undeveloped Land Undeveloped Land Residential Golf Course Residential Residential Residential Fire Station Veterans Memorial Boulevard Livingston RoadVacant Commercial Land 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) APPENDIX A ENVIRONMENTAL PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Michael Alan Madonna Environmental Site Assessment Project Manager Michael Madonna is an Environmental Site Assessment Manager who has been actively involved in Florida's environmental consulting industry since 1998. Mr.Madonnas’responsibilities have included project scheduling and implementation, managing subcontractors and personnel, equipment,materials and interaction with client and multiple local, state and federal agencies. Representative Project Experience Performed and managed Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments throughout Florida, Georgia,Louisiana, Michigan, South Carolina, North Carolina, Nevada, Virginia,Tennessee, Texas,and Idaho,for the banking industry. Properties have included agricultural, commercial,educational,industrial, residential subdivisions and golf course property transactions. Managed remedial action work at several sites throughout Florida for private land owners, financial institutions, private developers, County regulatory agencies, FDEP Storage Tank, FDEP Waste Cleanup and Petroleum Cleanup Sections. Managed Aboveground Storage Tank (AST)and Underground Storage Tank (UST)Closures. Client Manager for Manatee County Environmental Resource Management Department.Responsible for implementing and managing Phase I and Phase II Environmental Assessments,Site Assessments, Source Removal /Remedial Action Projects. Assisted with Aviation projects. Project Manager Manage and perfo Education Bachelor of Science, In Biology w/ Secondary Education St. Francis College of PA, 1990 Loretto, Penn. Training 40-Hour HAZWOPER Training Ground Penetrating Radar-Utility Scan-Geophysical Survey Systems, Inc. FDEP Field Sampling Training Course FDEP Hands-On Field School for Petroleum Contamination Cleanup Environmental Technology Center Sampling Certificates Professional Profile 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) JAMES STUMP, P.G. VISION • SOLUTIONS • PERFORMANCE Mr. James Stump, P.G. has more than 29 years of professional environmental consulting experience. Areas of expertise include investigations associated with environmental due diligence, soil and groundwater quality assessments, remedial activities associated with contaminated sites and Brownfields studies. Mr. Stump also has extensive project experience which includes relationships with private and public sector clients and regulatory personnel. Mr. Stump has also been involved with multiple aspects of field activities associated with environmental investigations including Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments and soil and groundwater sampling. REPRE SENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE  Environmental due diligence activities (Phase I/Phase II Environmental Site Assessments) at multiple locations in support of real property transactions and to evaluate/manage environmental risks. Project locations have included well over 100 industrial, commercial, agricultural, residential, and governmental sites throughout the State of Florida.  Groundwater quality assessments for various chemicals, including petroleum products, metals, pesticides, and other hazardous-related products.  Remedial activities associated with contaminated media from aboveground and underground petroleum storage tanks.  Site rehabilitation activities associated with multiple dry cleaner facilities at locations throughout the State of Florida. Site rehabilitation activities completed have included detailed subsurface sampling and stratigraphic investigations utilizing SPT, direct push, sonic, and geophysical technologies; and aquifer testing activities utilizing single and multiple wells.  Brownfields investigations including field activities and report documentation of site inventories, Phase I and Phase II ESAs, contaminated soil and solid waste removal/disposal, and preparation of bid specifications and construc- tion drawings.  Development of groundwater monitoring plans for municipal wastewater sprayfields and abandoned landfills.  Ground penetrating radar and electromagnetic investigations to locate shallow buried features including underground storage tanks and buried debris and materials associated with landfilling activities. Education University of South Florida Master of Science Geology Eastern Illinois University Bachelor of Science Geology Professional Registration Certified Professional Geologist A.I. P.G. #9728 Registered Professional Geologist: Florida #1311 Georgia #1422 Florida Licensed Asbestos Inspector #11516410 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) APPENDIX B PHASE I ESA PROPOSAL 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) CCOORRPPOORRAATTEE OOFFFFIICCEE 11887755 WWeesstt MMaaiinn SSttrreeeett ·· BBaarrttooww,, FFLL 3333883300 wwwwww..AA--CC--TT..ccoomm 886633..553333..22000000 VISION · SOLUTIONS · PERFORMANCE November 17, 2017 Mr. Christopher Johnson Stock Development 2647 Professional Circle Suite 1201 Naples, FL 34119 SUBJECT: PHASE I ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT PROPOSAL +-32 ACRES LIVINGSTON ASSEMBLAGE LIVINGSTON AND VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA A∙C∙T PROPOSAL #20628.17 Dear Mr. Johnson: Thank you for this opportunity for A∙C∙T Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. (A∙C∙T) to present this cost proposal to perform a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for the commercial property referenced above. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions in connection with the property. The Phase I ESA will be performed in general accordance with ASTM Designation E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Our proposed scope of services includes the activities described the following section. 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES: 1.1 Phase I ESA 1.1.1 Review information provided by the Client, including the A·C·T Environmental Questionnaire, previous site investigations or assessments, legal descriptions, and chains-of- title. The chain-of-title documents shall include all deeds, easements, leases, restrictions, covenants, and cleanup liens from the past 50 years. These Client-provided documents will be reviewed for evidence of activities, which may have environmentally adverse implications. [Please note: If you wish, we will be happy to obtain a 50-year Environmental Chain-of-Title for you if you have not already obtained one, to be performed on a time and materials basis.] 1.1.2 Obtain and review relevant and readily available Federal, State, and Local environmental regulatory agency information concerning registered underground and aboveground fuel storage tanks, registered hazardous waste generating and disposal sites, landfills, and release of hazardous or regulated substances within the ASTM minimum required databases and search radii. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 2 1.1.3 Evaluate previous uses and/or occupancy of the property from 1950 to the present, and, if available, prior to 1950 by review of one or more of the following standard historical sources.  Aerial Photographs  City Directories  Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps In some instances, sources may not identify the uses back to 1950, in which case the uses back to the earliest date development was identified will be presented. Actual records or sources reviewed may vary depending on whether they are reasonably ascertainable, practically reviewable, useful, and within the cost and/or time constraints imposed. 1.1.4 Conduct a site reconnaissance to obtain information indicating the likelihood of existing recognized environmental conditions associated with the property. The reconnaissance will consist of systematically traversing the property to provide an overlapping field of view. In the event that visibility or access is limited, such as due to heavy vegetation, water bodies, or size, these conditions will be noted in the final report. In general, when access or visibility problems are encountered, the site reconnaissance will be restricted to the perimeters of the property and to areas such as paths and roadways that are readily accessible for visual observations. Adjoining properties will be observed from the perimeter of the property. For large property assessments it sometimes becomes necessary to perform the site reconnaissance with specialized equipment. Reconnaissance with specialized equipment may include use of company airplane, air boat, jon boat, off-road vehicles, etc. A written request will be prepared and submitted for authorization if such specialized equipment is determined to be necessary to provide due diligence for reconnaissance activities. All use of specialized reconnaissance equipment will be done so on a time and materials basis. Property improvements, such as buildings, sheds, and warehouses, will be entered for reconnaissance purposes, except where access is limited or safety concerns prohibit entry. The reconnaissance will be for the observation of readily accessible and visible areas and does not include hidden areas or areas which would require destructive access, such as looking under floors, above ceilings, or behind walls. Arrangements for access, such as notification of tenants, will be the responsibility of the Client and should be made prior to the site reconnaissance. Where appropriate, observations and notes will be made concerning:  General property setting, current and past uses  Geologic, hydrogeologic, hydrologic, and topographic conditions  Improvements (structures, roads, utilities)  Hazardous substances and petroleum products  Storage tanks, vents, fill pipes, access ways  Odors (strong, pungent, or noxious)  Drums, containers of hazardous/unknown substances and petroleum products 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 3  PCB-containing equipment  Stains, corrosion, and stressed vegetation  Drains, sumps, pits, ponds, and lagoons  Solid waste, wastewater, wells, and septic systems The adjoining properties will be observed from the subject site during the site reconnaissance. Visual observations will be made of current and past land uses, wherever apparent, as well as any obvious environmental conditions. The adjacent properties will not be entered. Where possible, photographs will be taken to document observations. 1.1.5 Conduct Interviews, as deemed necessary, with any of the following by phone, in writing, or in person to obtain information indicating recognized environmental conditions associated with the property and adjoining properties:  Key Site Manager (as identified by Client)  Occupants/Tenants  Local Governmental Officials (if possible or pertinent) 1.1.6 Prepare a report of our findings and provide the Client with one (1) digital copy of the Report. The Report will include information obtained during the assessment regarding recognized environmental conditions at the property, documentation, and copies of data obtained and conclusions based upon this information. 2.0 EXCLUSIONS A∙C∙T’s scope of services for this project specifically excludes work efforts related to the following items. If the Client desires to have investigations of these types of items conducted, A∙C∙T will provide or arrange to provide these services as additional work.  Lead based paint  Asbestos containing materials  Radon  Lead in drinking water  Testing for airborne contaminants in interior spaces or HVAC Operational or Regulatory Compliance Environmental Audit services  Phase II Investigations  Wetlands  Cultural and historic resources  Industrial Hygiene  Health and Safety  Ecological resources 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 4  Endangered species  Biological agents  Mold & Mildew 3.0 TIME SCHEDULE Due date is twenty days from receipt of signed contract authorization. 4.0 PROJECT COSTS Phase I ESA and Report ........................................................................................................... $3,200.00 A∙C∙T strives to be a competitive environmental contracting/consulting firm while maintaining a high quality product for its clientele. To do this effectively A∙C∙T must specify what conditions each project is based upon. Certain conditions or situations may occur during the course of project work which may adversely impact the project costs. Additional work will not begin without prior express authorization. This cost estimate, as presented, is strictly based upon client communications and the attached Terms and Conditions. NOTE: A Phase I ESA is an objective assessment of a specific property(ies) and is intended to identify, to the extent feasible, recognized environmental conditions in accordance with ASTM Designation: E 1527-13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Because the Phase I ESA is an objective assessment, the recommendations and conclusions arrived at by the certified assessor may or may not benefit the Client and may directly affect the outcome of any associated property transaction. Regardless of the recommendations and conclusions reached by the certified assessor and/or of the completion of any associated property transaction, payment will be expected in the amount identified above in accordance with the whole of this estimate and the attached Terms and Conditions. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5 All of us at A∙C∙T look forward to working with you on this project. As always, we will commit our personnel, resources, and experience in a manner to allow for an environmentally sound, safety conscious, and cost effective plan to rapidly and successfully complete any assignment to your satisfaction. Please carefully review proposal. Should you desire A∙C∙T to perform this work, please execute this agreement in the space provided, make a copy for your own files, and return the original to A∙C∙T . Scanned and e-mailed copies are acceptable. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Floy R. Graves directly at (863) 533-2000, ext.211. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, _____________________________ Floy R. Graves Client Development A∙C∙T Proposal No. 20628.17 accepted: Signature*: __________________________ Printed Name & Title: _____________________________ Company: __________________________ Date: ______________________________ * - Signature to be performed by individual authorized to contractually bind the client. Qualifying signature indicates authorization for A∙C∙T to commence with scope of services, acceptance to pay for Services as presented, and acknowledges receipt, review, and acceptance of A∙C∙T Terms and Conditions attached hereto. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) APPENDIX C PROPERTY APPRAISER RECORDS 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Print New Search Tax Bills Change of Address $ 0 $ 120,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 283,750 $ 0 $ 283,750 $ 34,050 $ 249,700 $ 283,750 $ 249,700 Parcel No.00149200004 Site Adr. Name / Address MARC L CATALANO REV TRUST 11935 SW 15TH CT City DAVIE State FL Zip 33325-4633 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 013 3A13 13 48 25 2.27 Legal 13 48 25 NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 LESS W 30FT Millage Area 97 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 12/09/11 4744-3042 11/28/11 4744-3049 08/18/98 2452-2101 03/16/90 1513-346 03/01/64 163-873 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( - )10% Cap ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Property Summary Property Detail Aerial Sketches Trim Notices Page 1 of 1Details 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpa... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00149200004 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1457 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 0 $ 40,000 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 129,487 $ 183,013 $ 312,500 $ 183,013 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00150280000 Site Adr. Name / Address RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLE TRUST 3580 7TH AVE NW City NAPLES State FL Zip 34120-1608 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 040 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1496 PG 625 Millage Area 97 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 11/08/04 3675-1026 01/08/90 1496-625 05/01/67 237-465 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( - )10% Cap ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00150280000 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 0 $ 75,800 $ 16,500 $ 0 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 37,500 $ 275,000 $ 312,500 $ 275,000 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00150160007 Site Adr. Name / Address MARC L CATALANO REV INTE TRUST 11935 SW 15TH CT City DAVIE State FL Zip 33325-4633 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 037 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1510 PG 2233 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/25/05 3876-1546 03/08/90 1510-2233 06/01/88 1360-1656 06/01/88 1360-1655 02/01/67 232-106 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( - )10% Cap ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00150160007 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 0 $ 525,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 129,487 $ 183,013 $ 312,500 $ 183,013 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00150560005 Site Adr. Name / Address MARC L CATALANO REV INTE TRUST 11935 SW 15TH CT City DAVIE State FL Zip 33325-4633 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 047 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 SW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 814 PG 1813 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/25/05 3876-1542 05/06/05 3792-3078 06/01/79 814-1813 06/01/76 652-589 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( - )10% Cap ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1462 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00150560005 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1463 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 0 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 0 $ 312,500 $ 37,500 $ 275,000 $ 312,500 $ 275,000 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00148280009 Site Adr. Name / Address PARRISH, DOREEN L DENNIS G BAAR REV LIV TRUST PO BOX 933 City SEAHURST State WA Zip 98062 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 001 53A13 13 48 25 5 Legal 13 48 25 SE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 + SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OFNE1/4 5 AC OR 249 PG 583 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 03/28/13 4908-204 11/27/67 249-583 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( - )10% Cap ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1464 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00148280009 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1465 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 800,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 400,100 $ 0 $ 400,100 $ 114,600 $ 285,500 $ 400,100 $ 285,500 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00150520003 Site Adr. Name / Address MARLAC LLC 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD City HAWTHORN WOODS State IL Zip 60047-7359 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 046 3A13 13 48 25 5.13 Legal 13 48 25 W1/2 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 5 AC OR 752 PG 1030 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/13/10 4596-980 12/09/05 3944-3620 05/20/05 3804-1028 05/17/78 752-1030 06/01/76 652-589 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( - )10% Cap ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1466 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00150520003 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1467 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 800,000 $ 525,000 $ 0 $ 100 $ 0 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00149840008 Site Adr. Name / Address MARLAC LLC 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD City HAWTHORN WOODS State IL Zip 60047-7359 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 029 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/13/10 4596-980 01/13/06 3965-505 11/01/70 375-947 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1468 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00149840008 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1469 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 800,000 $ 525,000 $ 0 $ 1,300 $ 100 $ 0 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00150400000 Site Adr. Name / Address MARLAC LLC 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD City HAWTHORN WOODS State IL Zip 60047-7359 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 043 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 NW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 837 PG 26 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/13/10 4596-980 01/19/06 3968-942 10/17/79 837-26 01/01/68 254-98 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1470 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00150400000 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1471 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 800,000 $ 525,000 $ 18,800 $ 0 $ 0 $ 100 $ 0 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00150440002 Site Adr. Name / Address MARLAC LLC 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD City HAWTHORN WOODS State IL Zip 60047-7359 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 044 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 SE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1324 PG 929 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/13/10 4596-980 01/19/06 3968-940 02/03/00 2637-1226 01/17/88 1324-929 01/01/68 254-100 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1472 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00150440002 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1473 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 800,000 $ 525,000 $ 18,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 100 $ 0 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 $ 100 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00149080004 Site Adr. Name / Address MARLAC LLC 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD City HAWTHORN WOODS State IL Zip 60047-7359 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 010 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 SW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1768 PG 1688 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/13/10 4596-980 01/19/06 3968-939 09/09/04 3639-854 11/17/92 1768-1688 07/01/92 1736-210 02/01/89 1415-679 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1474 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00149080004 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1475 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 800,000 $ 440,000 $ 250,000 $ 0 $ 500 $ 0 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00150600004 Site Adr. Name / Address MARLAC LLC 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD City HAWTHORN WOODS State IL Zip 60047-7359 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 048 3A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 297 PG 86 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 08/13/10 4596-980 04/21/08 4351-3494 11/18/05 3932-2401 01/17/69 297-86 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1476 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00150600004 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1477 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) $ 0 $ 360,000 $ 400,000 $ 0 $ 0 $ 2,500 $ 500 $ 0 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No.00148200005 Site Adr. Name / Address LIVVET LLC 25397 N NORTHBRIDGE RD City HAWTHORN WOODS State IL Zip 60047-7359 Map No.Strap No.Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 3A13 000100 001 33A13 13 48 25 2.5 Legal 13 48 25 NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 800 PG 1362 Millage Area 150 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Use Code 0 - VACANT RESIDENTIAL 5.122 5.8384 10.9604 Latest Sales History (Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality) Date Book-Page Amount 11/26/12 4865-2180 04/21/08 4351-3612 04/03/06 4009-1178 12/14/05 3947-3958 03/21/79 800-1362 05/01/76 648-1967 2017 Certified Tax Roll (Subject to Change) Land Value ( +)Improved Value ( =)Market Value ( =)Assessed Value ( =)School Taxable Value ( =)Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1478 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Aerial Parcel No.00148200005 Site Adr. Open GIS in a New Window with More Features. Page 1 of 1 12/18/2017http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/RecordDetail.html?sid=1020880270&ccpaver=1710181149... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1479 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1480 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00149200004 Name: MARC L CATALANO REV TRUST Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 013 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 LESS W 30FT 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1481 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00150280000 Name: RICHARD ALAN SOMMERVILLE TRUST Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 040 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1496 PG 625 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1482 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00150160007 Name: MARC L CATALANO REV INTE TRUST Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 037 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1510 PG 2233 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1483 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00150560005 Name: MARC L CATALANO REV INTE TRUST Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 047 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 SW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 814 PG 1813 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1484 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00148280009 Name: PARRISH, DOREEN L Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 001 / 5 Legal Description: 13 48 25 SE1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 + SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF NE1/4 5 AC OR 249 PG 583 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1485 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00150520003 Name: MARLAC LLC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 046 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 W1/2 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 5 AC OR 752 PG 1030 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1486 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00149840008 Name: MARLAC LLC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 029 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1487 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00150400000 Name: MARLAC LLC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 043 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 NW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 837 PG 26 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1488 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00150440002 Name: MARLAC LLC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 044 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 SE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1324 PG 929 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1489 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00149080004 Name: MARLAC LLC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 010 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 SW1/4 OF SE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 1768 PG 1688 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1490 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00150600004 Name: MARLAC LLC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 048 / Legal Description: 13 48 25 NE1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 297 PG 86 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1491 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Folio Number: 00148200005 Name: LIVVET LLC Street# & Name: Build# / Unit#: 001 / 3 Legal Description: 13 48 25 NW1/4 OF NE1/4 OF SW1/4 OF NE1/4 2.5 AC OR 800 PG 1362 2004. Collier County Property Appraiser. While the Collier County Property Appraiser is committed to providing the most accurate and up-to-date information, no warranties expressed or implied are provided for the data herein, its use, or its interpretation. Page 1 of 1Print Map 12/15/2017http://maps.collierappraiser.com/mapprint.aspx?pagetitle=&orient=LANDSCAPE&paper... 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1492 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES REPORT AND FDEP FILE REVIEW DATA 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1493 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) FORM-LBD-DVV ®kcehCoeG htiw tropeR ™paM suidaR RDE ehT 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor Shelton, CT 06484 Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd. Naples, FL 34110 Inquiry Number: 5140197.2s December 18, 2017 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1494 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) SECTION PAGE Executive Summary ES1 Overview Map 2 Detail Map 3 Map Findings Summary 4 Map Findings 8 Orphan Summary 12 Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1 GEOCHECK ADDENDUM Physical Setting Source Addendum A-1 Physical Setting Source Summary A-2 Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map A-5 Physical Setting Source Map A-12 Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-14 Physical Setting Source Records Searched PSGR-1 TC5140197.2s Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TABLE OF CONTENTS 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1495 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC5140197.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate. TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS LIVINGSTON ROAD AND VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. NAPLES, FL 34110 COORDINATES 26.2999400 - 26˚ 17’ 59.78’’Latitude (North): 81.7600600 - 81˚ 45’ 36.21’’Longitude (West): Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator: 424126.4UTM X (Meters): 2908960.0UTM Y (Meters): 11 ft. above sea levelElevation: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY 5652584 BONITA SPRINGS, FLTarget Property Map: 2012Version Date: 5652664 CORKSCREW SW, FLEast Map: 2012Version Date: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT 20150426Portions of Photo from: USDASource: 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1496 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.2s Page 2 2 REGENCY FARM-COUNTYL STATE HWY 858 AST Lower 1213, 0.230, ENE 1 NORTH COLLIER FIRE C 16280 LIVINGSTON RD AST Higher 346, 0.066, NW MAPPED SITES SUMMARY Target Property Address: LIVINGSTON ROAD AND VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. NAPLES, FL 34110 Click on Map ID to see full detail. MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.) ID DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTIONSITE NAME ADDRESS 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1497 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC5140197.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR. DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES No mapped sites were found in EDR’s search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the following databases: STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL National Priority List Proposed NPL Proposed National Priority List Sites NPL LIENS Federal Superfund Liens Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL National Priority List Deletions Federal CERCLIS list FEDERAL FACILITY Federal Facility Site Information listing SEMS Superfund Enterprise Management System Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list SEMS-ARCHIVE Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS Corrective Action Report Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG RCRA - Large Quantity Generators RCRA-SQG RCRA - Small Quantity Generators RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries LUCIS Land Use Control Information System US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1498 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC5140197.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 US INST CONTROL Sites with Institutional Controls Federal ERNS list ERNS Emergency Response Notification System State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS SHWS Florida’s State-Funded Action Sites State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF Solid Waste Facility Database State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST Petroleum Contamination Detail Report LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tank Listing INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land State and tribal registered storage tank lists FF TANKS Federal Facilities Listing FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing UST Storage Tank Facility Information INDIAN UST Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land TANKS Storage Tank Facility List State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries ENG CONTROLS Institutional Controls Registry INST CONTROL Institutional Controls Registry State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites VCP Voluntary Cleanup Sites INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Sites Database ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites SWRCY Recycling Centers INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands ODI Open Dump Inventory DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1499 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC5140197.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register PRIORITYCLEANERS Priority Ranking List Fl Sites Sites List US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register Local Land Records LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System SPILLS Oil and Hazardous Materials Incidents SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch Other Ascertainable Records RCRA NonGen / NLR RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites DOD Department of Defense Sites SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST 2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems ROD Records Of Decision RMP Risk Management Plans RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System PRP Potentially Responsible Parties PADS PCB Activity Database System ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System FTTS FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data COAL ASH EPA Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database RADINFO Radiation Information Database HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees INDIAN RESERV Indian Reservations FUSRAP Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program UMTRA Uranium Mill Tailings Sites LEAD SMELTERS Lead Smelter Sites US AIRS Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem US MINES Mines Master Index File ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1500 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC5140197.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing ECHO Enforcement & Compliance History Information FUELS PROGRAM EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing AIRS Permitted Facilities Listing ASBESTOS ASBESTOS CLEANUP SITES DEP Cleanup Sites - Contamination Locator Map Listing DEDB Ethylene Dibromide Database Results DRYCLEANERS Drycleaning Facilities DWM CONTAM DWM CONTAMINATED SITES Financial Assurance Financial Assurance Information Listing FL Cattle Dip. Vats Cattle Dipping Vats RESP PARTY Responsible Party Sites Listing SITE INV SITES Site Investigation Section Sites Listing TIER 2 Tier 2 Facility Listing UIC Underground Injection Wells Database Listing NPDES Wastewater Facility Regulation Database EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS EDR Exclusive Records EDR MGP EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Hist Auto EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations EDR Hist Cleaner EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives RGA HWS Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List RGA LF Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List RGA LUST Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases. Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1501 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC5140197.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7 STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS State and tribal registered storage tank lists AST: Shortly after the Sept 11 event, the DEP was instructed to remove the detail about some of the storage tank facilities in the state from their reports. Federal-owned facilities and bulk storage facilities are included in that set. A review of the AST list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there are 2 AST sites within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property. PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Equal/Higher Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ NORTH COLLIER FIRE C 16280 LIVINGSTON RD NW 0 - 1/8 (0.066 mi.) 1 8 Database: AST, Date of Government Version: 10/04/2017 Facility-Site Id: 9814442 Facility Status: OPEN Facility Status: OPEN PageMap IDDirection / Distance Address Lower Elevation ____________________ ________ ___________________ _____ _____ REGENCY FARM-COUNTYL STATE HWY 858 ENE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.230 mi.) 2 9 Database: AST, Date of Government Version: 10/04/2017 Facility-Site Id: 8944125 Facility Status: OPEN Facility Status: OPEN 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1502 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TC5140197.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8 Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped. Count: 1 records. Site Name Database(s)____________ ____________ LIVINGSTON ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PA RGA LF 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1503 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1504 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1505 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search TargetDistance Total Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000NPL 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Proposed NPL 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001NPL LIENS Federal Delisted NPL site list 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Delisted NPL Federal CERCLIS list 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500FEDERAL FACILITY 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SEMS-ARCHIVE Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CORRACTS Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500RCRA-TSDF Federal RCRA generators list 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-LQG 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-SQG 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA-CESQG Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUCIS 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US ENG CONTROLS 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US INST CONTROL Federal ERNS list 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ERNS State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000SHWS State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWF/LF State and tribal leaking storage tank lists 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LUST 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500LAST 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN LUST State and tribal registered storage tank lists 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FF TANKS TC5140197.2s Page 4 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search TargetDistance Total Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FEMA UST 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250UST 2 NR NR NR 1 1 0.250AST 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250INDIAN UST 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250TANKS State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500ENG CONTROLS 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INST CONTROL State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500VCP 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN VCP State and tribal Brownfields sites 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500BROWNFIELDS ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500US BROWNFIELDS Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SWRCY 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500INDIAN ODI 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500ODI 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DEBRIS REGION 9 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500IHS OPEN DUMPS Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US HIST CDL 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500PRIORITYCLEANERS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000Fl Sites 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US CDL Local Land Records 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001LIENS 2 Records of Emergency Release Reports 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001HMIRS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SPILLS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SPILLS 90 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SPILLS 80 Other Ascertainable Records 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250RCRA NonGen / NLR 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUDS TC5140197.2s Page 5 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search TargetDistance Total Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000DOD 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SCRD DRYCLEANERS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US FIN ASSUR 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001EPA WATCH LIST 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.2502020 COR ACTION 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001TSCA 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001TRIS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001SSTS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000ROD 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RMP 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RAATS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001PRP 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001PADS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ICIS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001FTTS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001MLTS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001COAL ASH DOE 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500COAL ASH EPA 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001PCB TRANSFORMER 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RADINFO 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001HIST FTTS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001DOT OPS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000CONSENT 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001INDIAN RESERV 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000FUSRAP 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500UMTRA 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001LEAD SMELTERS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001US AIRS 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250US MINES 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ABANDONED MINES 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001FINDS 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000UXO 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001DOCKET HWC 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001ECHO 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FUELS PROGRAM 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001AIRS 0 NR NR NR NR NR TPASBESTOS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001CLEANUP SITES 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250DEDB 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250DRYCLEANERS 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500DWM CONTAM 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001Financial Assurance 0 NR NR NR 0 0 0.250FL Cattle Dip. Vats 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500RESP PARTY 0 NR NR 0 0 0 0.500SITE INV SITES 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001TIER 2 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001UIC 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001NPDES EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS EDR Exclusive Records 0 NR 0 0 0 0 1.000EDR MGP TC5140197.2s Page 6 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1508 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY Search TargetDistance Total Database Property(Miles) < 1/8 1/8 - 1/4 1/4 - 1/2 1/2 - 1 > 1 Plotted 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Auto 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.125EDR Hist Cleaner EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RGA HWS 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RGA LF 0 NR NR NR NR 0 0.001RGA LUST 2 0 0 0 1 1 0- Totals -- NOTES: TP = Target Property NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance Sites may be listed in more than one database TC5140197.2s Page 7 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1509 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Double wall - tank jacketConstruction Description: Secondary ContainmentConstruction Category: 1Tank Id: Level gauges/alarmsConstruction Description: Overfill/SpillConstruction Category: 1Tank Id: Flow shut-OffConstruction Description: Overfill/SpillConstruction Category: 1Tank Id: Spill containment bucketConstruction Description: Overfill/SpillConstruction Category: 1Tank Id: CompartmentedConstruction Description: Miscellaneous AttributesConstruction Category: 1Tank Id: SteelConstruction Description: Primary ConstructionConstruction Category: 1Tank Id: Construction: ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 1500Gallons: Vehicular DieselContent Description: Vehicular dieselSubstance: 01-JAN-2015Install Date: 01-JAN-2015Status Date: In serviceStatus: 1Tank Id: (239) 552-1303Owner Phone: DALE WOHLERS | CELL: 239-438-0112Owner Contact: NAPLES, FL 34109Owner City,St,Zip: ATTN: STORAGE TANK REGISOwner Address 2: 6495 TAYLOR RDOwner Address: NORTH COLLIER FIRE CTRL & RESCUE DISTOwner Name: 71447Owner Id: Owner: Not reportedLat/Long (dms): Not reportedPositioning Method: STATERegion: PDEP Contractor Own: (239) 552-1303Facility Phone: Fuel user/Non-retailType Description: OPENFacility Status: 9814442Facility ID: AST: 346 ft. 0.066 mi. Relative: Higher Actual: 11 ft. < 1/8 NAPLES, FL 34110 NW 16280 LIVINGSTON RD N/A 1 ASTNORTH COLLIER FIRE CTRL & RESC DIST ST#48 A100408123 TC5140197.2s Page 8 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1510 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Click here for Florida Oculus: Abv, no soil contactPiping Description: Miscellaneous AttributesPiping Category: 1Tank ID: Suction piping systemPiping Description: Miscellaneous AttributesPiping Category: 1Tank ID: Piping: Suction pump check valveMonitoring Description: 1Tank ID: Monitor tank bottom spaceMonitoring Description: 1Tank ID: Visual inspection of ASTsMonitoring Description: 1Tank ID: Monitor dbl wall tank spaceMonitoring Description: 1Tank ID: Monitoring: NORTH COLLIER FIRE CTRL & RESC DIST ST#48 (Continued) A100408123 Fuel Oil - Onsite HeatContent Description: Fuel oil-on site heatSubstance: 01-AUG-1986Install Date: Not reportedStatus Date: In serviceStatus: 1Tank Id: (813) 597-7154Owner Phone: GLORIA MARTINOwner Contact: NAPLES, FL 33963Owner City,St,Zip: Not reportedOwner Address 2: 1230 IMMOKALEE RDOwner Address: REGENCY REALTY ASSOCIATES INCOwner Name: 18036Owner Id: Owner: 26 18 5 / 81 45 12Lat/Long (dms): UNVRPositioning Method: STATERegion: PDEP Contractor Own: (813) 657-4892Facility Phone: AgriculturalType Description: OPENFacility Status: 8944125Facility ID: AST: 1213 ft. 0.230 mi. Relative: Lower Actual: 10 ft. 1/8-1/4 IMMOKALEE, FL 33934 ENE STATE HWY 858 N/A 2 ASTREGENCY FARM-COUNTYLINE FARM A100130680 TC5140197.2s Page 9 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1511 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 550Gallons: Fuel Oil - Onsite HeatContent Description: Fuel oil-on site heatSubstance: 01-AUG-1986Install Date: Not reportedStatus Date: In serviceStatus: 7Tank Id: ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 550Gallons: Fuel Oil - Onsite HeatContent Description: Fuel oil-on site heatSubstance: 01-AUG-1986Install Date: Not reportedStatus Date: In serviceStatus: 6Tank Id: ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 550Gallons: Fuel Oil - Onsite HeatContent Description: Fuel oil-on site heatSubstance: 01-AUG-1986Install Date: Not reportedStatus Date: In serviceStatus: 5Tank Id: ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 550Gallons: Fuel Oil - Onsite HeatContent Description: Fuel oil-on site heatSubstance: 01-AUG-1986Install Date: Not reportedStatus Date: In serviceStatus: 4Tank Id: ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 550Gallons: Fuel Oil - Onsite HeatContent Description: Fuel oil-on site heatSubstance: 01-AUG-1986Install Date: Not reportedStatus Date: In serviceStatus: 3Tank Id: ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 550Gallons: Fuel Oil - Onsite HeatContent Description: Fuel oil-on site heatSubstance: 01-AUG-1986Install Date: Not reportedStatus Date: In serviceStatus: 2Tank Id: ABOVEGROUNDTank Location: 550Gallons: REGENCY FARM-COUNTYLINE FARM (Continued) A100130680 TC5140197.2s Page 10 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1512 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP FINDINGSMap ID Direction EDR ID NumberDistance EPA ID NumberDatabase(s)SiteElevation Click here for Florida Oculus: REGENCY FARM-COUNTYLINE FARM (Continued) A100130680 TC5140197.2s Page 11 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1513 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ORPHAN SUMMARYCityEDR IDSite NameSite AddressZipDatabase(s)Count: 1 records.NAPLES S115155632LIVINGSTON ROAD AND GOLDEN GATE PALIVINGSTON ROAD AND GOLDEN GAT RGA LFTC5140197.2s Page 129.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1514Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required. Number of Days to Update:Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days from the date the government agency made the information available to the public. STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Federal NPL site list NPL: National Priority List National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) and regional EPA offices. Date of Government Version: 10/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly NPL Site Boundaries Sources: EPA’s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC) Telephone: 202-564-7333 EPA Region 1 EPA Region 6 Telephone 617-918-1143 Telephone: 214-655-6659 EPA Region 3 EPA Region 7 Telephone 215-814-5418 Telephone: 913-551-7247 EPA Region 4 EPA Region 8 Telephone 404-562-8033 Telephone: 303-312-6774 EPA Region 5 EPA Region 9 Telephone 312-886-6686 Telephone: 415-947-4246 EPA Region 10 Telephone 206-553-8665 Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing. Date of Government Version: 10/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens. Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994 Number of Days to Update: 56 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4267 Last EDR Contact: 08/15/2011 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/28/2011 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned TC5140197.2s Page GR-1 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1515 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL: National Priority List Deletions The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the NPL where no further response is appropriate. Date of Government Version: 10/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: EPA Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal CERCLIS list FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing A listing of National Priority List (NPL) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites found in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database where EPA Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities. Date of Government Version: 11/07/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/05/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017 Number of Days to Update: 92 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-8704 Last EDR Contact: 10/06/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies SEMS: Superfund Enterprise Management System SEMS (Superfund Enterprise Management System) tracks hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites, and remedial activities performed in support of EPA’s Superfund Program across the United States. The list was formerly know as CERCLIS, renamed to SEMS by the EPA in 2015. The list contains data on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This dataset also contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL. Date of Government Version: 07/11/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/21/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 77 Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/29/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list SEMS-ARCHIVE: Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive TC5140197.2s Page GR-2 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1516 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) SEMS-ARCHIVE (Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive) tracks sites that have no further interest under the Federal Superfund Program based on available information. The list was formerly known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP, renamed to SEMS ARCHIVE by the EPA in 2015. EPA may perform a minimal level of assessment work at a site while it is archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes available. Archived sites have been removed and archived from the inventory of SEMS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA’s knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list the site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. The decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that. based upon available information, the location is not judged to be potential NPL site. Date of Government Version: 07/11/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/28/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/29/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity. Date of Government Version: 09/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: EPA Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. Date of Government Version: 09/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (404) 562-8651 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 09/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (404) 562-8651 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC5140197.2s Page GR-3 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1517 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 09/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (404) 562-8651 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. Date of Government Version: 09/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (404) 562-8651 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure properties. Date of Government Version: 05/22/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/13/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 94 Source: Department of the Navy Telephone: 843-820-7326 Last EDR Contact: 11/08/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental media or effect human health. Date of Government Version: 08/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/30/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 44 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-0695 Last EDR Contact: 11/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures, such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally required as part of the institutional controls. Date of Government Version: 08/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/30/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 44 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-0695 Last EDR Contact: 11/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC5140197.2s Page GR-4 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1518 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Federal ERNS list ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous substances. Date of Government Version: 09/18/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/21/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard Telephone: 202-267-2180 Last EDR Contact: 09/21/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS SHWS: Florida’s State-Funded Action Sites State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states’ equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds (state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially responsible parties. Available information varies by state. Date of Government Version: 08/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/22/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 30 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-488-0190 Last EDR Contact: 11/22/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF: Solid Waste Facility Database Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal sites. Date of Government Version: 10/16/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 41 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-922-7121 Last EDR Contact: 10/17/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/29/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LAST: Leaking Aboveground Storage Tank Listing The file for Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks. Please remember STCM does not track the source of the discharge so the agency provides a list of facilities with an aboveground tank and an open discharge split by facilities with aboveground tanks only and facilities with aboveground and underground tanks. Date of Government Version: 11/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 24 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8799 Last EDR Contact: 10/25/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies LUST: Petroleum Contamination Detail Report Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports. LUST records contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. Not all states maintain these records, and the information stored varies by state. Date of Government Version: 10/04/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8839 Last EDR Contact: 10/31/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC5140197.2s Page GR-5 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1519 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land. Date of Government Version: 04/14/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: EPA Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington. Date of Government Version: 04/25/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/07/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/08/2017 Number of Days to Update: 31 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 11/07/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada Date of Government Version: 04/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 78 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 415-972-3372 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska Date of Government Version: 04/14/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma. Date of Government Version: 04/24/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-6597 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina. Date of Government Version: 10/14/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017 Number of Days to Update: 98 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-8677 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming. Date of Government Version: 05/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 78 Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6271 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC5140197.2s Page GR-6 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1520 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land Leaking underground storage tanks located on Indian Land in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. Date of Government Version: 04/26/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 78 Source: EPA, Region 5 Telephone: 312-886-7439 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies State and tribal registered storage tank lists FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 05/15/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/30/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 136 Source: FEMA Telephone: 202-646-5797 Last EDR Contact: 10/13/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies FF TANKS: Federal Facilities Listing A listing of federal facilities with storage tanks. Date of Government Version: 10/03/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/05/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 53 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8250 Last EDR Contact: 09/25/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly UST: Storage Tank Facility Information Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST’s are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available information varies by state program. Date of Government Version: 10/04/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8839 Last EDR Contact: 10/31/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly AST: Storage Tank Facility Information Registered Aboveground Storage Tanks. Date of Government Version: 10/04/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8839 Last EDR Contact: 10/31/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 04/25/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 78 Source: EPA Region 10 Telephone: 206-553-2857 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC5140197.2s Page GR-7 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1521 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 04/14/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: EPA, Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1313 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Tribal Nations) Date of Government Version: 10/14/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017 Number of Days to Update: 98 Source: EPA Region 4 Telephone: 404-562-9424 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 04/26/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: EPA Region 5 Telephone: 312-886-6136 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas and 65 Tribes). Date of Government Version: 04/24/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/08/2017 Number of Days to Update: 134 Source: EPA Region 6 Telephone: 214-665-7591 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 04/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 78 Source: EPA Region 9 Telephone: 415-972-3368 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 05/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 78 Source: EPA Region 8 Telephone: 303-312-6137 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC5140197.2s Page GR-8 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1522 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations). Date of Government Version: 05/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: EPA Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7003 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TANKS: Storage Tank Facility List This listing includes storage tank facilities that do not have tank information. The tanks have either be closed or removed from the site, but the facilities were still registered at some point in history. Date of Government Version: 10/04/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8841 Last EDR Contact: 10/31/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries ENG CONTROLS: Institutional Controls Registry The registry is a database of all contaminated sites in the state of Florida which are subject to engineering controls. Engineering Controls encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain and/or reduce contamination, and/or physical barriers intended to limit access to property. ECs include fences, signs, guards, landfill caps, provision of potable water, slurry walls, sheet pile (vertical caps), pumping and treatment of groundwater, monitoring wells, and vapor extraction systems. Date of Government Version: 10/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 55 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8927 Last EDR Contact: 10/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Inst Control: Institutional Controls Registry The registry is a database of all contaminated sites in the state of Florida which are subject to institutional and engineering controls. Date of Government Version: 10/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 55 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8927 Last EDR Contact: 10/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1. Date of Government Version: 07/27/2015 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2015 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016 Number of Days to Update: 142 Source: EPA, Region 1 Telephone: 617-918-1102 Last EDR Contact: 09/25/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7. TC5140197.2s Page GR-9 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1523 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: EPA, Region 7 Telephone: 913-551-7365 Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009 Data Release Frequency: Varies VCP: Voluntary Cleanup Sites Listing of closed and active voluntary cleanup sites. Date of Government Version: 08/22/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/23/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/23/2017 Number of Days to Update: 61 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8705 Last EDR Contact: 11/14/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies State and tribal Brownfields sites BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Sites Database Brownfields are defined by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) as abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities where expansion or redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. Date of Government Version: 09/19/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 49 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8927 Last EDR Contact: 10/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually BROWNFIELDS AREAS: Brownfields Areas Database A "brownfield area" means a contiguous area of one or more brownfield sites, some of which may not be contaminated, that has been designated as such by a local government resolution. Such areas may include all or portions of community redevelopment areas, enterprise zones, empowerment zones, other such designated economically deprived communities and areas, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated brownfield pilot projects. This layer provides a polygon representation of the boundaries of these designated Brownfield Areas in Florida. Date of Government Version: 08/23/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 49 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8934 Last EDR Contact: 10/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly BSRA: Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreements Listing The BSRA provides DEP and the public assurance that site rehabilitation will be conducted in accordance with Florida Statutes and DEP’s Contaminated Site Cleanup Criteria rule. In addition, the BSRA provides limited liability protection for the voluntary responsible party. The BSRA contains various commitments by the voluntary responsible party, including milestones for completion of site rehabilitation tasks and submittal of technical reports and plans. It also contains a commitment by DEP to review technical reports according to an agreed upon schedule. Only those brownfield sites with an executed BSRA are eligible to apply for a voluntary cleanup tax credit incentive pursuant to Section 376.30781, Florida Statutes. Date of Government Version: 08/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 49 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8934 Last EDR Contact: 10/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS Local Brownfield lists TC5140197.2s Page GR-10 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1524 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment. Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs. Date of Government Version: 08/21/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/20/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/08/2017 Number of Days to Update: 79 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-2777 Last EDR Contact: 09/20/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/01/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites SWRCY: Recycling Centers A listing of recycling centers located in the state of Florida. Date of Government Version: 07/24/2014 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/22/2014 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/12/2015 Number of Days to Update: 82 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8718 Last EDR Contact: 10/20/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/29/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands Location of open dumps on Indian land. Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-308-8245 Last EDR Contact: 10/30/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies ODI: Open Dump Inventory An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258 Subtitle D Criteria. Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004 Number of Days to Update: 39 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside County and northern Imperial County, California. Date of Government Version: 01/12/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2009 Number of Days to Update: 137 Source: EPA, Region 9 Telephone: 415-947-4219 Last EDR Contact: 10/20/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned IHS OPEN DUMPS: Open Dumps on Indian Land A listing of all open dumps located on Indian Land in the United States. TC5140197.2s Page GR-11 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1525 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 04/01/2014 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/06/2014 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015 Number of Days to Update: 176 Source: Department of Health & Human Serivces, Indian Health Service Telephone: 301-443-1452 Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register A listing of clandestine drug lab locations that have been removed from the DEAs National Clandestine Laboratory Register. Date of Government Version: 07/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/06/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 30 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration Telephone: 202-307-1000 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned PRIORITYCLEANERS: Priority Ranking List The Florida Legislature has established a state-funded program to cleanup properties that are contaminated as a result of the operations of a drycleaning facility. Date of Government Version: 07/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/23/2017 Number of Days to Update: 67 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8927 Last EDR Contact: 11/17/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies FL SITES: Sites List This summary status report was developed from a number of lists including the Eckhardt list, the Moffit list, the EPA Hazardous Waste Sites list, EPA’s Emergency & Remedial Response information System list (RCRA Section 3012) & existing department lists such as the obsolete uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites list. This list is no longer updated. Date of Government Version: 12/31/1989 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/09/1994 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/04/1994 Number of Days to Update: 87 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8705 Last EDR Contact: 03/24/1994 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites. In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example, contacting local law enforcement and local health departments. Date of Government Version: 07/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/06/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 30 Source: Drug Enforcement Administration Telephone: 202-307-1000 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Local Land Records LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information A Federal CERCLA (’Superfund’) lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination. CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties. TC5140197.2s Page GR-12 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1526 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 07/11/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 79 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-6023 Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT. Date of Government Version: 09/21/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/21/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 22 Source: U.S. Department of Transportation Telephone: 202-366-4555 Last EDR Contact: 09/21/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SPILLS: Oil and Hazardous Materials Incidents Statewide oil and hazardous materials inland incidents. Date of Government Version: 10/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/12/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 46 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-2010 Last EDR Contact: 10/10/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually SPILLS 90: SPILLS90 data from FirstSearch Spills 90 includes those spill and release records available exclusively from FirstSearch databases. Typically, they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded after 1990. Duplicate records that are already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 90. Date of Government Version: 12/10/2012 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/04/2013 Number of Days to Update: 60 Source: FirstSearch Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned SPILLS 80: SPILLS80 data from FirstSearch Spills 80 includes those spill and release records available from FirstSearch databases prior to 1990. Typically, they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded before 1990. Duplicate records that are already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 80. Date of Government Version: 09/01/2001 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2013 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: FirstSearch Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned Other Ascertainable Records RCRA NonGen / NLR: RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated RCRAInfo is EPA’s comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. Date of Government Version: 09/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 10 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: (404) 562-8651 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC5140197.2s Page GR-13 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1527 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions. Date of Government Version: 01/31/2015 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/08/2015 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2015 Number of Days to Update: 97 Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Telephone: 202-528-4285 Last EDR Contact: 11/22/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies DOD: Department of Defense Sites This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: USGS Telephone: 888-275-8747 Last EDR Contact: 10/13/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 339 Source: U.S. Geological Survey Telephone: 888-275-8747 Last EDR Contact: 10/11/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: N/A SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. Date of Government Version: 01/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017 Number of Days to Update: 63 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 615-532-8599 Last EDR Contact: 11/17/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies US FIN ASSUR: Financial Assurance Information All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up, closure, and post-closure care of their facilities. Date of Government Version: 10/17/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/08/2017 Number of Days to Update: 37 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-1917 Last EDR Contact: 11/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly EPA WATCH LIST: EPA WATCH LIST EPA maintains a "Watch List" to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on enforcement matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. Being on the Watch List does not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an investigation by EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation has in fact occurred. Being on the Watch List does not represent a higher level of concern regarding the alleged violations that were detected, but instead indicates cases requiring additional dialogue between EPA, state and local agencies - primarily because of the length of time the alleged violation has gone unaddressed or unresolved. TC5140197.2s Page GR-14 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1528 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 08/30/2013 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2014 Date Made Active in Reports: 06/17/2014 Number of Days to Update: 88 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 617-520-3000 Last EDR Contact: 11/06/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly 2020 COR ACTION: 2020 Corrective Action Program List The EPA has set ambitious goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program by creating the 2020 Corrective Action Universe. This RCRA cleanup baseline includes facilities expected to need corrective action. The 2020 universe contains a wide variety of sites. Some properties are heavily contaminated while others were contaminated but have since been cleaned up. Still others have not been fully investigated yet, and may require little or no remediation. Inclusion in the 2020 Universe does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA obligations. Date of Government Version: 04/22/2013 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015 Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015 Number of Days to Update: 6 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-308-4044 Last EDR Contact: 11/09/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant site. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2015 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015 Number of Days to Update: 14 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-260-5521 Last EDR Contact: 09/22/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/01/2018 Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/24/2015 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016 Number of Days to Update: 133 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0250 Last EDR Contact: 11/20/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all registered pesticide-producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March 1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/10/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2011 Number of Days to Update: 77 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4203 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually ROD: Records Of Decision Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical and health information to aid in the cleanup. Date of Government Version: 09/27/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/12/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2017 Number of Days to Update: 8 Source: EPA Telephone: 703-416-0223 Last EDR Contact: 12/08/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually TC5140197.2s Page GR-15 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1529 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) RMP: Risk Management Plans When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst-case and alternative accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur. Date of Government Version: 11/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/08/2017 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-8600 Last EDR Contact: 10/23/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database. Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995 Number of Days to Update: 35 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-4104 Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2008 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2014 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014 Number of Days to Update: 3 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-6023 Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly PADS: PCB Activity Database System PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers of PCB’s who are required to notify the EPA of such activities. Date of Government Version: 06/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/09/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 126 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-0500 Last EDR Contact: 10/13/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Date of Government Version: 11/18/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/23/2016 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017 Number of Days to Update: 79 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2501 Last EDR Contact: 10/11/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC5140197.2s Page GR-16 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1530 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA, TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Telephone: 202-566-1667 Last EDR Contact: 08/18/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements. Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Number of Days to Update: 25 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-566-1667 Last EDR Contact: 08/18/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency, EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/08/2016 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/21/2016 Number of Days to Update: 43 Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Telephone: 301-415-7169 Last EDR Contact: 10/16/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly COAL ASH DOE: Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009 Number of Days to Update: 76 Source: Department of Energy Telephone: 202-586-8719 Last EDR Contact: 12/05/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings. Date of Government Version: 07/01/2014 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/10/2014 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 12/08/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals. Date of Government Version: 05/24/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/30/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 15 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-566-0517 Last EDR Contact: 10/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies RADINFO: Radiation Information Database The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity. TC5140197.2s Page GR-17 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1531 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 10/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/05/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 8 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-343-9775 Last EDR Contact: 10/05/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated. Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2501 Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2007 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated. Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2501 Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2008 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data. Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2012 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Telephone: 202-366-4595 Last EDR Contact: 10/31/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters. Date of Government Version: 06/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2017 Number of Days to Update: 78 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library Telephone: Varies Last EDR Contact: 09/25/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies BRS: Biennial Reporting System The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG) and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2015 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/22/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/28/2017 Number of Days to Update: 218 Source: EPA/NTIS Telephone: 800-424-9346 Last EDR Contact: 11/20/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Biennially TC5140197.2s Page GR-18 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1532 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/14/2015 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2017 Number of Days to Update: 546 Source: USGS Telephone: 202-208-3710 Last EDR Contact: 10/11/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually FUSRAP: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program DOE established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where radioactive contamination remained from Manhattan Project and early U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations. Date of Government Version: 12/23/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/27/2016 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/17/2017 Number of Days to Update: 52 Source: Department of Energy Telephone: 202-586-3559 Last EDR Contact: 11/02/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills shut down, large piles of the sand-like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized. Date of Government Version: 06/23/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/11/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2017 Number of Days to Update: 23 Source: Department of Energy Telephone: 505-845-0011 Last EDR Contact: 11/22/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies LEAD SMELTER 1: Lead Smelter Sites A listing of former lead smelter site locations. Date of Government Version: 10/10/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 42 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 703-603-8787 Last EDR Contact: 11/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies LEAD SMELTER 2: Lead Smelter Sites A list of several hundred sites in the U.S. where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931and 1964. These sites may pose a threat to public health through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust Date of Government Version: 04/05/2001 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2010 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010 Number of Days to Update: 36 Source: American Journal of Public Health Telephone: 703-305-6451 Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned US AIRS (AFS): Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS) The database is a sub-system of Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). AFS contains compliance data on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S. EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies. This information comes from source reports by various stationary sources of air pollution, such as electric power plants, steel mills, factories, and universities, and provides information about the air pollutants they produce. Action, air program, air program pollutant, and general level plant data. It is used to track emissions and compliance data from industrial plants. TC5140197.2s Page GR-19 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1533 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/26/2016 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017 Number of Days to Update: 100 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-2496 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data A listing of minor source facilities. Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/26/2016 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017 Number of Days to Update: 100 Source: EPA Telephone: 202-564-2496 Last EDR Contact: 09/26/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually US MINES: Mines Master Index File Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes violation information. Date of Government Version: 07/31/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/30/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 44 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration Telephone: 303-231-5959 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually US MINES 2: Ferrous and Nonferrous Metal Mines Database Listing This map layer includes ferrous (ferrous metal mines are facilities that extract ferrous metals, such as iron ore or molybdenum) and nonferrous (Nonferrous metal mines are facilities that extract nonferrous metals, such as gold, silver, copper, zinc, and lead) metal mines in the United States. Date of Government Version: 12/05/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/29/2008 Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2008 Number of Days to Update: 49 Source: USGS Telephone: 703-648-7709 Last EDR Contact: 12/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies US MINES 3: Active Mines & Mineral Plants Database Listing Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plant operations for commodities monitored by the Minerals Information Team of the USGS. Date of Government Version: 04/14/2011 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/08/2011 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/13/2011 Number of Days to Update: 97 Source: USGS Telephone: 703-648-7709 Last EDR Contact: 12/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies ABANDONED MINES: Abandoned Mines An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by OSMRE to provide information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The inventory contains information on the location, type, and extent of AML impacts, as well as, information on the cost associated with the reclamation of those problems. The inventory is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing problems are reclaimed. Date of Government Version: 09/25/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2017 Number of Days to Update: 24 Source: Department of Interior Telephone: 202-208-2609 Last EDR Contact: 12/06/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TC5140197.2s Page GR-20 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1534 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and ’pointers’ to other sources that contain more detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System). Date of Government Version: 07/23/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/06/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 9 Source: EPA Telephone: (404) 562-9900 Last EDR Contact: 12/05/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly ECHO: Enforcement & Compliance History Information ECHO provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for about 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide. Date of Government Version: 09/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/06/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2017 Number of Days to Update: 44 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-2280 Last EDR Contact: 12/05/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly DOCKET HWC: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing A complete list of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Facilities. Date of Government Version: 02/13/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/03/2017 Number of Days to Update: 261 Source: Environmental Protection Agency Telephone: 202-564-0527 Last EDR Contact: 11/21/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies UXO: Unexploded Ordnance Sites A listing of unexploded ordnance site locations Date of Government Version: 10/25/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/02/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 133 Source: Department of Defense Telephone: 703-704-1564 Last EDR Contact: 10/16/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/29/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies FUELS PROGRAM: EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing This listing includes facilities that are registered under the Part 80 (Code of Federal Regulations) EPA Fuels Programs. All companies now are required to submit new and updated registrations. Date of Government Version: 08/17/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 29 Source: EPA Telephone: 800-385-6164 Last EDR Contact: 11/20/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly AIRS: Permitted Facilities Listing A listing of Air Resources Management permits. Date of Government Version: 09/25/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/26/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/06/2017 Number of Days to Update: 71 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-921-9558 Last EDR Contact: 10/25/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC5140197.2s Page GR-21 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1535 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) ASBESTOS: Asbestos Notification Listing Asbestos sites Date of Government Version: 10/23/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/24/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-717-9086 Last EDR Contact: 11/14/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies CLEANUP SITES: DEP Cleanup Sites - Contamination Locator Map Listing This listing includes the locations of waste cleanup sites from various programs. The source of the cleanup site data includes Hazardous Waste programs, Site Investigation Section, Compliance and Enforcement Tracking, Drycleaning State Funded Cleanup Program (possibly other state funded cleanup), Storage Tank Contamination Monitoring. Date of Government Version: 08/28/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/30/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/02/2017 Number of Days to Update: 64 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 866-282-0787 Last EDR Contact: 11/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly DEDB: Ethylene Dibromide Database Results Ethylene dibromide (EDB), a soil fumigant, that has been detected in drinking water wells. The amount found exceeds the maximum contaminant level as stated in Chapter 62-550 or 520. It is a potential threat to public health when present in drinking water. Date of Government Version: 09/27/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/28/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 54 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8335 Last EDR Contact: 12/13/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 04/02/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Facilities The Drycleaners database, maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection, provides information about permitted dry cleaner facilities. Date of Government Version: 10/03/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/24/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/21/2017 Number of Days to Update: 28 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8927 Last EDR Contact: 10/24/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually DWM CONTAM: DWM CONTAMINATED SITES A listing of active or known sites. The listing includes sites that need cleanup but are not actively being working on because the agency currently does not have funding (primarily petroleum and drycleaning). Date of Government Version: 04/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/16/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/01/2017 Number of Days to Update: 77 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-7503 Last EDR Contact: 10/23/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies Financial Assurance 1: Financial Assurance Information Listing A list of hazardous waste facilities required to provide financial assurance under RCRA. Date of Government Version: 10/26/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 31 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8793 Last EDR Contact: 10/25/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually TC5140197.2s Page GR-22 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1536 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Financial Assurance 2: Financial Assurance Information Listing A listing of financial assurance information for solid waste facilities. Date of Government Version: 07/27/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2017 Number of Days to Update: 81 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8743 Last EDR Contact: 11/21/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Financial Assurance 3: Financial Assurance Information Listing A listing of financial assurance information for storage tanks sites. Date of Government Version: 10/04/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8853 Last EDR Contact: 10/31/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly FL Cattle Dip. Vats: Cattle Dipping Vats From the 1910’s through the 1950’s, these vats were filled with an arsenic solution for the control and eradication of the cattle fever tick. Other pesticides, such as DDT, were also widely used. By State law, all cattle, horses, mules, goats, and other susceptible animals were required to be dipped every 14 days. Under certain circumstances, the arsenic and other pesticides remaining at the site may present an environmental or public health hazard. Date of Government Version: 02/04/2005 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/29/2007 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/11/2007 Number of Days to Update: 12 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-4444 Last EDR Contact: 10/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned RESP PARTY: Responsible Party Sites Listing Open, inactive and closed responsible party sites Date of Government Version: 10/02/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 55 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8758 Last EDR Contact: 10/03/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/15/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly SITE INV SITES: Site Investigation Section Sites Listing Statewide coverage of Site Investigation Section (SIS) sites. Site Investigation is a Section within the Bureau of Waste Cleanup, Division of Waste Management. SIS provides technical support to FDEP District Waste Cleanup Programs and conducts contamination assessments throughout the state. Date of Government Version: 08/21/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/22/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/23/2017 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8953 Last EDR Contact: 11/20/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly TIER 2: Tier 2 Facility Listing A listing of facilities which store or manufacture hazardous materials that submit a chemical inventory report. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/23/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/02/2017 Number of Days to Update: 40 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-413-9970 Last EDR Contact: 12/08/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies TC5140197.2s Page GR-23 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1537 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) UIC: Underground Injection Wells Database Listing A listing of Class I wells. Class I wells are used to inject hazardous waste, nonhazardous waste, or municipal waste below the lowermost USDW. Date of Government Version: 10/31/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/28/2017 Number of Days to Update: 27 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8655 Last EDR Contact: 10/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies WASTEWATER: Wastewater Facility Regulation Database Domestic and industrial wastewater facilities. Date of Government Version: 11/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/07/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/28/2017 Number of Days to Update: 21 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8600 Last EDR Contact: 11/07/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/19/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS EDR Exclusive Records EDR MGP: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants) compiled by EDR’s researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800’s to 1950’s to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production, such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil and groundwater contamination. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: N/A Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned EDR Hist Auto: EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station, filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. This database falls within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR’s HRHR effort presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: N/A Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies EDR Hist Cleaner: EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR’s review was limited to those categories of sources that might, in EDR’s opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR’s HRHR effort presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches. TC5140197.2s Page GR-24 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1538 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Number of Days to Update: N/A Source: EDR, Inc. Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives RGA HWS: Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List The EDR Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste database provides a list of SHWS incidents derived from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled from Records formerly available from the Department of Environmental Protection in Floridia. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/30/2013 Number of Days to Update: 182 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies RGA LF: Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List The EDR Recovered Government Archive Landfill database provides a list of landfills derived from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled from Records formerly available from the Department of Environmental Protection in Floridia. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2014 Number of Days to Update: 193 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies RGA LUST: Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank The EDR Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank database provides a list of LUST incidents derived from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled from Records formerly available from the Department of Environmental Protection in Floridia. Date of Government Version: N/A Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Date Made Active in Reports: 12/30/2013 Number of Days to Update: 182 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A Data Release Frequency: Varies COUNTY RECORDS ALACHUA COUNTY: Facility List List of all regulated facilities in Alachua County. Date of Government Version: 03/28/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/29/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 05/15/2017 Number of Days to Update: 47 Source: Alachua County Environmental Protection Department Telephone: 352-264-6800 Last EDR Contact: 09/25/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/08/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually BROWARD COUNTY: TC5140197.2s Page GR-25 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1539 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Aboveground Storage Tanks Aboveground storage tank locations in Broward County. Date of Government Version: 06/06/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/22/2017 Number of Days to Update: 67 Source: Broward County Environmental Protection Department Telephone: 954-818-7509 Last EDR Contact: 12/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies Semi-Annual Inventory Report on Contaminated Locations Early Detection Incentive/Environmental Assessment Remediation. This report monitors the status and remediation progress of known contaminated locations within Broward County. Sites listed by the US EPA, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and sites licensed for contamination assessment and cleanup by the Division of Pollution Prevention and Remediation Programs of the Department. Date of Government Version: 08/29/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/30/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 58 Source: Broward County Environmental Protection Department Telephone: 954-818-7509 Last EDR Contact: 11/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Hazardous Material Sites HM sites use or store greater than 25 gallons of hazardous materials per month. Date of Government Version: 06/06/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2017 Number of Days to Update: 95 Source: Broward County Environmental Protection Department Telephone: 954-818-7509 Last EDR Contact: 12/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually Notice Of Violations Sites NOV facilities have received a notice of violation letter under the Broward County Chapter 27 Code. Date of Government Version: 06/06/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2017 Number of Days to Update: 95 Source: Broward County Environmental Protection Department Telephone: 954-818-7509 Last EDR Contact: 12/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually Underground Storage Tanks All known regulated storage tanks within Broward County, including those tanks that have been closed Date of Government Version: 06/06/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/17/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/22/2017 Number of Days to Update: 67 Source: Broward County Environmental Protection Department Telephone: 954-818-7509 Last EDR Contact: 12/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY: Hillsborough County LF Hillsborough county landfill sites. Date of Government Version: 09/08/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/24/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 34 Source: Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission Telephone: 813-627-2600 Last EDR Contact: 10/23/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies MIAMI-DADE COUNTY: TC5140197.2s Page GR-26 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1540 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Air Permit Sites Facilities that release or have a potential to release pollutants. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6755 Last EDR Contact: 11/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Liquid Waste Transporter List The Liquid Waste Transporter permit regulates the transportation of various types of liquid and solid waste, including hazardous waste, waste oil and oily waste waters, septic and grease trap waste, biomedical waste, spent radiator fluid, photo chemical waste, dry sewage sludge, and other types of non-hazardous industrial waste. The Liquid Waste Transporter permits needed to protect the environment and the public from improperly handled and transported waste. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: DERM Telephone: 305-372-6755 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Grease Trap Sites Any non-residential facility that discharges waste to a sanitary sewer. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: Dade County Dept. of Env. Resources Mgmt. Telephone: 305-372-6508 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Marine Facilities Operating Permit What is this permit used for? Miami-Dade County Ordinance 89-104 and Section 24-18 of the Code of Miami-Dade County require the following types of marine facilities to obtain annual operating permits from DERM: All recreational boat docking facilities with ten (10) or more boat slips, moorings, davit spaces, and vessel tie-up spaces. All boat storage facilities contiguous to tidal waters in Miami-Dade County with ten (10) or more dry storage spaces including boatyards and boat manufacturing facilities. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: DERM Telephone: 305-372-3576 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Maimi River Enforcement The Miami River Enforcement database files were created for facilities and in some instances vessels that were inspected by a workgroup within the Department that was identified as the Miami River Enforcement Group. The files do not all necessarily reflect enforcement cases and some were created for locations that were permitted by other Sections within the Department. Date of Government Version: 06/05/2013 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/06/2013 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/06/2013 Number of Days to Update: 61 Source: DERM Telephone: 305-372-3576 Last EDR Contact: 11/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly Hazardous Waste Sites Sites with the potential to generate waste TC5140197.2s Page GR-27 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1541 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 74 Source: Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6755 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Industrial Waste Type 2-4 Sites IW2s are facilities having reclaim or recycling systems with no discharges, aboveground holding tanks or spill prevention and countermeasure plans. IW4s are facilities that discharge an effluent to the ground. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6700 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Industrial Waste Type 5 Sites Generally these facilities fall under the category of "conditionally exempt small quantity generator" or "small quantity generator". Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6700 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Industrial Waste Type 6 Permits issued to those non-residential land uses located within the major drinking water wellfield protection areas that are not served by sanitary sewers. These facilities do not handle hazardous materials but are regulated because of the env. sensitivity of the areas where they are located. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6700 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Industrial Waste Permit Sites Facilities that either generate more than 25,000 of wastewater per day to sanitary sewers or are pre-defined by EPA. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6700 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Enforcement Case Tracking System Sites Enforcement cases monitored by the Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management. Date of Government Version: 08/30/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/31/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/09/2017 Number of Days to Update: 70 Source: Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6755 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Fuel Spills Cases DERM documents fuel spills of sites that are not in a state program. TC5140197.2s Page GR-28 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1542 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 01/08/2009 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/13/2009 Date Made Active in Reports: 02/05/2009 Number of Days to Update: 23 Source: Department of Environmental Resources Management Telephone: 305-372-6755 Last EDR Contact: 11/27/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually Storage Tanks A listing of aboveground and underground storage tank site locations. Date of Government Version: 06/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/02/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 08/01/2017 Number of Days to Update: 60 Source: Department of Environmental Resource Management Telephone: 305-372-6700 Last EDR Contact: 11/28/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Semi-Annually PALM BEACH COUNTY: Palm Beach County LF Palm Beach County Inventory of Solid Waste Sites. Date of Government Version: 09/01/2011 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/20/2011 Date Made Active in Reports: 10/10/2011 Number of Days to Update: 20 Source: Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority Telephone: 561-640-4000 Last EDR Contact: 12/15/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: Varies OTHER DATABASE(S) Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report. CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a tsd facility. Date of Government Version: 07/28/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/18/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/14/2017 Number of Days to Update: 88 Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection Telephone: 860-424-3375 Last EDR Contact: 11/14/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/11/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/27/2017 Number of Days to Update: 107 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 10/05/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/22/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD facility. TC5140197.2s Page GR-29 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1543 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Date of Government Version: 10/01/2017 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/01/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 11/13/2017 Number of Days to Update: 12 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation Telephone: 518-402-8651 Last EDR Contact: 11/01/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 02/12/2018 Data Release Frequency: Quarterly PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/25/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 09/25/2017 Number of Days to Update: 62 Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 717-783-8990 Last EDR Contact: 10/16/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 01/29/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually RI MANIFEST: Manifest information Hazardous waste manifest information Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/19/2015 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/15/2015 Number of Days to Update: 26 Source: Department of Environmental Management Telephone: 401-222-2797 Last EDR Contact: 11/16/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/05/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information Hazardous waste manifest information. Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/13/2017 Date Made Active in Reports: 07/14/2017 Number of Days to Update: 92 Source: Department of Natural Resources Telephone: N/A Last EDR Contact: 12/11/2017 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/26/2018 Data Release Frequency: Annually Oil/Gas Pipelines Source: PennWell Corporation Petroleum Bundle (Crude Oil, Refined Products, Petrochemicals, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty Gases (Miscellaneous)) N = Natural Gas Bundle (Natural Gas, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty Gases (Miscellaneous)). This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell. Electric Power Transmission Line Data Source: PennWell Corporation This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell. Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers, and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located. AHA Hospitals: Source: American Hospital Association, Inc. Telephone: 312-280-5991 The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association’s annual survey of hospitals. Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Telephone: 410-786-3000 A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nursing Homes Source: National Institutes of Health Telephone: 301-594-6248 Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States. TC5140197.2s Page GR-30 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1544 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Public Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on elementary and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are comparable across all states. Private Schools Source: National Center for Education Statistics Telephone: 202-502-7300 The National Center for Education Statistics’ primary database on private school locations in the United States. Daycare Centers: Department of Children & Families Source: Provider Information Telephone: 850-488-4900 Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) which incorporates Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL. Source: FEMA Telephone: 877-336-2627 Date of Government Version: 2003, 2015 NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State Wetlands Data: Wetlands Inventory Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8238 Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Source: U.S. Geological Survey STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION © 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. TC5140197.2s Page GR-31 GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED / DATA CURRENCY TRACKING 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1545 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-1 geologic strata. of the soil, and nearby wells. Groundwater flow velocity is generally impacted by the nature of the Groundwater flow direction may be impacted by surface topography, hydrology, hydrogeology, characteristics 2. Groundwater flow velocity. 1. Groundwater flow direction, and Assessment of the impact of contaminant migration generally has two principal investigative components: forming an opinion about the impact of potential contaminant migration. EDR’s GeoCheck Physical Setting Source Addendum is provided to assist the environmental professional in 2012Version Date: 5652664 CORKSCREW SW, FLEast Map: 2012Version Date: 5652584 BONITA SPRINGS, FLTarget Property Map: USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 11 ft. above sea levelElevation: 2908960.0UTM Y (Meters): 424126.4UTM X (Meters): Zone 17Universal Tranverse Mercator: 81.76006 - 81˚ 45’ 36.22’’Longitude (West): 26.29994 - 26˚ 17’ 59.78’’Latitude (North): TARGET PROPERTY COORDINATES NAPLES, FL 34110 LIVINGSTON ROAD AND VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD. LIVINGSTON ASSEMBLAGE TARGET PROPERTY ADDRESS ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE ADDENDUM® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1546 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-2 should be field verified. on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity Source: Topography has been determined from the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY: ELEVATION PROFILES Elevation (ft)Elevation (ft)TP TP 0 1/2 1 Miles✩Target Property Elevation: 11 ft. North South West East1010101010101011111111111111101010101012111111101010111111111110101010101011General ESEGeneral Topographic Gradient: TARGET PROPERTY TOPOGRAPHY should contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. assist the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, Surface topography may be indicative of the direction of surficial groundwater flow. This information can be used to TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION collected on nearby properties, and regional groundwater flow information (from deep aquifers). sources of information, such as surface topographic information, hydrologic information, hydrogeologic data using site-specific well data. If such data is not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary to rely on other Groundwater flow direction for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTION INFORMATION ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1547 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-3 Not Reported GENERAL DIRECTIONLOCATION GROUNDWATER FLOWFROM TPMAP ID hydrogeologically, and the depth to water table. authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, groundwater flow direction as determined flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted by environmental professionals to regulatory EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System to provide data on the general direction of groundwater AQUIFLOW® Search Radius: 1.000 Mile. Not found Status: 1.25 miles Search Radius: Site-Specific Hydrogeological Data*: * ©1996 Site-specific hydrogeological data gathered by CERCLIS Alerts, Inc., Bainbridge Island, WA. All rights reserved. All of the information and opinions presented are those of the cited EPA report(s), which were completed under a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) investigation. contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should of groundwater flow direction in the immediate area. Such hydrogeologic information can be used to assist the Hydrogeologic information obtained by installation of wells on a specific site can often be an indicator HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION YES - refer to the Overview Map and Detail MapBONITA SPRINGS NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY NWI Electronic Data CoverageNWI Quad at Target Property FEMA FIRM Flood data12021C0211H FEMA FIRM Flood data12071C0659F Additional Panels in search area:FEMA Source Type FEMA FIRM Flood data12021C0192H Flood Plain Panel at Target Property FEMA Source Type FEMA FLOOD ZONE and bodies of water). Refer to the Physical Setting Source Map following this summary for hydrologic information (major waterways contamination exist on the target property, what downgradient sites might be impacted. the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the impact of nearby contaminated properties or, should Surface water can act as a hydrologic barrier to groundwater flow. Such hydrologic information can be used to assist HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1548 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-4 Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - a digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology ROCK STRATIGRAPHIC UNIT GEOLOGIC AGE IDENTIFICATION Stratifed SequenceCategory:CenozoicEra: QuaternarySystem: PleistoceneSeries: QpCode: (decoded above as Era, System & Series) at which contaminant migration may be occurring. Geologic information can be used by the environmental professional in forming an opinion about the relative speed GEOLOGIC INFORMATION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY move more quickly through sandy-gravelly types of soils than silty-clayey types of soils. characteristics data collected on nearby properties and regional soil information. In general, contaminant plumes to rely on other sources of information, including geologic age identification, rock stratigraphic unit and soil using site specific geologic and soil strata data. If such data are not reasonably ascertainable, it may be necessary Groundwater flow velocity information for a particular site is best determined by a qualified environmental professional GROUNDWATER FLOW VELOCITY INFORMATION ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1549 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. 2 4 3 1 1 3 0 1/16 1/8 1/4 Miles 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1550 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-6 Min: 5.1 Max: 8.4 Min: 4.23 Max: 14.11 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Clayey sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED and Sand. Clayey Gravel 200), Silty, or passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sandy loam29 inches25 inches 3 Min: 5.1 Max: 8.4 Min: 42.34 Max: 141.14 sand. Poorly graded Clean Sands, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. 200), Fine passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sand25 inches 3 inches 2 Min: 5.1 Max: 7.8 Min: 42.34 Max: 141.14 sand. Poorly graded Clean Sands, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. 200), Fine passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sand 3 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 0 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 82 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: All hydric Very poorly drainedSoil Drainage Class: water table, or are shallow to an impervious layer. Class D - Very slow infiltration rates. Soils are clayey, have a highHydrologic Group: fine sandSoil Surface Texture: BocaSoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 1 in a landscape. The following information is based on Soil Conservation Service SSURGO data. for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) leads the National Cooperative Soil DOMINANT SOIL COMPOSITION IN GENERAL AREA OF TARGET PROPERTY ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1551 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-7 Max: Min: Min: 14.11 Max: 141.14 Not reportedNot reportedbedrock55 inches55 inches 3 Min: 6.6 Max: 7.8 Min: 0.42 Max: 1.41 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED and Sand. Clayey Gravel 200), Silty, or passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularsandy clay loam55 inches29 inches 2 Min: 5.6 Max: 6.5 Min: 42.34 Max: 141.14 sand. Poorly graded Clean Sands, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. 200), Fine passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sand29 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 15 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 152 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: Partially hydric Poorly drainedSoil Drainage Class: drained and are classified. Class B/D - Drained/undrained hydrology class of soils that can beHydrologic Group: fine sandSoil Surface Texture: PinedaSoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 2 Max: Min: Min: 14.11 Max: 141.14 Not reportedNot reportedbedrock29 inches29 inches 4 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1552 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-8 Poorly drainedSoil Drainage Class: drained and are classified. Class B/D - Drained/undrained hydrology class of soils that can beHydrologic Group: fine sandSoil Surface Texture: HolopawSoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 4 Max: Min: Min: 14.11 Max: 141.14 Not reportedNot reportedbedrock29 inches29 inches 4 Min: 5.1 Max: 8.4 Min: 4.23 Max: 14.11 Clayey sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED and Sand. Clayey Gravel 200), Silty, or passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sandy loam29 inches25 inches 3 Min: 5.1 Max: 8.4 Min: 42.34 Max: 141.14 sand. Poorly graded Clean Sands, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. 200), Fine passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sand25 inches 3 inches 2 Min: 5.1 Max: 8.4 Min: 42.34 Max: 141.14 sand. Poorly graded Clean Sands, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. 200), Fine passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sand 3 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 31 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 82 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: Partially hydric Poorly drainedSoil Drainage Class: drained and are classified. Class B/D - Drained/undrained hydrology class of soils that can beHydrologic Group: fine sandSoil Surface Texture: BocaSoil Component Name: Soil Map ID: 3 ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1553 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-9 1.000State Database Nearest PWS within 0.001 milesFederal FRDS PWS 1.000Federal USGS WELL SEARCH DISTANCE INFORMATION SEARCH DISTANCE (miles)DATABASE opinion about the impact of contaminant migration on nearby drinking water wells. professional in assessing sources that may impact ground water flow direction, and in forming an EDR Local/Regional Water Agency records provide water well information to assist the environmental LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS Min: 5.1 Max: 8.4 Min: 42.34 Max: 141.14 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED and Sand. Clayey Gravel 200), Silty, or passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularloamy fine sand79 inches61 inches 3 Min: 5.1 Max: 8.4 Min: 1.41 Max: 14.11 Silty Sand. Sands with fines, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED and Sand. Clayey Gravel 200), Silty, or passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sandy loam61 inches57 inches 2 Min: 5.1 Max: 7.3 Min: 42.34 Max: 141.14 sand. Poorly graded Clean Sands, SOILS, Sands, COARSE-GRAINED Sand. 200), Fine passing No. pct. or less materials (35 Granularfine sand57 inches 0 inches 1 Soil Layer Information Boundary Classification Saturated hydraulic conductivity micro m/sec Layer Upper Lower Soil Texture Class AASHTO Group Unified Soil Soil Reaction (pH) > 15 inchesDepth to Watertable Min: > 0 inchesDepth to Bedrock Min: HighCorrosion Potential - Uncoated Steel: Hydric Status: Partially hydric ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1554 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-10 1/2 - 1 Mile EastFLSO80000025514 36 1/2 - 1 Mile ENEFLSO80000046045 I35 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047824 H34 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046220 I33 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046053 I32 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046226 I31 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046221 I30 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046050 I29 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046049 I28 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046052 I27 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046051 I26 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047826 H25 1/2 - 1 Mile SSWFLSO80000027763 24 1/4 - 1/2 Mile NNEFLSO80000024346 23 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SSWFLSO80000027762 F22 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SSEFLSO80000017174 E21 1/4 - 1/2 Mile WestFLSO80000014792 G20 1/4 - 1/2 Mile WestFLSO80000014793 G19 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SSEFLSO80000056642 E18 1/4 - 1/2 Mile ESEFLSO80000025508 17 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SSWFLSO80000056645 F16 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SSEFLSO80000056639 E15 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SouthFLSO80000017173 14 1/4 - 1/2 Mile WestFLSO80000051622 D13 1/4 - 1/2 Mile WSWFLSO80000051621 D12 1/4 - 1/2 Mile SWFLSO80000010250 11 1/8 - 1/4 Mile SouthFLSO80000026480 C10 1/8 - 1/4 Mile SouthFLSO80000026669 C9 1/8 - 1/4 Mile SSWFLSO80000055305 B8 1/8 - 1/4 Mile SSWFLSO80000055304 B7 1/8 - 1/4 Mile SSWFLSO80000055303 B6 0 - 1/8 Mile EastFLSO80000026484 A5 0 - 1/8 Mile EastFLSO80000026485 A4 0 - 1/8 Mile EastFLSO80000026483 A3 0 - 1/8 Mile EastFLSO80000026481 A2 0 - 1/8 Mile EastFLSO80000026482 A1 STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID Note: PWS System location is not always the same as well location. No PWS System Found FEDERAL FRDS PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEUSGS40000236032 X94 FEDERAL USGS WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1555 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-11 1/2 - 1 Mile EastFLSO80000025505 88 1/2 - 1 Mile ESEFLSO80000025118 87 1/2 - 1 Mile NWFLSO80000024352 U86 1/2 - 1 Mile WestFLSO80000042529 85 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000056641 V84 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000013155 V83 1/2 - 1 Mile NWFLSO80000047825 U82 1/2 - 1 Mile ESEFLSO80000025515 T81 1/2 - 1 Mile EastFLSO80000025121 T80 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000013154 79 1/2 - 1 Mile EastFLSO80000025506 78 1/2 - 1 Mile WSWFLSO80000042534 77 1/2 - 1 Mile SEFLSO80000028857 76 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000056644 R75 1/2 - 1 Mile NorthFLSO80000024541 S74 1/2 - 1 Mile NorthFLSO80000024351 S73 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000013156 R72 1/2 - 1 Mile SSWFLSO80000042533 71 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000031608 Q70 1/2 - 1 Mile EastFLSO80000025512 69 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000031436 Q68 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000024349 P67 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000024350 P66 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000024347 P65 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000024348 P64 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000024342 O63 1/2 - 1 Mile ESEFLSO80000025510 N62 1/2 - 1 Mile NWFLSO80000024341 O61 1/2 - 1 Mile ENEFLSO80000046047 60 1/2 - 1 Mile SSWFLSO80000056640 L59 1/2 - 1 Mile ESEFLSO80000025513 N58 1/2 - 1 Mile ESEFLSO80000025120 N57 1/2 - 1 Mile ESEFLSO80000025507 N56 1/2 - 1 Mile SSWFLSO80000023248 M55 1/2 - 1 Mile SSWFLSO80000023247 M54 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000032469 J53 1/2 - 1 Mile SSWFLSO80000056628 L52 1/2 - 1 Mile NEFLSO80000046223 51 1/2 - 1 Mile NWFLSO80000047823 K50 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000032470 J49 1/2 - 1 Mile WSWFLSO80000051623 48 1/2 - 1 Mile SWFLSO80000056643 47 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047830 H46 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047831 H45 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047832 H44 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047827 H43 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047828 H42 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000047829 H41 1/2 - 1 Mile SEFLSO80000056627 40 1/2 - 1 Mile NWFLSO80000024343 K39 1/2 - 1 Mile WNWFLSO80000032471 J38 1/2 - 1 Mile SouthFLSO80000040442 37 STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1556 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-12 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000046915 X98 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000027390 X97 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000046916 X96 1/2 - 1 Mile SSEFLSO80000027391 X95 1/2 - 1 Mile NNEFLSO80000046046 W93 1/2 - 1 Mile NNEFLSO80000046222 W92 1/2 - 1 Mile ESEFLSO80000025504 91 1/2 - 1 Mile NNWFLSO80000024345 90 1/2 - 1 Mile EastFLSO80000025122 89 STATE DATABASE WELL INFORMATION LOCATION FROM TPWELL IDMAP ID ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE SUMMARY® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1557 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc.EDR Inc. FL 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1558 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-14 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715343Pump coo 1: 407778Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2000Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 12Pump diame: CENPumptype c: P-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 267864Id: 51.1Acres serv: DEWLu code: BRANDONProject na:GPActual per: 140207-11App no:11-03533-WPermit no: A2 East 0 - 1/8 Mile Higher FLSO80000026481FL WELLS FLSO80000026482Site id: STDEWFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715343Pump coo 1: 407778Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2000Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 12Pump diame: CENPumptype c: P-2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 267865Id: 51.1Acres serv: DEWLu code: BRANDONProject na:GPActual per: 140207-11App no:11-03533-WPermit no: A1 East 0 - 1/8 Mile Higher FLSO80000026482FL WELLS Map ID Direction Distance Elevation EDR ID NumberDatabase ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1559 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-15 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715343Pump coo 1: 407778Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2000Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 12Pump diame: CENPumptype c: P-5Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 267868Id: 51.1Acres serv: DEWLu code: BRANDONProject na:GPActual per: 140207-11App no:11-03533-WPermit no: A4 East 0 - 1/8 Mile Higher FLSO80000026485FL WELLS FLSO80000026483Site id: STDEWFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715343Pump coo 1: 407778Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2000Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 12Pump diame: CENPumptype c: P-3Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 267866Id: 51.1Acres serv: DEWLu code: BRANDONProject na:GPActual per: 140207-11App no:11-03533-WPermit no: A3 East 0 - 1/8 Mile Higher FLSO80000026483FL WELLS FLSO80000026481Site id: STDEWFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1560 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-16 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714684Pump coo 1: 406704Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: 3Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 216752Id: 1Acres serv: DEWLu code: NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION # 48Project na:GPActual per: 090605-8App no:11-02753-WPermit no: B6 SSW 1/8 - 1/4 Mile Higher FLSO80000055303FL WELLS FLSO80000026484Site id: STDEWFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715343Pump coo 1: 407778Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2000Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 12Pump diame: CENPumptype c: P-4Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 267867Id: 51.1Acres serv: DEWLu code: BRANDONProject na:GPActual per: 140207-11App no:11-03533-WPermit no: A5 East 0 - 1/8 Mile Higher FLSO80000026484FL WELLS FLSO80000026485Site id: STDEWFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1561 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-17 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714684Pump coo 1: 406704Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: 1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 216754Id: 1Acres serv: DEWLu code: NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION # 48Project na:GPActual per: 090605-8App no:11-02753-WPermit no: B8 SSW 1/8 - 1/4 Mile Higher FLSO80000055305FL WELLS FLSO80000055304Site id: GP MINFee catego:Taryn BoomgaardDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714684Pump coo 1: 406704Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 2500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: 2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 216753Id: 1Acres serv: DEWLu code: NORTH NAPLES FIRE STATION # 48Project na:GPActual per: 090605-8App no:11-02753-WPermit no: B7 SSW 1/8 - 1/4 Mile Higher FLSO80000055304FL WELLS FLSO80000055303Site id: GP MINFee catego:Taryn BoomgaardDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1562 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-18 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 40Cased dept: 60Well depth: 714158Pump coo 1: 407044Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 25Pump intak: 150Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: IW-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 267846Id: 51.1Acres serv: LANLu code: BRANDONProject na:GPActual per: 140207-10App no:11-03532-WPermit no: C10 South 1/8 - 1/4 Mile Higher FLSO80000026480FL WELLS FLSO80000026669Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714201Pump coo 1: 406976Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 200Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SWP-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 267847Id: 51.1Acres serv: LANLu code: BRANDONProject na:GPActual per: 140207-10App no:11-03532-WPermit no: C9 South 1/8 - 1/4 Mile Higher FLSO80000026669FL WELLS FLSO80000055305Site id: GP MINFee catego:Taryn BoomgaardDisplay na: Water Table aquiferSource nam: MNDFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1563 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-19 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 714985Pump coo 1: 405610Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 250Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: #N/APumptype c: Well 1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 120924Id: 14.07Acres serv: LANLu code: NORTH NAPLES MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION TRAProject na:GPActual per: 030721-3App no:11-02112-WPermit no: D12 WSW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000051621FL WELLS FLSO80000010250Site id: GP MINFee catego:Clyde G. Dabbs, Jr., P.G.Display na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 60Cased dept: 80Well depth: 714160Pump coo 1: 406250Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 60Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: W-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 268381Id: 12.18Acres serv: LANLu code: GRACE ROMANIAN BAPTIST CHURCHProject na:GPActual per: 131209-11App no:11-03509-WPermit no: 11 SW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000010250FL WELLS FLSO80000026480Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Surficial Aquifer SystemSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1564 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-20 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 15Cased dept: 35Well depth: 713613Pump coo 1: 407494Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 17Pump intak: 45Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 215924Id: 7.9Acres serv: LANLu code: VERONA POINTEProject na:GPActual per: 080204-26App no:11-02739-WPermit no: 14 South 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000017173FL WELLS FLSO80000051622Site id: GP MINFee catego:Kimberly ArnoldDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715288Pump coo 1: 405477Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 250Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 4Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SWP-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 120925Id: 14.07Acres serv: LANLu code: NORTH NAPLES MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION TRAProject na:GPActual per: 030721-3App no:11-02112-WPermit no: D13 West 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000051622FL WELLS FLSO80000051621Site id: GP MINFee catego:Kimberly ArnoldDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1565 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-21 EFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 713410Pump coo 1: 406674Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Well 5Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 188437Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: F16 SSW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000056645FL WELLS FLSO80000056639Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 713561Pump coo 1: 407998Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 40Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Well 3Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 135398Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: E15 SSE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000056639FL WELLS FLSO80000017173Site id: GPFee catego:Mary E. McNamaraDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1566 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-22 PFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 713531Pump coo 1: 408392Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Pump 3Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 135850Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: E18 SSE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000056642FL WELLS FLSO80000025508Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 14Cased dept: 30Well depth: 714851Pump coo 1: 409161Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 13Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: WT-2Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 252512Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 17 ESE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000025508FL WELLS FLSO80000056645Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1567 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-23 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 21Cased dept: 35Well depth: 715537.405Pump coo 1: 404815.725Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 15Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 223907Id: 13.12Acres serv: LANLu code: CCPS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 (AKA VETERANS MEMOProject na:GPActual per: 080616-11App no:11-02903-WPermit no: G20 West 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000014792FL WELLS FLSO80000014793Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715182.554Pump coo 1: 404828.656Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 10Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 3Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SWP-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 223956Id: 13.12Acres serv: LANLu code: CCPS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 1 (AKA VETERANS MEMOProject na:GPActual per: 080616-11App no:11-02903-WPermit no: G19 West 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000014793FL WELLS FLSO80000056642Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1568 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-24 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 713031Pump coo 1: 406499Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Well 1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 263719Id: 16.11Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMY IProject na:GPActual per: 120806-7App no:11-03409-WPermit no: F22 SSW 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000027762FL WELLS FLSO80000017174Site id: GPFee catego:Mary E. McNamaraDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 713250Pump coo 1: 408096Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 7Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SWP-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 215925Id: 7.9Acres serv: LANLu code: VERONA POINTEProject na:GPActual per: 080204-26App no:11-02739-WPermit no: E21 SSE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000017174FL WELLS FLSO80000014792Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1569 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-25 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 713096Pump coo 1: 405836Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Well 2Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 263721Id: 16.11Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMY IProject na:GPActual per: 120806-7App no:11-03409-WPermit no: 24 SSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000027763FL WELLS FLSO80000024346Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 17Cased dept: 39Well depth: 717906Pump coo 1: 407696Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: -5Pump intak: 700Pump capac: 12Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: 6Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 114570Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: 23 NNE 1/4 - 1/2 Mile Higher FLSO80000024346FL WELLS FLSO80000027762Site id: GP MINFee catego:Swagata Guha, Ph.D.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1570 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-26 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 600Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: VETPumptype c: GC-3Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196748Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I26 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046051FL WELLS FLSO80000047826Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Sandstone AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:RCHUsests cod: 130Cased dept: 160Well depth: 716562Pump coo 1: 404685Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 80Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 12Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SS-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 262552Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H25 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047826FL WELLS FLSO80000027763Site id: GP MINFee catego:Swagata Guha, Ph.D.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1571 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-27 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 600Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: VETPumptype c: HOA-3Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196745Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I28 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046049FL WELLS FLSO80000046052Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 600Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: VETPumptype c: GC-2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196749Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I27 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046052FL WELLS FLSO80000046051Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1572 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-28 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 10Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 2Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PM-2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196752Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I30 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046221FL WELLS FLSO80000046050Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 600Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: VETPumptype c: HOA-2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196746Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I29 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046050FL WELLS FLSO80000046049Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1573 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-29 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 600Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: VETPumptype c: GC-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196750Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I32 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046053FL WELLS FLSO80000046226Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 600Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: VETPumptype c: HOA-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196747Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I31 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046226FL WELLS FLSO80000046221Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1574 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-30 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 65Cased dept: 100Well depth: 716693Pump coo 1: 404680Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 45Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: LT-2Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 262550Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H34 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047824FL WELLS FLSO80000046220Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 717027Pump coo 1: 409394Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 10Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 2Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PM-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 196751Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I33 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046220FL WELLS FLSO80000046053Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1575 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-31 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715169Pump coo 1: 410017Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 3Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-16Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252940Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 36 East 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000025514FL WELLS FLSO80000046045Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:STDUsests cod: 19.5Cased dept: 43Well depth: 716891Pump coo 1: 409543Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 16.5Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 10Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-4Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 127649Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: I35 ENE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046045FL WELLS FLSO80000047824Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1576 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-32 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 70Cased dept: 120Well depth: 716173Pump coo 1: 404363Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 50Pump intak: 250Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-3Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 260996Id: 12.39Acres serv: LANLu code: SANDALWOOD PROJECTProject na:GPActual per: 110624-11App no:11-03232-WPermit no: J38 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000032471FL WELLS FLSO80000040442Site id: GPFee catego:Terry O. Bengtsson P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 712577Pump coo 1: 406850Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 6Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 2Pump diame: CENPumptype c: 1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 117505Id: 2.5Acres serv: LANLu code: VILLAGES OF MADEIRAProject na:GPActual per: 000601-6App no:11-02070-WPermit no: 37 South 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000040442FL WELLS FLSO80000025514Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1577 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-33 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 713058Pump coo 1: 408935Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 15Pump intak: 25Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: Well 1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 103864Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: 40 SE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000056627FL WELLS FLSO80000024343Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 30Well depth: 717195Pump coo 1: 404826Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: -10Pump intak: 450Pump capac: 10Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: 3Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 31757Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: K39 NW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024343FL WELLS FLSO80000032471Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1578 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-34 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716836Pump coo 1: 404534Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 900Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SW-2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 262573Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H42 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047828FL WELLS FLSO80000047829Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Off-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716836Pump coo 1: 404534Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 900Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SW-3Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 262600Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H41 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047829FL WELLS FLSO80000056627Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1579 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-35 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716836Pump coo 1: 404534Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 900Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SW-6Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 262603Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H44 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047832FL WELLS FLSO80000047827Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Off-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716836Pump coo 1: 404534Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 900Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SW-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 262572Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H43 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047827FL WELLS FLSO80000047828Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Off-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1580 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-36 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716836Pump coo 1: 404534Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 900Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SW-4Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 262601Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H46 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047830FL WELLS FLSO80000047831Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Off-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716836Pump coo 1: 404534Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 900Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SW-5Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 262602Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: H45 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047831FL WELLS FLSO80000047832Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Off-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1581 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-37 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 80Cased dept: 100Well depth: 714470Pump coo 1: 404307Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 60Pump intak: 20Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: WELL #1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 135650Id: 14.07Acres serv: LANLu code: NORTH NAPLES MIDDLE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION TRAProject na:GPActual per: 030721-3App no:11-02112-WPermit no: 48 WSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000051623FL WELLS FLSO80000056643Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 713319Pump coo 1: 405057Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Pump 5Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 135852Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: 47 SW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000056643FL WELLS FLSO80000047830Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Off-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1582 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-38 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 65Cased dept: 100Well depth: 717327Pump coo 1: 404691Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 45Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: LT-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 262549Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: K50 NW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047823FL WELLS FLSO80000032470Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: Mid-Hawthorn AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:TBPAUsests cod: 305Cased dept: 280Well depth: 716181Pump coo 1: 404236Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 15Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-2Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 259060Id: 12.39Acres serv: LANLu code: SANDALWOOD PROJECTProject na:GPActual per: 110624-11App no:11-03232-WPermit no: J49 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000032470FL WELLS FLSO80000051623Site id: GP MINFee catego:Kimberly ArnoldDisplay na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: PWSFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1583 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-39 EFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 712438Pump coo 1: 406015Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Well 2Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 135397Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: L52 SSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000056628FL WELLS FLSO80000046223Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 65Cased dept: 100Well depth: 717852Pump coo 1: 409236Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 1000Pump capac: 12Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: South WellFac name: WELLFacinv typ: 267502Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: 51 NE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046223FL WELLS FLSO80000047823Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1584 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-40 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 30Cased dept: 40Well depth: 712647.76Pump coo 1: 405496.84Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 38Pump intak: 150Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: IW-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 268049Id: 4.3Acres serv: LANLu code: MARSILEA VILLASProject na:GPActual per: 140204-11App no:11-03526-WPermit no: M54 SSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000023247FL WELLS FLSO80000032469Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:STDUsests cod: 26Cased dept: 31Well depth: 716164Pump coo 1: 404002Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 15Pump intak: 250Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 259059Id: 12.39Acres serv: LANLu code: SANDALWOOD PROJECTProject na:GPActual per: 110624-11App no:11-03232-WPermit no: J53 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000032469FL WELLS FLSO80000056628Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-41 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 14Cased dept: 30Well depth: 714372Pump coo 1: 410249Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 13Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: WT-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 252511Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: N56 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000025507FL WELLS FLSO80000023248Site id: GP MINFee catego:Louis Bustamante, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 30Cased dept: 40Well depth: 712647.76Pump coo 1: 405496.84Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 5Pump int 1: 38Pump intak: 150Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SWP-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 268050Id: 4.3Acres serv: LANLu code: MARSILEA VILLASProject na:GPActual per: 140204-11App no:11-03526-WPermit no: M55 SSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000023248FL WELLS FLSO80000023247Site id: GP MINFee catego:Louis Bustamante, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-42 EFacwlsts c:SECUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714322Pump coo 1: 410274Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-9BFac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252937Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: N58 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000025513FL WELLS FLSO80000025120Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714364Pump coo 1: 410247Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-9AFac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252488Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: N57 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000025120FL WELLS FLSO80000025507Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-43 EFacwlsts c:STDUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 40Well depth: 716965Pump coo 1: 410116Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 18.2Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 10Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-5Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 133623Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: 60 ENE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000046047FL WELLS FLSO80000056640Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 712336Pump coo 1: 406000Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Pump 4Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 135837Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: L59 SSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000056640FL WELLS FLSO80000025513Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-44 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 120Cased dept: 160Well depth: 714357Pump coo 1: 410379Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 80Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 6Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SS-2Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 252515Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: N62 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000025510FL WELLS FLSO80000024341Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 30Well depth: 717485Pump coo 1: 404459Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: -10Pump intak: 450Pump capac: 10Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: 1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 31755Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: O61 NW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024341FL WELLS FLSO80000046047Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-45 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716998Pump coo 1: 404060Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 1500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 10Pump diame: CENPumptype c: 9983A-B02-4271 KFac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 114573Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: P64 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024348FL WELLS FLSO80000024342Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 20Cased dept: 30Well depth: 717176Pump coo 1: 404169Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: -10Pump intak: 450Pump capac: 10Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: 2Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 31756Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: O63 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024342FL WELLS FLSO80000025510Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: Sandstone AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-46 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716998Pump coo 1: 404060Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: D02-S308A-M-31Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 114575Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: P66 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024350FL WELLS FLSO80000024347Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716998Pump coo 1: 404060Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 1500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 10Pump diame: CENPumptype c: 5KE-404-DTT-6008Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 114572Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: P65 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024347FL WELLS FLSO80000024348Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-47 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 80Cased dept: 120Well depth: 712238Pump coo 1: 408536Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 70Pump intak: 54Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: Supply WellFac name: WELLFacinv typ: 260703Id: .5Acres serv: INDLu code: MILANO RECREATION-SWIMMING POOL HEATINGProject na:GPActual per: 111101-5App no:11-03296-WPermit no: Q68 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000031436FL WELLS FLSO80000024349Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 716998Pump coo 1: 404060Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 1500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 10Pump diame: CENPumptype c: D03-01054441-004E-B-02Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 114574Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: P67 WNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024349FL WELLS FLSO80000024350Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-48 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 80Cased dept: 120Well depth: 712112Pump coo 1: 408461Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 70Pump intak: 54Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: Injection WellFac name: WELLFacinv typ: 260704Id: .5Acres serv: INDLu code: MILANO RECREATION-SWIMMING POOL HEATINGProject na:GPActual per: 111101-5App no:11-03296-WPermit no: Q70 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000031608FL WELLS FLSO80000025512Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715129Pump coo 1: 410690Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 80Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 4Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-15Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252935Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 69 East 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000025512FL WELLS FLSO80000031436Site id: GP MINFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: PHFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-49 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 711830Pump coo 1: 408019Pump coord: 0Invert ele: -7Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 750Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SWP-2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 163928Id: 16.4Acres serv: LANLu code: MILANOProject na:GPActual per: 100128-10App no:11-02326-WPermit no: R72 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000013156FL WELLS FLSO80000042533Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 25Cased dept: 45Well depth: 712117Pump coo 1: 405591Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 25Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: Well 7Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 103508Id: 8.78Acres serv: LANLu code: IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES INC H O AProject na:GPActual per: 080821-13App no:11-01881-WPermit no: 71 SSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000042533FL WELLS FLSO80000031608Site id: GP MINFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: PHRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-50 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 719207Pump coo 1: 407640Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 1500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 10Pump diame: CENPumptype c: H09-20003697-GT-01Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 213435Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: S74 North 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024541FL WELLS FLSO80000024351Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 719207Pump coo 1: 407630Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 1500Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 10Pump diame: CENPumptype c: H09-20003697-GT-02Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 213434Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: S73 North 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024351FL WELLS FLSO80000013156Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-51 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 145Cased dept: 175Well depth: 712429Pump coo 1: 409527Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 60Pump intak: 90Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: Well 1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 195169Id: 1.86Acres serv: LANLu code: TURNBERRY WOODSProject na:GPActual per: 061018-7App no:11-02640-WPermit no: 76 SE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000028857FL WELLS FLSO80000056644Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 711758Pump coo 1: 408104Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Pump 2Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 135857Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: R75 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000056644FL WELLS FLSO80000024541Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-52 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715594Pump coo 1: 411213Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 160Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 4Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-14Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252493Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 78 East 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000025506FL WELLS FLSO80000042534Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 25Cased dept: 45Well depth: 713468Pump coo 1: 403646Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 25Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: Well 8Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 103509Id: 8.78Acres serv: LANLu code: IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES INC H O AProject na:GPActual per: 080821-13App no:11-01881-WPermit no: 77 WSW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000042534FL WELLS FLSO80000028857Site id: GP MINFee catego:Karen GrissomDisplay na: Sandstone AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-53 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714609Pump coo 1: 411256Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-11AFac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252490Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: T80 East 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000025121FL WELLS FLSO80000013154Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 19Cased dept: 40Well depth: 711508Pump coo 1: 408551Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 17Pump intak: 480Pump capac: 8Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: WT-1Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 160821Id: 16.4Acres serv: LANLu code: MILANOProject na:GPActual per: 100128-10App no:11-02326-WPermit no: 79 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000013154FL WELLS FLSO80000025506Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-54 EFacwlsts c:RCHUsests cod: 19Cased dept: 22Well depth: 718815Pump coo 1: 404500Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 18Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 12Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: WT-3Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 262551Id: 306.2Acres serv: LANLu code: THE CLUB AT MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 140523-7App no:11-03361-WPermit no: U82 NW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000047825FL WELLS FLSO80000025515Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:SECUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714530Pump coo 1: 411274Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 150Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-11BFac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 268611Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: T81 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000025515FL WELLS FLSO80000025121Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-55 PFacwlsts c:PNCUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 711167Pump coo 1: 408134Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 24Pump diame: CENPumptype c: Pump 1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 135845Id: 3.33Acres serv: LANLu code: ROYAL PALM ACADEMYProject na:GPActual per: 120917-2App no:11-01887-WPermit no: V84 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000056641FL WELLS FLSO80000013155Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 711222Pump coo 1: 408155Pump coord: 0Invert ele: -7Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 750Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 24Pump diame: CENPumptype c: SWP-1Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 163927Id: 16.4Acres serv: LANLu code: MILANOProject na:GPActual per: 100128-10App no:11-02326-WPermit no: V83 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000013155FL WELLS FLSO80000047825Site id: INDFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-56 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 719207Pump coo 1: 404650Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 16Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 400Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 8Pump diame: CENPumptype c: H09-20003699-GT-01Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 213436Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: U86 NW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024352FL WELLS FLSO80000042529Site id: GP MINFee catego:John RandallDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRRFactypwu c: PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 25Cased dept: 45Well depth: 715630Pump coo 1: 402673Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 25Pump intak: 50Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: Well 4Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 103505Id: 8.78Acres serv: LANLu code: IMPERIAL GOLF ESTATES INC H O AProject na:GPActual per: 080821-13App no:11-01881-WPermit no: 85 West 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000042529FL WELLS FLSO80000056641Site id: GP MINFee catego:Michael Taylor, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-57 EFacwlsts c:SECUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 715579Pump coo 1: 411837Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 160Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 4Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-13Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252492Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 88 East 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000025505FL WELLS FLSO80000025118Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 713499Pump coo 1: 411372Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 4Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-3Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252481Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 87 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000025118FL WELLS FLSO80000024352Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: On-site Lake(s)/Pond(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-58 EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 14Cased dept: 38Well depth: 720306Pump coo 1: 405908Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: -5Pump intak: 750Pump capac: 12Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: VETPumptype c: 4Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 103725Id: 678Acres serv: LANLu code: MEDITERRAProject na:INDActual per: 130227-7App no:11-00171-WPermit no: 90 NNW 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000024345FL WELLS FLSO80000025122Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714994Pump coo 1: 412103Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 80Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 6Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-12Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252491Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 89 East 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000025122FL WELLS FLSO80000025505Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-59 PFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 65Cased dept: 100Well depth: 720216Pump coo 1: 409137Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 1000Pump capac: 12Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: North WellFac name: WELLFacinv typ: 267501Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: W92 NNE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046222FL WELLS FLSO80000025504Site id: GP MAJFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: On-site Lake(s)Source nam: IRRFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:PRMUsests cod: 0Cased dept: 0Well depth: 714132Pump coo 1: 412100Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 100Pump capac: 0Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 4Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: SP-10Fac name: PUMPFacinv typ: 252489Id: 40.04Acres serv: LANLu code: THE STRAND MASTER PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATProject na:GPActual per: 140529-22App no:11-03069-WPermit no: 91 ESE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000025504FL WELLS FLSO80000024345Site id: INDFee catego:Andrew SteinerDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-60 Tamiami FormationFormation type: Intermediate aquifer systemAquifername: USCountrycode:Not ReportedVert coord refsys: Not ReportedVertcollection method: Not ReportedVert accmeasure units: Not ReportedVertacc measure val:Not ReportedVert measure units: Not ReportedVert measure val:NAD83Horiz coord refsys: Global positioning system (GPS), uncorrectedHoriz Collection method: secondsHoriz Acc measure units:.1Horiz Acc measure: Not ReportedSourcemap scale:-81.7537222Longitude: 26.28675Latitude:Not ReportedContrib drainagearea units: Not ReportedContrib drainagearea:Not ReportedDrainagearea Units: Not ReportedDrainagearea value:03090204Huc code: Not ReportedMonloc desc: WellMonloc type: C -1216Monloc name: USGS-261712081451301Monloc Identifier: USGS Florida Water Science CenterFormal name: USGS-FLOrg. Identifier: X94 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower USGS40000236032FED USGS FLSO80000046046Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: EFacwlsts c:STDUsests cod: 22Cased dept: 42Well depth: 720220Pump coo 1: 409151Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 16.5Pump intak: 500Pump capac: 10Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: SUBPumptype c: PW-6Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 133617Id: 222.62Acres serv: GOLLu code: TALIS PARKProject na:GPActual per: 140701-8App no:11-00151-WPermit no: W93 NNE 1/2 - 1 Mile Higher FLSO80000046046FL WELLS FLSO80000046222Site id: INDFee catego:Nexhip Maska, P.G.Display na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: IRLFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-61 AFacwlsts c:TBPAUsests cod: 14Cased dept: 19Well depth: 710599Pump coo 1: 409189Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 2Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: N/APumptype c: CO-19Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 144240Id: 5759Acres serv: PWSLu code: PELICAN BAY/MULE PEN WELLFIELDSProject na:INDActual per: 140811-4App no:11-00052-WPermit no: X96 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000046916FL WELLS FLSO80000027391Site id: INDFee catego:Toby SchwetjeDisplay na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: MONFactypwu c: AFacwlsts c:TBPAUsests cod: 14Cased dept: 19Well depth: 710599Pump coo 1: 409189Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 2Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: N/APumptype c: CO-19Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 144240Id: 5759Acres serv: PWSLu code: PELICAN BAY/MULE PEN WELLFIELDSProject na:INDActual per: 140722-7App no:11-00052-WPermit no: X95 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000027391FL WELLS Ground-water levels, Number of Measurements: 0 Not ReportedWellholedepth units: Not ReportedWellholedepth:ftWelldepth units: 90Welldepth:Not ReportedConstruction date: Not ReportedAquifer type: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-62 AFacwlsts c:TBPAUsests cod: 51Cased dept: 90Well depth: 710618Pump coo 1: 409245Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: N/APumptype c: CO-18Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 144239Id: 5759Acres serv: PWSLu code: PELICAN BAY/MULE PEN WELLFIELDSProject na:INDActual per: 140811-4App no:11-00052-WPermit no: X98 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000046915FL WELLS FLSO80000027390Site id: INDFee catego:Toby SchwetjeDisplay na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: MONFactypwu c: AFacwlsts c:TBPAUsests cod: 51Cased dept: 90Well depth: 710618Pump coo 1: 409245Pump coord: 0Invert ele: 0Pump int 1: 0Pump intak: 0Pump capac: 4Well diame: 0Cul diamet: 0Pump diame: N/APumptype c: CO-18Fac name: WELLFacinv typ: 144239Id: 5759Acres serv: PWSLu code: PELICAN BAY/MULE PEN WELLFIELDSProject na:INDActual per: 140722-7App no:11-00052-WPermit no: X97 SSE 1/2 - 1 Mile Lower FLSO80000027390FL WELLS FLSO80000046916Site id: INDFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: Water Table AquiferSource nam: MONFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-63 FLSO80000046915Site id: INDFee catego:Paulette M. Glebocki, P.G.Display na: Lower Tamiami AquiferSource nam: MONFactypwu c: ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TC5140197.2s Page A-64 Not Reported : Zone 3 indoor average level < 2 pCi/L. : Zone 2 indoor average level >= 2 pCi/L and <= 4 pCi/L. Note: Zone 1 indoor average level > 4 pCi/L. Federal EPA Radon Zone for COLLIER County: 3 Certified Residential Database18.43834110 ___________________________________________ Data Source% of sites>4pCi/LTotal BuildingsZip Radon Test Results State Database: FL Radon AREA RADON INFORMATION ®GEOCHECK - PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE MAP FINDINGS RADON ® 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Source: United States Geologic Survey EDR acquired the USGS 7.5’ Digital Elevation Model in 2002 and updated it in 2006. The 7.5 minute DEM corresponds to the USGS 1:24,000- and 1:25,000-scale topographic quadrangle maps. The DEM provides elevation data with consistent elevation units and projection. Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map Source: U.S. Geological Survey HYDROLOGIC INFORMATION Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It depicts 100-year and 500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) which incorporates Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL. Source: FEMA Telephone: 877-336-2627 Date of Government Version: 2003, 2015 NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State Wetlands Data: Wetlands Inventory Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8238 HYDROGEOLOGIC INFORMATION AQUIFLOW Information SystemR Source: EDR proprietary database of groundwater flow information EDR has developed the AQUIFLOW Information System (AIS) to provide data on the general direction of groundwater flow at specific points. EDR has reviewed reports submitted to regulatory authorities at select sites and has extracted the date of the report, hydrogeologically determined groundwater flow direction and depth to water table information. GEOLOGIC INFORMATION Geologic Age and Rock Stratigraphic Unit Source: P.G. Schruben, R.E. Arndt and W.J. Bawiec, Geology of the Conterminous U.S. at 1:2,500,000 Scale - A digital representation of the 1974 P.B. King and H.M. Beikman Map, USGS Digital Data Series DDS - 11 (1994). STATSGO: State Soil Geographic Database Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) leads the national Conservation Soil Survey (NCSS) and is responsible for collecting, storing, maintaining and distributing soil survey information for privately owned lands in the United States. A soil map in a soil survey is a representation of soil patterns in a landscape. Soil maps for STATSGO are compiled by generalizing more detailed (SSURGO) soil survey maps. SSURGO: Soil Survey Geographic Database Source: Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Telephone: 800-672-5559 SSURGO is the most detailed level of mapping done by the Natural Resources Conservation Service, mapping scales generally range from 1:12,000 to 1:63,360. Field mapping methods using national standards are used to construct the soil maps in the Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database. SSURGO digitizing duplicates the original soil survey maps. This level of mapping is designed for use by landowners, townships and county natural resource planning and management. TC5140197.2s Page PSGR-1 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) LOCAL / REGIONAL WATER AGENCY RECORDS FEDERAL WATER WELLS PWS: Public Water Systems Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-564-3750 Public Water System data from the Federal Reporting Data System. A PWS is any water system which provides water to at least 25 people for at least 60 days annually. PWSs provide water from wells, rivers and other sources. PWS ENF: Public Water Systems Violation and Enforcement Data Source: EPA/Office of Drinking Water Telephone: 202-564-3750 Violation and Enforcement data for Public Water Systems from the Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) after August 1995. Prior to August 1995, the data came from the Federal Reporting Data System (FRDS). USGS Water Wells: USGS National Water Inventory System (NWIS) This database contains descriptive information on sites where the USGS collects or has collected data on surface water and/or groundwater. The groundwater data includes information on wells, springs, and other sources of groundwater. STATE RECORDS DEP GWIS - Generalized Water Information System Well Data Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-8507 Data collected for the Watershed Monitoring Section of the Department of Environmental Protection. DOH and DEP Historic Study of Private Wells Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-559-0901 Historic database for private supply wells. Well Construction Permitting Database Source: Northwest Florida Water Management District Telephone: 850-539-5999 Consumptive Use Permit Well Database Source: St. Johns River Water Management District Telephone: 386-329-4841 Permitted Well Location Database Source: South Florida Water Management District Telephone: 561-682-6877 Super Act Program Well Data This table consists of data relating to all privately and publicly owned potable wells investigated as part of the SUPER Act program. The Florida Department of Health’s SUPER Act Program (per Chapter 376.3071(4)(g), Florida Statutes), was given authority to provide field and laboratory services, toxicological risk assessments, investigations of drinking water contamination complaints and education of the public Source: Department of Health Telephone: 850-245-4250 Water Well Location Information Source: Suwannee River Water Management District Telephone: 386-796-7211 TC5140197.2s Page PSGR-2 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Water Well Permit Database Source: Southwest Water Management District Telephone: 352-796-7211 OTHER STATE DATABASE INFORMATION Florida Sinkholes Source: Department of Environmental Protection, Geological Survey The sinkhole data was gathered by the Florida Sinkhole Research Institute, University of Florida. Oil and Gas Permit Database Source: Department of Environmental Protection Telephone: 850-245-3194 Locations of all permitted wells in the state of Florida. RADON State Database: FL Radon Source: Department of Health Telephone: 850-245-4288 Zip Code Based Radon Data Area Radon Information Source: USGS Telephone: 703-356-4020 The National Radon Database has been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and is a compilation of the EPA/State Residential Radon Survey and the National Residential Radon Survey. The study covers the years 1986 - 1992. Where necessary data has been supplemented by information collected at private sources such as universities and research institutions. EPA Radon Zones Source: EPA Telephone: 703-356-4020 Sections 307 & 309 of IRAA directed EPA to list and identify areas of U.S. with the potential for elevated indoor radon levels. OTHER Airport Landing Facilities: Private and public use landing facilities Source: Federal Aviation Administration, 800-457-6656 Epicenters: World earthquake epicenters, Richter 5 or greater Source: Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Earthquake Fault Lines: The fault lines displayed on EDR’s Topographic map are digitized quaternary faultlines, prepared in 1975 by the United State Geological Survey STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION © 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material. TC5140197.2s Page PSGR-3 PHYSICAL SETTING SOURCE RECORDS SEARCHED 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Florida Department of Environmental Protection Twin Towers Office Bldg. 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida, 32399-2400 Division of Waste Management Petroleum Storage Systems Storage Tank Facility Re-Inspection Site Inspection Report Facility Information: 9814442 C - Fuel user/Non-retail NORTH COLLIER FIRE CTRL & RESC DIST 16280 LIVINGSTON RD NAPLES, FL 34110 26° 17' 53.52'' 81° 45' 41.04'' DPHO County: COLLIER Inspection Date: 06/06/2017 # of Inspected ASTs: 1 USTs: 0 Mineral Acid Tanks: 0 Facility ID: Facility Type: Facility Name: Latitude: Longitude: LL Method: Inspection Result: Result:In Compliance Signatures: TKCOPC - COLLIER COUNTY SOLID & HAZ WASTE MGMT DEPT (239) 207-0920 Storage Tank Program Office and Phone Number Jay Standiford Inspector Name Inspector Signature Principal Inspector Collier County SHWMD Brian Englant Representative Name Representative Signature Maintenance North Collier Fire Owners of UST facilities are reminded that the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 and 40 CFR 280 Subpart J, requires Operator Training at all facilities by October 15, 2018. For further information please visit: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/tanks/pages/op_train.htm INSURANCE COMMERCE & INDUSTRY INSURANCE CO Financial Responsibility: Financial Responsibility: Insurance Carrier: Effective Date:Expiration Date:08/19/2016 08/19/2017 Activity Opened 06/06/2017 Jay StandifordPage 1 of 3 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Facility ID: 9814442 To Be Completed System Tests Date Completed Results Reviewed Next Due Comment Date Type Annual Operability Test 06/06/2017 01/11/2018 Annual operability testing requird on all overfill prevention sevices and annually thereafter (includes fuel level sensors and fuel level clock gauges). Annual Operability Test 06/06/2017 06/06/2018 Required on the interstitial gauge annually Completed System Tests Date Completed Results Reviewed Next Due Comment Date Type Annual Operability Test 06/06/2017 Passed 06/06/2017 06/06/2018 Performed on the Krueger interstitial gauge (note manufacturer recommends annual operability testing be performed twice per year or every six months). Reviewed Records Record Category Record Type From Date To Date Reviewed Record Comment Two Years Monthly Maint. Visual Examinations and Results 12/17/2015 05/12/2017 Records are well maintained. 06/06/2017 Only Non-Compliance items were inspected during this TCR. A phone call was placed to verify non-compliance items were corrected. Site Visit Comments Activity Opened 06/06/2017 Jay StandifordPage 2 of 3 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Facility ID: 9814442 The regular audible alarm was working but not the diesel audible alarm. AREA OF CONCERN: The diesel audible alarm was removed and will be fixed. Please provide assurances within 14 days of receipt of the report that the alarm will be fixed. Inspector: James (Jay) Standiford JayStandiford@colliergov.net Environmental Specialist Collier County SHWMD 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 302 Naples, FL 34112 239-207-0981- Work Cell Inspection E-mailed to Brian England (benglant@northcollierfire.com) Inspection Photos 06/06/2017 2017-06-06 TCR Facility Pic Added Date Activity Opened 06/06/2017 Jay StandifordPage 3 of 3 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) APPENDIX E ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND INTERVIEWS 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) “USER QUESTIONNAIRE” In order to qualify for one of the Landowner Liability Protections (LLPs)offered by the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownf ields Revitalization Act of 2001 (the “Brownfields Amendments”)the user must conduct the following inquiries required by 40 CFR 312.25,312.28,312.29, 312.30,and 312.31. These inquires must also be conducted by EPA Brownf ield Assessment and Characterization grantees. The user should provide the following information to the environmental professional.Failure to conduct these inquiries could result in a determination that “all appropriate inquiries”is not complete. Subject Property:Livingston Assemblage –13 Vacant-Wooded Parcels of real Estate Livingston Road and Veteran Memorial Blvd. Naples,FL (1.)Environmental liens that are filed or recorded against the property. Did a search of recorded land title records (or judicial records where appropriate)identif y any environmental liens filed or recorded against the property under federal,tribal,state,or local law? (2.)Activity and use limitations that are in place on the property or that have been filed or recorded against the property? Did a search of recorded land title records (or judicial records where appropriate)identif y any AULs, such as engineering controls,land use restrictions,or institutional controls that are in place at the property and/or have been filed or recorded against the property under federal,tribal, state, or local law? (3.)Specialized knowledge or experience of the person seeking to qualify for the LLP. Do you have any specialized knowledge or experience related to the property or nearby properties? For example, are you involved in the same line of business as the current or former occupants of the property or an adjoining property so that you would have specialized knowledge of the chemicals and processes used by this type of business? (4.)Relationship of the purchase price to the fair market value of the property if it were not contaminated. Does the purchase price being paid for this property reasonably reflect the fair market value of the property?If you conclude that there is a difference,have you considered whether the lower purchase price is because contamination is known or believed to be present at the property? 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) (5.)Commonly known or reasonable ascertainable information about the property. Are you aware of commonly known or reasonably ascertainable information about the property that would help the environmental professional to identify conditions indicative of releases or threatened releases?For example, (a)Do you know the past uses of the property? (b)Do you know of specific chemicals that are present or once present at the property? (c)Do you know of spills or other chemical releases that have taken place at the property? (d)Do you know of any environmental cleanups that have taken place at the property? (6.)The degree of obviousness of the presence or likely presence of contamination at the property,and the ability to detect the contamination by appropriate investigation. Based on your knowledge and experience related to the property are there any obvious indicators that point to the presence or likely presence of releases at the property? SIGNATURE:DATE: NAME (PRINT):TITLE: REPRESENTING: The information contained above will be used exclusively for site information necessary for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the subject property.The form and its attachments,if any,will appear in the report as on-site or interview documentation.American Compliance Technologies, Inc.will not further release the information contained on this form unless disclosure is authorized by the owner or owner’s agent or disclosure is required by law. 2 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) PROPERTY OWNER ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE AND DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Respond to:A•C•T Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. 1875 West Main Street•Bartow, Florida 33830 Please return completed document to:mmadonna@a-c-t.com Purchaser:Stock Development Seller/Property Owner: Subject Property:Livingston Assemblage Thirteen (13) Vacant-Wooded Parcels of Real Estate Type of Property (please circle):Commercial Industrial Office Agricultural Residential Other For the following questions answer as completely as possible. If there is not enough space to completely answer a “yes” question you may attach any additional information you have readily available. If the information is not readily available to you list a source for the additional information in the space provided or attach additional sheets. If you have questions about any item call or fax your question to the numbers listed above or call toll free at 800/226-0911. Current and/or Previous Site Usage Date of original construction: Describe substantial renovations and additions (provide dates): Describe current use of property: Describe previous use of property: Names of previous owners: Have you investigated land title records for environmental liens, if yes, describe: Are you aware of any of the following hazardous or regulated materials or devices currently or historically stored, used or controlled on site (please circle)? Petroleum/chemical underground storage tanks Y N N/A Unknown Petroleum/chemical above ground storage tanks Y N N/A Unknown Petroleum/chemical storage precision or leak test Y N N/A Unknown Petroleum/chemical storage (drums or other containers)Y N N/A Unknown Pesticides or other agri-chemicals Y N N/A Unknown Hazardous waste/substance generated Y N N/A Unknown Hazardous waste/substance storage or disposal Y N N/A Unknown PCB transformers Y N N/A Unknown PCBs in other equipment Y N N/A Unknown Asbestos containing materials Y N N/A Unknown Assessment for asbestos containing materials Y N N/A Unknown For any “yes”answer, please describe and/or provide test, assessment or other documentation: Are you aware of any following air emissions sources or devices currently or historically associated with the site (please circle)? Stacks Y N N/A Unknown Vents Y N N/A Unknown Air pollution control equipment Y N N/A Unknown Emissions monitoring equipment Y N N/A Unknown For any “yes”answer, please describe and/or provide test, monitoring or other information: 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Are you aware of any of the following sources of water or wastewater discharges currently or historically associated with the site (please circle)? Discharges to land surface Y N N/A Unknown Discharges to surface water Y N N/A Unknown Discharges to septic tanks Y N N/A Unknown Discharges to ground water/injection wells Y N N/A Unknown Discharges to public sewers Y N N/A Unknown For any “yes”answer, please describe and/or provide permits, permit numbers, monitoring data, water quality data and ancillary information as necessary to completely describe: Are you aware of any of the following waste disposal sources currently or historically associated with the site (please circle)? Sources of liquid waste (other than domestic)Y N N/A Unknown Sources of solid waste (other than garbage)Y N N/A Unknown For any “yes”answer, please describe and/or provide information to evaluate waste disposal sources: Does the purchase price of the property represent the fair market value for the property?Please Check:Yes No If “no”answer, please explain. Have there been any previous assessments conducted on the property, including but not limited to Phase I, Phase II, and/or Site Assessments ?Please Check:Yes No If “yes”answer, please explain and provide copies of any reports. Please provide the name, address and telephone number of the key site manager, operator and/or alternate individual who have knowledge of the site operations and who is available to be interviewed: CERTIFICATION As a duly authorized representative of the owner of the subject property described above, I certify that; to the best of my knowledge, information and belief; the information disclosed above is true, correct and complete. SIGNATURE:DATE: MM/DD/YY NAME (PRINT):TITLE: REPRESENTING: The information contained above will be used exclusively for site information necessary for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the subject property. The form and its attachments, if any, will appear in the report as on-site or interview documentation. American Compliance Technologies, Inc. will not further release the information contained on this form unless disclosure is authorized by the owner or owner’s agent or disclosure is required by law. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) APPENDIX F HISTORICAL AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS SOIL SURVEY MAP 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1627 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd. Naples, FL 34110 Inquiry Number: December 19, 2017 5140197.5 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor Shelton, CT 06484 Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 2010 1"=500'Flight Year: 2010 USDA/NAIP 2007 1"=500'Flight Year: 2007 USDA/NAIP 2006 1"=500'Flight Year: 2006 USDA/NAIP 2005 1"=500'Flight Year: 2005 USDA/NAIP 1999 1"=500'Acquisition Date: January 06, 1999 USGS/DOQQ 1993 1"=500'Flight Date: November 02, 1993 FLDOT 1986 1"=500'Flight Date: February 26, 1986 FLDOT 1980 1"=500'Flight Date: December 13, 1980 U of FL 1975 1"=500'Flight Date: November 14, 1975 FLDOT 1968 1"=500'Flight Date: March 05, 1968 FLDOT 1962 1"=500'Flight Date: January 01, 1962 U of FL 1958 1"=500'Flight Date: January 11, 1958 U of FL 1952 1"=500'Flight Date: February 28, 1952 USGS 1944 1"=500'Flight Date: January 01, 1944 U of FL EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 12/19/17 Livingston Assemblage Site Name:Client Name: American Compliance Tech., Inc Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd.1875 West Main Street Naples, FL 34110 Bartow, FL 33830 EDR Inquiry #5140197.5 Contact:Michael Madonna Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR’s professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo per decade. Search Results: Year Scale Details Source When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more information contact your EDR Account Executive. Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. 5140197 5-page 2 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 2010 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 2007 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 2006 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 2005 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1999 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1993 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1986 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1636 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1980 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1637 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1975 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1638 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1968 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1639 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1962 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1640 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1958 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1641 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1952 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1642 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 5140197.5 1944 = 500' 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1643 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Certified Sanborn® Map Report Inquiry Number: 6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor Shelton, CT 06484 Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com Livingston Assemblage Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd. Naples, FL 34110 December 18, 2017 5140197.3 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1644 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Certified Sanborn® Map Report Certified Sanborn Results: Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. page- The Sanborn Library includes more than 1.2 million fire insurance maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow and others which track historical property usage in approximately 12,000 American cities and towns. Collections searched: Library of Congress University Publications of America EDR Private Collection The Sanborn Library LLC Since 1866™ Limited Permission To Make Copies Sanborn® Library search results Contact:EDR Inquiry # Site Name: Client Name: Certification # PO # Project 12/18/17 Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd. Livingston Assemblage American Compliance Tech., Inc 1875 West Main Street Naples, FL 34110 5140197.3 Bartow, FL 33830 Michael Madonna The Sanborn Library has been searched by EDR and maps covering the target property location as provided by American Compliance Tech., Inc were identified for the years listed below. The Sanborn Library is the largest, most complete collection of fire insurance maps. The collection includes maps from Sanborn, Bromley, Perris & Browne, Hopkins, Barlow, and others. Only Environmental Data Resources Inc. (EDR) is authorized to grant rights for commercial reproduction of maps by the Sanborn Library LLC, the copyright holder for the collection. Results can be authenticated by visiting www.edrnet.com/sanborn. The Sanborn Library is continually enhanced with newly identified map archives. This report accesses all maps in the collection as of the day this report was generated. 0CA9-4E48-B591 3109 UNMAPPED PROPERTY 18972 This report certifies that the complete holdings of the Sanborn Library, LLC collection have been searched based on client supplied target property information, and fire insurance maps covering the target property were not found. Certification #: 0CA9-4E48-B591 American Compliance Tech., Inc (the client) is permitted to make up to FIVE photocopies of this Sanborn Map transmittal and each fire insurance map accompanying this report solely for the limited use of its customer. No one other than the client is authorized to make copies. Upon request made directly to an EDR Account Executive, the client may be permitted to make a limited number of additional photocopies. This permission is conditioned upon compliance by the client, its customer and their agents with EDR's copyright policy; a copy of which is available upon request. This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. 5140197 3 2 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1645 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Soil Map—Collier County Area, Florida Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2017 Page 1 of 3290872029088102908900290899029090802909170290926029093502909440290872029088102908900290899029090802909170290926029093502909440423890423980424070424160424250424340424430 423890 423980 424070 424160 424250 424340 424430 26° 18' 10'' N 81° 45' 45'' W26° 18' 10'' N81° 45' 24'' W26° 17' 46'' N 81° 45' 45'' W26° 17' 46'' N 81° 45' 24'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900 Feet 0 50 100 200 300 Meters Map Scale: 1:3,620 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1646 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Map Unit Polygons Soil Map Unit Lines Soil Map Unit Points Special Point Features Blowout Borrow Pit Clay Spot Closed Depression Gravel Pit Gravelly Spot Landfill Lava Flow Marsh or swamp Mine or Quarry Miscellaneous Water Perennial Water Rock Outcrop Saline Spot Sandy Spot Severely Eroded Spot Sinkhole Slide or Slip Sodic Spot Spoil Area Stony Spot Very Stony Spot Wet Spot Other Special Line Features Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:24,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Collier County Area, Florida Survey Area Data: Version 10, Oct 2, 2017 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Mar 1, 2014—Apr 2, 2014 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Soil Map—Collier County Area, Florida Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2017 Page 2 of 3 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1647 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI 14 Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum, 0 to 2 percent slopes 19.9 48.4% 21 Boca fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes 4.4 10.6% 25 Boca, Riviera, limestone substratum, and Copeland fine sands, depressional 16.9 41.0% Totals for Area of Interest 41.1 100.0% Soil Map—Collier County Area, Florida Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 12/18/2017 Page 3 of 3 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1648 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1649 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1650 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1651 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1652 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) APPENDIX G PHOTOGRAPHIC DOCUMENTATION 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1653 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -1- View looking southwest at the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. Not the dense vegetation and downed trees. View looking southwest at the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1654 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -2- View looking west at the eastern portion of the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. View looking west at the eastern portion of the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1655 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -3- View looking southwest at the northeastern portion of the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. View looking south at northern parcels of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1656 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -4- View looking south at northern parcels of the Subject Property. View looking east along Veterans Memorial Boulevard and the northern Property boundary of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1657 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -5- View looking west at the eastern portion of the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. View looking northwest at the southeast portion of the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1658 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -6- View looking west at the southeast boundary for the northeastern parcels of the Subject Property. View looking south along the eastern boundary for the east-central parcels of at the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1659 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -7- View looking southwest at the southeast portion of the east-central parcels of the Subject Property. View looking east at the west-central parcels of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1660 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -8- View looking east at the survey stakes for the west-central parcels of the Subject Property. View looking southeast at the west-central parcels of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1661 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -9- View looking east at the residential subdivision under construction adjoining to the east of the northeast parcels of the Subject Property. View looking northeast from the northeast corner of the Subject Property along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1662 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -10- View looking northwest from the northeast corner of the Subject Property along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. View looking north at the residential subdivision located adjoining to the north of the S ubject Property across Veterans Memorial Boulevard. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1663 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -11- View looking northwest at the residential subdivision located adjoining to the northwest of the Subject Property across Veterans Memorial Boulevard. View looking west at the vacant land located adjoining to the west of the northwest portion Subject Property across Livingston Road. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1664 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -12- Signage for the residential subdivision located adjoining to the east, southeast and south of the Subject Property. View looking north at the residential subdivision located adjoining to the east, southeast and south of the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1665 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) -13- View of the Naples Fire Station #48 located adjoining to the west of the s outhwest portion of the parcels located on the Subject Property. 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1666 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1667 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 1668 Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.fPacket Pg. 1669Attachment: Back Up Material Allura RPUD (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Smith Frank & Harriet <pgfolks@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 6:26 PM To: SaboJames Subject: 450 Unit Apartment Proposal on Corner of Livingston Rd & Veterans Parkway My name is Francis N. Smith and I currently own a townhouse in the Milano IV PUD housing project. I want to voice my opposition to approving a zoning change what will allow the 450 Unit Apartment Proposal on the corner of Livingston Rd and Veterans Parkway in North Naples. While Collier County has intense need for low income housing expansion, there are numerous potential building sites in the county that will not destroy the quiet neighborhoods that are surrounding this particular parcel. The traffic on Livingston Rd is already very heavy and the residents of this parcel will have no choice but to use Livingston Rd to enter/exit their buildings. Much of this traffic will be using the intersection of Livingston Rd and Immokalee Rd which is one of the busiest intersections in the area. Northbound traffic at the Livingston Rd/Bonita Beach Rd intersection currently encounters serious backups at several times during the normal workweek and adding even a portion of the traffic that this project will add to this traffic flow is just bad planning. Exiting Milano onto Livingston Rd North is already difficult because the Southbound traffic is intense and Northbound traffic coming around the bend in Livingston is fast, heavy and dangerous without adding more drivers. Our grandson attended Royal Palm Academy for years and the morning and evening traffic for parents of children attending that school frequently spill out into Northbound Livingston Rd and pushing additional cars into this area will add extensive, unnecessary risk for these parents who have no other choice to deliver their children to the school. Have mercy on those who need to use these corridors to travel either North or South from our neighborhoods. Please, this is not a necessary compromise that will affect all the residents of this beautiful, quiet section of North Naples. This proposal does nothing to improve our community and clearly adds a serous burden to all of us who live here. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1670 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: ljvonromer@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 11:23 AM To: SaboJames Subject: Allura apt. complex @ Livingston & Veterans Good Morning Mr. Sabo, I have a couple of questions: Why is multi family being considered instead of single family? Neighboring communities demonstrate the demand for single family homes. I recognize that there are mixed single & multi family developments nearby. Then why is such a high density of apartments under consideration? In no way can it be a measure to satisfy low income or even middle income renters as it is being advertised as a high end, resort style community. Perhaps a plan calling for single family & condos should be discussed. I'm sure the developer could make those numbers work just as well @ this location. I am very familiar w highest @ best use of land & long term planning. In this case, I believe this density is not wise or in the best interest of the citizens of Collier County. Best regards, L. J. Von Romer Sent from Windows Mail 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1671 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Kathy Messina <petuniajahn@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:40 PM To: SchmidtCorby Subject: Allura Apts No No No to Allura Apts! 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1672 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) DANIEL CORNILLIE <danielcornillie@comcast.net> Allura RPUD To collier county planning commission 91191201810:53 PM My name is Daniel Cornillie, and I live in Secoya Reserve, approximately 1t2 mile west of the site of this proposed apartment development. I attended the public meeting regarding this proposal at the library on September 6 and was appalled by what was presented. Let me explain why: Density: This over 400 unit development would add a population concentration to an area that is already facing serious in-season traffic issues. The delays as the intersection of lmmokalee with Livingston are well known, but a number of times last season at rush hour trafflc was also backed up on Livingston all the way from Veterans to Bonita Beach Road, two miles to the north. High density housing between these two bottlenecks would exacerbate these problems. Compatibility with existing development: The development along Livingston from lmmokalee into Lee County is one or two story homes. The current drive along Livingston is attractive with the housing subordinated to attractive landscaping on both sides of the street. The insertion of this four story complex would be visibly out of place even if it was not of the undistinguished architecture pictured at the presentation. Take a drive here and try to envision this; it's an aesthetic affront. lmpact on property values: This oulof-place development would visually degrade the area to the point where it would negatively impact property values (and the collier county's tax revenue) in the area, as would the insertion of a concentration of rental units into an area of owner-occupied homes. This proposed development is so obviously out of place that it's an insult to the to the surrounding neighborhood, to the Naples "brand," and to collier county. The juxtaposition of this development with the elegant Mediterra is either careless or spiteful. Please preserve the zoning in a manner that precludes anything like this in this area. Respectfully, Daniel J. Cornillie 15843 Secoya Reserve Circle Naples, FL34110 Good Morning, 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1673 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Rob Walczak <tarpon569@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 7:44 AM To: SchmidtCorby; StrainMark Subject: Allura To those involved, I am a resident of Barrington Cove in North Naples. I purchased early in Barrington Cove due to the location to the schools. I have three young boy that have attended the elementary as well as the middle school. I previously lived in Willoughby Acres. We stayed in the same school district and purchased in Barrington for a newer home and for our kids. My home is on the corner of the project and our pool will face the buildings. I WOULD HAVE NEVER purchased our home knowing that this project was a possibility. We don't need this project as its proposed! Our kids also have a hard enough time crossing Livingston Rd as it is with the traffic and no crossing guards. I work in the fire service and am in and out of similar projects weekly. I also fear the uncertainty of the long term quality of the people who will rent there and the upkeep. With my home on the property line its a HUGE concern. Lets face it this proposed project isn't Bay Colony. It also will decrease my property value with a huge UGLY building and cars against my pool! Please don't allow this project and keep in mind our kids, property values and safety. Sincerely, Robert and Amanda Walczak 16285 Aberdeen Way Naples Fl 34110 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1674 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 6:35 AM To: SchmidtCorby; SaboJames Subject: FW: Additional information from 11/20 email RE Stock Development Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 6:35 AM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Additional information from 11/20 email RE Stock Development My address was not listed in the 11/20 email I recently sent regarding the Stock Development. I am a resident of Barrington Cove directly adjacent to the proposed development. Our residents have complained about the loss of their quality of life from this development. I want to point out how the quality of life will be affected due to the creation of new Noise pollution, LIGHT pollution, and AIR pollution. New NOISE pollution will be created from the increase in the “whine” of the traffic increase day and night, specific noise from the autos and motorcycles in the development itself and noise from the normal activities of the residents in the adjacent proposed development. It will be affect us sitting on our lanais. New LIGHT pollution (also known as “light trespass”) will be created from the increase in light from the high positioned street lights and the safety lights attached to the six buildings shining down on to the one and two story homes in Barrington Cove, This light would be seen over any walls or barrier landscaping. Light will affect the circadian rhythm for sleeping in our shift workers (such as nurses) and remove any stargazing in the night sky enjoyed by our residents. My neighbor will have no view of stars in the North or Western skies with his telescope. Many cities in the US and internationally now require the the lights to shine only downward. The International Dark-Sky Association* is a source for this information. Additional AIR pollution will be factor not only from the 2+ year construction phase but also persist from the increase in traffic flow and the “stop and go" of traffic at the near intersection day and night. These changes will be permanent for all of us especially sitting out on our lanais, Thanks for your consideration. Tim Diegel. timdiegel@mac.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1675 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) *International Dark-Sky Association 3223 North First Ave. Tucson, AZ 85719 Phone: (520) 293-3198 Fax: (520) 293-3192 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1676 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:47 AM To: SchmidtCorby Cc: SaboJames Subject: FW: Allura Apts Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. -----Original Message----- From: Kathy Messina <petuniajahn@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:39 PM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Allura Apts No No No to Allura Apts! 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1677 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 7:47 AM To: SchmidtCorby Cc: SaboJames Subject: FW: ALLURA Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. -----Original Message----- From: kathy brown <kathywithakbrown@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 8:10 AM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: ALLURA My husband Joe Brown and I strongly oppose the building of these multi-family apartments due to the inevitable impact on traffic, water, sewer, fire and ambulance runs, crowding of all local establishments and generally decreasing property values in. The area. Joe and Kathy Brown 28540 Altessa Way, #102 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Sent from my iPhone 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1678 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Don McDaniel <DMcDaniel@pmfllp.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:49 PM To: SchmidtCorby; StrainMark Cc: SolisAndy; Don McDaniel Subject: FW: Allura Project Opposition Importance: High Please see my opposition email below: Donald H. McDaniel 16487 Felicita Court Naples, Florida 34110-3263 (504) 905-6238 Email: dmcdaniel@pmfllp.com From: Don McDaniel Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 3:32 PM To: 'Andy.Solis@CollierCountyFL.Gov' <Andy.Solis@CollierCountyFL.Gov> Cc: Don McDaniel <DMcDaniel@pmfllp.com> Subject: Allura Project Opposition Importance: High Dear Mr. Solis – I’m writing in regards to my opposition to the Allura project, petition #PL- 20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the rezoning so 420 rental apartments can be built on this property. My self and the majority of the people I know are not opposed to single family homes being built in this area. We are opposed to the property being rezoned so 420 rental apartments can be built. The rental apartments will house a minimum of 735 tenants and does not fit into the landscape of this area. Traffic - Immokalee Rd. to Bonita Beach Rd. has no East/West exits for 4.2 miles. Regularly and every week day during season traffic is backed up on Livingston every afternoon for hours from Bonita Beach Rd. south to Veterans Memorial Blvd. and further. To get my son to baseball practice in Bonita I have to go south to Immokalee to 41 then north to Bonita. These 420 rental apartments will certainly add to this congestion. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1679 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Home Values - Most studies show at least a 12.7% decline in property values near multifamily rental apartments. There is a perceived stigma with apartments having higher crime and less desirable tenants. Whether this is true or not doesn’t matter as it’s the perceived stigma that keep people from buying homes next to rental apartments. Schools – What will the impacts be on the schools? Veterans Memorial Elementary is already at capacity and North Naples Middle School is at 86% capacity. I hope you can support the thousands of residents that oppose a project that is not consistent with the current land uses in the area and will have a negative impact to our investments and quality of life. We would like to continue to support you as our commissioner as you support us. Donald H. McDaniel 16487 Felicita Court Naples, Florida 34110-3263 (504) 905-6238 Email: dmcdaniel@pmfllp.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1680 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2018 6:14 AM To: SchmidtCorby Cc: SaboJames Subject: FW: Allura Project Opposition Importance: High Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Don McDaniel <DMcDaniel@pmfllp.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 4:49 PM To: SchmidtCorby <Corby.Schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov>; StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: SolisAndy <Andy.Solis@colliercountyfl.gov>; Don McDaniel <DMcDaniel@pmfllp.com> Subject: FW: Allura Project Opposition Importance: High Please see my opposition email below: Donald H. McDaniel 16487 Felicita Court Naples, Florida 34110-3263 (504) 905-6238 Email: dmcdaniel@pmfllp.com From: Don McDaniel Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 3:32 PM To: 'Andy.Solis@CollierCountyFL.Gov' <Andy.Solis@CollierCountyFL.Gov> Cc: Don McDaniel <DMcDaniel@pmfllp.com> Subject: Allura Project Opposition Importance: High Dear Mr. Solis – I’m writing in regards to my opposition to the Allura project, petition #PL- 20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the rezoning so 420 rental apartments can be 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1681 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) built on this property. My self and the majority of the people I know are not opposed to single family homes being built in this area. We are opposed to the property being rezoned so 420 rental apartments can be built. The rental apartments will house a minimum of 735 tenants and does not fit into the landscape of this area. Traffic - Immokalee Rd. to Bonita Beach Rd. has no East/West exits for 4.2 miles. Regularly and every week day during season traffic is backed up on Livingston every afternoon for hours from Bonita Beach Rd. south to Veterans Memorial Blvd. and further. To get my son to baseball practice in Bonita I have to go south to Immokalee to 41 then north to Bonita. These 420 rental apartments will certainly add to this congestion. Home Values - Most studies show at least a 12.7% decline in property values near multifamily rental apartments. There is a perceived stigma with apartments having higher crime and less desirable tenants. Whether this is true or not doesn’t matter as it’s the perceived stigma that keep people from buying homes next to rental apartments. Schools – What will the impacts be on the schools? Veterans Memorial Elementary is already at capacity and North Naples Middle School is at 86% capacity. I hope you can support the thousands of residents that oppose a project that is not consistent with the current land uses in the area and will have a negative impact to our investments and quality of life. We would like to continue to support you as our commissioner as you support us. Donald H. McDaniel 16487 Felicita Court Naples, Florida 34110-3263 (504) 905-6238 Email: dmcdaniel@pmfllp.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1682 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Bob Mulhere <BobMulhere@hmeng.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 9:25 AM To: philschaengold@aol.com Cc: ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com; Stephanie Karol; SaboJames; Keith Gelder Subject: FW: Allura project proposed on the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway. Thank you , by via this email I am forwarding your email to the County Planner assigned to this project so that it can be included in the staff report and/or executive summary packets that staff prepares for the planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. Bob Mulhere, FAICP Vice President, Planning Services HOLE MONTES 239-254-2000 Direct: 239-254-2026 Cell: 239-825-9373 From: Phillip S. Schaengold [mailto:philschaengold@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2018 9:14 AM To: Bob Mulhere Subject: Allura project proposed on the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway. Dear Mr. Mulhere, I am a year-round resident of the Mediterra community but I was unable to attend the September 6 public hearing in regards to the Allura project proposed on the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway. I’m therefore asking that this email be included in the public record noting my opposition to the proposed project would allow construction of a maximum of 420 residential multi-family rental dwelling units. To be clear, I do not oppose additional well planned low- density communities along Livingston/Imperial corridor but I do oppose the introduction of a multi-family rental project into a neighborhood made up of carefully designed communities of single-homes and coach homes. My opposition is based on the following rationale: 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1683 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 1. The Livingston corridor between Immokalee Road and Bonita Beach Road should be preserved to support its current character of single-homes and low-density condominium buildings (coach homes). 2. The addition of a 420 high-density rental apartments project will exasperate existing traffic delays during rush hours at the Immokalee and Bonita Beach intersections. At times, traffic backups at either intersection can reach as long as 1/2 mile from the intersection. 3. Collier County has been successful in preventing the Greater Naples area from becoming the unattractive high-density mess of Broward and Dade Counties. The introduction of a high- density rental apartment project into the Livingston corridor will set a very negative precedent for Collier County and will begin a detrimental rush by real estate developers to introduce rental projects into single-home communities. Mr. Mulhere, thank you in advance for accepting into the public record my opposition to the proposed Allura project for the construction of a maximum of 420 residential multi-family rental dwelling units on the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway. I urge the Collier County Planning Committee to reject the Allura application and preserve the character and attractive nature of our community. Thank you. Phillip S. Schaengold, J.D., MBA 15735 Villoresi Way Naples, FL 34110 cell: (239) 300-1278 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1684 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 6:38 AM To: SchmidtCorby Cc: SaboJames Subject: FW: Allura Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Rob Walczak <tarpon569@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2018 7:44 AM To: SchmidtCorby <Corby.Schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov>; StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Allura To those involved, I am a resident of Barrington Cove in North Naples. I purchased early in Barrington Cove due to the location to the schools. I have three young boy that have attended the elementary as well as the middle school. I previously lived in Willoughby Acres. We stayed in the same school district and purchased in Barrington for a newer home and for our kids. My home is on the corner of the project and our pool will face the buildings. I WOULD HAVE NEVER purchased our home knowing that this project was a possibility. We don't need this project as its proposed! Our kids also have a hard enough time crossing Livingston Rd as it is with the traffic and no crossing guards. I work in the fire service and am in and out of similar projects weekly. I also fear the uncertainty of the long term quality of the people who will rent there and the upkeep. With my home on the property line its a HUGE concern. Lets face it this proposed project isn't Bay Colony. It also will decrease my property value with a huge UGLY building and cars against my pool! Please don't allow this project and keep in mind our kids, property values and safety. Sincerely, Robert and Amanda Walczak 16285 Aberdeen Way Naples Fl 34110 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1685 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 5:05 PM To: SchmidtCorby Subject: FW: COMMENT - Proposed Resolution Hearing for Petition#PL- 2010004419/CP-2018-1 I typically forward any received correspondence to the assigned reviewer for whatever case is pending before the CCPC. In this case I believe it is you. More to follow. Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Anne-Marie Cadwallader <annemariecadw@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 7:10 AM To: SchmidtCorby <Corby.Schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov>; StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: COMMENT - Proposed Resolution Hearing for Petition#PL-2010004419/CP-2018-1 Dear sirs, My husband and I live in Barrington Cove, the single family, RESIDENTIAL community directly alongside and in back of the proposed 420 apartment complex on the corner of Livingston and Veterans. The proposed six story, 420 unit apartment buildings, six in total, will LITERALLY be in our back yards. Most of our homeowners will look out at six story buildings, instead of the forest, the sky, and the sunsets that we have come to treasure, the reason we bought in this quiet, family neighborhood. OUR HOME VALUES ARE SURE TO DECLINE! Such a mammoth project of rental apartments, on 35 acres on a corner that already has traffic issues, would be out of character, out of place, and permanently disruptive. THERE ARE NO OTHER HIGH RISE BUILDINGS, MUCH LESS APARTMENT BUILDINGS, WITHIN 10 MILES OF THIS CORNER. The only comparison would be the 4 STORY elder care home on the corner of Livingston and Vanderbilt, the 2 STORY Windsong Apartments on the corner of Livingston and Immokalee, and 2 STORY CONDOS in the communities along Livingston from Vanderbilt to Bonita Springs Road. This is a bad idea, poorly planned, with no regard to the homeowners, mostly young families, nurses, first responders, plumbers, and carpenters ( the very people who the County has said they are supportive of). Stock will build these apartments, then sell them as huge cash cow for their company, leaving us with diminished value in our home, diminished quality of life with no view(other than apartment buildings), a three fold increase in traffic at the one of the most congested corners on Livingston, overcrowded schools (Veterans Memorial Elementary and North Naples High School) are at or near capacity already. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1686 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) The 35 acres was zoned and planned for a maximun 178 units, single family homes. To increase the density to 420, rental, is a very bad plan. We are OPPOSED to the Resolution (creating a new subdistrict) and to the Petition #PL- 2010004419-2018-1. Sincerely, Anne-Marie and William Arndt Barrington Cove Naples,FL size=3 width="100%" align=center> Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1687 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 5:10 PM To: SchmidtCorby Subject: FW: Community Petitions opposed to Petition#PL-2010004419/CP-2018-1 Attachments: no-little-miami-on-livingston-road_email.pdf; no-to-allura-420- apartments-rezoning-on-livingston.pdf Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Anne-Marie Cadwallader <annemariecadw@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 4:33 PM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov>; SchmidtCorby <Corby.Schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Community Petitions opposed to Petition#PL-2010004419/CP-2018-1 Dear sirs, I am attaching two PDF files that are copies of two petitions recently circulated from September to November, 2018. Both petitions are now closed, and have 1052 signatures combined. The PDF files also include comments by the residents and homeowners on either side of Livingston from Immokalee to Bonita Springs Road. We would like these petitions to be on the record for the public hearing at the CC Planning Commission Board, Dec. 6, 9am, at the Collier Government, 3rd floor. I have also included a link to the iPetitions site, to view the petitions at their origin. https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-little-miami-on-livingston-road Petition NO to ALLURA 420 APARTMENTS REZONING ON LIVINGSTON The communities of BARRINGTON COVE, MEDITERRA, THE STRAND, TALIS PARK, VERONA POINTE, CAMDEN LAKES, 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1688 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) SECOYA RESERVE, DELASOL, MILANO, CARLTON LAKES are affected and are forming a coalition to bring our opposition to the Allura Apartments project to the COLLIER COUNTY BOARD of COMMISSIONERS, who will be holding a public hearing before they vote on the proposed re-zoning for this property. www.ipetitions.com https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-allura-420-apartments-rezoning-on-livingston Petition NO to Allura 420 Apartments Rezoning on Livingston The communities of BARRINGTON COVE, MEDITERRA, THE STRAND, TALIS PARK, VERONA POINTE, CAMDEN LAKES, SECOYA RESERVE, DELASOL, MILANO, CARLTON LAKES are affected and are forming a coalition to bring our opposition to the Allura Apartments project to the COLLIER COUNTY BOARD of COMMISSIONERS, who will be holding a public hearing before they vote on the proposed re-zoning for this property. www.ipetitions.com Thank you for your help, Anne-Marie Cadwallader Arndt Barrington Cove Naples, Fl 34110 size=3 width="100%" align=center> 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1689 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1690 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) This petition has collected 250 signatures using the online tools at ipetitions.com Printed on 2018-09-14 Page 1 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1691 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) NO to ALLURA 420 APARTMENTS REZONING ON LIVINGSTON About this petition (NOTE: This petition with the collected signatures - the goal is 1,000 signatures or more- will be presented in final form to each of our Collier County Commissioners, and to James Sabo, the Principal Planner for the county's Growth Management Department, both by email as well as by hand.) The southeast corner of Livingston Rd.and Veterans Memorial Parkway in North Naples is under contract by Stock Development to be cleared for the construction of a four story, 420 unit apartment complex, contingent on a successful re-zoning to RPUD. The 35 acres in this wooded lot currently is zoned for a maximum of 107 units, single or multi family. Stock is asking to build 420 units on this acreage, with parking structures that can be three to four stories high. The purchase contract for this land is contingent on a successful re-zoning. WE, THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF LIVINGSTON RD, WILL BE PERMANENTLY AND NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY SUCH A HUGE INCREASE IN DENSITY IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS OF OWNER OWNED HOMES. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THIS ACREAGE THAT WILL ALLOW STOCK DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD A FOUR STORY, 420 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Page 2 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1692 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Signatures 1. Name: William Arndt (bill.arndt@mail.com) on 2018-09-12 15:38:00 Comments: No Stock here! 2. Name: Richard Lanza (papasurf19@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 15:42:52 Comments: No apartments please! Traffic, transient and overcrowded nightmares will only follow. 3. Name: Garrett Lanza (garrettlanza@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 15:44:03 Comments: No apartments! 4. Name: Jordan Martin (jordanbmartin@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 15:44:03 Comments: Do not build 5. Name: Erica Alessandri (aless6874@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 15:44:58 Comments: Completely opposed to Stock Development plans for rental apartments. 6. Name: Gerald A Nebbia (JERRYNEBBIA@GMAIL.COM) on 2018-09-12 15:45:48 Comments: 7. Name: Dave (davevandermolen83@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 15:50:23 Comments: No need for apartments in this area of North Naples. This will overcrowd the schools and cause significant traffic issues. 8. Name: Alp Ozsoy (alp.ozsoy@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 15:50:28 Comments: We cannot let them turn this area of Naples into high transient rental community. 9. Name: Melissa Hemmert (mbh@hlhlawgroup.com) on 2018-09-12 15:50:37 Comments: 10. Name: Brian Hemmert (bthemmert@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 15:52:34 Comments: 11. Name: Jennifer Moen (jrkuzie@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 15:58:21 Comments: 12. Name: Matt Moen (matt@moenbrothers.con) on 2018-09-12 15:59:49 Comments: 13. Name: Andrew Starkman (andrewstarkman97@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 16:01:12 Comments: Page 3 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1693 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 14. Name: Robert Aufdenkampe (bobaufde@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 16:05:50 Comments: This is not a development, it’s a small city. 15. Name: Marti Aufdenkampe (maufden@bellsouth.net) on 2018-09-12 16:06:07 Comments: 16. Name: Vincent Benfatti (irenebenfatti@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 16:07:05 Comments: The proposed project of rental units off Livingston and Veterans and boarding the Barrington Cove developing has a major deleterious implications on the Barrington Cove and surrounding communities. Descriptions of the negative implicstions are available. Please stop and do not approve this project. 17. Name: Allen Williams (allen@domainrealtygroup.com) on 2018-09-12 16:07:11 Comments: I disapprove of the Stock apartment complex. 18. Name: Cedric pollin (cpollin@yahoo.fr) on 2018-09-12 16:28:00 Comments: 19. Name: Stephen Dorcy (stephen.dorcy@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 16:28:23 Comments: If allowed to re-zone this land and increase the RPUD from 170 units to 420 units, which will be made up of 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms units, is really increasing the number of renters in this APARTMENT complex 1,000 people. The location of this development will also attract FGCU students looking for housing. This will not only become a noise problem it will ultimately increase the car count of the renters in the APARTMENT complex to closer to 900 more cars on the roads year round. The re-zoning of this 35 acers is not in anyone's best interest except for Stock Development. Stock is truly destroying this area of North Naples. 20. Name: Margaret Cruz (the2cruzs@att.net) on 2018-09-12 16:44:54 Comments: Please develop responsibly. What Stock is proposing is too much, too fast and not suitable to the direct communities it will impact. 21. Name: Juan Rocha Jaje (jjaje@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-12 16:45:22 Comments: Keep Naples growing under control. 22. Name: Meggie Barboza (barbozajc@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 16:46:12 Comments: 23. Name: Mariela Rodriguez Estevez (mariela2k@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-12 16:46:26 Comments: 24. Name: Dorothee Pollin (pollinswfl@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 16:47:17 Page 4 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1694 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 25. Name: Oscar Cruz (the2cruzs@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 16:48:04 Comments: Not appropriate for this small section of land. Please develop responsibly. 26. Name: Juan Carlos barboza (juancarlos.barboza@arthrex.com) on 2018-09-12 16:53:13 Comments: 27. Name: Sharon Griffith (sharonmcdaniel@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 16:58:22 Comments: 28. Name: Jackie G (jmail34110@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 17:00:23 Comments: 29. Name: Gabriela Chahwan (gschahwan@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 17:02:47 Comments: 30. Name: Nicole Hartwick (nicolemarie05@comcast.net) on 2018-09-12 17:08:18 Comments: 31. Name: Amy loescher (aloescher-yocom@comcast.net) on 2018-09-12 17:10:47 Comments: 32. Name: Ben yocom (ben.yocom270@comcast.net) on 2018-09-12 17:12:45 Comments: 33. Name: Rosie Petisco (Gpetisco@bellsouth.net) on 2018-09-12 17:32:11 Comments: I am opposed to Stock building this community. There are no 4 story buildings (high rises) anywhere in this area. Also, this year’s incoming 6th grade class at NNMS was the biggest class ever. The 6th graders have had to be mixed in with the 7th and 8th grade lockers due to lack of capacity. The impact on traffic, property values and water drainage have the potential of being devastating to our surrounding communities. Please consider building townhouses or coach homes instead of rentals. 34. Name: Ivan L Rosenblatt (ilrosenblatt@earthlink.net) on 2018-09-12 17:37:40 Comments: I am totally opposed to this proposed development. 35. Name: Francis N Smith (pgfolks@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 17:43:54 Comments: 36. Name: Anne-Marie Cadwallader (annemariecadw@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-12 17:52:41 Comments: Building four story apartment units, 420 units total, is totally inappropriate for the quiet owner owned, low density communities that characterize the neighborhoods on Page 5 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1695 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) all sides of this proposed project! Traffic would be horrendous! 37. Name: John Healey (Jhealey974@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 17:59:44 Comments: My move to Naples from New England was due more to the ever increasing demand on services, (Fire, Police, SCHOOLS, and trash removal to name a few) which led to increased real estate taxation due to over development. 38. Name: Judy Watkevich (swflajudy@comcast.net) on 2018-09-12 18:06:16 Comments: There is already too much traffic on Livingston Road. Already a nightmare during season traveling north on Livingston. 39. Name: Alain Coupal (alain.coupal@videotron.ca) on 2018-09-12 18:09:15 Comments: 40. Name: Alvaro Andrade (julianfelipe09@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 18:23:06 Comments: 41. Name: Andy Mortensen (Andy@BonitaTitle.com) on 2018-09-12 18:33:16 Comments: I am opposed to changing the zoning on this parcel to RPUD. Rezoning will negatively impact property values for several thousands of property owners in the Barrington Cove, Mediterra, Talis Park, Camden Lakes, Verona, Verona Estates, Secoya Reserve, The Strand, and other neighboring communities. Rental apartments are inconsistent with the current makeup of our communities. 42. Name: Barbara George (barbara520george@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 18:49:30 Comments: 43. Name: Elbert L Lands (elbertlands@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 19:06:19 Comments: We do not want this renal complex. A negative impact on roads, schools, home value & quality of life in North Naples. 44. Name: Sandra Ritchie (sritchie55@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 19:06:53 Comments: NO for this development!! 45. Name: Marc Sier (marcsier@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 19:07:24 Comments: No to rental properties at Livingston and Veterns blvd Naples Fl 46. Name: Edward Maron (edward.maron@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 19:08:33 Comments: 47. Name: Holly Russell (hollyrus@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 19:10:17 Comments: Page 6 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1696 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 48. Name: Brian Washek (washekbw@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 19:10:30 Comments: 49. Name: Giuseppe Carvelli (gsepi57@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 19:17:53 Comments: 50. Name: Joe Huntt (jwhuntt@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 19:20:24 Comments: I moved to this location with the understanding that only houses would potentially be built on this parcel of land. An apartment complex of such size is just totally counter to the original zoning ordinance. No to this proposal. 51. Name: Patricia Coffin (patticoffin@comcast.net) on 2018-09-12 19:33:29 Comments: Against the transient nature of small apartments, the enormous amount of traffic added to an already unnavigable Livingston, in season, blockage of Fire Department, over crowding of schools, and misfit 4 story buildings on our residential block of Livingston. Zoned for single family dwellings for a very good reason. Dispite the reteric, 1000-1300 sq ft does not qualify as “Luxery Living”! 52. Name: Deborah Gassner (debgassner@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 19:48:25 Comments: 53. Name: Patricia Regan (preganregan@outlook.com) on 2018-09-12 19:49:31 Comments: This is way too much density for this area. The traffic in season is already a mess. Also four story buildings would be out of place. 54. Name: Cheryl Maddux (babygirlsam421@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 19:52:12 Comments: 55. Name: Nancy Bannerman (nancybannerman@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 19:53:45 Comments: 56. Name: Robert Zyblut (robert.zyblut@raymondjames.com) on 2018-09-12 19:54:45 Comments: let Brian Stock live where he builds see how he likes it 57. Name: Julia Spigelman (okmarmie1@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 19:59:35 Comments: This development signifies the amount of greed of this company and its complete disregard for the quality of life for those affected. Disgraceful disgusting that the ruination of communities and natural beauty should be sacrificed for the almighty dollar. 58. Name: Kim Kissel (kkissel45@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 20:15:53 Comments: 59. Name: J Kissel (jkissel57@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 20:17:13 Page 7 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1697 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 60. Name: D Kissel (kimsellsswfl@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 20:17:47 Comments: 61. Name: Sam Spigelman (sarecca@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 20:18:11 Comments: We are already living with the results of Greed generated by DR Horton; do we wish to extend our misery further? 62. Name: Dale Williams (williada89@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 20:25:19 Comments: No apartments 63. Name: Elizabeth kostuk (ekostuk58@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 20:31:23 Comments: No! 64. Name: Tony Gattonet (t_gattone@icloud.com) on 2018-09-12 20:31:31 Comments: Adding this high density apartment complex is not an asset for the communities surrounding our area. for all the reasons cited in this petition. 65. Name: ILEANA SERRA (Ily23@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 20:36:21 Comments: Completely opposed to change our zoning - schools, roads, , value of homes will be affected. Please do not let Stock Development kill the North Naples quality of life. 66. Name: Brooke Lackey (brooke@brookelackey.com) on 2018-09-12 20:55:24 Comments: We living in Barrington Cove and believe a multi-family, high density, rental property will be detrimental to Livingstone Rd and all neighborhoods on it. Livingston Rd currently serves as the one alternate North/South route for I75. It often gets backed up during rush hour any time there are accidents. The additional stress on traffic and schools is not what the Livingston corridor needs. In addition to that, and equally important, I have serious concerns about the safety of my children with a transient apartment complex in our back yard. Stock touts this project as "high rent" but a projected $1400/month rent is laughable and one of the lowest in the county. Please do not allow this project in our neighborhood. 67. Name: joyce broglin (itempro@centurylink.net) on 2018-09-12 21:10:24 Comments: the traffic is crazy now!! we can't take the increase in traffic the apartments would bring. i'm not in favor. 68. Name: Luisa Masella (luisa.masella@videotron.ca) on 2018-09-12 21:13:48 Comments: 69. Name: Sharla Potter (sharpott@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 21:30:01 Comments: Page 8 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1698 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 70. Name: Karen Wilkinson (wilkinsonkaren71@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 21:34:02 Comments: 71. Name: Stephanie Harris (stefkneec@ail.com) on 2018-09-12 21:35:36 Comments: 72. Name: Michele Rearden (m.rearden1@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 21:41:42 Comments: 73. Name: Jill Mcconnell (jbmccon24@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 21:53:33 Comments: No rental prob on Livingston road 74. Name: Emilia Feinberg (emilia.a.feinberg@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 21:53:55 Comments: 75. Name: Richard Nieves (richnieve@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 22:03:01 Comments: 76. Name: Richard nieves (rsnow1222@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 22:05:34 Comments: 77. Name: Patricia Perron (deperron@comcast.net) on 2018-09-12 22:08:11 Comments: No 420 apartment building 78. Name: Nancy Craig (nancyrcraig@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 22:08:27 Comments: 79. Name: Adrienne Crowley (adriennecrowley@me.com) on 2018-09-12 22:08:53 Comments: 80. Name: David Perron (dperron11@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 22:22:14 Comments: 81. Name: Marcia Silverman (silverpelican13@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 22:32:56 Comments: 82. Name: AUDREY CURRAN (audreycurran11@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 22:40:57 Comments: 83. Name: Megan Y (palettestudio@comcast.net) on 2018-09-12 22:45:22 Comments: Stop the greed machine!! Page 9 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1699 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) We had planning in place for a reason. Way to many cars on a infrastructure that is failing is during season. At what point are there so many people here that the roads don't move at all? 84. Name: CHARLES VALERY (CHUCKVALERY1@GMAIL.COM) on 2018-09-12 22:47:26 Comments: 85. Name: Lisa jarrett (lisajarrett24@me.com) on 2018-09-12 23:01:50 Comments: 86. Name: Marie shoaf (shoafmarie@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 23:08:23 Comments: This is not what Naples is about 87. Name: Micky joy (mjoy1979@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-12 23:15:45 Comments: 88. Name: Vincent Tormey (vincent@dksnaples.com) on 2018-09-12 23:17:48 Comments: 89. Name: Emilie Menard (emadena18@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 23:31:02 Comments: 90. Name: Elizabeth Pereira (oliveiranyr1@gmail.com) on 2018-09-12 23:50:55 Comments: 91. Name: Dominick Lanza (dpfire82@aol.com) on 2018-09-12 23:53:14 Comments: 92. Name: Bret Haines (neddynips@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 00:27:56 Comments: Terrible idea. Totally against this development 93. Name: Julie Cody (julieanne1225@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 01:00:24 Comments: 94. Name: Oliver Gendron (olivergendron@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 01:12:48 Comments: This construction will congest the roads with traffic, overpopulate our local schools, and have a negative effect on the quaint, aesthetic, appeal of the area. 95. Name: Jose Arosemena Jr (jarosemena68@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 01:15:06 Comments: 96. Name: Danielle Nicoletta (dnicoletta214@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 01:16:39 Page 10 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1700 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 97. Name: Nancy Huntt (n.huntt@me.com) on 2018-09-13 01:20:39 Comments: 98. Name: Grace VanderMolen (grace.e.business@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 01:22:53 Comments: 99. Name: Nelson Pereira (pereira8@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 01:31:24 Comments: 100. Name: Stacie Hall (staciem817@live.com) on 2018-09-13 01:49:36 Comments: 101. Name: Bettina Tippett (bettinatip@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 02:02:43 Comments: 102. Name: Madhuri Terli (mterli@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 02:03:17 Comments: 103. Name: Amy Carvelli (amyt122@msn.com) on 2018-09-13 02:14:12 Comments: Traffic is already a nightmare during season. Let’s be real. This is going to be a disaster. 104. Name: Kristine (kgajos0907@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 02:27:24 Comments: 105. Name: Carol everett (mamanea6@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 02:31:08 Comments: 106. Name: Jennifer Jordan McGurk (jen_e_j@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 02:43:37 Comments: 107. Name: Juan Romano (jromanosells@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-13 02:56:48 Comments: 108. Name: patti fortune (pattifortune@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 03:10:24 Comments: No to 4 story building. It doesn’t fit in with our community. 109. Name: Charmaine Klein (mainey@carolina.rr.com) on 2018-09-13 03:20:46 Comments: Page 11 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1701 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 110. Name: dianna albrechtsen (dm.albrecht1@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 03:54:21 Comments: no pats on livingston and vets hwy 111. Name: Ray Paolino (raypaolino@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 03:54:50 Comments: Standing with my daughter and her family! 112. Name: Ellen Edelstein (enedelstein@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 04:48:45 Comments: 113. Name: Debbie Prefontaine (adpre@aol.con) on 2018-09-13 04:51:05 Comments: 114. Name: Joshua Hartwick (joshhartwick@comcast.net) on 2018-09-13 05:39:54 Comments: Build a park not a appartment complex 115. Name: Donna Mazzeo (msiguana@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 08:32:05 Comments: 116. Name: Allison Pezzuti (ampezzuti@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 08:55:25 Comments: 117. Name: Erin Laporte (erinllaporte@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 11:08:59 Comments: Please develop this land responsibly. I’m opposed to the 420 unit / 4-story apartment buildings along Livingston & Veterans Memorial. 118. Name: Whitney Murphy (wnofl@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 11:16:48 Comments: 119. Name: Gus Petisco (guspetisco@ymail.com) on 2018-09-13 11:46:46 Comments: No apartment buildings 120. Name: John Henry (jhenry@prodigy.net) on 2018-09-13 11:59:03 Comments: This proposed rezoning would permit development that would be adverse to the quality of life in neighboring communities 121. Name: Vincent Benfatti (benfattivincent@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 12:09:26 Comments: 122. Name: Tania Sciancalepore (taniasciancalepore@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 12:10:38 Comments: 123. Name: Elizabeth Guerra (elizabethguerra1@outlook.com) on 2018-09-13 12:15:18 Page 12 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1702 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: The elementary school will also be adversely affected by this development. 124. Name: Joe Martin (Joeamartin333@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 12:25:44 Comments: No to 4 story building. It will cause traffic and other problems to our area. we all must stop it. 125. Name: Susan Steinberg (susansteinberg1@mac.com) on 2018-09-13 12:27:04 Comments: 126. Name: Cindy Sealey (CINDYSHIELDS1229@YAHOO.COM) on 2018-09-13 12:30:54 Comments: 127. Name: Thomas Griffith (tommygriff3@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 12:48:48 Comments: The infrastructure in this area can’t handle this type of development, it will negatively impact the schools and the development is not equivalent to the numerous existing communities in this area therefore negatively impacting this area. 128. Name: Trisha Gasiorowski (trishgaz123@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 13:01:06 Comments: 129. Name: Dominick Lanza (olddogff@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 13:34:14 Comments: 130. Name: Desiree Mortensen (desiree@summitlife.com) on 2018-09-13 14:14:11 Comments: 131. Name: james sealey (gatorvette06@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 14:32:31 Comments: Please say NO! 132. Name: Maria Ignacia (neubaw@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 14:45:12 Comments: 133. Name: Roselyn Martin (Roselyndebbie@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 15:12:14 Comments: 134. Name: Jessica Blair (jma6517@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 15:13:21 Comments: 135. Name: Danielle (daniellemslade@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 15:31:07 Comments: 136. Name: James Hoover (jlacct1@centurylink.net) on 2018-09-13 15:38:24 Page 13 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1703 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: No due to increased traffic. 137. Name: Dante DeCicco (ddecicco2@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 15:41:34 Comments: No way can this be allowed 138. Name: L DeRose (wderose@verizon.net) on 2018-09-13 15:50:59 Comments: 139. Name: Julie Chilstrom (juliecdts@embarqmail.com) on 2018-09-13 15:54:08 Comments: The traffic on Livingston is horrible now. Imagine adding another 600 vehicles. We'd never be able to leave our homes because we couldn't get out of our development. 140. Name: Laura pascotto (lrpascotto@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 15:59:21 Comments: 141. Name: Caroline Kissel (carolinekissel144@comcast.net) on 2018-09-13 16:16:54 Comments: 142. Name: Diane Porco (genny951@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 16:26:58 Comments: 143. Name: Laurie Albanos (lba14625@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 16:35:27 Comments: 144. Name: zannos grekos (zannosgrekos@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 16:46:02 Comments: I am against anything that changes the current profile of our neighborhood. 145. Name: Amanda Joy (a.amanda40@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 16:46:26 Comments: 146. Name: Micky Joy (mjoy1979@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-13 16:47:04 Comments: 147. Name: Maureen O'REGAN (Moeoregan20@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 17:04:18 Comments: 148. Name: John Albanese (johnjagg@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 17:05:42 Comments: 149. Name: Jennifer Stiefel (jenjane1325@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-13 17:11:21 Comments: Page 14 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1704 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 150. Name: Cheryl Osmers (cherosmers@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 17:12:26 Comments: No to Allura 420 Apartments!! 151. Name: Dan Dapper (gridlockdan@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 17:13:44 Comments: 152. Name: Amanda Joy (lovablejeep@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 17:23:34 Comments: 153. Name: Robert Walczak (tarpon569@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 17:25:58 Comments: I am a resident of Barrington Cove. I am also a first responder in Collier County. I highly am opposed to the rezoning of the Allura project. I have children at the middle school and we don't need the added burden on both the middle school and elementary. I am in and out of such apartment type complex's through out the week. There is NO BENIFIT to the neighboring communities for ALLURA. Property values, traffic, burden on schools and the future of the complex in several years when it declines. Move it to the East trail... 154. Name: Ellis Cammons (ellis@watersidebuildersinc.com) on 2018-09-13 17:26:34 Comments: 155. Name: Gregory Cheffer (gcheffer@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 17:45:16 Comments: Absolutely not!!! Would never have moved here had I known this was in the works. 420 units (1,2,3BR's) @ 4 people per unit (average) equals 1680 tenants. Two cars per unit equals an additional 3,360 vehicles in this small area. Wont work! 156. Name: Joanne Bona (jbona22@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 17:47:16 Comments: 157. Name: Michael Osterman (mtosterman2@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 17:48:05 Comments: 158. Name: Alex Rosen (spearfish25@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 17:49:05 Comments: No to rezoning. 159. Name: Olga Cobb (olgacobb@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 17:56:53 Comments: NO to ALLURA 420 APARTMENTS REZONING ON LIVINGSTON 160. Name: Kevin Nobis (bonitaketskikevin@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 18:00:24 Comments: Schools are already at capacity plus this is not good fit for North Naples with the traffic issues we already have. Page 15 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1705 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 161. Name: Leonard Joyce (lenjoyce@lenjoyce.com) on 2018-09-13 18:01:51 Comments: Not the location for 420 apartments. Even if, should be Condo. 162. Name: John Drake (jedrakeiv@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 18:07:23 Comments: 163. Name: Joseph Ellis (jme0973@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 18:22:34 Comments: 164. Name: Clayton Rodgers (claytonhrodgers@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 18:29:08 Comments: Please do not allow this development to be rezoned! 165. Name: Annette Mancini (amancini2@comcast.net) on 2018-09-13 18:33:47 Comments: As residents of Camden Lakes in North Naples, we are totally opposed to this development of multi-unit apartments by Stock Development. If this parcel of land needs to be developed, please develop responsibly. 166. Name: Ann deSelding (adeselding@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 18:43:28 Comments: 167. Name: Linda Albenga (lindamugs@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 18:44:27 Comments: We do not want 420 apartments on Livingston. Traffic is awful now and I’m sure we will experience tons of grid lock. 168. Name: Laura May (lauramay1962@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 19:18:37 Comments: NO! All this building is ridiculous. Roads can’t handle more cars. Naples traffic is already bad enough! 169. Name: Nanette Prins (bnprins@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 19:20:10 Comments: This complex will cause massive traffic problems and overcrowding in the schools. Also, there are no other four story buildings in the area. keep the area single home. Thank you 170. Name: Nicole Burton (nicoleb0770@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 19:27:22 Comments: 171. Name: Elgene Doinidis (elgenewd@comcast.net) on 2018-09-13 19:52:54 Comments: We are against the rezoning of this area. 172. Name: Chris Doinidis (chrisdoins@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 19:54:26 Comments: Do not approve this rezoning! 173. Name: Yesenia Drake (ymdrake@me.com) on 2018-09-13 19:54:55 Page 16 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1706 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 174. Name: Sharon Phillips (sllmd10@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 19:55:31 Comments: No no no to 420 apartments! 175. Name: Jonathan Kraiza (jkraiza20@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 19:57:59 Comments: 176. Name: Miriam Means (mmeans1234@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 19:58:10 Comments: 177. Name: Nicole Marc (iwish1972@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 19:58:16 Comments: 178. Name: Yes (peterjmarco@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 20:01:43 Comments: 179. Name: Ron bellone (bellonev@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 20:06:47 Comments: No 180. Name: Leesha DiPalma (leesha.ellen@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 20:17:30 Comments: 181. Name: Jen rainey (raineyjmd@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-13 20:20:11 Comments: No to Allure 182. Name: Jennifer Suden (jsuden@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 20:23:01 Comments: 183. Name: Susan Peters (susanpeters@bestprosthetics.com) on 2018-09-13 20:39:53 Comments: 184. Name: Tom Guthrie (tjtone@earthlink.net) on 2018-09-13 21:15:21 Comments: Do not change the density for this project. 185. Name: Mary Guthrie (maryjudith.guthrie@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 21:16:24 Comments: No Apartments on Veterans Park 186. Name: Michelle Marks (bellamiamarks@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 21:43:17 Comments: 187. Name: Barbara Morley (bmorley6966@gmail.com) on 2018-09-13 21:48:02 Page 17 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1707 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: I am against this high density, high rise complex. It does not fit the profile of surrounding communities. The traffic is already bumper to bumper and at a standstill heading north to Bonita Beach Road. When is enough ebough. 188. Name: Robert Creviston (bobcreviston@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 21:54:57 Comments: 189. Name: sally king (sally@grizzled.com) on 2018-09-13 21:56:26 Comments: no we do not want the Allura 420 apartments on Livingston 190. Name: Dori Kennedy (dken2001@aol.com) on 2018-09-13 23:15:38 Comments: 191. Name: Bruce and Sabine Hopkins (brucejhopkins@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 00:35:01 Comments: totally opposed 192. Name: Geraldine Hussey (tipperary1960@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 00:38:16 Comments: No thank you 193. Name: Joseph Garcia (jjgjr75@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 00:50:31 Comments: Please do not build this. We have a 3 year old and a baby on the way. We planned to have them go to Veterans Memorial which is near this proposed complex. 194. Name: Natalie Garcia (nggeorge50@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 00:56:47 Comments: Please do not build in excess in a location that is only zoned for 107 units. This impacts the environment, wild life, safety of the school in the area, and the safety of pedestrians. There are regularly individuals and families walking, biking, and running, Increased traffic in this area to accommodate over 400 people would increase the risk of pedestrian deaths/injuries 195. Name: Evelyn Widen (exw18@aol.com) on 2018-09-14 00:56:59 Comments: Totally opposed for numerous reasons. If this complex is built, based on the appraisal report, the value of my property will decrease $60,000 since the time I bought it 4 months ago. I purchased this property specifically because of the profile of the surrounding communities, which did not include a transient rental high rise. 196. Name: Catherine Hunt (jimtiahunt@aol.com) on 2018-09-14 01:11:37 Comments: 197. Name: Elizabeth smith (ikatchen911@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 01:31:54 Comments: 198. Name: Dana Ricard (danaricard@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 01:32:49 Comments: Page 18 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1708 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 199. Name: Lance Stahlman II (lstahlman@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 01:35:24 Comments: 200. Name: Clara crick (cs.hodge@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 02:22:29 Comments: The traffic in this area is pretty awful already especially during rush hour times. Schools in the district are at or almost at capacity, and al the homes in the area are single family. This apartment complex would be very unsuitable. Please keep this area zoned for single family. 201. Name: Kris (d4449302@nwytg.net) on 2018-09-14 02:48:37 Comments: 202. Name: Karina Chapman (karinachapman@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 02:58:23 Comments: 203. Name: Casey Cook (caseylovecook@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 11:20:47 Comments: 204. Name: Jan Cowell (janet.cowell@glhomes.com) on 2018-09-14 11:20:47 Comments: 205. Name: JEFF SHEAR (jlshear@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 11:45:26 Comments: 206. Name: Karen Rosen (krosen8@comcasr.net) on 2018-09-14 11:47:40 Comments: 207. Name: Kissel (kim.kissel@glhomes.com) on 2018-09-14 11:55:45 Comments: 208. Name: Roberta Hawkins (roblhawkins@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 11:55:55 Comments: Please do not rezoning this property to allow 420 apartments. Traffic, property value, schools will be negatively impacted. Traffic is already impossible during season. The developer should work within the present zoning restrictions. 209. Name: Nicole Woessner (nwoessner@me.com) on 2018-09-14 12:05:57 Comments: 210. Name: MARCI WISSING (ashiashley@comcast.net) on 2018-09-14 12:10:47 Comments: We do not need this excess building constantly going on. The impact on the traffic and resale value of our homes depends on this project not moving forward. Page 19 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1709 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 211. Name: Dianne Nespoli (diannenespoli@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 12:23:16 Comments: 212. Name: Anthony (akc239@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 12:47:51 Comments: 213. Name: Joe grande (grandejoseph@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 13:04:07 Comments: 214. Name: Alyssa Murphy (aelliot26@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 13:07:49 Comments: 215. Name: Brett Beecher (brettbeecher@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 13:11:37 Comments: 216. Name: Nicole Martin (colee0077@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 13:18:42 Comments: 217. Name: Diane Shein (nannygale64@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 14:22:01 Comments: Do not allow this project to be built! 218. Name: Glen D Myers (myersglen@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 14:28:44 Comments: 219. Name: Giovanni Blasi (giotriple@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 15:01:05 Comments: 220. Name: Cindy Myers (ccmorn@aol.com) on 2018-09-14 15:31:21 Comments: 221. Name: Carole aitken (deasr1@aol.com) on 2018-09-14 15:40:40 Comments: NO TO MORE APTS. 222. Name: Germain Despres (germain.despres43@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 15:47:51 Comments: The impact to house values and traffic will be devastating. Traffic is already bad. 223. Name: Robert Bolton (rkb9277@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 15:51:24 Comments: 224. Name: Don Ivener (naplesman@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 16:09:25 Comments: Page 20 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1710 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 225. Name: Janet Bolton (jayleightoo@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 16:17:10 Comments: 226. Name: Dorothy Clarkson (dotgc@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 16:23:54 Comments: Too much traffic now! 227. Name: Jodi Schulinn (jschulinn@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 16:37:20 Comments: Please do not allow 420 apartments in an area zoned for 107 units. This is going to be a mess for wildlife, traffic, and local communities already angered by the proposal. There is no reason to crowd so many units into such a small space. 228. Name: Joanne Fluehr (joannefluehr@comcast.net) on 2018-09-14 16:40:58 Comments: The traffic on Livingston Avenue is already horribly congested, especially in the morning and late afternoon. It is often a half hour wait to get from veterans Parkway to Bonita Beach Road on Livingston. This complex will only further congest an already overcrowded road. Please do NOT approve. 229. Name: Carl Armstrong (CarlArmstrong@comcast.net) on 2018-09-14 16:48:54 Comments: I vote no to this rezoning 230. Name: Blake Helgren (zazouweb@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 16:55:19 Comments: 231. Name: R Jones (parts@northernoutboard.com) on 2018-09-14 17:03:59 Comments: No to these building plans 232. Name: Adeel Arshed (nodeel98@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 17:30:34 Comments: This development is not in character with the neighborhood nor what planners originally wanted for this area. It was zoned single family residential for a reason, so lets honor that! Not only that, a higher density development will result in undue stress on the already capacity public facilities such as the schools, roads and parks in the area. This development has the potential to result in negative perception of the entire community impacting long term property values and eroding the long term tax base. Please vote NO for this high density development. 233. Name: Patrick T (trittp1@comcast.net) on 2018-09-14 17:34:16 Comments: I strongly oppose this development. Will have adverse affect on values of our homes. Negatively impact VME and N Naples Schools that are full now. Liv road is busy enough. 234. Name: Greg Smith (golfrmx@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 17:37:00 Comments: I vote no! Page 21 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1711 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 235. Name: Blair Gurick (ylblair@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 17:43:53 Comments: Please for kids safely , the traffic and our middle school kids Ridding bikes to school with even more cars is so so dangerous - Livingston road is so scary and cars are so fast and to add more with two huge schools right near by is way to dangerous ! 236. Name: Zach Gurick (zgurick@me.com) on 2018-09-14 17:47:16 Comments: 237. Name: Karina Alvarez-Chapman (karina8384@aol.com) on 2018-09-14 17:49:34 Comments: 238. Name: Erin Sarrett (ekjwvu@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 17:50:31 Comments: 239. Name: Kristen Potter (kristen.l.potter@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 17:53:35 Comments: 240. Name: Mary Meichelbeck (6025mmm@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 17:56:36 Comments: This planned building is much too large for proposed land site, large in structure. Large in human population, large in added traffic. Bad idea fir use of that property and will damage current surrounding properties property value immensely, due to all the large reasons mentioned above. Have any on the hearing committee viewed said property for any length of time? 241. Name: Courtney Trittler (ctritt1@hotmail.com) on 2018-09-14 17:56:59 Comments: Please do not build this!!! 242. Name: Albie Varoski (alvaroski@johnrwood.com) on 2018-09-14 18:10:59 Comments: Thank you for this consideration! 243. Name: Andrew McLaughlin (cheflull@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 18:22:28 Comments: 244. Name: Martin Kurtz (m2kurtz@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 18:27:34 Comments: 245. Name: Dominic Mancini (mancinid7@comcast.net) on 2018-09-14 18:33:43 Comments: As a resident of Camden Lakes, I am opposed to having Stock build a 420-unit apartment complex on a parcel of land that is currently zoned for a maximum of 107 units. This parcel should not be rezoned! 246. Name: Brenda Chilstrom (brendaot@gmail.com) on 2018-09-14 18:52:34 Comments: Page 22 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1712 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 247. Name: Andrew Kowalski (raggedyandy1950@gmail.comI) on 2018-09-14 19:17:44 Comments: I totally oppose the building of an apartment.complex at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway. We do not need anymore students in the at capacity classrooms. nor do we need more traffic in the area. We also need to consider the loss of the habitat for the wildlife that lives there. Find another place to build your apartments. 248. Name: V Price (valmprice@yahoo.com) on 2018-09-14 19:35:13 Comments: 249. Name: Erik Noe (enoe01@aol.com) on 2018-09-14 19:42:59 Comments: 250. Name: Lori Greenlee (Lori2260@comcast.net) on 2018-09-14 19:58:56 Comments: Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Page 23 of 23 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1713 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) This petition has collected 632 signatures using the online tools at www.ipetitions.com Printed on 2018-11-18 Page 1 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1714 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) NO to Allura 420 Apartments Rezoning on Livingston About this petition (NOTE: This petition with the collected signatures - the goal is 1,000 signatures or more- will be presented in final form to each of our Collier County Commissioners, and to James Sabo, the Principal Planner for the county's Growth Management Department, both by email as well as by hand.) (ALSO NOTE: No contributions are asked for or required in this petition! The iPetitions site automatically will bring up a contribution page when you click to sign; the contributions are for iPetitions itself, as it is a free service to all, and runs on contributions. Just click on the "x" at the upper right on the contributions page, and continue to sign.) The southeast corner of Livingston Rd.and Veterans Memorial Parkway in North Naples is under contract by Stock Development to be cleared for the construction of a four story, 420 unit apartment complex, contingent on a successful re-zoning to RPUD. The 35 acres in this wooded lot currently is zoned for a maximum of 107 units, single or multi family. Stock is asking to build 420 units on this acreage, with parking structures that can be three to four stories high. The purchase contract for this land is contingent on a successful re-zoning. WE, THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES OF LIVINGSTON RD, WILL BE PERMANENTLY AND NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY SUCH A HUGE INCREASE IN DENSITY IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR QUIET NEIGHBORHOODS OF OWNER OWNED HOMES. WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE REZONING OF THIS ACREAGE THAT WILL ALLOW STOCK DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD A FOUR STORY, 420 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Page 2 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1715 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Signatures 1. Name: William Arndt on 2018-09-14 20:12:34 Comments: 2. Name: Albert DeLuca on 2018-09-14 20:36:04 Comments: Keep all development to LOW density. Livingston Rd. area is already showing signs of to high density and local traffic. 3. Name: Adrienne DeLuca on 2018-09-14 20:36:54 Comments: 4. Name: Macie Ryan on 2018-09-14 21:02:42 Comments: 5. Name: Colette A Diegel on 2018-09-14 21:27:37 Comments: 6. Name: Crystal Kunsky on 2018-09-14 22:18:16 Comments: 7. Name: Kathryn Brown on 2018-09-14 22:25:14 Comments: 8. Name: Christine Rockhold on 2018-09-14 22:29:28 Comments: 9. Name: Joe Brown on 2018-09-14 22:30:17 Comments: 10. Name: Rebecca Cowger on 2018-09-15 01:24:06 Comments: Please do not allow this change. 11. Name: Susan Benson on 2018-09-15 03:18:13 Comments: 12. Name: Jacqueline Bruno on 2018-09-15 05:55:23 Comments: 13. Name: Joann Salvia on 2018-09-15 10:50:00 Comments: Keep our roads safe. Too many more cars Page 3 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1716 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 14. Name: Gail Cknry on 2018-09-15 12:52:37 Comments: We do not need the additional traffic and drain on our natural resources. Enough is enough. 15. Name: Angela Gesso on 2018-09-15 13:48:35 Comments: 16. Name: Tracy Mazanec on 2018-09-15 14:13:29 Comments: 17. Name: C Mc Donald on 2018-09-15 15:04:47 Comments: 18. Name: Ronald See on 2018-09-15 15:10:00 Comments: I strongly oppose this proposed development! 19. Name: Jennifer Kane on 2018-09-15 15:39:50 Comments: 20. Name: Luceno Sonia on 2018-09-15 15:44:20 Comments: 21. Name: Dawn luera on 2018-09-15 16:12:09 Comments: 22. Name: Mark Crowley II on 2018-09-15 17:17:55 Comments: 23. Name: Sharon Eddy on 2018-09-15 17:45:18 Comments: 24. Name: Stuart Eddy on 2018-09-15 17:45:52 Comments: 25. Name: Samantha Morrison on 2018-09-15 17:49:18 Comments: 26. Name: Linda Duncan on 2018-09-15 17:57:09 Comments: 27. Name: Deborah Wiefling on 2018-09-15 18:03:11 Comments: I live in Livingston Lakes and we have traffic in this area. Page 4 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1717 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 28. Name: James Staudt on 2018-09-15 18:13:25 Comments: I knew it would be just a matter of time before Livingston turned into another Airport-Pulling with regard to stop lights and traffic. This would just hasten that clog. 29. Name: Elaine Peters on 2018-09-15 18:31:27 Comments: 30. Name: Leslie gentzle on 2018-09-15 18:32:08 Comments: 31. Name: Mike Gentzle on 2018-09-15 18:46:37 Comments: 32. Name: Ian Burchell on 2018-09-15 18:48:42 Comments: 33. Name: Mary Burchell on 2018-09-15 18:58:43 Comments: 34. Name: Alix Pepler on 2018-09-15 19:02:09 Comments: 35. Name: Shana Helsel on 2018-09-15 19:02:43 Comments: 36. Name: Kathryn Litow on 2018-09-15 19:08:25 Comments: 37. Name: Valerie Parker on 2018-09-15 19:12:59 Comments: 38. Name: Adrian Bocwinski on 2018-09-15 20:47:26 Comments: 39. Name: Denise on 2018-09-15 21:14:40 Comments: 40. Name: Kristin Bocwinski on 2018-09-15 21:14:40 Comments: 41. Name: Steven Cassara on 2018-09-15 22:06:51 Page 5 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1718 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 42. Name: Melissa wychocki on 2018-09-16 00:02:00 Comments: We are against this high density project in a very busy school zone and where a high school may very well be added too. 43. Name: Nancy Crosby on 2018-09-16 02:12:44 Comments: 44. Name: Charmin Tillman on 2018-09-16 02:45:21 Comments: 45. Name: Debbie Delahanty on 2018-09-16 02:49:26 Comments: We do NOT need or want this right here!! 46. Name: Darin Hovis on 2018-09-16 11:45:41 Comments: 47. Name: Susan Flynn on 2018-09-16 13:31:22 Comments: 48. Name: Cristina Dröscher on 2018-09-16 14:18:47 Comments: No more 49. Name: Jerry ONeil on 2018-09-16 14:54:28 Comments: NO to Allure Apts on Livingston Rd 50. Name: Betty Kampfer on 2018-09-16 15:24:42 Comments: 51. Name: Elizabeth Haines on 2018-09-16 16:36:36 Comments: 52. Name: Richard Ritchie on 2018-09-16 20:25:26 Comments: As I previous city planner I vehemently oppose this project. 53. Name: Jason Moore on 2018-09-16 23:28:04 Comments: 54. Name: Lisle Anderson on 2018-09-16 23:40:22 Comments: We are against this high density project in a very busy school zone, In addition, Livingston Road is not able to handle the current traffic. Adding a high density Page 6 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1719 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) development would be a major mistake. 55. Name: Elizabeth Morris on 2018-09-17 01:16:22 Comments: 56. Name: David Morris on 2018-09-17 01:17:11 Comments: 57. Name: Mark hill on 2018-09-17 10:53:13 Comments: We do not need more traffic. 58. Name: Rose Branda McLaughlin on 2018-09-17 13:21:15 Comments: Opposed to this overdevelopment 59. Name: David Eischens on 2018-09-17 19:22:13 Comments: I am opposed to this extreme high density dwelling from the developer. 60. Name: Marcia Pardue on 2018-09-17 19:24:16 Comments: No, no, no and no. 61. Name: Jan Jankowski on 2018-09-17 19:30:25 Comments: 62. Name: Cheryl Childress on 2018-09-17 19:31:03 Comments: 63. Name: Ronald Childress on 2018-09-17 19:33:49 Comments: 64. Name: Jack Carroo on 2018-09-17 19:59:39 Comments: No 65. Name: Mary Gail Gerebenics on 2018-09-17 20:37:07 Comments: 66. Name: Brandi Kimm on 2018-09-17 22:16:49 Comments: 67. Name: Elizabeth Pereira on 2018-09-18 00:22:15 Comments: 68. Name: Amy mackenzie on 2018-09-18 01:25:01 Page 7 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1720 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 69. Name: William E O'Reilly on 2018-09-18 10:11:19 Comments: I Vote NO to Allura Apartments Rezoning on Livingston. 70. Name: Leonard Raiffie on 2018-09-18 12:55:15 Comments: Do not want to change the area with heavy density housing for the benefit of one builder. 71. Name: Peter A Krajewski on 2018-09-18 15:29:53 Comments: The county is saying a traffic study was conducted and this development would not have any negative effects on traffic flow. The study was conducted for the original intent of the development, 107 single family homes. The new proposal also does not take into account the water shed issue that is going to happen because of all the additional asphalt and hardscape. No thank you for many other reasons as well that the developer and county are hiding behind. 72. Name: Anastasia karlis on 2018-09-18 16:07:01 Comments: Traffic and property value concerns! 73. Name: Robert Lopes on 2018-09-18 16:22:07 Comments: Too much density for the area. you're dumping 420 units next to large single family development./ 74. Name: John Benedik on 2018-09-18 16:30:05 Comments: 75. Name: Steve Berke on 2018-09-18 17:21:36 Comments: 76. Name: Richard Wirth on 2018-09-18 17:22:50 Comments: Traffic on Livingston is a disaster already in high season December through April. High density housing will hurt our Strand property values. I say no way to the rezoning request. 77. Name: Jeff and Ronni Kershaw on 2018-09-18 17:41:32 Comments: Tired of over development!! Too much traffic. Over burdening all our services: sewage, clean water, garbage, no parking at beach, downtown... it is getting crazy out there. Plus, a tax for storm water runoff caused by too much concrete being poured for new buildings, parking lots. Are all our commissioners in the developers pockets? Pissed! 78. Name: Arnold Saslavsky on 2018-09-18 18:52:33 Page 8 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1721 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: Inappropriate in size and scope for this area for the many reasons already stated. 79. Name: Tiffany Matteau on 2018-09-18 19:36:12 Comments: 80. Name: Joy Boatman on 2018-09-18 20:16:08 Comments: 81. Name: Priscilla on 2018-09-18 20:45:06 Comments: 82. Name: Robert Parker on 2018-09-18 21:46:05 Comments: No to Allura 420 ! 83. Name: Rolene Peck on 2018-09-18 22:08:40 Comments: 84. Name: Lindsey Pettit on 2018-09-18 22:11:37 Comments: 85. Name: Roberta on 2018-09-19 00:13:19 Comments: No to Allura 420 apartments rezoning on Livingston 86. Name: Eduardo Guarnizo on 2018-09-19 00:42:24 Comments: 87. Name: Ken Kleban on 2018-09-19 01:40:40 Comments: 88. Name: Steven Newstead on 2018-09-19 03:12:27 Comments: 89. Name: Ken Katzif on 2018-09-19 03:15:48 Comments: This construction is totally out of character with the surrounding developments. It would increase traffic significantly in this area. 90. Name: Bruce Glazier on 2018-09-19 03:20:24 Comments: Too much density for the area 91. Name: Jim castellano on 2018-09-19 03:23:43 Comments: Page 9 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1722 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 92. Name: Sherri Newstead on 2018-09-19 03:30:32 Comments: 93. Name: Vicki Raiffie on 2018-09-19 03:55:26 Comments: Too much traffic! 94. Name: Beth on 2018-09-19 04:52:04 Comments: I oppose this development for a 420 rental apartment complex. This project does not fit into the surrounding community and will negatively impact the home values and traffic. 95. Name: ron kohn on 2018-09-19 12:01:32 Comments: 96. Name: Kenneth Brown on 2018-09-19 12:07:03 Comments: 97. Name: Joan Lebon on 2018-09-19 13:19:13 Comments: No to these apartments going in on Livingston! 98. Name: Sally Katzif on 2018-09-19 13:46:11 Comments: 99. Name: Susan Kravetz on 2018-09-19 13:57:57 Comments: Not needed 100. Name: Alan Lebon on 2018-09-19 14:26:13 Comments: Naple’s uniqueness is it’s obvious goal to remain pristine and beautiful. Even 41 has been well managed. Please don’t start a trend making Naples look more like Ft Meyers or Ft Lauderdale 101. Name: Jim Falcione on 2018-09-19 14:30:24 Comments: All the previous comments state the obvious and dont need to reiterate. 102. Name: Karen Faye on 2018-09-19 14:34:13 Comments: I am against this project! 103. Name: Kimberly Bettegnies on 2018-09-19 14:34:41 Comments: 104. Name: Paula Gabriele on 2018-09-19 14:40:28 Page 10 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1723 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: I vote NO 105. Name: Scott Peterson on 2018-09-19 14:51:51 Comments: Livingston road is already overloaded. During season, especially if accidents occur (daily) on I-75, livingston road is backed up from immokalee to bonita beach rd. The density of an apt complex in the middle of this area would cause enormous chaos, accidents and additional problems unless alternate roads are built. 106. Name: Jason Sawicki on 2018-09-19 14:59:05 Comments: 107. Name: Michael Speichert on 2018-09-19 15:07:32 Comments: 108. Name: Donna Goyette on 2018-09-19 15:08:27 Comments: No. With three schools in that 1/2 mile vicinity, it would not only be a traffic issue but a safety issue for the kids. 109. Name: Robert Stewart on 2018-09-19 15:10:44 Comments: 110. Name: Pete Pisarri on 2018-09-19 15:13:28 Comments: 111. Name: Kamila Gentry on 2018-09-19 15:25:48 Comments: Strongly apposed to this project in this location. NO to this proposed rezoning. 112. Name: Raymond Minutolo on 2018-09-19 15:31:15 Comments: 113. Name: Andrea Minutolo on 2018-09-19 15:32:26 Comments: 114. Name: Howard Fragin on 2018-09-19 15:33:38 Comments: 115. Name: Monica Mix on 2018-09-19 15:41:22 Comments: 116. Name: Thomas j Flynn on 2018-09-19 15:41:26 Comments: Page 11 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1724 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 117. Name: Ken on 2018-09-19 15:50:17 Comments: 118. Name: Ken on 2018-09-19 15:51:29 Comments: 119. Name: Andrew Gorman on 2018-09-19 16:12:42 Comments: 120. Name: Daniel J Cornillie on 2018-09-19 16:13:50 Comments: This proposed development is grossly out of place in density and character 121. Name: Nancy Cornillie on 2018-09-19 16:23:06 Comments: 122. Name: Lisa Kohn on 2018-09-19 16:35:59 Comments: There are already too many displaced wild life due to all the construction thus far. Let us not become the next Miami! 123. Name: Peggy Brown on 2018-09-19 17:31:23 Comments: 124. Name: Secoya resident on 2018-09-19 17:32:16 Comments: 125. Name: THOMAS J JORDAN on 2018-09-19 17:45:33 Comments: 126. Name: Michele Hill on 2018-09-19 18:18:48 Comments: 127. Name: Karen Sedlacik on 2018-09-19 18:48:17 Comments: 128. Name: Kim Lomas on 2018-09-19 19:30:19 Comments: 129. Name: Lauris Turck on 2018-09-19 19:40:12 Comments: Thought there was a storm water run off problem. If yes more development makes no sense does it! 130. Name: John Blaine on 2018-09-19 19:47:15 Page 12 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1725 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 131. Name: Lisa Sulen on 2018-09-19 19:50:58 Comments: 132. Name: mark voll on 2018-09-19 19:54:21 Comments: 133. Name: Barbara Gattone on 2018-09-19 19:57:38 Comments: We do nit need any high density housing next to our community. The schools can't handle it and the roads are challenged today trying to cope with present day traffic at the peak times of the day. 134. Name: Jean clark on 2018-09-19 20:03:45 Comments: No on zoning 135. Name: Robert Walczak on 2018-09-19 20:16:51 Comments: NO to the new proposed 4 stories!!!! 136. Name: Robert Wagner on 2018-09-19 20:20:33 Comments: Thank you for this opportunity to be heard from on this project. I am definitely opposed. 137. Name: Kim Zyblut on 2018-09-19 20:21:31 Comments: 138. Name: Debbie Delahanty on 2018-09-19 20:25:32 Comments: 139. Name: Jeremy Domin on 2018-09-19 20:28:52 Comments: This project needs to be reduced to eliminate a 4 story building to make it no more than 2. 140. Name: KATHRYN KELLAR on 2018-09-19 20:37:32 Comments: 141. Name: Jane Carroo on 2018-09-19 20:47:29 Comments: This is totally unacceptable! I do not understand why Collier County would consider rezoning to a high density development in this area. 142. Name: john campbell on 2018-09-19 21:07:38 Comments: Page 13 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1726 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 143. Name: Brandon Higdon on 2018-09-19 21:13:57 Comments: 144. Name: Gaynor Treacy on 2018-09-19 21:14:42 Comments: A lovely community. They don't need this mini high rise. 145. Name: Ethan Higdon on 2018-09-19 21:15:11 Comments: 146. Name: Frank Sulen on 2018-09-19 21:16:33 Comments: 147. Name: Ronald Treacy on 2018-09-19 21:17:33 Comments: Not needed here. Will be unsitely. 148. Name: Charlene Minett on 2018-09-19 21:45:45 Comments: I feel the condos would lower our property values 149. Name: Eugene Ellis on 2018-09-19 21:54:18 Comments: Traffic congestion would be terrible. 150. Name: Karen Ellis on 2018-09-19 21:58:40 Comments: 151. Name: Eileen LaMacchia on 2018-09-19 22:09:44 Comments: TOTALLY OPPOSED!!! Traffic would be worse on Livingston Road. Why can't Naples keep its trees? Too much being bought up by developers. 152. Name: Mariela Rocha Jaje on 2018-09-19 22:48:16 Comments: 153. Name: Mary Ann Wagner on 2018-09-19 23:18:29 Comments: I am glad we have a voice. Thank you 154. Name: Susan Stephens on 2018-09-19 23:43:21 Comments: I am opposed to this construction in North Naples. 155. Name: R OTERI on 2018-09-20 00:19:51 Comments: NO 156. Name: B OTERI on 2018-09-20 00:22:35 Page 14 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1727 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: NO 157. Name: Judith Zamarro on 2018-09-20 00:26:23 Comments: 158. Name: Naomi hansen on 2018-09-20 00:31:24 Comments: Please reconsider Turing our beautiful area into a concrete jungle. We moved here because of the peaceful atmosphere. We cannot overbuild it will create more damage and flooding during storms, etc. thank you. 159. Name: Jennifer Narrell on 2018-09-20 01:47:53 Comments: 160. Name: Jason Levin on 2018-09-20 01:50:03 Comments: 161. Name: Natasha Genevro on 2018-09-20 03:07:41 Comments: 162. Name: Robin Gray on 2018-09-20 03:54:53 Comments: 163. Name: David L Rogers on 2018-09-20 04:34:52 Comments: 164. Name: Ryan Gray on 2018-09-20 09:05:51 Comments: 165. Name: Leon J Kravetz on 2018-09-20 09:30:54 Comments: Against the passage of the petition. 166. Name: Keri Mueller on 2018-09-20 10:20:13 Comments: 167. Name: Stacey Cosentino on 2018-09-20 11:34:08 Comments: 168. Name: Sarah on 2018-09-20 12:13:18 Comments: 169. Name: Francis N Smith on 2018-09-20 13:16:24 Comments: Page 15 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1728 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 170. Name: Eric Narrell on 2018-09-20 14:12:06 Comments: 171. Name: Bruce Gray on 2018-09-20 14:27:07 Comments: 172. Name: Jerome Gulvas on 2018-09-20 14:47:14 Comments: We do NOT need apartments built in this area. Not only will it lower our home values, it will create a LOT more traffic in a small area for our children that is already NOT a school zone. Having little sections of preserve/habitat is not a bad thing. 173. Name: Judy Young on 2018-09-20 14:55:24 Comments: 174. Name: Kathleen Gulvas on 2018-09-20 15:00:52 Comments: The area is currently zoned for a maximum of 107 units for a reason. There's already so much congestion in the area. And it's important our communities along Livingston Road ban together to maintain the level of value: Mediterra, Talis Park, Secoya, Camden Lakes, Barrington Cove, Verona Pointe Estates, etc. 175. Name: Linda Krajewski on 2018-09-20 15:08:37 Comments: NO to the re-zoning of this RPUD!! 420 units would add at least 840 additional cars on the road. The area around the school is already a hazard to the kids and families attending that school. Also, let the wildlife have somewhere else to live besides roaming our neighborhoods. 176. Name: Joseph Banfield on 2018-09-20 15:09:26 Comments: 177. Name: Makenzie Schutt on 2018-09-20 15:13:09 Comments: 178. Name: Sean Wells on 2018-09-20 15:22:12 Comments: Do not build! 179. Name: Sharon Rogers on 2018-09-20 15:32:20 Comments: 180. Name: Howard Frankel on 2018-09-20 15:43:29 Comments: Do not allow a zoning modification. 4 story apartment and parking structures is not appropriate for this area, as reflected in the zoning that limits density to 107 units. Page 16 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1729 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 181. Name: Jennifer postell on 2018-09-20 15:44:03 Comments: 182. Name: Darren Allison on 2018-09-20 15:53:00 Comments: 183. Name: Chandler Green on 2018-09-20 15:58:50 Comments: This parcel should not be re-zoned. During season traffic backs up from Bonita Beach Road to Veterans Memorial. This density in our area isn't acceptable and was zoned for 107 units for a reason. Keep it that way please. 184. Name: Sherry Zhu on 2018-09-20 15:59:17 Comments: 185. Name: Sadie Projonoto on 2018-09-20 16:07:24 Comments: 186. Name: Shannon Levin on 2018-09-20 16:20:57 Comments: 187. Name: christy mangan on 2018-09-20 16:21:56 Comments: 188. Name: Janine Rendano on 2018-09-20 16:41:54 Comments: 189. Name: Ashley prescott on 2018-09-20 16:44:22 Comments: 190. Name: Bev Zook on 2018-09-20 16:46:48 Comments: Way too dense!! 191. Name: Paul Osmers on 2018-09-20 17:06:16 Comments: 192. Name: louis goudy on 2018-09-20 17:09:12 Comments: 193. Name: Lisa Richards on 2018-09-20 17:18:02 Comments: 194. Name: Stacy Nobis on 2018-09-20 17:21:02 Page 17 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1730 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: !! 195. Name: JOSEPH GAGLIANO on 2018-09-20 17:25:47 Comments: vote NO - please stop cramming extra units into places just so the developers can make more money - this causes a negative domino effect to so many ! 196. Name: Elizabeth Jane Ruprecht on 2018-09-20 17:28:53 Comments: What about the bears- they already are being hit by cars along Livingston- where do you want them to live if you keep destroying their habitat?? 197. Name: Jason Armstrong on 2018-09-20 17:29:25 Comments: Vote no! 198. Name: Taylor McGinn on 2018-09-20 18:58:12 Comments: 199. Name: Matthew Bailey on 2018-09-20 19:41:47 Comments: NO on Allura 420 Apartments rezoning on Livingston. This will drastically effect the property values of homes in an upscale area and drastically increase traffic and pose additional safety hazards for the elementary and middle schools. There are no other apartment complexes in this location and we bought in this area due to that fact and it being primarily a detached home community. Thank you for your consideration - Matt Bailey 200. Name: Jennifer Suchomel on 2018-09-20 19:53:04 Comments: 201. Name: Randi on 2018-09-20 20:04:45 Comments: This area is too congested to have hundreds of units. It also takes away value from million dollar neighborhoods surrounding it. The schools are over crowded already. 202. Name: Diana Bailey on 2018-09-20 20:34:17 Comments: From Camden Lakes 203. Name: Suzanne Hislin on 2018-09-20 20:41:57 Comments: 204. Name: Kathy Macri on 2018-09-20 20:45:56 Comments: 205. Name: Bryan Billingsley on 2018-09-20 20:49:49 Comments: Page 18 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1731 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 206. Name: Barbara Green on 2018-09-20 21:09:09 Comments: 207. Name: Katie Burns on 2018-09-20 21:31:30 Comments: 208. Name: Erika Edwards on 2018-09-20 21:33:41 Comments: 209. Name: Donna Edwards on 2018-09-20 21:37:12 Comments: No more building totally object 210. Name: Julia on 2018-09-20 21:45:55 Comments: No 211. Name: Joanne Edwards on 2018-09-20 22:26:26 Comments: 212. Name: Tom Rollins on 2018-09-20 22:28:31 Comments: 213. Name: Tom rosing on 2018-09-20 22:30:45 Comments: This housing development plus SEED TO TABLE will cause major traffic problems for Livingston Street. 214. Name: Julie Trika on 2018-09-20 23:04:38 Comments: 215. Name: William J Edwards on 2018-09-20 23:34:55 Comments: Can not imagine that the extreme density on this 35 acres would work to the best interest of all the single family homeowners who paid good money for their homes in the adjoining areas to this space. Do not allow the rezoning! 216. Name: Billy Edwards on 2018-09-20 23:46:05 Comments: Do not allow this to be re-zoned for apartments of any sort. 217. Name: Andrea DeBenedictis on 2018-09-21 00:14:21 Comments: No re-zone! No way 218. Name: Miriam Weiner on 2018-09-21 00:25:57 Page 19 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1732 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: Our water pressure is already too low! How are we going to spread this resource even further when we can’t take a shower now? 219. Name: Trina Mostyn on 2018-09-21 00:37:10 Comments: 220. Name: Arthur Bourque on 2018-09-21 00:37:24 Comments: 221. Name: Mark Gudelski on 2018-09-21 00:44:26 Comments: Please stop this project. 222. Name: Robert Rakich on 2018-09-21 01:25:21 Comments: 223. Name: Nan Currie on 2018-09-21 01:29:21 Comments: 224. Name: Shawn McManus on 2018-09-21 01:33:58 Comments: 225. Name: Jay weiner on 2018-09-21 01:37:53 Comments: Traffic terrible on Livingston already 226. Name: Arlene Rakich on 2018-09-21 01:37:57 Comments: 227. Name: Donald Patrick Currie on 2018-09-21 01:39:24 Comments: Oppose re zoning to apartments. Traffic and congestion horrific 228. Name: Georgia Gile on 2018-09-21 01:43:53 Comments: 229. Name: Marina Roos on 2018-09-21 01:57:25 Comments: 230. Name: Marina Roos on 2018-09-21 01:58:06 Comments: 231. Name: Peter wilson on 2018-09-21 02:17:11 Comments: Page 20 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1733 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 232. Name: JoEllen Jones on 2018-09-21 02:39:55 Comments: This is absolutely ridiculous!!! What a travesty for this community! 233. Name: Gary Jones on 2018-09-21 02:41:21 Comments: This is a travesty for this community!!!! 234. Name: JoEllen Jones on 2018-09-21 02:43:41 Comments: This is an unwarranted development for this area 235. Name: Karen Wilke on 2018-09-21 02:43:44 Comments: 236. Name: Kathy Thomson on 2018-09-21 02:53:37 Comments: Need to protect the schools and communities in that area - traffic concerns, it will negatively impact the beauty of that area with a dense concentration of apartments. 237. Name: Lillian Guaty on 2018-09-21 02:59:01 Comments: 238. Name: Jill Meeks on 2018-09-21 03:47:04 Comments: 239. Name: Joanne and Anthony Migliaro on 2018-09-21 05:26:06 Comments: 240. Name: Sue Deacon on 2018-09-21 06:20:27 Comments: 241. Name: Nigel Deacon on 2018-09-21 06:21:57 Comments: 242. Name: Paul and Cynthia Goldstein on 2018-09-21 09:58:32 Comments: 243. Name: Irene Franks on 2018-09-21 10:51:48 Comments: Traffic is already backed up on Livingston at times. This will ruin our tranquil community. 244. Name: Joan Cantor on 2018-09-21 11:23:52 Comments: 245. Name: Bobbi Brady on 2018-09-21 11:30:41 Page 21 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1734 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 246. Name: Scott Hansen on 2018-09-21 11:38:48 Comments: 247. Name: Kim Ricchiuti on 2018-09-21 12:09:34 Comments: We do not need a four story complex in our quiet residential community! 248. Name: Christ Doinidis on 2018-09-21 12:22:08 Comments: Housing ok with me! 400 plus apartments. Absolutely not! 249. Name: Dean Ganzhorn on 2018-09-21 12:22:17 Comments: Traffic already backs up to the fire station northbound!! NO WAY!!! 250. Name: Kathy wilson on 2018-09-21 12:24:45 Comments: Please do NOT rezone 251. Name: Judy Kelly on 2018-09-21 12:27:04 Comments: No! Crazy traffic going north and south on Livingston! Don't need apartments either!!! 252. Name: Robert Crowley on 2018-09-21 12:53:28 Comments: Against resigning for apartments 253. Name: John Mulholland on 2018-09-21 13:34:08 Comments: 254. Name: Pam Cooling on 2018-09-21 13:40:35 Comments: NO to Allura!!! 255. Name: Henrik Roos on 2018-09-21 13:56:25 Comments: Please do not rezone. Thanks. 256. Name: Patricia LaRocca on 2018-09-21 14:13:56 Comments: 257. Name: Nancy Barnes on 2018-09-21 14:40:58 Comments: Absolutely shouldn't happen! 258. Name: Jack Barnes on 2018-09-21 14:42:15 Page 22 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1735 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 259. Name: Kathleen Brown on 2018-09-21 14:51:41 Comments: 260. Name: Candice Wroe on 2018-09-21 15:11:28 Comments: 261. Name: Dee on 2018-09-21 17:22:27 Comments: No 262. Name: Carol Hannig on 2018-09-21 18:19:26 Comments: 263. Name: Chris McConnell on 2018-09-21 18:21:23 Comments: 264. Name: Rick Young on 2018-09-21 18:28:02 Comments: 265. Name: A Koch on 2018-09-21 18:54:00 Comments: 266. Name: Robin Anderson on 2018-09-21 18:59:07 Comments: 267. Name: Rafael Guaty on 2018-09-21 18:59:42 Comments: No to re-zoning. Traffic is already a nightmare during the winter season. 268. Name: Gary Anderson on 2018-09-21 19:00:25 Comments: 269. Name: Barbara George on 2018-09-21 19:11:15 Comments: 270. Name: Diana Mills on 2018-09-21 19:39:43 Comments: Keep the existing zoning at 107 units. No justification to change to 420. That's ridiculous. 271. Name: Tara Allison on 2018-09-21 19:53:34 Comments: Page 23 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1736 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 272. Name: Mary P Salomone on 2018-09-21 19:55:33 Comments: 273. Name: Mario Lucchese on 2018-09-21 20:40:55 Comments: There is no place for High density apartment housing in this area of Collier/Lee County. We don’t need any more traffic on an already congested road during “Season .” It is virtualy impossible to enter or cross Livingston/Imperial Road between 4:30 and 6:00 pm. 274. Name: Donald W Ganzhorn Jr on 2018-09-21 20:57:48 Comments: 275. Name: Karen Lewis on 2018-09-21 21:10:09 Comments: 276. Name: Thomas nessling on 2018-09-21 21:12:03 Comments: 277. Name: Sandy Haas on 2018-09-21 21:19:39 Comments: 278. Name: Melissa Ruddy on 2018-09-21 23:58:18 Comments: This is absurd! How do you put up a 4 story monstrocity in the middle of all these single family homes. Plus the traffic between 4-7 is already a nightmare - bumper to bumper for miles every day. Please dont allow! 279. Name: Samuel Ruddy on 2018-09-21 23:59:28 Comments: Please don’t allow 280. Name: natalie purington on 2018-09-22 01:00:54 Comments: This would be a nightmare traffic wise. 281. Name: David Alpert on 2018-09-22 02:10:58 Comments: Makes no sense 282. Name: Shanai Hill on 2018-09-22 02:25:02 Comments: 283. Name: Tracy Lee on 2018-09-22 02:30:30 Comments: 284. Name: Kathy Messina on 2018-09-22 05:19:52 Comments: No No No There’s too much traffic on Livingston and Immokalee Road as it Page 24 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1737 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) is - No do not build more apartments, This is a single-family home neighborhood 285. Name: Nancy Muschong on 2018-09-22 10:07:33 Comments: 286. Name: Timothy Harrison on 2018-09-22 15:45:30 Comments: NO REZONING 287. Name: Janice Robilotto on 2018-09-22 16:20:01 Comments: 288. Name: Nancy campbell on 2018-09-22 16:38:15 Comments: 289. Name: Jorida Guda on 2018-09-22 16:49:15 Comments: 290. Name: Kriton Zhezha on 2018-09-22 16:50:51 Comments: 291. Name: Matthew Hall on 2018-09-22 18:29:44 Comments: No high rise apartments! 292. Name: Tony E Lardakis on 2018-09-22 18:49:55 Comments: Vote No on Allura 420 Apts. on Livingston 293. Name: Janice Zimmer on 2018-09-22 19:08:59 Comments: NO to Allura 420 Apartments Rezoning on Livingston 294. Name: Virginia Broome on 2018-09-22 19:56:39 Comments: 295. Name: Marc Sier on 2018-09-22 20:25:30 Comments: No to Stock development of 420 rental units at NE corner of Livingston and Veterans Blvd Naples Fl 296. Name: David Chin on 2018-09-22 20:26:41 Comments: 297. Name: Nilsa Sier on 2018-09-22 20:28:45 Comments: No to Stock development or any rental developments at NE corner of Livingston and Veterans Blvd Naples Fl Page 25 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1738 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 298. Name: Cheryl Chegwidden on 2018-09-22 20:40:28 Comments: 299. Name: Robert Bolton on 2018-09-22 21:11:44 Comments: 300. Name: Dave Porter on 2018-09-22 21:12:02 Comments: 301. Name: Gail Gavin on 2018-09-22 21:38:59 Comments: I am strongly opposed to converting an approved housing building permit to an apartment permit. I live on Imperial and use Livingston road every day. At times the traffic is very heavy and that will triple if apartments are built 302. Name: Dianne Galup on 2018-09-22 22:29:10 Comments: Please listen to this petition. This land should not be re-zoned. 303. Name: Kara Moran on 2018-09-22 22:33:21 Comments: I do not support changing the zoning. 304. Name: Dominic Salomone on 2018-09-22 23:30:43 Comments: 305. Name: Angela Stollmeyer on 2018-09-23 00:17:38 Comments: Thank you 306. Name: Moira Lardakis on 2018-09-23 01:39:51 Comments: 307. Name: John p stollmeyer on 2018-09-23 03:15:10 Comments: 308. Name: Sonia Barboza on 2018-09-23 13:02:12 Comments: I vote no for this project. 309. Name: Susan Forster on 2018-09-23 13:02:19 Comments: NO to rezoning of property at NE corner of Livingston and Veterans Blvd, Naples FL 310. Name: Sandra Yurgine on 2018-09-23 13:04:47 Comments: Page 26 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1739 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 311. Name: RUTH GIRLANDO on 2018-09-23 13:34:58 Comments: We need to pay more attention to the ecology and less to the needs of developers. Naples is already straining to preserve drinking water and deal with our storm water. Consider the impact that a dense population had on flooding with Harvey in Texas last year. 312. Name: Ellen Baseman on 2018-09-23 13:40:13 Comments: 313. Name: Richard A Stiso on 2018-09-23 13:41:26 Comments: 314. Name: Beth on 2018-09-23 13:49:11 Comments: 315. Name: Janet Roberts on 2018-09-23 13:54:16 Comments: Just say NO(!!!) to Allura Apartments Rezoning on Livingston Rd!! 316. Name: Albert Roberts on 2018-09-23 13:56:15 Comments: So NO to Allura 420 apartments rezoning on Livingston Rd 317. Name: Lori Green on 2018-09-23 13:57:39 Comments: 318. Name: Susan Stiefel on 2018-09-23 14:14:58 Comments: 319. Name: James Holloway on 2018-09-23 14:24:18 Comments: No to the 420 Apartments 320. Name: Gary Moorhead on 2018-09-23 14:27:12 Comments: I vote no. 321. Name: Flo Natuzzi on 2018-09-23 14:27:37 Comments: Enough already with the building up of beautiful Naples. This is not Manhattan! I oppose this project. 322. Name: Patricia Natale on 2018-09-23 14:33:21 Comments: No Allure apartments!!! Page 27 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1740 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 323. Name: Susan locke on 2018-09-23 14:52:37 Comments: We don't have the roads to handle all of this development of multi family living! 324. Name: John locke on 2018-09-23 14:55:33 Comments: 325. Name: Helen Bowkett on 2018-09-23 15:10:07 Comments: We oppose Re-Zoning this land for 420 apartments. 326. Name: Geoff Bowkett on 2018-09-23 15:12:12 Comments: I OPPOSE REZONING OF THIS LAND FORf A FOUR STORY, 420 UNIT 327. Name: Lauren Fisco on 2018-09-23 15:12:55 Comments: Opposed to building the proposed 420 appartment complex. 328. Name: Robert Coomes on 2018-09-23 15:32:25 Comments: 329. Name: Lucinda Von Romer on 2018-09-23 15:42:35 Comments: 330. Name: Janet Howard on 2018-09-23 15:47:02 Comments: 331. Name: ron coccari on 2018-09-23 15:48:03 Comments: Please no apartments on Livingston, SO NO TO AUURA 332. Name: Karen Booth on 2018-09-23 15:52:20 Comments: 333. Name: John Booth on 2018-09-23 15:53:51 Comments: 334. Name: Cindy Kelly on 2018-09-23 16:00:30 Comments: 335. Name: Mary Ulery on 2018-09-23 16:19:00 Comments: 336. Name: Lynn Desmond on 2018-09-23 17:01:35 Page 28 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1741 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: Property shoild not be rezoned for that size complex. 337. Name: Jane wayne on 2018-09-23 17:10:25 Comments: This is a very bad location for this project 338. Name: Vincent Bonavita on 2018-09-23 17:18:09 Comments: 339. Name: Barbara Paglia on 2018-09-23 17:18:49 Comments: 340. Name: Pam Scott on 2018-09-23 17:28:35 Comments: Noooooo! 341. Name: Ken on 2018-09-23 17:29:37 Comments: 342. Name: Cindy Settina on 2018-09-23 17:54:09 Comments: 343. Name: Melisa Alvaranga on 2018-09-23 17:55:33 Comments: 344. Name: Kathleen Panagides on 2018-09-23 18:00:05 Comments: 345. Name: Carolyn Pagano on 2018-09-23 18:02:18 Comments: We are congested enough and don't need any multi family units on Livingston Road . 346. Name: Alberto Negro on 2018-09-23 18:08:19 Comments: 347. Name: Pamela Hill on 2018-09-23 18:27:57 Comments: 348. Name: Stephen Hill on 2018-09-23 18:35:21 Comments: The traffic on Livingstone Rd has already increased significantly over the past 10 years. It is a nightmare at times, especially during rush hour. The addition of 420 units will only add to the problem. I do not believe that rezoning should be allowed for the property. Page 29 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1742 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 349. Name: Ronald Leavitt on 2018-09-23 19:07:30 Comments: This is the wrong place for an area that has always been populated by homeowners. 350. Name: Janelle Osborne on 2018-09-23 19:30:51 Comments: 351. Name: Ann Sandmann on 2018-09-23 19:42:16 Comments: No rezoning 352. Name: Mike Sandmann on 2018-09-23 19:43:46 Comments: No rezoning 353. Name: sharon k Fish on 2018-09-23 19:47:04 Comments: 354. Name: malvolm on 2018-09-23 19:51:18 Comments: 355. Name: Kathy Radick on 2018-09-23 20:05:42 Comments: 356. Name: Ron Radick on 2018-09-23 20:07:46 Comments: 357. Name: Amanda Radick on 2018-09-23 20:13:58 Comments: 358. Name: Nancy Murphy on 2018-09-23 20:18:54 Comments: 359. Name: Sandy Schultz on 2018-09-23 20:36:52 Comments: Livingston gets totally backed up now as is during Season. We do not need another 400 -800 cars on Livingston Rd.! 360. Name: Karen Muckerheide on 2018-09-23 20:56:12 Comments: 361. Name: Judy Rosing on 2018-09-23 23:20:14 Comments: 362. Name: Jay Cunningham on 2018-09-23 23:23:33 Page 30 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1743 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: This project does not add anything to enhance Livingston Road witch is congested now. Rezoning to appease a developer is ill-advised. 363. Name: Roy Rice on 2018-09-23 23:49:52 Comments: 364. Name: Dan Macksood on 2018-09-24 00:00:31 Comments: 365. Name: Nick Radick on 2018-09-24 00:02:02 Comments: 366. Name: Barbara Goldberg on 2018-09-24 00:51:49 Comments: 367. Name: Diane Lombardo on 2018-09-24 01:13:39 Comments: 368. Name: Joseph Lombardo on 2018-09-24 01:14:54 Comments: 369. Name: Michael Broome on 2018-09-24 01:24:29 Comments: There was a reason that this property was zoned to prevent this type of development. Please abide by that good sense! 370. Name: Carolyn Oswald on 2018-09-24 01:57:44 Comments: 371. Name: Danielle Nicoletta on 2018-09-24 02:33:04 Comments: 372. Name: Peter Nocoletta on 2018-09-24 02:34:11 Comments: 373. Name: Ted Fluehr on 2018-09-24 04:29:47 Comments: This will further congest and already overcrowded roadway and will be a traffic nightmare. 374. Name: Sheila Millour on 2018-09-24 04:30:51 Comments: 375. Name: Despina Page on 2018-09-24 04:50:35 Page 31 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1744 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: No to 420 apartments 376. Name: Susannah McDonough on 2018-09-24 10:50:54 Comments: This building must stop! 377. Name: Tanya Sandahl on 2018-09-24 10:51:39 Comments: 378. Name: Anne Smart on 2018-09-24 10:54:26 Comments: No no no this cannot be! 379. Name: Susann Crannell on 2018-09-24 11:38:04 Comments: 380. Name: Jay Crannell on 2018-09-24 11:40:51 Comments: 381. Name: Ronald Stepien on 2018-09-24 12:00:28 Comments: Apartments would cause too much congestion on an already congested street. 382. Name: Sally Kane on 2018-09-24 12:51:51 Comments: 383. Name: Lisa Kulsen on 2018-09-24 13:04:52 Comments: 384. Name: David Payne on 2018-09-24 14:21:53 Comments: No on rezoning 385. Name: Mike Congrove on 2018-09-24 14:23:03 Comments: 386. Name: Steve Matteau on 2018-09-24 14:40:29 Comments: 387. Name: Dianne Ambrose on 2018-09-24 15:59:28 Comments: No to apartments! 388. Name: Barbara Hurt-Simmons on 2018-09-24 16:41:28 Comments: Please do not add to the density of this area. I live in Talis Park and have seen a need (based on sales) for homes vs. apartments in this part of the county. Page 32 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1745 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 389. Name: Timothy A Fusco on 2018-09-24 16:56:28 Comments: 390. Name: Gus Petisco on 2018-09-24 20:12:45 Comments: I am opposed to the rezoning. The original 20 acres were zoned for 107 homes so 35 acres should allow for around 200 homes max. Anything above 3 stories is a high rise. It would greatly impact school, property values, traffic and water. NO to 420 rental units 391. Name: John Macksood on 2018-09-24 20:47:12 Comments: 392. Name: Bradley pricd on 2018-09-24 22:10:35 Comments: KEEP NAPLES GREEN 393. Name: Charles on 2018-09-25 00:25:51 Comments: 420 Apartments rezoning will make this area congested and overcrowded. Keep Naples a nice town for the existing residents! 394. Name: Esther DePasquale on 2018-09-25 05:42:07 Comments: NO to Allora 420 Apartments on Livingston Rd.! 395. Name: Sylvie Hain-Mangel on 2018-09-25 07:52:52 Comments: 396. Name: Pamela Yeomans barth on 2018-09-25 11:44:21 Comments: 397. Name: Deb Fahy on 2018-09-25 12:01:28 Comments: 398. Name: Peter C Marshall on 2018-09-25 12:27:11 Comments: 399. Name: Bruce Barth on 2018-09-25 13:06:20 Comments: 400. Name: MaryAnn Domulewicz on 2018-09-25 15:12:41 Comments: No to 420 rental units. 401. Name: Michael V DOMULEWICZ on 2018-09-25 15:22:31 Page 33 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1746 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 402. Name: Lois Boaz on 2018-09-25 15:49:26 Comments: 403. Name: Jacqui Maginity Schulz on 2018-09-25 17:04:37 Comments: Too tall too contested too many units traffic already is a nightmare 404. Name: stanley Fish on 2018-09-25 17:27:17 Comments: 405. Name: Alyce Chatham on 2018-09-25 18:16:49 Comments: 406. Name: Lynn Hall on 2018-09-25 19:17:47 Comments: 407. Name: kathleen phelan on 2018-09-25 21:32:45 Comments: 408. Name: Anthony Phelan on 2018-09-25 21:38:01 Comments: 409. Name: Margaret on 2018-09-26 00:13:46 Comments: 410. Name: THOMAS THOMSON on 2018-09-26 14:25:37 Comments: 411. Name: Walter Neubauer on 2018-09-26 18:09:05 Comments: Another addition of that size will significantly widen The already existing traffic problems 412. Name: Tara and Jeff Alluri on 2018-09-26 19:22:41 Comments: We are against the Allura project! 413. Name: Linda Albenga on 2018-09-26 20:41:21 Comments: I am against the apartment complex going in next door to me. 414. Name: Paul Deleo on 2018-09-26 21:33:13 Comments: Page 34 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1747 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 415. Name: Gina Almeida Holloway on 2018-09-26 21:38:36 Comments: 416. Name: Nancy Hammond on 2018-09-26 21:38:43 Comments: No to rezoning on SE corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Parkway. 417. Name: Susan Park on 2018-09-27 00:58:42 Comments: 418. Name: Harry Dell on 2018-09-27 01:12:10 Comments: Please don't build! 419. Name: Christian Tobin on 2018-09-27 01:25:55 Comments: Please do not re-zone. 420. Name: Candice tousignant on 2018-09-27 01:48:41 Comments: 421. Name: Yong Jin Park on 2018-09-27 02:23:38 Comments: Against the Allura Project. 422. Name: Melissa Hemmert on 2018-09-27 02:32:31 Comments: 423. Name: SHANNON greco on 2018-09-27 10:57:01 Comments: 424. Name: Tyler Black on 2018-09-27 11:01:07 Comments: 425. Name: Michelle Davis on 2018-09-27 11:02:29 Comments: 426. Name: Erin kirwin on 2018-09-27 11:31:12 Comments: 427. Name: Bilynda Cox on 2018-09-27 11:36:00 Comments: 428. Name: Tessa Mortensen on 2018-09-27 12:39:40 Comments: Page 35 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1748 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 429. Name: Soonhee Park on 2018-09-27 13:12:31 Comments: No to Allure420 Apartments Rezoning on Rivingstone 430. Name: Barry Scheetz on 2018-09-27 13:17:08 Comments: No to rezoning on SE corner of Livingston and Veterans Memorial Parkway to build the proposed apartment complex. 431. Name: Kim duvalle on 2018-09-27 14:36:24 Comments: 432. Name: Stacey Puchalla on 2018-09-27 17:12:03 Comments: 433. Name: Michael Puchalla on 2018-09-27 17:12:51 Comments: 434. Name: Lisa Nungester on 2018-09-27 22:10:04 Comments: 435. Name: Dan Fiascherti on 2018-09-28 00:31:05 Comments: 436. Name: Brandon Yoder on 2018-09-28 02:09:48 Comments: 437. Name: Barbara Safer on 2018-09-28 14:51:38 Comments: Traffic is already terrible! Stop building! 438. Name: Eileen Wilson on 2018-09-28 16:13:16 Comments: 439. Name: Elaine Randazzo on 2018-09-28 16:13:29 Comments: I do not want a 420 unit apartment complex in this already congested area. 440. Name: Debbie Michaels on 2018-09-28 16:33:59 Comments: I would support a condo community or single family home community on that property; but, not apartments requiring a zoning change. An apartment population will overburden the local school system and traffic pattern in the area. 441. Name: Cathy Green on 2018-09-29 01:45:33 Comments: Don't build!! The roads and rivers cannot handle more! Page 36 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1749 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 442. Name: Linda Cohen on 2018-09-29 15:36:17 Comments: 443. Name: Walter Cook on 2018-10-01 19:55:04 Comments: NO to Allura 420 Apartments Rezoning on Livingston 444. Name: Tom Birmingham on 2018-10-01 23:20:28 Comments: 445. Name: Patricia Rodriguez on 2018-10-02 01:09:11 Comments: No change 446. Name: T Koch on 2018-10-02 01:20:01 Comments: 447. Name: Scott Toth on 2018-10-02 12:51:01 Comments: This will create additional traffic and decrease our property values. 448. Name: Laurent Millour on 2018-10-02 13:47:16 Comments: 449. Name: Elizabeth Thompson on 2018-10-02 15:20:47 Comments: No to Allure complex. 450. Name: Elaine Perna on 2018-10-02 18:47:51 Comments: 451. Name: Thomas Perna on 2018-10-02 18:49:40 Comments: 452. Name: Vivian Banta on 2018-10-02 19:18:50 Comments: 453. Name: Robert Field on 2018-10-02 19:19:52 Comments: 454. Name: Valerie Clerico on 2018-10-02 19:24:00 Comments: 455. Name: Lucien Clerico on 2018-10-02 19:30:14 Comments: Page 37 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1750 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 456. Name: Jo Ann Jamieson on 2018-10-02 20:19:11 Comments: 457. Name: Mark Jamieson on 2018-10-02 20:20:55 Comments: 458. Name: Christi Pedra on 2018-10-02 20:54:32 Comments: 459. Name: Barbara Blanchard on 2018-10-02 21:10:28 Comments: 460. Name: Susan Montgomery on 2018-10-02 21:18:35 Comments: 461. Name: Audrey schmitt on 2018-10-02 21:20:09 Comments: 462. Name: Anne Hildebrand on 2018-10-02 21:23:42 Comments: 463. Name: Susan Yellin on 2018-10-02 22:14:52 Comments: 464. Name: ronnie antik on 2018-10-02 22:17:52 Comments: 465. Name: Michael S Brown on 2018-10-02 22:28:10 Comments: 466. Name: Lawrence Kahn on 2018-10-02 22:33:53 Comments: 467. Name: Diana Kahn on 2018-10-02 22:35:45 Comments: 468. Name: John J Gray on 2018-10-02 22:52:29 Comments: 469. Name: J Elizabeth Miller on 2018-10-02 23:27:46 Comments: Page 38 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1751 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 470. Name: Mary Yeomans on 2018-10-02 23:28:33 Comments: 471. Name: Colleen Patrick on 2018-10-02 23:45:48 Comments: 472. Name: Lawrence Patrick on 2018-10-02 23:47:58 Comments: 473. Name: Susan Lass on 2018-10-02 23:50:43 Comments: No to rezoning the property on Livingston Rd. and Veteran's Parkway. No to 420 unit apartment complex. Traffic congestions already exists only to be further increased by the food store "Seed to Table". 474. Name: Susan Silversmith on 2018-10-03 00:58:15 Comments: I am opposed to the rezoning of the property at the corner of Livingston and Veterans Parkway. 475. Name: Bridget Abadie on 2018-10-03 02:02:40 Comments: Wrong project for this location. 476. Name: Charles Abadie on 2018-10-03 02:04:32 Comments: This project is not in character with the surrounding communities, will damage property values of single family home communities resulting in a lower tax base for Collier County and a project of this scale should not be approved 477. Name: Elizabeth Jaffe on 2018-10-03 02:09:13 Comments: 478. Name: Sandy DiPasquale on 2018-10-03 02:27:46 Comments: 479. Name: Connie DiPasquale on 2018-10-03 02:28:45 Comments: 480. Name: Larry Leventon on 2018-10-03 03:12:03 Comments: Absolutely opposed too much traffic now too much density for both the property and the area 481. Name: Geri on 2018-10-03 03:31:28 Comments: No Page 39 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1752 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 482. Name: Ann Oswald on 2018-10-03 05:07:32 Comments: Oppose the allure 420 apartment rezoning 483. Name: Paul Yellin MD on 2018-10-03 07:04:27 Comments: 484. Name: Carl miller on 2018-10-03 11:23:57 Comments: 485. Name: Alison Favale on 2018-10-03 11:32:54 Comments: 486. Name: Paul Favale on 2018-10-03 11:33:30 Comments: 487. Name: Ronald nordlof on 2018-10-03 11:36:44 Comments: 488. Name: Michael Madden on 2018-10-03 11:54:17 Comments: 489. Name: Jane Kammerait on 2018-10-03 12:24:02 Comments: The traffic on Livingston is awful already. Can’t imagine if there were more people funneled through the area. 490. Name: Edward Kolesar on 2018-10-03 13:01:06 Comments: 491. Name: Joe Blanchard on 2018-10-03 14:30:33 Comments: 492. Name: Mary Fahrer on 2018-10-03 14:43:33 Comments: Reject rezoning 493. Name: John Pino on 2018-10-03 15:06:37 Comments: I am opposed to rezoning the property on the Southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway 494. Name: Barb Everist on 2018-10-03 15:57:18 Comments: 495. Name: Katy Wrede on 2018-10-03 16:46:25 Page 40 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1753 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: If this rezoning is allowed, there will be undue traffic jams as a result of three schools, a fire station and two more new communities already being built between Vanderbilt and Bonita Beach Road. This would have an environmental impact in that it reduced the floodwater basin areas. Vereran's Blvd. is only 3/4 of a mile long from Livingston to the east dead end and already 3 neighborhoods use that small stretch along with construction traffic with no controls. It is almost impossible to move on Livingston north or south and on Immokolee or Bonita Beach Road east or west from 3:30-6:00 during season. The three schools are already at capacity and there is simply no where for new residents to go. All neighborhoods dependent upon these roads will be locked in their homes and unable to escape. 496. Name: Patti Manoogian on 2018-10-03 16:52:48 Comments: 497. Name: Ann Turner on 2018-10-03 18:16:36 Comments: 498. Name: Grace Frey on 2018-10-03 18:26:54 Comments: 499. Name: Janet pino on 2018-10-03 18:34:08 Comments: Do not rezone the property between at the corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Parkway. 500. Name: Nicholas M Bilotti on 2018-10-03 19:28:04 Comments: 501. Name: Kay Larose on 2018-10-03 20:28:40 Comments: 502. Name: Mary Sena on 2018-10-03 20:42:09 Comments: 503. Name: Mary Kozitka on 2018-10-03 21:18:54 Comments: 504. Name: Richard Kozitka on 2018-10-03 21:20:17 Comments: 505. Name: Tom Bulloch on 2018-10-03 21:42:58 Comments: Density inconsistent with current build out. 506. Name: Lynne McGrail on 2018-10-03 23:30:48 Comments: Page 41 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1754 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 507. Name: Mary Cronin on 2018-10-04 00:44:02 Comments: 508. Name: JudyBraaten on 2018-10-04 01:03:24 Comments: 509. Name: Claire Jelic on 2018-10-04 01:48:50 Comments: 510. Name: Pauline Ferrone on 2018-10-04 02:16:10 Comments: The traffic and density in this region is out of control. It puts stress on our water supply and resources. Swfl is overdeveloped!!! This is rapping the land for builders. Profit Far too many units for this site! 511. Name: Karyl leggio on 2018-10-04 12:00:12 Comments: 512. Name: Herbert Henkel on 2018-10-04 12:44:45 Comments: NO to Allura 420 Apartments 513. Name: Robert Sena on 2018-10-04 13:09:19 Comments: 514. Name: Patti Lopes on 2018-10-04 13:11:49 Comments: 515. Name: Barb Juedes on 2018-10-04 13:15:30 Comments: 516. Name: Sherry Marcom on 2018-10-04 13:33:04 Comments: 517. Name: Harry Rose on 2018-10-04 13:35:54 Comments: 518. Name: Arthur Juedes on 2018-10-04 13:48:42 Comments: 519. Name: Tiffany Shalberg on 2018-10-04 20:14:05 Comments: Page 42 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1755 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 520. Name: Sue Koehler on 2018-10-04 21:32:03 Comments: This should never happen, the area cannot handle the congestion it will cause! 521. Name: Susan Gering on 2018-10-05 15:57:30 Comments: 522. Name: Rick Gering on 2018-10-05 16:04:12 Comments: 523. Name: Alan Johnson on 2018-10-05 21:31:34 Comments: 524. Name: Cynthia Johnson on 2018-10-05 21:33:07 Comments: 525. Name: Richard Johnson on 2018-10-06 11:59:14 Comments: This area can not handle the increased density a project like this will bring. 526. Name: Mary Johnson on 2018-10-06 14:27:26 Comments: 527. Name: MEL STEIN on 2018-10-07 15:34:55 Comments: The resulting congestion plus additional stress on electricity and water resources in the area is totally unacceptable. 528. Name: Jane Stein on 2018-10-07 15:44:29 Comments: Absolutely NO! NO! NO! 529. Name: david ambrose on 2018-10-07 17:27:42 Comments: 530. Name: Lauren Wygant on 2018-10-07 18:54:09 Comments: 531. Name: Keeley Lewis on 2018-10-07 18:58:04 Comments: 532. Name: Deanna Wallin on 2018-10-07 19:22:08 Comments: 533. Name: Brandi Morgan on 2018-10-07 19:23:11 Page 43 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1756 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Comments: 534. Name: David pardue on 2018-10-07 19:49:54 Comments: 535. Name: Jenn on 2018-10-07 20:43:15 Comments: 536. Name: Melanie Johns on 2018-10-07 21:24:40 Comments: 537. Name: John Nardozzi on 2018-10-07 21:58:06 Comments: 538. Name: Sara Gilles on 2018-10-07 22:35:56 Comments: 539. Name: Lisa Jarrett on 2018-10-07 22:45:34 Comments: No ! 540. Name: Lisa loiacono on 2018-10-07 23:11:44 Comments: Absolutely a terrible idea 541. Name: Dianna Albrechtsen on 2018-10-07 23:32:32 Comments: 542. Name: Nancy Martinez on 2018-10-08 00:59:17 Comments: 543. Name: Bill Freda on 2018-10-08 11:35:15 Comments: 544. Name: Jim Simmons on 2018-10-08 13:02:04 Comments: Traffic on Veterans Memorial (a dead end street) would be a nightmare. We moved in to an area specifically for single family homes! 545. Name: Juan Jaje on 2018-10-08 14:08:20 Comments: 546. Name: Anne Policinski on 2018-10-08 15:10:23 Comments: Page 44 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1757 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 547. Name: Linda Gallo on 2018-10-08 16:33:32 Comments: 548. Name: Ray Gallo on 2018-10-08 16:36:31 Comments: 549. Name: Ruth Bethem on 2018-10-08 16:38:11 Comments: 550. Name: Mel Simmons-Rosen on 2018-10-08 16:43:30 Comments: 551. Name: ALAN GREENBERG on 2018-10-08 16:46:10 Comments: 552. Name: CRYSTAL EVANS on 2018-10-08 16:49:44 Comments: 553. Name: Ian cocklin on 2018-10-08 16:54:38 Comments: 554. Name: Stephanie Baker-Thomas on 2018-10-08 16:57:28 Comments: 555. Name: Pamela F Wood on 2018-10-08 17:08:16 Comments: 556. Name: Donald polen on 2018-10-08 17:08:24 Comments: 557. Name: William Collier on 2018-10-08 17:10:39 Comments: 558. Name: David L Wood on 2018-10-08 17:10:41 Comments: 559. Name: Rick Bethem on 2018-10-08 17:11:49 Comments: 560. Name: A Mercurio on 2018-10-08 17:29:05 Comments: Page 45 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1758 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 561. Name: Joel Gravina on 2018-10-08 17:50:29 Comments: 562. Name: Marthe Lawrence on 2018-10-08 17:55:01 Comments: 563. Name: Lorraine Dube on 2018-10-08 18:48:19 Comments: Density is too high. Traffic will increase significantly. This is a low density area and should remain so. 564. Name: Diane Shields on 2018-10-08 19:16:14 Comments: 565. Name: Shirley popham on 2018-10-08 19:49:35 Comments: Too many apartments. We need to slow down growth in Naples 566. Name: Kristine Rapp on 2018-10-08 20:41:12 Comments: 567. Name: Kathy Messina on 2018-10-08 21:06:36 Comments: I vote no do not change the zoning no more apartments and condos on Livingston too much traffic already no no 568. Name: Janice MacLean on 2018-10-08 21:36:51 Comments: 569. Name: robert crema on 2018-10-08 22:15:47 Comments: 570. Name: Eileen Foley on 2018-10-08 23:13:07 Comments: 571. Name: Corinne Palmer on 2018-10-08 23:15:27 Comments: We need affordable housing, not another upscale apartment complex. Teacher, firefighters, wait staff, nurses, etc cannot afford to live here. 572. Name: James Coogan on 2018-10-09 15:20:14 Comments: The area cannot sustain the additional traffic. This high-density project is out of character with the surrounding area. 573. Name: Elaine Lake on 2018-10-09 16:18:06 Comments: The auto & people congestion in the area is going to force everyone living just outside the immediate area to avoid buying homes here and shopping in the area, Page 46 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1759 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) including shopping at the soon to open Seed to Table, gormet grocery store. Collier Government has allowed the overgrowth of humans and autos in the area and now our quality of life is in question. A quieter and less stress-like life is what drew us to Naples. If this additional housing goes through we will put our place up for sale as soon as my husband retires, in the not so far away future. Now, can’t even get close to our limited beach space in season. This year government took beach front land away from all that do not own beach property. Even during low tide, private citizens own the ocean floor?! Why stay in FL? Don’t move to SW FL, unless you know the politics and growth plans of the area. There is a real safety risk to bicycle, bike, pedestrian and auto safety. Communities will be forced to post signs at their exit gates that read, “EXIT AT YOUR OWN RISK!”. 574. Name: Lill Weitz on 2018-10-09 17:08:32 Comments: 575. Name: Bruce Weitz on 2018-10-09 17:36:44 Comments: I vote no to this development 576. Name: Gary Hermann on 2018-10-09 20:46:47 Comments: 577. Name: Miloslav Kopecny on 2018-10-10 20:36:12 Comments: No 578. Name: Tania sciancalepore on 2018-10-10 22:33:49 Comments: 579. Name: Sofia Sciancalepore on 2018-10-10 22:34:59 Comments: 580. Name: Marina Sciancalepore on 2018-10-10 22:35:27 Comments: 581. Name: Irene benfatti on 2018-10-10 22:39:13 Comments: 582. Name: Vincent benfatti on 2018-10-10 22:39:32 Comments: 583. Name: Lori Murphy on 2018-10-11 17:01:57 Comments: I vote no to this petition 584. Name: Robyn Wilson on 2018-10-11 21:25:15 Comments: I vote no. Page 47 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1760 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 585. Name: R Lynn Wilson on 2018-10-11 21:27:20 Comments: No 586. Name: joyce zub on 2018-10-12 04:06:23 Comments: 587. Name: Kristen Claunch on 2018-10-12 13:26:14 Comments: 588. Name: James and Roe Welding on 2018-10-15 11:49:59 Comments: We have lived in The Strand for 19 years and have seen the growth in Northern Collier County as a good thing as long as the developers consider "density" and Traffic issues in a responsible way. We use Veterans Parkway every day and share the traffic load with our good neighbors, Talis Park,Mediterra and the brand new Barrington Cove. The intersection at Veterans and Livingston is already at a snails pace during rush hours and school drop off and pick up. The addition of 420 apartments would add approximately 500+ vehicles to this intersection. This is not only unacceptable to the people wholve here but a Safety issue for the residents. Tell Stock to go back to the private home idea. 589. Name: Kevin Campanella on 2018-10-15 20:19:37 Comments: We don’t need more places to live here. Naples is becoming incredibly overcrowded in season and even out of season has been much worse then even a few years ago. 590. Name: Dmitry Keselman on 2018-10-15 20:49:34 Comments: 591. Name: Diane Conner on 2018-10-16 11:30:46 Comments: 592. Name: Gerald Bandelean on 2018-10-16 12:37:29 Comments: 593. Name: Francis J Brennan Jr on 2018-10-16 16:41:47 Comments: 594. Name: Therese B Brennan on 2018-10-16 16:43:07 Comments: 595. Name: Sherri Dorrill on 2018-10-16 16:48:36 Comments: It was zoned correctly the first time. Please do not compromise quality for quantity- I live at the Strand and use the back gate because Immokalee Road is so Page 48 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1761 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) backed up and crowded- please do not add congestion on this road too- the road to 2 lane and it causes more traffic concerns and signal Timing and slower traffic on Livingston which is already a problem when school is in session 596. Name: Robert w hayes on 2018-10-16 18:40:03 Comments: I am a resident/owner in the Strand. And I am totally against the rezoning of this parcel of land on livingstonand veterans memorial. I am opposed to the construction of this apartment complex bordering our communities. 597. Name: Ernest Sauers on 2018-10-16 19:15:46 Comments: 598. Name: Douglas Cedras on 2018-10-16 19:26:07 Comments: The zoning should remain for 107 private homes. 599. Name: Tina Cedras on 2018-10-16 19:26:56 Comments: The zoning should remain for 107 private homes. 600. Name: Philip Gallucci on 2018-10-16 19:29:50 Comments: Severe congestion will surely result from this proposed development. 601. Name: Stephen Edmondson on 2018-10-16 20:05:44 Comments: 602. Name: Alex Markley on 2018-10-16 20:41:27 Comments: We don’t need that many more cars at that intersection. Give us a break 603. Name: Mary Loftus on 2018-10-17 12:46:33 Comments: 604. Name: Stephen Dorazio on 2018-10-17 13:11:30 Comments: 605. Name: melinda pancamo on 2018-10-17 14:28:05 Comments: the strand waited years before getting a back gate for our safety. We have 3 communities exiting onto Veterans Pkwy. When will this county said enough is enough. Please don't make Naples another Fort Lauderdale and lose its beauty. 606. Name: Elaine Reda on 2018-10-17 15:54:44 Comments: Strand residents are being backed into a corner. That has potential danger. Page 49 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1762 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 607. Name: M Diane Sauers on 2018-10-17 23:33:50 Comments: 608. Name: Harriet Spirer on 2018-10-18 01:45:44 Comments: 609. Name: Lisa Hoover on 2018-10-18 02:19:18 Comments: Stop the madness and stop the traffic Just insane 610. Name: Kathleen Brooks on 2018-10-18 13:50:02 Comments: No 611. Name: Richard Galash on 2018-10-18 17:40:36 Comments: I strongly agree with Sherrie Dorill's comments in the matter and do not agree with any rezoning applications. I am against it. 612. Name: Barbara hemrick on 2018-10-19 23:50:43 Comments: 613. Name: Pat LaBattaglia on 2018-10-20 15:49:13 Comments: No to rezoning. 107 private homes should remain and not be increased to 4 times more residences. 614. Name: C L Ehn on 2018-10-22 17:56:03 Comments: The density in this area has increased dramatically. The planned 107 units will increase it further. The requested rezoning would increase traffic very significantly, to the detriment of all of us who use Veterans Parkway. The requested rezoning should be denied! 615. Name: Jim Lisa Hoover on 2018-10-23 18:22:03 Comments: No 616. Name: karen wicker on 2018-10-23 20:23:00 Comments: i am very apposed to having a large apartment complex ajoining .The Strand. It will cause more traffic problems and negatively affect our property values. 617. Name: Helen M Lallo on 2018-10-24 13:24:57 Comments: 618. Name: Ernest A Lallo on 2018-10-24 13:25:46 Comments: Page 50 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1763 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 619. Name: Gary jones on 2018-10-24 18:01:16 Comments: 620. Name: John Pangonis on 2018-10-24 18:21:45 Comments: Please stop this unreasonable proposition. 621. Name: Nancee dykstra on 2018-10-25 12:33:11 Comments: 622. Name: Trey Gardo on 2018-10-26 12:10:19 Comments: This will create more traffic to an area that already has too much traffic and the schools can not handle that many additional students 623. Name: Joe DeMarco on 2018-10-26 12:19:02 Comments: 624. Name: Andreas Singer on 2018-10-26 12:53:34 Comments: this should not be allowed to be rezoned. Even in the summer-time , without the seasonal residents, the area is already congested on a daily basis. NO! 625. Name: Maria Pastrana on 2018-10-26 12:59:55 Comments: 626. Name: Julian TUcker on 2018-10-26 14:00:08 Comments: 627. Name: Brian Kramer on 2018-10-26 15:32:08 Comments: 628. Name: David Gauthier on 2018-10-26 17:28:02 Comments: 629. Name: Sally Russo on 2018-10-26 18:28:07 Comments: No to rezoning. 630. Name: Dan Clarke on 2018-10-26 20:13:38 Comments: PLEASE do not allow a zoning change on the 35 acres at the southeast corner of Livingston Rd and Veterans Parkway. The density is already too much !! 631. Name: Arthur Bradshaw on 2018-10-27 14:58:01 Comments: Keep the area low density. Owner occupied is best for everyone. Page 51 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1764 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 632. Name: Kevin Hodder on 2018-10-29 16:19:12 Comments: Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Page 52 of 52 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1765 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 6:38 AM To: SchmidtCorby Cc: SaboJames Subject: FW: Objection to Allura Re-Zoning Attachments: The Strand Master Property Owners Ass Allura letter.docx Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Susan Mulgrew <1982swm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:27 AM To: MarkStrain@colliergov.net; SchmidtCorby <Corby.Schmidt@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Objection to Allura Re-Zoning Gentlemen: Attached please find a letter from The Strand Master Property Owners Association outlining our objections to the upcoming re-zoning request from Stock Development regarding the development of the Allura Apartments. As a community of 1073 residences nearby, WE STRONGLY OBJECT to this project for the reasons in the attached letter. Thank you so much for your consideration. Susan Mulgrew, President The Strand Master Property Owners Association 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1766 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 3:06 PM To: SchmidtCorby Cc: SaboJames Subject: FW: Opposition to - PETITION #PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Thomas Griffith <thomasm.griffith@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 3:03 PM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Opposition to - PETITION #PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 Dear Mr. Strain – I’m writing in regards to my opposition to the Allura project, petition #PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the rezoning so 420 rental apartments can be built on this property. My self and the majority of the people I know are not opposed to single family homes being built in this area. We are opposed to the property being rezoned so 420 rental apartments can be built. The rental apartments will house a minimum of 735 tenants and does not fit into the landscape of this area. Traffic - Immokalee Rd. to Bonita Beach Rd. has no East/West exits for 4.2 miles. Regularly and every week day during season traffic is backed up on Livingston every afternoon for hours from Bonita Beach Rd. south to Veterans Memorial Blvd. and further. To get my son to baseball practice in Bonita I have to go south to Immokalee to 41 then north to Bonita. These 420 rental apartments will certainly add to this congestion. Home Values - Most studies show at least a 12.7% decline in property values near multifamily rental apartments. There is a perceived stigma with apartments having higher crime and less desirable tenants. Whether this is true or not doesn’t matter as it’s the perceived stigma that keep people from buying homes next to rental apartments. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1767 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Schools – What will the impacts be on the schools? Veterans Memorial Elementary is already at capacity and North Naples Middle School is at 86% capacity. I hope you can support the thousands of residents that oppose a project that is not consistent with the current land uses in the area and will have a negative impact to our investments and quality of life. Thanks. Tom 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1768 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: StrainMark Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 6:34 AM To: SchmidtCorby Cc: SaboJames Subject: FW: Proposal for Stock Development at Livingston and Veterans Memorial Roads Please distribute as typical. Mark 239.252.4446 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. From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2018 10:05 PM To: StrainMark <Mark.Strain@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Proposal for Stock Development at Livingston and Veterans Memorial Roads Dear Mr. Strain, The intersection bordering the proposed development is very unique. It is because Veterans Memorial Road doesn’t go anywhere east or west to other dissipating roads. Both ends are dead ends.Therefore all traffic onto or off of Veterans will go either North or South on Livingston alone for at least 2+ miles each way before this traffic is dissipated to an east or west road. Veterans Memorial will not absorb traffic or bring it elsewhere. Veterans Memorial may be completed to the West in years or decades in the future. All of the new traffic from the high density development will be added to Livingston - an already congested road. We should all be concerned regarding the significant increase in accidents that will occur at the left turn lane to go west on to Veterans Memorial from the drivers coming North on Livingston such as the parents dropping off students. There are many other U turns along Livingston which will be affected also. Few drivers know that the Florida law states - “after a driver makes a left hand turn the driver must be in the far left hand lane in that road going in the opposite direction”. This of course is the “fast lane” of the new direction traffic flow. This intersection already causes risks by observing the present skid marks in both directions. There are many other left hand turn lanes on this 4 mile stretch between Bonita Beach Road and Immokalee Road. Parents make this left hand turn daily before classes start and later after school. School buses also make this turn in the mornings. The long length of the buses take up extra space in the left turn lane. Therefore the number of cars are limited in that turn lane with buses present. Some cars have to wait in the active road lane when the left turn lane is full. This left hand turn lane will also be used excessively due by the proposed development because the only exit from the development will be onto Livingston. For those that wish to go South toward Naples, the additional drivers will have to make a left hand turn at this intersection of Veterans Memorial and Livingston. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1769 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) A left hand turn is where most crashes occur nationally as documented below. What percentage of drivers go South? Probably 50%.This important issue was not noted in the 69 page traffic analysis report presented to the county. If one assumes that 50% of the drivers from the the high density proposal will go south toward Naples, then there would be a substantial number, especially in the morning, for school drop-offs and also during rush hour turning left. There is already a existing backup - also not mentioned in the report (the analysis was done after school started). The increase from the excessive number of additional cars is a disaster waiting to happen due to these unique features of this intersection. Of course it will be impossible to fix any traffic problem after the fact by changing the road. Prevent the obvious now by denying the development proposal. There is no question that this left turn traffic will increase substantially due to the proposed developmental design by having the only exit onto Livingston Road. I have three references pertinent to left hand turns and their safety issues which is a cause of 30% to more than 50% of crashes nationally based on various studies. My first reference is from 2017 in an issue of the International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology’s article: Pedestrian safety under permissive left-turn signal control. The article discusses the risk of pedestrian injuries and death. It was shown that the volume increase of left-turn lanes is directly related to the higher statistics. The numbers of injuries and deaths will increase significantly from the density of this development! The drivers are found to be more aggressive in such situations with pedestrians. This study was performed in a simulator to obtain such important information. There is increase risk with the longer distance walk such as with 4 lanes or more across intersections. Our intersection has 6-7 lanes going North with the lefthand lane included. There probably will surely be an increase in crashes from the new development with more adults and children walking from the development based on predictable studies. The second article was in the Claims Journal Magazine: Are Left Turns a Deadly Maneuver? This article states "that left turns are at the top of the list as being the most challenging and dangerous driving maneuvers”. The National Highway Traffic Safety report stated that about half of crashes in the US involve left turns. The risk increases with rain, headlight glare, distraction by cell phones, confusion with the blinking yellow arrow, the speed of the oncoming traffic and the increase in speeding to "make the light", being complacent or new at the intersection, misjudging distances especially in older drivers with poor vision, etc. With new residents constantly moving in and out of rental units, there is a learning curve in regard to the skill needed with this particular left hand turn. In 2004 UPS eliminated left turns for it’s drivers. FedX also has such restrictions due to the risk. Trucks can’t speed up quickly after the turn and there is the risk of being rear-ended from fast moving vehicles coming from behind. The third publication was a 267 page dissertation at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. The candidate who performed the research, diagrams, photography, and statistics was Kirolos Haleem. On page 18, paragraph 4 he quoted that of the 1.72 million crossing path crashes, 75% were from left turns and of those: 41.6% were at signalized intersections 36.3% when a stop sign was present 22.1% at an intersection with no controls (this is a surprising statistic). It won’t help at our intersection by placing a red arrow. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1770 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Livingston Road is known as a “Racetrack” due to commuters using this road in lieu of the other close North/South roads of 75 and 41. Livingston is a favorite due to having only two traffic lights within the four mile stretch. One light is at the intersection of Livingston and Veterans Memorial where the proposed development is being considered. Drivers don’t want to stop or slow their commute time down. The human visual system cannot determine if an oncoming vehicle is going 60 mph or 45 mph even with 20/20 acuity. This is a setup for a crash if a driver is making a left-hand turn in front of the oncoming traffic. Add other causative factors such as the oncoming driver running a red light, the turning driver is too slow to speed up, distraction, not “seeing” an oncoming motorcycle, poor vision etc. and the result is a terrible crash. We should all be concerned regarding the significant increase in accidents that will occur at the left turn lane to go west on Veterans Memorial from the drivers coming North on Livingston. Many U turns will increase due to this need. There are many other U turns along Livingston which will be affected also. Few drivers know the Florida law that states - “after a driver makes a left hand turn the driver must be in the far left hand lane in that road going in the opposite direction”. This of course is the “fast lane” of the new direction traffic flow. This intersection already causes risks by observing the present skid marks in both directions. Previous Collier County officials were correct in their original zoning designation for this area.The neighborhood should retain it’s advantages and quality of life for which the area is known. It should not be changed. Other land will be sold in this proximity in the near future. Signs are already seen adjacent to and across Livingston Road from Barrington Cove.Will this also be zoned for high density development? Such density should be allowed elsewhere for many reasons. Tim Diegel timdiegel@mac.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1771 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1772 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1773 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1774 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1775 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1776 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1777 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1778 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1779 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Susan Mulgrew <1982swm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 12:27 AM To: MarkStrain@colliergov.net; SchmidtCorby Subject: Objection to Allura Re-Zoning Attachments: The Strand Master Property Owners Ass Allura letter.docx Gentlemen: Attached please find a letter from The Strand Master Property Owners Association outlining our objections to the upcoming re-zoning request from Stock Development regarding the development of the Allura Apartments. As a community of 1073 residences nearby, WE STRONGLY OBJECT to this project for the reasons in the attached letter. Thank you so much for your consideration. Susan Mulgrew, President The Strand Master Property Owners Association 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1780 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Thomas Griffith <thomasm.griffith@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2018 3:00 PM To: SchmidtCorby Subject: Opposition to - PETITION #PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 Dear Mr. Schmidt – I’m writing in regards to my opposition to the Allura project, petition #PL-20170004419/CP-2018-1 to the rezoning so 420 rental apartments can be built on this property. My self and the majority of the people I know are not opposed to single family homes being built in this area. We are opposed to the property being rezoned so 420 rental apartments can be built. The rental apartments will house a minimum of 735 tenants and does not fit into the landscape of this area. Traffic - Immokalee Rd. to Bonita Beach Rd. has no East/West exits for 4.2 miles. Regularly and every week day during season traffic is backed up on Livingston every afternoon for hours from Bonita Beach Rd. south to Veterans Memorial Blvd. and further. To get my son to baseball practice in Bonita I have to go south to Immokalee to 41 then north to Bonita. These 420 rental apartments will certainly add to this congestion. Home Values - Most studies show at least a 12.7% decline in property values near multifamily rental apartments. There is a perceived stigma with apartments having higher crime and less desirable tenants. Whether this is true or not doesn’t matter as it’s the perceived stigma that keep people from buying homes next to rental apartments. Schools – What will the impacts be on the schools? Veterans Memorial Elementary is already at capacity and North Naples Middle School is at 86% capacity. I hope you can support the thousands of residents that oppose a project that is not consistent with the current land uses in the area and will have a negative impact to our investments and quality of life. Thanks. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1781 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Tom 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1782 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: ljvonromer@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2018 4:39 PM To: SaboJames Subject: Re: Allura apt. complex @ Livingston & Veterans Thank you, for prompt reply. I drive by that property on a regular basis & have seen no posted signage regarding the proposed rezoning or a meeting for the public. Can you tell me what the current zoning is, what is the proposed rezoning, & when the meeting is? I appreciate your assistance. Thank you Sent from Windows Mail From: SaboJames Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 4:05 PM To: ljvonromer@gmail.com Mr or Ms. Von Romer: Please pardon the greeting line as I cannot determine your gender from the signature line. I am not able to answer your questions about the applicant’s rationale for the project. However, the applicant is permitted to request rezoning of the property that they own or have under contract. Importantly, there is a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) this week for the project and you would be able to ask your questions directly to the applicant or their agents. Allura NIM Thursday, 9/6/18 5:30 PM Collier County Library Main Branch Orange Blossom Drive Sugden Theater Room Please contact me with any other questions. Respectfully, C. James Sabo, AICP Principal Planner Zoning Division 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1783 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) James.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 34104 Phone: 239.252.2708 “Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at https://goo.gl/eXjvqT.” 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. From: ljvonromer@gmail.com <ljvonromer@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2018 11:23 AM To: SaboJames <James.Sabo@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Allura apt. complex @ Livingston & Veterans Good Morning Mr. Sabo, I have a couple of questions: Why is multi family being considered instead of single family? Neighboring communities demonstrate the demand for single family homes. I recognize that there are mixed single & multi family developments nearby. Then why is such a high density of apartments under consideration? In no way can it be a measure to satisfy low income or even middle income renters as it is being advertised as a high end, resort style community. Perhaps a plan calling for single family & condos should be discussed. I'm sure the developer could make those numbers work just as well @ this location. I am very familiar w highest @ best use of land & long term planning. In this case, I believe this density is not wise or in the best interest of the citizens of Collier County. Best regards, L. J. Von Romer Sent from Windows Mail 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1784 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Melissa Eger <melissa@presstigeprinting.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 5:59 PM To: CasanovaAlexandra Cc: SaboJames; SmithCamden; VelascoJessica Subject: RE: Property Owner Letter - PL20160002426 - FPL Fiber Net VA Attachments: Property Owner Letter + Site Map - PL20160002426 - FPL Fiber Net.pdf Hi Alexandra, I am confirming receipt of this mailing request. We are set to mail out the attached Property Owners Letter & Site Map to the 120 records provided via First Class Mail on Tuesday Nov. 27th, 2018. Best Regards, MELISSA EGER MAIL PRODUCTION MANAGER | Presstige Printing 10940 Harmony Park Drive | Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Direct: 239-949-8518 x1013 presstigeprinting.com Make the most of your direct mail! Ask me about FusionDM! From: CasanovaAlexandra Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 11:08 AM To: Melissa Eger Cc: SaboJames; SmithCamden; VelascoJessica Subject: Property Owner Letter - PL20160002426 - FPL Fiber Net VA Melissa, Good morning. Please mail out this property owner letter on Monday November 26, 2018. Thank you in advance, Alexandra Casanova Operations Coordinator - Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-252-2658 Note: Email Address Has Changed Alexandra.casanova@colliercountyfl.gov 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1785 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at http://bit.ly/CollierZoning. Exceeding Expectations Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1786 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 6:12 AM To: SaboJames Cc: Bill Arndt; Anne-Marie Cadwallader Subject: VeteransMemorial/Livingston Project (see attachments) Attachments: Full article re development.pdf; Are Left Turns a Deadly Maneuver?.eml https://www.claimsjournal.com/magazines/special-report/2014/09/29/255159.htm 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1787 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) Dear Mr Sabo,  I have a few comments to be made regarding the above project and am unable to attend the September 6th meeting. I have two points of concern.  The first is the number of parking spaces per apartment unit . The second is a serious safety concern regarding the significant increase in accidents that will occur at the left turn lane to go West on Veterans Memorial from the drivers going North on Livingston. I was not able to find the required number of parking spaces per apartment unit for the zoning of new construction in Naples. I did, however, find the “new” zoning requirements in 2010 for the number of parking spaces required in Jacksonville, FL. At that time the statistics showed that 16% of its residents did not drive.This was in 2010 before the population surge. For a one bedroom apartment, 1.75 parking spaces were required. This passes the “logical test” since most couples have two cars but some of these units would  be rented by one person. Some don’t drive. The number also probably includes guest parking. Based on this logical ratio, the proposed development above based on the same ratio and assuming 420 1 bedroom units, there must  be 735 spaces.  I didn’t count the number of parking spaces on the development drawing but I doubt that there are that number. file:///.file/id=6571367.8598229560 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1788 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) I’m sure that the TR Transportation Consultants  are expert statisticians and very knowledgeable but one has to be cautious and not be overly impressed by their 69 page analysis. I assume that they were hired by the developers. Their conclusions stated that during rush hour in the morning 104 cars will exit onto Livingston and during rush hour in the afternoon 107 cars will enter off of Veterans Memorial. Incidentally, on page 10, it was documented that the analysis was performed “after school started”. There is usually a backup during the school year on the left turn lane onto Veterans Memorial. This is  caused by parents dropping there kids off at the school down he road. This create a credibility issue with the study since it was not identified. In summary of my first issue, the Jacksonville logical ratio of cars per unit (1.75) does not fit here where there is not room for 735 spaces in the drawing. The out/in numbers noted above make no logical sense. These facts are obvious. One would really wonder about the future traffic information statistics given in the report that are based on "yet to be proven" information. My second issue involves the left hand turn for drivers coming North on Livingston and making a left hand turn onto Veterans Memorial. Parents make this left hand turn as mentioned above, before classes start and later file:///.file/id=6571367.8598229560 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1789 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) after school. This left hand turn lane will be used excessively due to the proposed development because the only exit from the development is onto Livingston. For those that wish to go South toward Naples, the drivers will make a left hand turn at the intersection of Veterans Memorial and Livingston. A left hand turn is where most crashes occur as documented below. What percentage of drivers go South? This important statistic was not noted as far as I could tell in the 69 page report. If one assumes that 50% will go South toward Naples, then there would be a substantial number especially during rush hour, in addition to the parents. There is already a backup - not mentioned in the report. There is no question that this left turn traffic will increase substantially due to the proposed development design having the only exit onto Livingston. There are three references pertinent to left hand turns and their safety issues which is a cause of 30% to more than 50% of crashes based on various studies. My first reference is from 2017 in an issue of International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology’s article: Pedestrian safety under permissive left-turn signal control. The article discusses the risk of pedestrian injuries and death. It was shown that the volume of left-turn lanes is directly related. The drivers are found to be more aggressive in such situations. file:///.file/id=6571367.8598229560 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1790 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) This study was performed in a simulator to obtain important information. There is increase risk with a longer walk such as with 4 lanes across as with our intersection. I’m not sure about how many kids walk to school now but there will be an increase with the new development. The second article was in the Claims Journal Magazine (attached): Are Left Turns a Deadly Maneuver?  This article states "that left turns are at the top of the list as being the most challenging and dangerous driving maneuvers”. The National Highway Traffic Safety report stated that about half of crashes in the US involve left turns. The risk increases with rain, headlight glare, distraction by cell phones, confusion with the blinking yellow arrow, being complacent or new at the intersection, misjudging distances, etc. In 2004 UPS  eliminated left turns for it’s drivers. The third article was a 267 page dissertation for the University of Central Florida in Orlando. The candidate who performed the research, diagrams, photography, and statistics was Kirolos Haleem. On page 18, paragraph 4 he quoted that the 1.72 million crossing path crashes,  75% were from left turns and of those:          41.6%  were at signalized intersections         36.3%  when a stop sign was present file:///.file/id=6571367.8598229560 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1791 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA)         22.1%  at an intersection with no controls   (this is a surprising statistic). It won’t help at our intersection by placing a red arrow. What I recommend.  1.  Do not approve the zoning change include renters. According to the studies, it would be valid to expect an increase in auto and  pedestrian accidents at the necessary left turn lane due to the unfamiliarity for new residents that “come and go”.                                     2.  Do not approve the zoning for an excessive amount of units per acre. There is not enough room for all the cars. The less residents, the less accidents at the left turn lane. Believe the logical parking space per unit ratio as stated in Jacksonville of 1.75 cars per unit.                                            A reasonable person would agree with this and not with the figure of 105+/- cars leaving and entering during the rush hours stated by the consultants. Thanks for reading this long email which I feel is so important for safety reasons with the proposal high density, the design of the exit on Livingston, and the zoning request to include renters. I tried to make succinct points. Please contact me with any questions. I have more information, if needed.  Thank you.    Tim Diegel. 952-239-0004. timdiegel@mac.com file:///.file/id=6571367.8598229560 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1792 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 1 VelascoJessica From:Tim Diegel <timdiegel@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 21, 2018 1:24 PM To:Tim Diegel Subject:Are Left Turns a Deadly Maneuver? https://www.claimsjournal.com/magazines/special-report/2014/09/29/255159.htm Are Left Turns a Deadly Maneuver? By Jim Hyatt | September 29, 2014 The act of driving is deceptively simple and, for most of us, part of our daily routines. Safe driving, which requires focus and attention, is becoming more of a defensive act every day, thanks in large part to the use of cellphones. Left turns are at the top of the list of the most challenging and dangerous driving maneuvers. In 2013, 31 percent of Arbella Insurance Group’s severe accidents – claims totaling at least $100,000 in bodily injury and property damage – involved a left-turning vehicle. The insurance industry should be communicating the risks of left turns – as well as the benefits of avoiding them – to their insureds. In addition, municipalities should continue to make changes to roads and intersections to lessen the risk for drivers. The U.S. Department of Transportation reports that nationwide, 53.1 percent of crossing-path crashes involve left turns. Additionally, a study by New York City transportation planners found that left turns were three times as likely to cause a deadly crash involving a pedestrian. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1793 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 2 Why Left Turns? The reason making a left turn is so complex is because the act itself disrupts the flow of traffic. Drivers must judge the speed and distance of oncoming cars, battle the glare of headlights, and watch for motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians – many of whom are becoming increasingly distracted themselves. Driving requires vigilance when watching and reacting to other drivers, and making a left turn is one of the greatest risks. Nationwide, 53.1% of crossing-path crashes involve left turns. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports that close to half of the 5.8 million car crashes in the U.S. are intersection-related and the majority of those are the result of making a left turn. If you’re still skeptical about the potential hazards of left turns, consider this scenario: You’re on your way home from work and it’s raining. Traffic on the highway is heavy, other drivers are carelessly weaving through lanes and you realize that you have been on autopilot going 60 mph for the past 20 minutes of your commute. Finally, you’re in your neighborhood, just around the corner from your home – waiting at an intersection to turn left. You’ve done this drive hundreds, maybe thousands, of times, and you take for granted that when you inch out into oncoming traffic, other drivers will let you into their path – those same drivers who may be distracted by smartphones and on autopilot themselves. These false assumptions happen all too frequently. The NHTSA reports that of the 787,236 intersection-related crashes that were reported from 2005 to 2007, 30 percent were attributed to drivers’ “decision errors,” such as driving too fast or too aggressively, making false assumptions about others’ actions, illegal maneuvers, or misjudgment of the gap or the other car’s speed. Environment- attributed reasons were at 1.4 percent, while 78.6 percent of the crashes occurred in clear weather. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1794 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 3 What Can Be Done? Is anything being done to address such hazardous driving behavior? In response to the high probability of left turn accidents, municipalities nationwide have changed roads and intersections in an attempt to lessen the risks of intersection- related or left turn accidents. Some of these changes include installing Jersey barriers to prevent left turns on specific roads, jug handles, rotaries and left turn arrows on traffic lights. The New York State Department of Transportation found that these adjustments are working: Their research found a 50 percent reduction in accidents after adding left turn-specific lanes at intersections and a 54 percent reduction where there was also a left turn signal. The case for eliminating left turns altogether may seem extreme, but the benefits are overwhelmingly positive. In 2004, UPS eliminated left turns for its drivers as part of a route-optimization strategy. Since then the company has saved an estimated 10 million gallons of gas and drivers have been able to deliver more packages in even less time. For UPS and the average American commuter alike, a route that avoids left turns may be longer, but moving with the flow of traffic rather than against it makes for less idle time, greater fuel efficiency and safer driving conditions. So what can the insurance industry do to help mitigate the risks associated with this problem? We must communicate the dangers involved with left turns and encourage our insureds to make the maneuver as safe and risk-free as possible. Arbella does this by sharing safety information with agents and customers. Recommendations include using intersections controlled by left turn arrows, jug handles or rotaries; paying close attention to distracted pedestrians; staying alert when combating the sun or oncoming headlight glare; and paying close attention to other vehicles’ speed and actions, rather than anticipating what they will be. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1795 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 4 Consider also communicating the benefits of eliminating left turns from daily driving routines – the average commuter may be surprised to know that consecutive right turns are faster and more fuel-efficient. Could the future of driving be free of left turns? Perhaps, but it’s unlikely. Thankfully, vehicle-to-vehicle technology has reportedly advanced to such a degree that the NHTSA could start requiring it in all new vehicles as soon as 2020. Having this technology on the road could prevent as many as 592,000 left turn and intersection crashes a year, saving 1,083 lives. But until a rolling stock of these vehicles is on the highway, left turns will continue to pose serious risks to drivers, and we need to continue to mitigate those risks through increased communication and improved engineering on all roads across the United States. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1796 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: roberta hawkins <roblhawkins@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2018 12:34 PM To: SaboJames Cc: roberta hawkins Subject: Vote no on Allura rezoning request I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed development at Livingston Road and veterans. I live in Mediterra and the traffic along Livingston is terrible, particularly at rush-hour. There are times that you’re risking your life trying to get out of our community. At rush-hour it’s dead stop traffic lined up from I 75 and Bonita Beach Road to well south of us. Secondly, Livingston Road is one and two-story homes in villas gated communities from Bonita Beach Road until well south of Immokalee . A 50 foot tall development of 420 units is not in keeping with the area. We are also very concerned with a rental community based on what we’ve heard of the legal issues in Orchid Run. There are also articles outlining that dense rental communities lower adjacent property values by 13.7%. I am asking that the zoning not be changed to allow this density. Or rental community. I would also like to see if Collier and Lee County’s could do something to improve the traffic on Livingston.I’ve been at advise that we were rejected for a light at the mediterra gates. Turning right and trying to do a U-turn is almost as difficult because it takes you to the Vasari entrance and people are trying to get in and out of the communities so that isn’t an option. Or at least a poor option. Please vote against this rezoning and allow it to stay as it is with the density it is presently approved for. Thank you, Roberta Hawkins 16687 Lucarno Way Sent from my iPad 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1797 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) From: BN Prins <bnprins@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 3:27 PM To: SaboJames Subject: Website Inquiry Allura 420 apartment complex Hello Mr. Sabo I live in one of the communities, off Livingstone Rd, that will be effected if the Allura complex is built. We are all concerned about the extra traffic this complex will add to an already busy street, Livingston. I know a traffic study was commissioned, but unless you travel this street daily, you know that the addition of hundreds of cars, will create a traffic jam. We are all also concerned about the extra burden to be placed on the schools in the area. Why would the county allow a 4 story apartment complex to be built. There are no other such complexes in North Naples. I would like to know what is the next step in the rezoning process? How can I be best informed about the updates Thank you Nanette Prins Sent from Mail for Windows 10 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 1798 Attachment: Allura Letters of Objection (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.hPacket Pg. 1799Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting & Photos of Signs (6-28-2019) (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - ALLURA) 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 1800 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting & Photos of Signs (6-28-2019) (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 1801 Attachment: Affidavit of Sign Posting & Photos of Signs (6-28-2019) (9459 : PUDR PL20170004385 - 07/18/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: PL20180000261/CPSP-18-2: 9 ordinance amendments of Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County Florida, relating to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy. The following elements are changed or created with a separate ordinance for each: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Golden Gate City Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Rural Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Conservation and Coastal Management Element; Future Land Use Element And Future Land Use Map And Map Series; the Stormwater Management Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; the Solid Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; and the Transportation Element. [Coordinator: Kris Va nLengen, AICP, Project Manager] Meeting Date: 07/18/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 07/01/2019 10:02 AM Submitted by: Title: Division Director - Planning and Zoning – Zoning Name: Michael Bosi 07/01/2019 10:02 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 07/01/2019 2:11 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 07/02/2019 10:59 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 07/03/2019 9:16 AM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 07/08/2019 2:56 PM Zoning Michael Bosi Review Item Completed 07/08/2019 3:27 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 07/18/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 1802 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.4 This item has been continued from the June 6, 2019, CCPC meeting. You received the full packet at the June 6, 2019 CCPC meeting. Attached you will find a supplemental memo and additional backup. PL20180000261/CPSP-2018-2: 9 ordinance amendments of Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan of the unincorporated area of Collier County Florida, relating to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy. The following elements are changed or created with a separate ordinance for each: Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element and the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Golden Gate City Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Rural Estates Sub-Element of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; Conservation and Coastal Management Element; Future Land Use Element And Future Land Use Map And Map Series; the Stormwater Management Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; the Solid Waste Sub-Element of the Public Facilities Element; and the Transportation Element. [Coordinator: Kris VanLengen, Project Manager] 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 1803 Attachment: Cover Page Cont'd item-9.A.4-PL20180000261-CPSP-2018-2 - GG Area Master Plan - 7-18-2019 CCPC meeting (9281 : GGAMP AGENDA ITEM #9.A.4 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS CCPC: JULY 18, 2019 [Continued from June 6, 2019] BCC: SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) RESTUDY AMENDMENTS (ADOPTION HEARINGS) PROJECT #PL20180000261/PETITION CPSP-2018-2 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 1804 Attachment: CCPC COVER2 (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) TABLE OF CONTENTS GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN (GGAMP) RESTUDY AMENDMENTS [ADOPTION HEARING] [Continued From: June 6, 2018] CCPC: JULY 18, 2019 TAB #1a: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: Supplemental Memo w/backup REMAINING DOCUMENTS BELOW WERE RECEIVED FOR THE 6/6/19 CCPC MEETING: TAB: #1b: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMNT: INITIAL CCPC Adoption Staff Report TAB #2: Adoption Ordinances DOCUMENT: Future Land Use Element, Conservation Coaster Management Element, Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, Golden Gate City Sub Element, Golden Gate Urban Estates Sub Element, Golden Gate Rural Estates Sub Element, Solid Waste Sub Element, Stormwater Sub Element, and Transportation Element TAB #3: Transmittal Ex. Summary DOCUMENT: Executive Summary, including BCC Memo(s) 01/25/2019 & 11/20/2018 TAB #4: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Transmittal Staff Report w/Attachment A Strike-Through- Underline Text (and/or Map) Changes TAB #5: Attachment B DOCUMENT: Data & Analysis-White Paper TAB #6: Transmittal Resolution DOCUMENT: Resolution with Exhibit “A” Text &/or Map – Full Strike-Through & Underline changes TAB #7: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Adoption Advertisement 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 1805 Attachment: CCPC Table of Contents2 (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) 416 dbr a r ThxiL Arius PART Of THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 BCC ZONING DEPARTMENT 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL SUITE 401 NAPLES,FL 34112-5324 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Vicky Felty who on oath says that she serves as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News,a daily newspaper published at Naples,in Collier County,Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida;that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed.Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples,in said Collier County,Florida,and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County,Florida;distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida,each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County,Florida,for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person,or corporation any discount, rebate,commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper ot June 28,2019 chat) Subscribed andworn to before on June 28,2019 h«a YYtuy\c.Q1.rxL. Notary, State of WI, County of Brown TARA MONDLOCt-I f —__-_- M, Notary Public coinStateofWisconsin My commission expires: August 6,2021 Publication Cost:$NA Ad No:GC10219451 Customer No:323534 PO#: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1806 Attachment: CCPC Affidavit & Re-Advertisement (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) 0. >:. d . 21 xN 1 -. ; E. 4c 28y r d L 1E gWM41UHU awawUHU gi- 86VC 3 mh w~ 0WzNUpzQ'° aatEr44,-. Wirjroma2, 1" m ala ua< dmE•, Q FW O° u a gF Oa 02U_ 2 ' al m { 53 . 0 O« o L 0.. 0 a • Ww AOd x W a. 4 ,„ A cn rnmt ° t M c w - E^ a eQF H Uz Z 2,' 5213A421 " c ' m MI! H QPGW VWA .. A WwW d 1? ! . c0cw° d ' XzW° QAMa>" 4 amyp ( y61, 11jO.. OC U. a. 70 UE O w a O Owe( p3i C zoo Wm 2UW a xC < r3 , 1 I Y aa o f m o u'# j0 ' HW I vc , V _ 0 a 0 0 a WuSaF> a w,,,,, ,..%. Ua WpP. OF O° p oL E cp A ao viSWF , i, vi w Fv' 7 I .': ac b m.- g. p % ge: E- gv m o 55 Wv II , o ° mmSac U m ° - aa 4H= Fza # 4= W ka d I ' U.- awm m Lm a >.- mv w w F' W a w° . w H F, w O 1, o c rn® M v v p o a oR c o pH w O w Op - r, «_ cu Som w o F Q< + w° e W a E I. m N C .- m C >` > i U Uaazz uzu< az2 s 0 L C00— CO E m O O._ ro sy« Z0g WA < azW aWA I c ° m:: mn o mE '^ oN ga• FpdE> a`' HeU W > 0N E- m roa 3 HL ° y- m aH H AO ° a " aap i 0> cr> d cu ci.° roma a U g a T y r m O W a} d W a O a z A. m C7 0 m m c c o >' c t'° m ' m aUza j W p + o. cy m E¢ LN $ a 3 3 maeo , zVAVWGFC7AQ. A.7$ FH^ roy c E yca° r aaai ` u $' N o Aa 0. Ei. 9a H ZPU. UV ajF I F3a > 0 55 Oa v, m c° bc., a z WVvy'y pG Uyxpo 0015, 0„,„ o N D Ma E P. E•• a XwFW aa77 a 1_. Cnv;' C08 ... .. $ w mmc; a O 2} FOO6 Wirt}° ooh a= o2a e. g Yt" ME com CJO jjw UU b, FzAF UU 222? ULa m m 0 2 c c E. GE aOFO XW < a° W R l : d ' ck Uy V N 2a Z`,._ c mc m ppUavlF ° zW z c> aw7z aR6. 2nYs° Loan m05; v Ua CG} W awww p wa. W.l Oz a g -,.: 2N1,- v d y a> UM« c c O ZXZU< o' Wzrze m >° , Ln20 00 ' ` 0g+.. Jv zoo_ 4. W awo z00 0 4.. 0 F, 3m° mw a m m OU QuuawHow auun. o' Fow 12 0 b o. o L° a' a o a = gr 47, - m g pp 17, 2 Q EZtil° 3 ° O de: Ly iii« Za XU C 1' 1U awa.- 30;;, A awawA awaa0oa aa. aHJUz awaFd}' awaFw z awa' UF- 0 WOFfH a woI••. wOFF ~ =° F` a j I—-- wa Q avH, azWo 3r$ aaao A .- a # 3Zp A ;, 4aa.. 40_ away~ zo - Jwaw° m - waWdzp , Wa H F`> w Oa aw Oa Oar.^ W. JOa l- Oa w m- a12 0 EU a> 0< EE4 W udEEEEz. 4 ud . t5, ow ua wg u, t - a ow u< EWaao cc._ a 0-. a p a < A0e a ' zU aww W W Aa W WU w0 awo0. 0. Swat y( J swaw, aU zwwww ?.. 2 = wm- 1! zwazz> xw=, izwz Swag :, 0 c` HFaeOfwr. 1.(- . t, 01,w, F aa x FE" aEHO5 F6aCHvi F aDaOC i"" QUz a< E w0FOwU. a woFv'°. U. W 0F1-. Z <•.• j wOF tial zEip , 0apFF<. O0 tAaIOFZHZO tAal pFwf CY NEs AaepOEz ACC9FaEZ A a' UUwwF}--' m° aGU• < H` coa. AaUaFt., p U,< iU y OCuw.. t0- coo zp > °< Z° y .- Z Zp E... zUZp Oz z zz z O n zwwoa 0-. 700 zW..` 0 1. 10Z.''' 41-Em4c zWEz' gwav o z z' lU< tw.l df a Ov, UO e D aV 0 a- O . pa a AaCaz ..„.. m-. 6s a- tea W < z <- Az-] 2s Z 6mc 2,- 1Z, Wu. z, Ay W w z,... F , r 0 z. JC w < J zz. a E.. aa a z', QaFw m° nooO , y0 jz cnJCC0 • Ow CF. I:.: A , n00 w > o , n O -. W v' Om Q 0uX U < Up< wU < UUl` w> Uv. 7 UF' Om a UwAAy < U ta,,. Ot,, j Q oD - W , nOz Waoz W 0 w W<, W a- w w W V° E . q= WwZ vi cu `" f' rigWw ' FCH r W Lu vi2yS<' o . n" Swwvi< F' nSw,, a Fa LE • d. 1- tc= z> a1- E2- SUZA al" l2- FawU: sUl t.'." 1x, FS- waJ 4. F- 1••, 1" w; a a1- i” w-' 4 a~ FS< ZaC U ... 3U. " p0 W O ° 0001.'.. 0 set4. 40,- U. JOpOU ,°]< '° 00 V E_ '° OOC7ral Om '° Opp w n m?=. y W 00 Fa w RcVa W H W W Fz_ tge< UZFzpZw U7. Fzv' w UZH J= O S257,- Z< UO, UZ,< G z < Uza< A Z< UC I<- 7 0, 4C z < L7G6C z a- A`- > a. z < V aa2 e O CQU? z ta.' PW WQ< z, lozEwA< '' wpwz- b) cej zwpwwo" zaEf- i5_ wO z` iwCF• zwi- c; F` t. ;= U U7' O~ dQ a} aOF O a WAF c= c7:- . 4CU ,,, zw. c.. ON O^.' a>.' - C W cr,< 1-° i. N_ Y^V" f- Uw- p 1' 5 m HUW<. alAa.- UmQ 1,.. 1,- U•. W 4 OF, E •• .4 2 - JW c vi °- i Uwr<,,' ,, u- 1. uwi'•.'^. o, .. Z p7m E 0ZUrA< EftUm Z A; ryOnq zuC V= w- % AU C o$ ' emu= ',:- z2 CJ ^_ i G wzZ %.-< C7 cH .° o..- c0wWcl i06, ww W % i0' -- % z. a"'" W.. r Z< C'• < ii0•` u. 0-,=„ 7- Owl'_- E02E c m m W .. JUA—> u2.: 1_,-_..›. ww , 0- t- 1 7-:.: 04'- i w-- Q-- N - u. D4,- 1 1... w EEa W W w Fw* w S' u. w7 .-. i. w' l_ qC i 7 u. w.. 7y ,-- ww_ wC= ..:. 7_ - c2rn F.> 0- OF fes° n -' z '"= i. ..__ iv. wor-,: =[ r7•. ' -',"!= !. S> -_ m7. °' ou5ZcE- 1- O- u` a! 1- C- Ci.- , C7 - u' % - < w' ', ' OU ' - tg . z0 iE-,...- zo c` Fw: c c0,.-• v=- 70=:,- 0- e-^ i..= 70,!- i-,- 70 =,•;± a,. c C rn, b+ c « < UUF=- L7. ` U1- -- c., aL, L, i W E S '% UL- r uc' ir` J'- .- u J- a a- 7'` ! zJw ^+ atmv z awriS ° 7 awo2 = a mc - - ww: z..%, c Y` 0 - i...%^. _ =.= rnU 0=}. W aUCCa mHw_ aac A^ z--- wr w _ z J 5 wY . z a, ..:,*. cd'rGx 207n,.. 65 ...= ° z Z d ^.— °/—% % i v/.—% s C % •• I - C /. % r%_%. ate 7. L Lm D.] .. ww F - C 0c °- z00 < Cy i0 .. t iC7. 5- 7" 1 ".: -- 700 EwEt 757,- 1= m7 7c0.:,,,,_, 7C0_- C '- 8 E 0 a< utsr. i a . 4 .= 17. < 0. 1-.. aUu:. r. 7 si. uuF. rucw aUC. - 6 . 1 . auu:.- cw auue-, - Ls 0 0010° t Z410(. 9 F- 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1807 Attachment: CCPC Affidavit & Re-Advertisement (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) PROOF O.K.BY:__________________________________________________O.K.WITH CORRECTIONS BY:_________________________________________ PLEASE READ CAREFULLY •SUBMIT CORRECTIONS ONLINE ND-GCI0219451-01. INDD ADVERTISER:BCC ZONING DEPARTMENT PROOF CREATED AT :6/21/2019 9:59 AM SALES PERSON:NDUX00 PROOF DUE:-NEXT RUN DATE:06/28/19 PUBLICATION:ND-DAILY SIZE:6 col X 9.32 in NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission [sitting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council,]will hold a public meeting on July 18,2019, commencing at 9:00 A.M.in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber,Third Floor,County Government Center,3299 East Ta miami Tr ail,Naples,FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE CONSERVA TION AND COASTAL MANAG EMENT ELEMENT;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180000261] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE SOLID WA STE SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY; PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL20180000261] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT AND THE GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20180000261] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE STORMWAT ER MANAG EMENT SUB-ELEMENT OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20180000261] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20180000261] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20180000261] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY TO CREATE THE URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTAT ES SUB-ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.[PL20180000261] AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY TO CREATE THE GOLDEN GATE CITY SUB- ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 89-05,AS AMENDED,THE COLLIER COUNTY GROW TH MANAG EMENT PLAN OF THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA,RELATING TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RESTUDY SPECIFICALLY TO CREATE THE RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTAT ES SUB-ELEMENT OF THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT;DIRECTING TRANSMITTAL OF THE ADOPTED AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY;PROV IDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROV IDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard.Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S)will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section,2800 N.Horseshoe Dr.,Naples,between the hours of 8:00 A.M.and 5:00 P.M.,Monday through Friday. Furthermore,the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk’s Office, Fourth Floor,Collier County Government Center,3299 East Ta miami Tr ail,Suite #401 Naples,one week prior to the scheduled hearing.Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division,Comprehensive Planning Section.Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board’s Office prior to July 18,2019,will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore,may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made,which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding,you are entitled,at no cost to you,to the provision of certain assistance.Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division,located at 3335 Ta miami Tr ail East,Suite 101, Naples,FL 34112-5356,(239)252-8380,at least two days prior to the meeting.Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. Mark P.Strain,Chairman Collier County Planning CommissionND-GCI0219451-01 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 1808 Attachment: CCPC Affidavit & Re-Advertisement (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) CCPC Supplemental Memo July 18, 2019 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – COMMUNITY PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: JULY 18, 2019 SUBJECT: GMPA-PL20180000261, GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT The Adoption Hearing of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Amendment was continued at its originally scheduled June 6, 2019, CCPC meeting. The CCPC requested an underline and strikethrough format of the documents that show both the changes recommended by the CCPC to the Board, and the Board’s changes, including representation of the trifurcation of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Attached please find copies of the requested documents. The documents demonstrate how the Golden Gate Area Master Plan has been divided into the following: 1) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element; 2) Golden Gate City Master Plan Sub-Element; 3) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element; and 4) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element. The attached Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element includes only the Introduction, Overview and the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Map. The implementing sections of Goals, Objectives and Policies, the Land Use Designation Description Section and other maps are deleted from the GGAMP Element. They are found in the Sub-Elements. The attached three Sub-Element documents repeat the full Golden Gate Area Master Plan document and with double strikethrough show the language, goals, objectives and policies, land use descriptions and maps that were deleted to trifurcate the Master Plan and create the Sub-Element. In addition to the double strikethroughs, some words are added with double underline to better clarify and reference the particular Sub-Element, such as Urban Golden Gate Estates. The Board’s direction on policy changes are also shown in double strikethough and double underline. The CCPC recommendations agreed to by the Board are shown with underline and strikethough. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1809 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element i Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. EXHIBIT “A” COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN ELEMENT Prepared by Collier County Zoning Division Prepared for COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted (date) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1810 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element ii Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN – prior to 2019 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN SYMBOL [DELETE COLUMN] DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. The parenthesized Roman numeral symbols enumerated above appear throughout this Element and provide informational citations to adopted documents recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, as required by Florida law. These symbols are for informational purposes only, meant to mark entries amended after the 1997 adoption of the full Element and typically found in the margins of this document, but are not themselves adopted. * Indicates adopted portions ** Ordinance No. 2000-25 rescinded and repealed in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM). May 9, 2000 2000-25 ** May 9, 2000 2000-26 *** (I) May 9, 2000 2000-27 (II) May 9, 2000 2000-28 (III) May 9, 2000 2000-29 (IV) March 13, 2001 2001-12 (V) May 14, 2002 2002-24 (VI) September 10, 2003 2003-44 (VII) December 16, 2003 2003-67 (VIII) October 26, 2004 2004-71 (IX) June 7, 2005 2005-25 (X) January 25, 2007 2007-19 (XI) December 4, 2007 2007-76 (XII) December 4, 2007 2007-77 (XIII) December 4, 2007 2007-83 (XIV) October 14, 2008 2008-55 (XV) October 14, 2008 2008-56 (XVI) October 14, 2008 2008-59 (XVII) July 28, 2010 2010-31 (XVIII) July 28, 2010 2010-32 (XIX) September 14, 2011 2011-29 (XX) January 9, 2013 2013-15 (XXI) November 18, 2014 2014-41 (XXII) November 10, 2015 2015-62 (XXIII) May 10, 2016 2016-12 (XXIV) June 13, 2017 2017-23 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1811 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element iii Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. *** Ordinance No. 2000-26 amended Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, having the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM), more specifically portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Ord. No. 98-56), Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (Ord. No. 97-59) and Drainage (Ord. No. 97-61) sub-elements of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element (Ord. No. 97-63), Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Ord. No. 97-64), Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Ord. No. 97-66), and the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map (Ord. No. 97-67); and readopting Policy 2.2.3 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • The above Ordinance No. 2007-19 is based on the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). • The above Ordinance No. 2013-15 is based on the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN – prior to 2000 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. May 19, 1992 92-34 August 4, 1992 92-50 May 25, 1993 93-24 April 12, 1994 94-22 March 14, 1995 95-12 April 14, 1998 98-26 September 8, 1998 98-70 February 23, 1999 99-17 Note: All of the above amendments occurred after adoption of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in 1991 (Ord. No. 91-15) and prior to adoption of amendments on ___, 2019 in 1997 that were subsequently re-adopted in 2000. These Due to the restructuring of this Element in 2019 to create three Sub-Elements, these amendments are no longer denoted on the pages of the Element with Roman numeral symbols that provide informational citations to adopted documents recorded in the Official Records of Collier County. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1812 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element iv Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. OVERVIEW 2 A. County-Wide Planning Process B. Golden Gate Area Planning Process * III. IMPLEMENTATION SECTION 3 Goals, Objectives and Policies 3 Land Use Designation Description Section 13 1. Urban 13 2. Estates 21 3. Agricultural/Rural Settlement Area 45 4. Overlays and Special Features 45 III. * LIST OF MAPS 46 Original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map High Density Residential Subdistrict 1989 Boundaries of Activity Centers Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use Activity Centers Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) ‒ Interchange Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Center Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center Immokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades – Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1813 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element v Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Special Exceptions to Conditional Use in Golden Gate Estates Immokalee Road/Randall Boulevard Planning Study Area 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1814 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element 1 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. I. INTRODUCTION As part of the revised Growth Management Plan, the County adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) in 1991. The GGAMP was further revised in 1997. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan provides growth management regulations for the designated Golden Gate Area (see original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Map). The Golden Gate Area was previously subject to the regulations outlined in the County's Future Land Use Element (FLUE). However, in 1991, the unique characteristics of the area resulted in adoption of a Master Plan for Golden Gate, as a separate Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This Master Plan superseded former Objective 1, Policy 1.1, and Policy 1.3 of the FLUE. All other Goals, Objectives, and Policies contained in the FLUE and all other Elements of the Growth Management Plan remain applicable to the Golden Gate Area. In addition, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map will be used instead of the County-Wide Future Land Use Map. In April 1996, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for Collier County. As a result of the recommendations made in the EAR, Ordinance 91- 15, which adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan, was repealed and a new Ordinance 97-64 was adopted. In February of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate a restudy of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Accordingly, in June of 2001, Comprehensive Planning Section Staff requested that the Board appoint an advisory committee, consisting of residents of Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates, to aid Staff in the restudy process. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee met on over twenty (20) occasions, between June 2001 and June 2003, to consider proposed amendments to the GGAMP, as well as other matters related to the Golden Gate Area. All meetings were open to the public; many of these meetings were well attended. The restudy process was divided into two phases. The County transmitted Phase I amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in April 2003. These amendments were adopted, as Ordinance 2003-44, in September 2003. Phase II amendments were transmitted in June 2004. The Phase II amendments were adopted in October 2004, as Ordinance 2004-71. In February 2015, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate another restudy of the GGAMP. Staff evaluated the Golden Gate Area within 3 distinct areas: 1) Golden Gate City; 2) Rural Golden Gate Eastern Estates, defined as the Golden Gate Estates area east of Collier Boulevard; and 3) Urban Golden Gate Western Estates, defined as the Golden Gate Estates area west of Collier Boulevard. Guided by an Oversight Committee, staff conducted eight public workshops along with electronic outreach to gather resident and stakeholder opinions. Most fundamentally, the vision statements created by consensus within the sub-areas of the Golden Gate Area are as follows: 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1815 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element 2 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Golden Gate City Vision Statement: Golden Gate City is a safe, diverse, family-oriented community that offers easy access to education, parks, shopping and services within a vibrant, walkable community. Rural Golden Gate Eastern Estates Vision Statement: The Rural Golden Gate Eastern Estates is an interconnected, low-density residential community with limited goods and services in neighborhood centers, defined by rural character with appreciation for nature and quiet surroundings. Urban Golden Gate Western Estates Vision Statement: Urban Golden Gate Western Estates is a low-density, large-lot residential neighborhood in a natural setting with convenient access to the coastal area. This plan includes three major sections: The OVERVIEW section provides an introduction to Countywide and Golden Gate Area planning efforts. The IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY places the Plan into effect. Strategies Implementation strategies have been developed to address land use, public facilities, transportation, rural character, emergency management and natural resources. This section includes the The Goals, Objectives, and Policies, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Designation Descriptions Section and Maps are implemented as separate sub-elements for three distinct areas: The Goals, Objectives and Policies Section include Goal 2, which deals solely with Golden Gate City. Because the visions and opinions of Estates residents were similar in the Rural and Urban areas, both areas of Golden Gate Estates are covered together in Goals 3-7. 1. Golden Gate City Master Plan Sub-Element; 2. Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element; and 3. Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element. The SUPPORT DOCUMENT outlines data and information used to develop the Implementation strategy, including the Goals, Objectives, and Policies. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1816 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element 3 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. II. OVERVIEW A. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING PROCESS Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes, the Collier County Growth Management Plan shall contain the following elements: 1. Future Land Use 2. Housing 3. Public Facilities 4. Conservation and Coastal Management (Coastal Counties only) 5. Intergovernmental Coordination 6. Capital Improvements 7. Transportation 8. Recreation and Open Space In addition to the above Elements, local government comprehensive plans in Florida may, by decision of the local legislative body, contain one or more optional elements. Optional elements are required to comply with certain general criteria under Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, but are not subject to specific requirements (with some exceptions). In 1991, the Board of County Commissioners chose the option of adopting the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, in recognition of the unique characteristics of the Golden Gate Area. In addition to establishing the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s mandatory structure, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, also subjects the Plan to a mandatory evaluation process every seven (7) years. This process involves the preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Review (EAR) to determine whether, and to what extent, the existing Growth Management Plan has carried out its stated Goals, Objectives and Policies. B. GOLDEN GATE AREA PLANNING PROCESS Objective 4 of the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) allows the countywide planning process to “address specific geographic or issue areas.” Policy 4.1 of this Objective reads as follows: “A detailed Master Plan for Golden Gate Estates has been developed and was incorporated into this Growth Management Plan in February 1991. The Master Plan addresses Natural Resources, Future Land Use, Water Management, Public Facilities and other considerations.” In February 1991, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The original Master Plan incorporated the recommendations of a Citizens Steering Committee. A revised and updated Master Plan was adopted in 1997, pursuant to recommendations of the County’s 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. In 2001, the Board of County Commissioners established the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee and directed Staff to work with the Committee to further revise and update the Master Plan. The Board of County Commissioners adopted revisions to the GGAMP, incorporating the recommendations of the Restudy Committee, in 2003 and 2004. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1817 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element 4 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Trans mittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. III. Maps Original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1818 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. “Exhibit A” COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN GOLDEN GATE CITY SUB-ELEMENT Prepared by Collier County Zoning Division Prepared for COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted (date) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1819 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element ii Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN: GOLDEN GATE CITY SUB-ELEMENT SYMBOL DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. The parenthesized Roman numeral symbols enumerated above appear throughout this Element and provide informational citations to adopted documents recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, as required by Florida law. These symbols are for informational purposes only, meant to mark entries amended after the 1997 adoption of the full Element and typically found in the margins of this document, but are not themselves adopted. * Indicates adopted portions ** Ordinance No. 2000-25 rescinded and repealed in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives (date), 2019 2019-(#) May 9, 2000 2000-25 ** May 9, 2000 2000-26 *** (I) May 9, 2000 2000-27 (II) May 9, 2000 2000-28 (III) May 9, 2000 2000-29 (IV) March 13, 2001 2001-12 (V) May 14, 2002 2002-24 (VI) September 10, 2003 2003-44 (VII) December 16, 2003 2003-67 (VIII) October 26, 2004 2004-71 (IX) June 7, 2005 2005-25 (X) January 25, 2007 2007-19 (XI) December 4, 2007 2007-76 (XII) December 4, 2007 2007-77 (XIII) December 4, 2007 2007-83 (XIV) October 14, 2008 2008-55 (XV) October 14, 2008 2008-56 (XVI) October 14, 2008 2008-59 (XVII) July 28, 2010 2010-31 (XVIII) July 28, 2010 2010-32 (XIX) September 14, 2011 2011-29 (XX) January 9, 2013 2013-15 (XXI) November 18, 2014 2014-41 (XXII) November 10, 2015 2015-62 (XXIII) May 10, 2016 2016-12 (XXIV) June 13, 2017 2017-23 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1820 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element iii Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM). *** Ordinance No. 2000-26 amended Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, having the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM), more specifically portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Ord. No. 98-56), Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (Ord. No. 97-59) and Drainage (Ord. No. 97-61) sub-elements of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element (Ord. No. 97-63), Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Ord. No. 97-64), Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Ord. No. 97-66), and the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map (Ord. No. 97-67); and readopting Policy 2.2.3 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • The above Ordinance No. 2007-19 is based on the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). • The above Ordinance No. 2013-15 is based on the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1821 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element iv Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN – prior to 2000 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. May 19, 1992 92-34 August 4, 1992 92-50 May 25, 1993 93-24 April 12, 1994 94-22 March 14, 1995 95-12 April 14, 1998 98-26 September 8, 1998 98-70 February 23, 1999 99-17 Note: All of the above amendments occurred after adoption of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in 1991 (Ord. No. 91-15) and prior to adoption of amendments in 1997 that were subsequently re-adopted in 2000. These amendments are no longer denoted on the pages of the Element with Roman numeral symbols. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1822 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element v Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. OVERVIEW 2 A. County-Wide Planning Process B. Golden Gate Area Planning Process * III. IMPLEMENTATION SECTION 3 A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 1 B. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION 6 1. URBAN DESIGNATION 2. Estates 21 3. Agricultural/Rural Settlement Area 45 4. Overlays and Special Features 45 A. Urban ‒ Mixed Use District 6 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict B. Urban ‒ Commercial District 9 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict 3. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 4. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict * C. LIST OF MAPS 12 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map High Density Residential Subdistrict 1989 Boundaries of Activity Centers Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use Activity Centers Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) ‒ Interchange Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Center 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1823 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element vi Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center Immokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades – Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use in Golden Gate Estates Immokalee Road/Randall Boulevard Planning Study Area 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1824 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 1 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. I. INTRODUCTION 1 As part of the revised Growth Management Plan, the County adopted the original Golden Gate 2 Area Master Plan (GGAMP) in 1991. The GGAMP was further revised in 1997. The Golden Gate 3 Area Master Plan provides growth management regulations for the designated Golden Gate Area 4 (see original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Map). 5 The Golden Gate Area was previously subject to the regulations outlined in the County's Future 6 Land Use Element (FLUE). However, in 1991, the unique characteristics of the area resulted in 7 adoption of a Master Plan for Golden Gate, as a separate Element of the Collier County Growth 8 Management Plan. This Master Plan superseded former Objective 1, Policy 1.1, and Policy 1.3 9 of the FLUE. All other Goals, Objectives, and Policies contained in the FLUE and all other 10 Elements of the Growth Management Plan remain applicable to the Golden Gate Area. In 11 addition, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map will be used instead of the County-Wide 12 Future Land Use Map. 13 In April 1996, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report 14 (EAR) for Collier County. As a result of the recommendations made in the EAR, Ordinance 91-15 15, which adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan, was repealed and a new Ordinance 16 97-64 was adopted. 17 In February of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate a restudy of the 18 Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Accordingly, in June of 2001, Comprehensive Planning Section 19 Staff requested that the Board appoint an advisory committee, consisting of residents of Golden 20 Gate City and Golden Gate Estates, to aid Staff in the restudy process. The Golden Gate Area 21 Master Plan Restudy Committee met on over twenty (20) occasions, between June 2001 and 22 June 2003, to consider proposed amendments to the GGAMP, as well as other matters related to 23 the Golden Gate Area. All meetings were open to the public; many of these meetings were well 24 attended. 25 The restudy process was divided into two phases. The County transmitted Phase I amendments 26 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in April 2003. These amendments were 27 adopted, as Ordinance 2003-44, in September 2003. Phase II amendments were transmitted in 28 June 2004. The Phase II amendments were adopted in October 2004, as Ordinance 2004-71. 29 In February 2015, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate another restudy of 30 the GGAMP. Staff evaluated the Golden Gate Area within 3 distinct areas: 1) Golden Gate City, 31 2) Golden Gate Rural Estates, defined as the Estates area east of Collier Boulevard; and 3) 32 Golden Gate Urban Estates, defined as the Estates area west of Collier Boulevard. Guided by an 33 Oversight Committee, staff conducted eight public workshops along with electronic outreach to 34 gather resident and stakeholder opinions. Most fundamentally, the vision statements created by 35 consensus within the sub-areas of the Golden Gate Area are as follows: 36 Golden Gate City Vision Statement: 37 Golden Gate City is a safe, diverse, family-oriented community that offers easy access to 38 education, parks, shopping and services within a vibrant, walkable community. 39 Rural Golden Gate Estates Vision Statement: 40 The Rural Golden Gate Estates is an interconnected, low-density residential community with 41 limited goods and services in neighborhood centers, defined by rural character with appreciation 42 for nature and quiet surroundings. 43 Urban Golden Gate Estates Vision Statement: 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1825 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 2 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Urban Golden Gate Estates is a low-density, large-lot residential neighborhood in a natural setting 1 with convenient access to the coastal area. 2 This plan includes three major sections: 3 The OVERVIEW section provides an introduction to Countywide and Golden Gate Area planning 4 efforts. 5 The IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY places the Plan into effect. Strategies have been developed 6 to address land use, public facilities, transportation, rural character, emergency management and 7 natural resources. This section includes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies, the Golden Gate 8 Area Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Designation Description Section. The Goals, 9 Objectives and Policies include Goal 2, which deals solely with Golden Gate City. Because the 10 visions and opinions of Estates residents were similar in the Rural and Urban areas, both areas 11 of Golden Gate Estates are covered together in Goals 3-7. 12 The SUPPORT DOCUMENT outlines data and information used to develop the Implementation 13 strategy, including the Goals, Objectives, and Policies. 14 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1826 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 3 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. II. OVERVIEW 1 A. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING PROCESS 2 Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes, the Collier County Growth Management Plan 3 shall contain the following elements: 4 1. Future Land Use 5 2. Housing 6 3. Public Facilities 7 4. Conservation and Coastal Management (Coastal Counties only) 8 5. Intergovernmental Coordination 9 6. Capital Improvements 10 7. Transportation 11 8. Recreation and Open Space 12 In addition to the above Elements, local government comprehensive plans in Florida may, by 13 decision of the local legislative body, contain one or more optional elements. Optional elements 14 are required to comply with certain general criteria under Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, but 15 are not subject to specific requirements (with some exceptions). In 1991, the Board of County 16 Commissioners chose the option of adopting the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, in recognition of 17 the unique characteristics of the Golden Gate Area. 18 In addition to establishing the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s mandatory structure, 19 Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, also subjects the Plan to a mandatory evaluation process every 20 seven (7) years. This process involves the preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Review 21 (EAR) to determine whether, and to what extent, the existing Growth Management Plan has 22 carried out its stated Goals, Objectives and Policies. 23 B. GOLDEN GATE AREA PLANNING PROCESS 24 Objective 4 of the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) allows the countywide 25 planning process to “address specific geographic or issue areas.” Policy 4.1 of this Objective 26 reads as follows: 27 “A detailed Master Plan for Golden Gate Estates has been developed and was incorporated 28 into this Growth Management Plan in February 1991. The Master Plan addresses Natural 29 Resources, Future Land Use, Water Management, Public Facilities and other considerations.” 30 In February 1991, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the original Golden Gate Area 31 Master Plan. The original Master Plan incorporated the recommendations of a Citizens Steering 32 Committee. A revised and updated Master Plan was adopted in 1997, pursuant to 33 recommendations of the County’s 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. In 2001, the Board of 34 County Commissioners established the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee and 35 directed Staff to work with the Committee to further revise and update the Master Plan. The Board 36 of County Commissioners adopted revisions to the GGAMP, incorporating the recommendations 37 of the Restudy Committee, in 2003 and 2004. 38 39 40 41 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1827 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 4 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. III. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 1 This section places the plan into effect. Implementation strategies include the Goals, Objectives 2 and Policies, and the Land Use Designation Description Section. 3 A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 4 GOAL 1: 5 TO GUIDE LAND USE AND PUBLIC FACILITY DECISION MAKING AND TO BALANCE THE 6 NEED TO PROVIDE BASIC SERVICES WITH NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS THROUGH 7 A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH ENSURE THE HEALTH, 8 SAFETY, WELFARE, AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. 9 10 OBJECTIVE 1.1: 11 Develop new or revised uses of land consistent with designations outlined on the Golden Gate 12 Area City Future Land Use Map and provisions found in the Land Use Designation Description 13 Section of this Element. 14 15 Policy 1.1.1: 16 The Policies under the above Objective shall identify the Future Land Use Designations, Districts, 17 and Subdistricts for the Golden Gate City Area. 18 19 Policy 1.1.2: 20 The Land Use Designation Description Section of this Element shall provide the standards and 21 permitted uses for Golden Gate City Area Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts. 22 23 Policy 1.1.3: 24 The Golden Gate City Area Future Land Use Map and companion Future Land Use Designations, 25 Districts, and Subdistricts shall be binding on all development orders unless otherwise permitted 26 in this Master Plan effective with the adoption of this Master Plan. 27 28 Policy 1.1.4: 29 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and 30 Subdistricts for: 31 A. URBAN ‒ MIXED USE DISTRICT 32 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 33 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict 34 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict 35 B. URBAN ‒ COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 36 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 37 2. Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict 38 3. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 39 4. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 40 41 42 43 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1828 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 5 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 1.1.5: 1 The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and 2 Subdistricts for: 3 A. ESTATES – MIXED USE DISTRICT 4 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 5 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 6 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 7 4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict 8 5. Mission Subdistrict 9 6. Everglades – Randall Subdistrict 10 B. ESTATES – COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 11 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 12 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 13 3. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 14 4. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 15 5. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 16 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 17 7. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 18 19 Policy 1.1.6: 20 The AGRICULTURAL/RURAL Future Land Use Designation shall include the following Future 21 Land Use District: 22 A. RURAL SETTLEMENT AREA DISTRICT 23 24 Policy 1.1.7: 25 Overlays and Special Features shall include: 26 A. Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Overlay 27 28 Policy 1.1.8: 29 Conditional Use requests within Golden Gate Estates shall adhere to the guidelines outlined in 30 the Conditional Uses Subdistrict. 31 32 Policy 1.1.9: 33 To obtain Conditional Use approval, a super majority vote (minimum of 4 votes) by the Board of 34 Zoning Appeals shall be required. 35 36 Policy 1.1.10 1.1.5: 37 No development orders shall be issued inconsistent with the Golden Gate City Sub-Element 38 Master Plan with the exception of those unimproved properties granted a positive determination 39 through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program and identified on the Future Land Use Map Series as 40 properties consistent by Policy and those development orders issued pursuant to conditional uses 41 and rezones approved based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element (adopted January 42 10, 1989, Ordinance 89-05) which was in effect at the time of approval. Any subsequent 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1829 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 6 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. development orders shall also be reviewed for consistency with the Growth Management Plan 1 based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element. 2 3 Policy 1.1.11 1.1.6: 4 The sites containing existing public educational plants and ancillary plants, and the undeveloped 5 sites owned by the Collier County School Board for future public educational plants and ancillary 6 plants, within the GGAMP area, are depicted on the Future Land Use Map Series in the 7 countywide FLUE and on the Public School Facilities Element Map Series, and referenced in 8 FLUE Policy 5.14 and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 1.2.6. All of these sites are 9 subject to the general Interlocal Agreement, adopted on May 15, 2003 by the Collier County 10 School Board and on May 27, 2003 by the Board of County Commissioners, and as subsequently 11 amended and restated, with an effective date of December 2008, and subject to the implementing 12 land development regulations to be adopted. 13 14 OBJECTIVE 1.2: 15 Ensure public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service. 16 17 Policy 1.2.1: 18 Requests for new uses of land shall be subject to level of service standards and concurrency 19 requirements for public facilities as outlined in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth 20 Management Plan. 21 22 OBJECTIVE 1.3: 23 Protect and preserve the valuable natural resources within the Golden Gate City area. 24 25 Policy 1.3.1: 26 The County shall protect and preserve natural resources within the Golden Gate City area in 27 accordance with the Objectives and Policies contained within Goals 6 and 7 of the Collier County 28 Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). 29 30 Policy 1.3.2: 31 As provided for in CCME Policy 6.1.1, the subdivision of tracts up to 13 acres in size and 32 designated Residential Estates Subdistrict shall not trigger preserve requirements. 33 34 Policy 1.3.3 1. 1.3.2: 35 Collier County shall coordinate its planning and permitting activities within the Golden Gate City 36 Area with all other applicable environmental planning, permitting and regulatory agencies to 37 ensure that all Federal, State and local natural resource protection regulations are being enforced. 38 39 OBJECTIVE 1.4: 40 Provide a living environment within the Golden Gate City Area, which is aesthetically acceptable 41 and protects the quality of life. 42 43 Policy 1.4.1: 44 Collier County shall provide a living environment that is aesthetically acceptable and protects the 45 quality of life through the enforcement of applicable codes and laws. 46 47 48 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1830 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 7 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 1.4.2: 1 The County's Code Enforcement Board shall strictly enforce the Land Development Code and 2 other applicable codes and laws to control the illegal storage of machinery, vehicles and junk, and 3 the illegal operation of commercial activities within the Golden Gate City Area. 4 5 GOAL 2: GOLDEN GATE CITY 6 TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND USES 7 WITHIN GOLDEN GATE CITY THAT CREATES A SAFE, DIVERSE AND VIBRANT 8 WALKABLE COMMUNTY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED VISION OF GOLDEN GATE 9 CITY. 10 11 OBJECTIVE 2.1: 12 Provide for residential and commercial land uses that meet the needs of Golden Gate City and 13 the surrounding area. 14 15 Policy 2.1.1: 16 Development and redevelopment within Golden Gate City shall be guided by the residential and 17 commercial needs consistent with the stated vision of Golden Gate City. 18 19 Policy 2.1.2: 20 The County shall protect established stable neighborhoods and provide opportunity for 21 redevelopment and renewal through development standards and practices that promote 22 compatibility. 23 24 Policy 2.1.3 25 Within two years, Collier County shall create development standards to guide the transformation 26 of Golden Gate Parkway and the Activity Center into destinations that are convenient, pleasant 27 and safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and maintain strong connections to transit service. 28 29 Policy 2.1.4 30 The Activity Center shall allow uses intended to strengthen the economic health of Golden Gate 31 City. 32 33 Policy 2.1.5 34 Collier County shall discourage new land uses along Golden Gate Parkway and within the Activity 35 Center that impede pedestrian activity and are solely auto-oriented, such as car washes, storage 36 facilities, auto dealerships and drive throughs. Land development regulations will be established 37 within two years to ensure compatibility of auto-oriented uses within the pedestrian environment. 38 39 Policy 2.1.6 40 Residential land use designations shall support the diversity of housing types within Golden Gate 41 City. 42 43 Policy 2.1.7: 44 Collier County shall respond to community-initiated planning programs as they may occur. 45 Community planning programs may take into consideration the following issues: 46 A. Affordable housing based upon home ownership; 47 B. Commercial re-vitalization, to include: 48 i. Sidewalks 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1831 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 8 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. ii. Traffic calming measures 1 iii. Improved street lighting; 2 C. Neighborhood parks, open space and recreational centers; 3 D. Crime reduction; 4 E. Consistent enforcement of land development regulations; and, 5 F. Improved lighting for streets and parking areas. 6 7 8 OBJECTIVE 2.2: 9 Strengthen the quality of life in Golden Gate City and the surrounding area, and promote a healthy 10 economy through support of redevelopment and renewal in Golden Gate City with focus along 11 Golden Gate Parkway and within the designated Activity Center. 12 13 Policy 2.2.1 14 Collier County shall consider the use of redevelopment tools such as tax increment financing. 15 16 Policy 2.2.2 17 Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate a community renewal plan to include 18 economic development strategies, urban design schemes, and infrastructure improvements. 19 Renewal plans shall be in concert with the vision of Golden Gate City and promote vibrant 20 urbanism, improve aesthetics and support walkability. 21 22 Policy 2.2.3 23 Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate the involvement of Golden Gate City 24 residents and business owners to consider amendments to the Land Development Code to 25 support and implement residential and commercial redevelopment and renewal initiatives. 26 Amendments shall include incentives for remodeling and renovation by creating criteria and 27 standards for variances and/or deviations. 28 29 Policy 2.2.4 30 In collaboration with the Golden Gate City residents and business owners, and other community 31 partners such as the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, Collier County shall initiate a 32 branding and marketing plan for Golden Gate City within two years of adoption. The proposed 33 plan shall be in concert with the overall vision for Golden Gate City. 34 35 Policy 2.2.5 36 Collier County will work to ensure pertinent economic incentive programs are made available to 37 those seeking business creation and redevelopment opportunities. 38 39 OBJECTIVE 2.3 40 Ensure Golden Gate City public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service, planned 41 and implemented in concert with the vision of Golden Gate City. 42 43 Policy 2.3.1 44 Due to the continued use of individual septic systems and private wells within a densely platted 45 urban area, Collier County Public Utilities will expand sewer and water service in accordance with 46 the Implementation Report attached as Appendix A to Resolution No. 2017-222. Expansion plans 47 shall consider the renewal areas of Golden Gate Parkway and the area surrounding the Activity 48 Center a priority for expansion and shall coordinate its projects with scheduled road and/or 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1832 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 9 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. stormwater improvements to maximize efficiency and minimize disruption to businesses and 1 residents. 2 3 Policy 2.3.2 4 Collier County will support all transportation needs within Golden Gate City with an emphasis on 5 walkability. Walkability will be improved through the implementation of the recommendations of 6 the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Walkability Study. 7 8 Policy 2.3.3 9 Redevelopment within the Activity Center shall maintain multiple access points to the surrounding 10 neighborhoods and through the Activity Center while providing safe and direct access to transit 11 stops within or adjacent to the Activity Center. 12 13 Policy 2.3.4 14 Alleys in Golden Gate City may only be vacated if such vacation does not prevent reasonable 15 connection and continuity for future pedestrian, non-motorized and transit trips. Within one year 16 of adoption, Resolution 2013-166 shall be amended to implement this policy. 17 18 Policy 2.3.5 19 To ensure a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment, Collier County shall periodically conduct 20 speed studies in Golden Gate City. When appropriate, traffic calming measures and speed limit 21 reductions may be implemented. 22 23 GOAL 3: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 24 TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE AREA WHICH LIES SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 75 (ALLIGATOR 25 ALLEY) TO US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) IS AN AREA OF SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 26 SENSITIVITY AND IS BIOLOGICALLY AND HYDROLOGICALLY IMPORTANT THROUGH 27 PARTICIPATION IN THE PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT AS PART OF THE 28 FEDERAL SAVE OUR EVERGLADES PROGRAM. BASED UPON SUCH CONDITIONS, THE 29 STATE HAS ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP OF ALL LANDS WITHIN THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN 30 GATE ESTATES (SGGE) PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT AREA. 31 32 GOAL 4: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 33 TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR 34 PURPOSES OF SERVING THE RURAL NEEDS OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES RESIDENTS, 35 SHORTENING VEHICULAR TRIPS, AND PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER. 36 37 OBJECTIVE 4.1: 38 Meet the locational and rural design criteria contained within the Estates Designation, Estates-39 Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict and Conditional Use Subdistrict of this 40 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan when 41 considering the placement and designation of Neighborhood Centers and Conditional Uses within 42 Golden Gate Estates. 43 44 45 46 Policy 4.1.1: 47 Neighborhood Centers within Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to the locational and rural 48 design criteria established within the Estates Designation, Estates – Mixed Use District, 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1833 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 10 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of this Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, of the Collier 1 County Growth Management Plan. 2 3 Policy 4.1.2: 4 Conditional Uses within Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to locational and dimensional 5 criteria established within the Conditional Use Subdistrict in the Land Use Designation Description 6 section of this Golden Gate Area Master Plan. 7 8 OBJECTIVE 4.2: 9 Provide for new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers and other Commercial 10 Land Use Designations. 11 12 Policy 4.2.1: 13 Within one year of the completion of the Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor study, the County 14 Manager or designee shall initiate an evaluation of the future land uses along Immokalee Rd. in 15 the vicinity of Randall Blvd., Oil Well Rd. and Wilson Blvd. (as generally shown on the 16 ImmokaleeRd./Randall Blvd. Planning Study Area Map) and make recommendations to the Board 17 of County Commissioners for any proposed changes to the future land uses. 18 19 GOAL 5: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 20 TO PRESERVE THE AREA’S RURAL CHARACTER, AS DEFINED BY LARGE WOODED 21 LOTS, THE KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK, THE ABILITY TO GROW CROPS, WILDLIFE 22 ACTIVITY, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 23 DEVELOPMENT, AND LIMITATIONS ON COMMERCIAL AND CONDITIONAL USES. 24 25 OBJECTIVE 5.1: 26 Balance the provision of public infrastructure with the need to preserve the rural character of 27 Golden Gate Estates. 28 29 Policy 5.1.1: 30 Future road and bridge improvements in Golden Gate Estates shall not only provide for safety 31 and reasonable mobility, but shall also contribute to the rural character of the area. Transportation 32 improvements shall be designed in context with their setting. 33 34 Policy 5.1.2 35 The County shall initiate architectural standard requirements in the Land Development Code 36 within two years of adoption that apply to commercial, conditional use and essential services 37 facilities, reflecting the rural character of the Estates area and providing coherence and area 38 identity. 39 40 Policy 5.1.3: 41 The County Manager or designee shall create a public network of greenway corridors within 42 Golden Gate Estates that interconnects public lands and permanently protected green space. 43 The greenway network shall consist of interconnected trails and paths that allow people to move 44 about the Estates area by means other than motorized vehicles. All greenways shall be 45 constructed within existing or future public easements or rights-of-way. In creating the greenway 46 network, the County shall not employ eminent domain proceedings. 47 48 Policy 5.1.4: 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1834 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 11 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-75 interchange at Golden 1 Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict 2 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zo ning for properties 3 abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new 4 commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate 5 Parkway within the above-defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of 6 the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of 7 the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 8 9 OBJECTIVE 5.2: 10 Provide for the protection of the rural character of Golden Gate Estates. 11 12 Policy 5.2.1: 13 Rural character protection provisions shall provide for the preservation of such rural amenities as, 14 but not limited to, wooded lots, the keeping of livestock, the ability to grow crops, wildlife a ctivity, 15 and low-density residential development. 16 17 Policy 5.2.2: 18 The growing of food crops and/or the keeping of livestock on properties within Golden Gate 19 Estates shall be permitted, provided that such activities are conducted according to the Land 20 Development Code. 21 22 Policy 5.2.3: 23 Rural character shall be further protected by resisting site-specific Master Plan changes that are 24 out of scale or character with the rural quality of Golden Gate Estates. 25 26 Policy 5.2.4: 27 Recognizing the low density in Golden Gate Estates, the County will initiate a review of written 28 notification requirements in the Land Development Code and the Administrative Code related to 29 land use petitions in Golden Gate Estates, within 1 year of adoption, and consider increasing the 30 specified distance, with particular attention to properties located on dead-end streets. 31 32 Policy 5.2.5: 33 Consistent with public safety requirements and best practices for rural areas, outdoor lighting 34 within Golden Gate Estates shall be placed, constructed and maintained in such manner as to 35 prevent or reduce light pollution. In implementing this Policy, the County shall: 36 a. Adhere to the “Collier County Lighting Standards” (County Manager’s Office Standards dated 37 January 6, 2017) as amended, with respect to new and existing County owned or maintained 38 sites and structures. 39 b. Continue to coordinate with FPL and FDOT to improve roadway and security lighting 40 consistent with International Dark Skies Association best practices. 41 c. Consider changes to the Land Development Code and other applicable ordinances to 42 create voluntary or mandatory outdoor lighting standards for commercial, residential or 43 other uses consistent with International Dark Skies Association best practices, and 44 determine the extent such standards apply to new or existing development. 45 46 OBJECTIVE 5.3: 47 Encourage the preservation of natural resources in Golden Gate Estates, including protection and 48 enhancement of its watershed. 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1835 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 12 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 1 Policy 5.3.1: 2 The Land Development Code shall continue to allow and further encourage the preservation of 3 native vegetation and wildlife indigenous to the Estates Area. 4 5 Policy 5.3.2: 6 The County shall continue to pursue the Watershed Management Plan initiatives in Golden Gate 7 Estates as financial and staff resources become available. 8 9 Policy 5.3.3: 10 The County shall encourage the combination of parcels smaller than 2.25 acres with other parcels 11 in order to preserve and enhance low-density environmental advantages. Within two years of 12 adoption of this policy, County staff will present recommendations for property owner incentives 13 to the Board of County Commissioners. 14 15 Policy 5.3.4: 16 The County will evaluate the use of transferable development rights for the purpose of securing 17 the preservation of wetland or other environmentally significant land within Golden Gate Estates, 18 in a timeframe directed by the Board. 19 20 Policy 5.3.5: 21 Within two years of adoption, the County, in coordination with the Floodplain Management 22 Committee, will initiate a study on the feasibility of dispersed water management (DWM) for single 23 family Estates lots, and determine the extent to which it will rely on voluntary, incentive or 24 mandatory provisions and whether provisions will apply to developed and undeveloped Estates 25 parcels. 26 27 Policy 5.3.6: 28 The County will continue to identify and implement educational opportunities related to water 29 resources for parcel owners, homeowners, builders, real estate professionals and the public to 30 aid in understanding and addressing site-specific financial and environmental impacts as well as 31 area-wide impacts to water resources. 32 33 Policy 5.3.7: 34 The County will periodically coordinate with the South Florida Water Management District to 35 review the Level of Service Standards for primary water management canals within the County 36 and their effect on Golden Gate Estates. 37 38 Policy 5.3.8: 39 The County shall continue to pursue a best management practices approach to making septage 40 treatment available to residents and businesses within Golden Gate Estates, as a component of 41 bio-solid processing, either directly, through a private entity, or through a public-private 42 partnership. 43 44 GOAL 6: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 45 TO PROVIDE FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT COUNTY AND LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK, 46 WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SEEKING TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF 47 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES IN FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE 48 GOLDEN GATE AREA. 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1836 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 13 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 1 OBJECTIVE 6.1: 2 Increase the number of route alternatives for traffic moving through the Golden Gate Area in both 3 east-west and north-south directions, consistent with neighborhood traff ic safety considerations, 4 and consistent with the preservation of the area’s rural character. 5 6 Policy 6.1.1: 7 In planning to increase the number of route alternatives through the Estates Area, Collier County 8 will prioritize the following routes over other alternatives: 9 a. The extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from its current terminus to DeSoto Boulevard. 10 b. The development of a north-south connection from the eastern terminus of White 11 Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. 12 c. The development of a new east-west roadway crossing the Estates Area south of Golden 13 Gate Boulevard. 14 15 Policy 6.1.2: 16 The County shall coordinate with FDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organization to submit a 17 revised interchange justification report for an interchange at I-75 in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd. 18 (Section 31-34, Township 49, Range 28). 19 20 Policy 6.1.3: 21 Everglades Blvd., between Golden Gate Blvd and I-75, shall not be expanded beyond 4 lanes. 22 23 OBJECTIVE 6.2: 24 Increase linkages within the local road system for the purposes of limiting t raffic on arterials and 25 major collectors within Golden Gate Estates, shortening vehicular trips, and increasing overall 26 road system capacity. 27 28 Policy 6.2.1: 29 The County shall continue to explore alternative financing methods to facilitate both east - west 30 and north-south bridging of canals within Golden Gate Estates. 31 32 Policy 6.2.2: 33 The County shall update the 2008 Bridge Study to prioritize bridge construction based on 34 emergency response times, evacuation times, cost components, anticipated development 35 patterns and other considerations and shall report its recommendations to the Board of County 36 Commissioners within two years of adoption of this policy. 37 38 39 40 Policy 6.2.3: 41 Planning and right-of-way acquisition for bridges within the Estates Area local road system shall 42 include consideration of the costs and benefits of including sidewalks and bike lanes. 43 44 Policy 6.2.4: 45 Sidewalks and bike lanes shall provide access to government facilities, schools, commercial 46 areas and the planned Metropolitan Planning Organization greenway network. 47 48 Policy 6.2.5: 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1837 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 14 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Planning, funding and implementation of potential greenway trails shall be coordinated between 1 the County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. 2 3 OBJECTIVE 6.3: 4 Explore alternative financing methods to accelerate paving of lime rock roads. 5 6 Policy 6.3.1: 7 The County will consider the acceleration of the paving of lime rock roads, including a cost/benefit 8 analysis, in its annual budget review. 9 10 GOAL 7: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 11 TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE GREATER 12 GOLDEN GATE AREA, AS WELL AS THE HEALTH OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, 13 THROUGH THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT PREPARE FOR, MITIGATE, 14 AND RESPOND TO, NATURAL AND MANMADE DISASTERS. 15 16 OBJECTIVE 7.1: 17 Coordinate with local emergency services officials in engineering and constructing road 18 improvements within Golden Gate Estates to ensure that the access needs of fire department, 19 police and emergency management personnel and vehicles are met. 20 21 Policy 7.1.1: 22 Collier County shall hold at least one annual public meeting with Golden Gate Area emergency 23 services providers and the local civic association in order to ensure that emergency needs are 24 addressed during the acquisition of right-of-way for design and construction of road 25 improvements. 26 27 Policy 7.1.2: 28 Collier County shall continue to coordinate with Golden Gate Area emergency services providers 29 to prioritize necessary road improvements related to emergency evacuation needs. 30 31 OBJECTIVE 7.2: 32 Ensure that the needs of all applicable emergency services providers are included and 33 coordinated in the overall public project design for capital improvement projects within the Golden 34 Gate Area. 35 36 Policy 7.2.1: 37 Preparation of Collier County’s annual Schedule of Capital Improvements for projects within the 38 Golden Gate Area shall be coordinated with the independent Fire Districts that serve Golden Gate 39 Estates (Fire Districts), public and private utilities, Emergency Medical Services Department and 40 the Collier County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that public project designs are consistent with 41 the needs of these agencies. 42 43 Policy 7.2.2: 44 Fire Districts, Collier County Emergency Medical Services Department and the Collier County 45 Sheriff’s Department will receive copies of pre-construction plans for capital improvement projects 46 in the Golden Gate Area and will be invited to review and comment on plans for the public projects. 47 48 OBJECTIVE 7.3: 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1838 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 15 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Maintain and implement public information programs through the Collier County Bureau of 1 Emergency Services, Collier County Sheriff’s Department, Fire Districts, and other appropriate 2 agencies, to inform residents and visitors of the Greater Golden Gate Area regarding the means 3 to prevent, prepare for, and cope with, man-made and natural disasters. 4 5 Policy 7.3.1: 6 The Fire Districts that serve the Golden Gate area, and other appropriate agencies, shall embark 7 on an education program to assist residents in knowing and understanding the value and need 8 for prescribed burning on public lands in high risk fire areas. 9 10 Policy 7.3.2: 11 The Fire Districts and Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall actively promote the 12 Firewise Communities Program through public education in Golden Gate Estates. 13 14 Policy 7.3.3 15 Fire Districts and the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall hold one or more annual 16 “open house” presentations in the Golden Gate Area emphasizing issues related to wildfires, 17 flooding, emergency access and general emergency management. 18 19 OBJECTIVE 7.4: 20 Pursue appropriate planning and mitigation measures to address the threat of wildfires in Golden 21 Gate Estates. 22 23 Policy 7.4.1: 24 Collier County shall evaluate the Land Development Code for Golden Gate Estates requirements 25 that are found to be inconsistent with acceptable fire prevention standards. This evaluation 26 process shall be coordinated with the Fire Districts and the Collier County Bureau of Emergency 27 Services. 28 29 Policy 7.4.2: 30 Within one year of adoption, the County shall begin to evaluate the need to purchase or dedicate 31 parcels within Golden Gate Estates for the purpose of providing staging areas for wildfire 32 prevention activities for the Florida Forest Service, Fire Districts, Collier County or other agency 33 use and will consider whether potential parcels may be used for other public purposes including 34 ride sharing or park and ride facilities allowed by Conditional Use. 35 36 37 38 Policy 7.4.3: 39 The County shall explore annually, options for funding wildfire prevention measures undertaken 40 by the County, Florida Forest Service and/or Fire Districts, including but not limited to Golden 41 Gate Estates Municipal Services Taxing Units (MSTU) revenue, grant funding and general fund 42 revenue. 43 44 Policy 7.4.4: 45 The County shall review annually and update as necessary, all interlocal agreements and mutual 46 aid agreements to assure coordination of legal, procedural and educational components of wildfire 47 prevention. 48 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1839 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 16 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 7.4.5: 1 County-owned property within Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to an active, on-going 2 management plan to reduce the damage caused by wildfires originating from County-owned 3 properties. 4 5 6 7 8 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 9 10 11 12 13 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1840 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 17 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. B. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION 1 The following section describes the three land use designations shown on the Golden Gate City 2 Area Future Land Use Map. These designations generally indicate the types of land uses for 3 which zoning may be requested. However, these land use designations do not guarantee that a 4 zoning request will be approved. Requests may be denied by the Board of County 5 Commissioners based on criteria in the Land Development Code or in special studies completed 6 for the County. 7 1. URBAN DESIGNATION: 8 URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT AND URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 9 Urban Designated Areas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier 10 County: areas with the greatest residential densities and areas in close proximity, which have or 11 are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban 12 Designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land 13 uses be located within them. 14 The boundaries of the Urban Designated areas have been established based on several factors 15 including: 16 • patterns of existing development, 17 • patterns of approved but unbuilt development, 18 • natural resources, water management, and hurricane risk, 19 • existing and proposed public facilities, 20 • population projections, and 21 • land needed to accommodate growth. 22 The Urban Designation will also accommodate future non-residential uses including essential 23 services as defined by the most recently adopted Collier County Land Development Code. Other 24 permitted non-residential land uses may include: 25 a. parks, open space and recreational use; 26 b. water-dependent and water-related uses; 27 c. child care centers; 28 d. community facilities such as neighborhood churches, cemeteries, schools, and school 29 facilities co-located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community 30 centers, where feasible and mutually acceptable, fire and police stations; 31 e. utility and communication facilities. 32 f. support medical facilities such as physician's offices, medical clinics, treatment, research 33 and rehabilitative centers and pharmacies (as long as the dominant use is medical related) 34 may also be permitted provided they are granted concurrent with or located within ¼ mile 35 of existing or approved hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care 36 treatment for all types of injuries and traumas, such as, Golden Gate Urgent Care. 37 Stipulations to ensure that the construction of such support medical facilities is concurrent 38 with hospitals or such medical centers shall be determined at the time of zoning approval. 39 40 Group Housing shall be permitted within the Urban Mixed-Use District and Urban Commercial 41 Districts subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1841 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 18 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and consistent with locational 1 requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). 2 Group Housing includes the following type facilities: 3 a. Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in 4 residential areas. 5 b. Group Care Facility, 6 c. Care Units, 7 d. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and 8 e. Nursing Homes. 9 A. Urban-Mixed Use District 10 This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and commercial land uses 11 including single-family, multi-family, duplex, and mixed use (Planned Unit Development). 12 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 13 All land within the urban mixed-use designation is zoned and platted. However, any parcel to 14 be rezoned residential is subject to and must be consistent with the Density Rating System. 15 DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: 16 a. BASE DENSITY – Four (4) residential units per gross acre is the eligible density, though 17 not an entitlement. 18 b. DENSITY BONUSES – Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are 19 dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with 20 surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. 21 The following densities per gross acre may be added to the base density. In no case 22 shall the maximum permitted density exceed 16 residential dwelling units per gross acre. 23 i. Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus 24 • 16 dwelling units – If a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that 25 has been found to be “Consistent By Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-26 evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units 27 per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is 28 converted to residential zoning. These dwelling units may be distributed over the 29 entire project. 30 ii. Proximity to Activity Center 31 • 3 dwelling units - Within 1 mile of Activity Center 32 iii. Affordable Housing Bonus 33 To encourage the provision of affordable housing within certain Districts and 34 Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to 12 residential units 35 per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements 36 of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land 37 Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and if the affordable housing 38 units are targeted for families earning no greater than 140% of the median income for 39 Collier County. 40 41 iv. Residential In-fill 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1842 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 19 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. If the project is 10 acres or less in size; located within an area with central public water 1 and sewer service; compatible with surrounding land uses; has no common site 2 development plan with adjoining property; no common ownership with any adjacent 3 parcels; and the parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill 4 residential density. 5 • 3 dwelling units 6 v. Roadway Access 7 Density credits based on future roadways will be awarded if the developer commits to 8 construct a portion of the roadway (as determined by the County) or the road is 9 scheduled for completion during the first five years of the Capital Improvement 10 Schedule. 11 • Add 1 dwelling unit - if direct access to two or more arterial or collector roads as 12 identified in the Transportation Element. 13 c. There are Density Bands located around Activity Centers. The density band around 14 an Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the 15 intersection around which the Activity Center is situated. If 50% or more of a project is 16 within the density band, the additional density applies to the entire project. Density bands 17 shall not apply within the Estates Designation. 18 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict: 19 To encourage higher density residential and promote mixed uses in close proximity to Activity 20 Centers, those residential zoned properties permitting up to 12 dwelling units per acre which 21 were located within and consistent with the Activity Center designation at Golden Gate 22 Parkway and Coronado Parkway established by the 1989 Collier County Growth Management 23 Plan and subsequently removed by the creation of a new Activity Center via the adoption of 24 the Golden Gate Area Master Plan are recognized as being consistent with this Master Plan 25 and are outlined on the High Density Residential Subdistrict Map. 26 27 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict: 28 The primary purpose of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict (see Downtown Center 29 Commercial Subdistrict Map) is to encourage redevelopment along Golden Gate Parkway in 30 order to improve the physical appearance of the area and create a vibrant and viable 31 downtown district within Golden Gate City. Emphasis shall be placed on the creation of a 32 pedestrian-oriented boulevard. 33 The provisions of this Subdistrict are intended to ensure harmonious development of 34 commercial and mixed-use buildings at a pedestrian scale that are compatible with residential 35 development within and outside of the Subdistrict. 36 37 The Subdistrict allows the aggregation of properties in order to promote flexibility in site 38 design. The types of uses permitted within this Subdistrict are low intensity retail, office, 39 personal services, institutional, and residential. Non-residential development is intended to 40 serve the needs of residents within the Subdistrict, surrounding neighborhoods, and 41 passersby. 42 a. All development or redevelopment within the boundaries of the Downtown Center 43 Commercial Subdistrict shall include: 44 i. Provisions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1843 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 20 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. ii. An emphasis on building aesthetics. 1 ii. Emphasis on the orderly circulation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 2 iii. Provision for broad sidewalks. 3 iv. Enhanced streetscaping. 4 v. Project interconnections, where possible and feasible. 5 vi. Quality designs for building façades, including lighting, uniform signage and 6 landscaping. 7 b. Permitted uses within this Subdistrict shall include only the following, except as may 8 be restricted in an implementing zoning overlay district, and except as may be 9 prohibited in Paragraph D, below: 10 i. Those uses permitted by right within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts, as 11 outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC); 12 ii. Residential uses permitted by right in the existing residential zoning districts in 13 this Subdistrict; 14 iii. Those permitted uses that may be allowed in an implementing zoning overlay 15 district. 16 c. Conditional uses allowed by this Subdistrict shall include only: 17 i. Those conditional uses allowed within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts, as 18 outlined in the LDC; 19 ii. Those conditional uses allowed, by the LDC, within existing residential Zoning 20 Districts in this Subdistrict; 21 iii. Those conditional uses that may be allowed in an implementing zoning overlay 22 district; and, 23 d. Prohibited uses in this Subdistrict are as follows: 24 i. Automatic food and drink vending machines located exterior to a building. 25 ii. Any commercial use employing drive-up, drive-in or drive-through delivery of 26 goods or services. 27 iii. Enameling, painting or plating as a primary use. However, these uses are 28 permitted if secondary to an artist’s or craft studio. 29 iv. Single-room occupancy hotels, prisons, detention facilities, halfway houses, soup 30 kitchens or homeless shelters. 31 v. Uses as may be prohibited in an implementing zoning overlay district. 32 33 B. Urban Commercial District 34 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 35 The Activity Center designated on the Future Land Use Map is intended to accommodate 36 commercial zoning within the Urban Designated Area. Activity Centers are intended to be 37 mixed-use (commercial, residential, institutional) in character. The Activity Center concept is 38 designed to concentrate new and existing commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts 39 can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial 40 development, and to create focal points within the community. The size and configuration of 41 the Activity Center is outlined on the Urban Mixed-Use Activity Center – Golden Gate Parkway 42 and Coronado Parkway Map. 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1844 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 21 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. The standard for intensity of commercial uses allowed within each Activity Center is the full 1 array of uses allowed in the C-1 through C-5 Zoning Districts, as identified in the Land 2 Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) excluding the following new 3 commercial uses: 4 5 Hotels and motels that locate within an Activity Center will be allowed to develop at a density 6 consistent with the Land Development Code. Residential density for residential projects 7 located within the boundaries of the Mixed-Use Activity Center shall be allowed to develop at 8 a density of up to 22 residential units per gross acre. This density may be distributed 9 throughout the project, including any portion located outside of the boundary of the Mixed-10 Use Activity Center. 11 12 Certain uses specifically intended to support economic development in Golden Gate City are 13 allowed within the Mixed Use Activity Center as follows. The following uses, as identified with 14 a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual are permissible. 15 a. Advanced manufacturing, including automated apparel (2211-2299, and 2311-2399), 16 light assembly (3679) and 3D printing (3571, 3629); 17 b. Call centers (7338); 18 c. Software development and programming (7371); 19 d. Internet technologies and electronic commerce (7374); 20 e. Data and information processing (7374); 21 f. Professional services that are export based such as laboratory research or testing 22 activities (8734); 23 g. Other uses as may be determined by the Board of County Commissioners consistent 24 with the intent of supporting economic development in Golden Gate City. 25 26 2. Golden Gate Urban Commercial In-fill Subdistrict 27 This Subdistrict is located at the southwest quadrant of C.R. 951 and Golden Gate Parkway. 28 Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in proximity to the Commercial In -fill 29 Subdistrict (see Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates 30 Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map) and the need to ensure adequate development standards 31 to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the following criteria: 32 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to: 33 i. Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and 34 intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and 35 personal needs, and 36 ii. Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in 37 areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar 38 to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land 39 Development Code (Ordinance 91-102), adopted October 30, 1991. 40 b. Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall 41 be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that 42 all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area 43 unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent 44 with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan); 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1845 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 22 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. c. Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements 1 with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate; 2 d. Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with 3 adjoining commercial developments; and 4 e. Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. 5 6 3. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 7 The boundaries of the Subdistrict are hereby expanded to include the former Commercial 8 Subdistrict and also to extend approximately one (1) block to the east of the former boundary 9 (see Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Map). The intent of the Santa Barbara 10 Commercial Subdistrict is to provide Golden Gate City with an area that is primarily 11 commercial, with an allowance for certain conditional uses. The types of uses permitted within 12 this Subdistrict are low intensity retail, offices, personal services, and institutional uses, such 13 as neighborhood churches and day care centers. Such development is intended to serve the 14 needs of residents within the Subdistrict and surrounding neighborhoods and persons 15 traveling nearby. 16 Commercial and institutional uses permitted within this Subdistrict are those that: 17 a. Generate/attract relatively low traffic volumes; 18 b. Are appropriately landscaped and buffered to protect nearby residential properties; 19 and 20 c. Are architecturally designed to be compatible with nearby residential areas. 21 22 4. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 23 The primary purpose of the Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (see Collier Boulevard 24 Commercial Subdistrict Map) is to encourage redevelopment along Collier Boulevard in order 25 to improve the physical appearance of the area. This Subdistrict is intended to allow a mix of 26 uses, including heavy commercial within those areas presently zoned C-5. 27 This Subdistrict includes properties zoned RMF-12, C-4, and C-5. This Subdistrict will allow 28 commercial development on lands presently zoned residential. 29 Buildings shall be limited to three stories, not to exceed 50 feet, inclusive of under building 30 parking. 31 Within one year of the effective date of this Subdistrict, the Land Development Code shall be 32 amended to establish a zoning overlay containing regulations to implement this Subdistrict. 33 34 a. All development and redevelopment within this Subdistrict shall include: 35 1. Provisions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 36 2. An emphasis on building aesthetics. 37 3. Emphasis on the orderly circulation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 38 4. Provision for adequate ingress and egress, which may include local street vacation 39 or relocation if alternative access is provided. 40 5. Provision for broad sidewalks or pathways. 41 6. Enhanced streetscaping. 42 7. Shared parking and/or property interconnections, where possible and feasible. 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1846 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 23 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 8. Quality designs for building facades, including lighting, uniform signage and 1 landscaping. 2 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION 3 This designation is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited 4 opportunities for other land uses. Typical lots are 2.25 acres in size. However, there are some 5 legal non-conforming lots as small as 1.14 acres. Residential density is limited to a maximum of 6 one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of 7 guesthouses. Multiple family dwelling units, duplexes, and other structures containing two or 8 more principal dwellings, are prohibited in all Districts and Subdistricts in this Designation. 9 Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses, including: 10 a. Conditional uses and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code, except 11 as prohibited in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. Also, refer to the Conditional Uses 12 Subdistrict. 13 b. Parks, open space and recreational uses. 14 c. Group Housing shall be permitted subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in 15 the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and 16 consistent with locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). 17 d. Schools and school facilities in the Estates Designation north of I-75, and where feasible 18 and mutually acceptable, co-locate schools with other public facilities, such as parks, 19 libraries and community centers to the extent possible. 20 Group Housing includes the following type facilities: 21 aa. Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in 22 residential areas. 23 bb. Group Care Facility, 24 cc. Care Units, 25 dd. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and 26 ee. Nursing Homes. 27 All of the above uses shall be consistent with all of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 28 Golden Gate Area Master Plan. 29 30 A. Estates ‒ Mixed-Use District 31 32 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 33 Single-family residential development is allowed within this Subdistrict at a maximum density 34 of one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive 35 of guesthouses. 36 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 37 Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, 38 Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. 39 The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be 40 granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. 41 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1847 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 24 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. a. The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural 1 design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood 2 Centers. 3 b. Locations 4 Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within 5 Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates. (See Golden Gate 6 Estates Neighborhood Centers Map). The centers are designed to concentrate all 7 new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning 8 District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid 9 strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. 10 Four Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: 11 i. Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. 12 This center consists of three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden 13 Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist 14 of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 15 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate 16 Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant 17 shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 18 Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE 19 quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres 20 of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and 21 right-of-way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The SW 22 quadrant of the Center is approximately 11.78 acres in size and consists of Tract 23 124, 125, and the north 150 feet of Tract 126, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. 24 ii. Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road Center. 25 The center at Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road is located on both sides of 26 the intersection. Tracts 109-114, Unit 26, Golden Gate Estates are included in 27 this center as eligible for commercial development. (See Collier Boulevard/Pine 28 Ridge Road Center Map). The E1/2 of Tract 107, Unit 26 is also included within 29 this center but is only to be used for buffer, water management and open space. 30 iii. Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. 31 This Center consists of all four quadrants at the intersection of Everglades and 32 Golden Gate Boulevards (See Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard 33 Center Map). The NE quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size 34 and consists of Tract 1, Unit 77 of Golden Gate Estates. The SE quadrant of the 35 Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 97, Unit 81 of 36 Golden Gate Estates. The NW quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 37 acres in size and consists of Tract 128, Unit 76 of Golden Gate Estates. The SW 38 quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 39 96, Unit 81 of Golden Gate Estates. 40 41 iv. The Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard Center 42 This Center is located in the southwest and the southeast quadrants of the 43 intersection. This Center consists of three Tracts: Tract 128, Unit 47, is 5.15 + 44 acres and is located within the southwest quadrant of the Center, south of the 45 fire station; and, Tracts 113 and 16, Unit 46, are 4.05 +acres and 5.15 + acres 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1848 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 25 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. respectively, and are within the southeast quadrant of the Center, east of the 1 fire station. 2 c. Criteria for land uses at the centers are as follows: 3 i. Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial so as to provide 4 for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of 5 automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning 6 districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 7 04-41, as amended), except as prohibited below. 8 ii. The Neighborhood Center located at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and 9 Collier Boulevard may be developed at 100% commercial and must provide 10 internal circulation. Any rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. 11 This Neighborhood Center may also be utilized for single-family residential or 12 conditional uses allowed in the Estates zoning district such as churches, social 13 or fraternal organizations, childcare centers, schools, and group care facilities. 14 iii. Parcels immediately adjacent to commercial zoning within the Neighborhood 15 Centers located at the intersections Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 16 Boulevard (excluding the SW quadrant), Golden Gate Boulevard and 17 Everglades Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road may qualify 18 for Conditional Use under the transitional conditional use provision of the 19 Conditional Uses Subdistrict of this Master Plan Element. 20 iv. A single project shall utilize no more than 50% of the total allowed commercial 21 acreage. This percentage may be increased at the discretion of the Board of 22 County Commissioners. 23 v. The project shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with 24 adjoining developments. 25 vi. Access points shall be limited to one per 180 feet commencing from the right-26 of -way of the major intersecting streets of the Neighborhood Center. A 27 maximum of three curb cuts per quadrant shall be allowed. 28 vii. Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments, 29 whenever possible. 30 viii. Driveways accessing parcels on opposite sides of the roadway shall be in direct 31 alignment, except when the roadway median between the two parcels has no 32 opening. 33 ix. Projects shall provide a 25-foot wide landscape buffer abutting the external 34 right-of-way. This buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be 35 spaced no more than 30 feet on center, and a double row hedge at least 24 36 inches in height at time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height 37 within one year. A minimum of 50% of the 25-foot wide buffer area shall be 38 comprised of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. 39 Existing native trees must be retained within this 25-foot wide buffer area to aid 40 in achieving this buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be 41 retained, where possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement. Water 42 retention/detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1849 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 26 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. state, and drainage conveyance through the buffer area shall be allowed if 1 necessary to reach an external outfall. 2 3 a. For Tract 114, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 26, access shall be 4 restricted to 11th Avenue S.W. Also, vehicular interconnection shall 5 be provided to the adjacent property(s) in the Pine Ridge 6 Road/Collier Boulevard Neighborhood Center. 7 b. All buildings shall have tile roofs, ‘Old Style Florida’ metal roofs, or 8 decorative parapet walls above the roofline. The buildings shall be 9 finished in light, subdued colors, except for decorative trim. 10 x. Building heights shall be limited to one (1) story, with a maximum height of 11 thirty-five (35) feet. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 12 xi. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally–designed, and shall be limited 13 to a height of twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded 14 from neighboring residential land uses and consistent with Policy 5.2.4. 15 xii. Commercial uses shall encourage pedestrian traffic through placement of 16 sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking 17 areas. Adjacent projects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a 18 continuous pathway through the Neighborhood Center is created. 19 xiii. All buildings and projects within any single specific quadrant of the 20 Subdistrict shall utilize a common architectural theme. This theme shall be 21 applicable to both building design and signage. 22 xiv. No building footprint shall exceed 5,000 square feet, unless the project is 23 submitted in the form of a PUD. Walkways or courtyards shall connect 24 adjacent buildings. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 25 xv. Drive-through establishments shall be limited to banks, with no more than 26 3 lanes; the drive-through areas shall be architecturally integrated with the 27 rest of the building. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 28 xvi. Fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required 29 landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses. If 30 constructed, such fences or walls shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. 31 Walls shall be constructed of brick or stone. Fences shall be of wood or 32 concrete post or rail types, and shall be of open design (not covered by 33 slats, boards or wire). 34 xvii. Projects directly abutting residential property (property zoned E-Estates 35 and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, a 36 seventy-five (75) feet wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. 37 Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area 38 shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width 39 shall consist of retained native vegetation and must be consistent with 40 subsection 3.05.07H. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 41 The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and 42 be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm 43 shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07H. of the LDC (native 44 vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1850 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 27 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water 1 management purposes shall meet the following criteria: 2 a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being 3 retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase 4 the annual hydro-period unless it is proven that such would have no 5 adverse impact to the existing vegetation. 6 b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water 7 Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official 8 document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within 9 the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water 10 management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such 11 a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for 12 water management. 13 c. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall 14 provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to 15 facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. 16 xix. Projects within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict that are submitted 17 as PUDs shall provide a functional public open-space component. Such 18 public open-space shall be developed as green space within a 19 pedestrian-accessible courtyard, as per Section 4.06.03B. of the 20 Collier County Land Development Code, as in effect at the time of P.U.D. 21 approval. 22 xx. The following principal permitted uses are prohibited within 23 Neighborhood Centers: 24 a. Drinking Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921) 25 b. Mail Order Houses (5961) 26 c. Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962) 27 d. Power Laundries (7211) 28 e. Crematories (7261) (Does not include non-crematory Funeral 29 Parlors) 30 f. Radio, TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising 31 Services (7331) 32 g. NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999) 33 h. General Hospitals (8062), Psychiatric Hospitals (8063), and Specialty 34 Hospitals (8069) 35 i. Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211), Colleges (8221), Junior 36 Colleges (8222) 37 j. Libraries (8231) 38 k. Correctional Institutions (9223) 39 l. Waste Management (9511) 40 m. Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens. 41 xxi. The following additional restrictions and standards apply to Tract 124 and 42 the north 150 feet of Tract 126, within the southwest quadrant of the 43 Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center: 44 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to the following: 45 1. medical offices and clinics and professional offices, except 46 surveyors; and, 47 2. medical related uses, such as a wellness center. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1851 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 28 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. b. The ordinance rezoning this property to allow commercial uses shall 1 include the following requirements: 2 1. no less than sixty percent (60%) of the gross square footage 3 shall be designated for medical offices and clinics; and, 4 2. parking for the entire project shall be that required for medical 5 office or clinic use by the Land Development Code (Ordinance 6 No. 04-41, as amended), so as to allow 100 percent medical 7 office use. 8 c. Parking lot lighting shall be restricted to bollards except as may be 9 required to comply with lighting standards in the Land Development 10 Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and other governing 11 regulations. 12 d. The Neighborhood Center boundaries of this quadrant shall not be 13 further expanded. 14 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 15 Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning district within the Golden 16 Gate Estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional uses, one 17 of the following four sets of criteria shall be met: 18 a. Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: 19 Those Essential Services Conditional Uses, as identified within Section 2.01.03 G. of 20 the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the 21 Estates Zoning District, except as prohibited in certain Neighborhood Centers, and are 22 described as: 23 1. electric or gas generating plants, 24 2. effluent tanks, 25 3. major re-pump stations, 26 4. sewage treatment plants, including percolation ponds, 27 5. hospitals and hospices, 28 6. water aeration or treatment plants, 29 7. governmental facilities (except for those Permitted Uses identified in Section 30 2.01.03 of the Land Development Code), 31 8. public water supply acquisition, withdrawal, or extraction facilities, and 32 9. public safety service facilities, and other similar facilities. 33 b. Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: 34 1. Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-35 75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, there shall be no further conditional 36 uses for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road 37 and Santa Barbara Boulevard, except: as permitted within the Golden Gate 38 Parkway Institutional Subdistrict and the Golden Gate Estates Commercial 39 Infill Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraphs 3. and 5. below; for the 40 properties identified as Unit 30 Tracts 113-115 and the N 150’ of tract 116 that 41 have existing Conditional Uses; and, for essential services, as described in 42 paragraph a., above. 43 2. Further, no properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway, 44 between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, shall be approved 45 for conditional uses except: as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1852 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 29 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Institutional Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraph 3. below; and, for 1 essential services, as described in paragraph a. above. 2 3. In consideration of the improvements associated with the interchange at 3 Interstate 75 and Golden Gate Parkway, the existing conditional use (church 4 and related facilities) located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Parkway 5 and 66th Street S.W. may be expanded in acreage and intensity along the south 6 side of Golden Gate Parkway to the east of 66th Street S.W., but the total project 7 area shall not exceed approximately 9.22 acres (see Golden Gate Parkway 8 Interchange Conditional Uses Area Map). 9 4. The parcel located immediately south of the Commercial Western Estates Infill 10 Subdistrict, on the west side of Collier Boulevard, and at the southwest 11 quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, 12 shall be eligible for a transitional conditional use designation. 13 5. Conditional use for expansion of the existing educational and charitable social 14 organization (Naples Bridge Center) is allowed on the east 150 feet of Tract 75 15 and the west 150 feet of Tract 82, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. The maximum 16 building area permitted on the two parcels shall be limited to 15,000 square 17 feet. Use of Tract 82 shall be limited to parking, water management and open 18 space uses. See Conditional Uses Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Special 19 Provisions map. 20 6. The property located on Collier Boulevard identified as Golden Gate Estates 21 Unit 1, north 150 feet of TR 114, less right-of-way, shall be eligible for 22 Conditional Use. 23 24 c. Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions: 25 Conditional uses shall be allowed immediately adjacent to designated Neighborhood 26 Centers subject to the following criteria: 27 1. Properties eligible for conditional uses shall abut the arterial or collector road 28 serving the Neighborhood Center, 29 2. Such uses shall be limited to transitional conditional uses that are compatible with 30 both residential and commercial such as churches, social or fraternal 31 organizations, childcare centers, schools, and group care facilities, 32 3. All conditional uses shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with 33 adjoining developments whenever possible, 34 4. Conditional uses abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 35 75-foot buffer of native vegetation in which no parking or water management uses 36 are permitted, 37 5. Conditional uses adjoining the commercial uses within Neighborhood Centers 38 shall, whenever possible, share parking areas, access and curb cuts with the 39 adjoining commercial use, in order to facilitate traffic movement. 40 41 d. Transitional Conditional Uses: 42 Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined 43 as an area located between existing non-residential and residential areas. The 44 purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to 45 existing non-residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential 46 use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non-residential and residential 47 areas. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1853 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 30 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests: 1 1. Site shall be directly adjacent to a non-residential use (zoned or developed) or 2 directly adjacent to an intersection of a 4-lane or greater roadway with a 4-lane or 3 greater roadway, existing or planned, as identified in the Metropolitan Planning 4 Organization’s Long Range Transportation “cost feasible” plan; 5 2. Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more, in size or be at least 150 feet in width a nd shall 6 not exceed 5 acres; 7 3. Site abutting Estates zoned property without an approved conditional use shall 8 provide, at a minimum, a 75-foot buffer of native vegetation in which no parking or 9 water management uses are permitted; 10 4. Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place of worship, school, social or 11 fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home, hospice, rest home, 12 home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home, rehabilitation centers; 13 5. Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses; and 14 6. Site shall not be adjacent to permitted (by right) Essential Service uses, as 15 identified in Section 2.01.03 of the Land Development Code, except may be 16 located adjacent to libraries and museums. 17 7. For a Transitional Conditional Use petition at a major intersection, in an effort to 18 avoid the concentration of the same type of conditional use at a single intersection, 19 the existing land uses at the intersection shall be considered. 20 21 e. Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 22 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County 23 Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use 24 District. Conditional use permits for the purpose of extending the time period for 25 use of the structure as a model home shall be required, and shall be subject to the 26 provisions of Section 5.04.04B. and C. of the Collier County Land Development 27 Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. Such conditional uses shall not be 28 subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be 29 allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 30 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning 31 district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be 32 allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 33 3. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates 34 zoning district, is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97 (See Special 35 Exception to Conditional Use Location Criteria Map). 36 4. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates 37 Zoning District is allowed on the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate 38 Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be 39 limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area (See Special Exception 40 to Conditional Use Location Criteria Map). 41 5. Conditional Use for a cellular tower is be allowed in the Estates Zoning District 42 only on parcels no smaller than 2.25 acres and adjacent to a roadway classified 43 within the Transportation Element as a Collector or Arterial. 44 45 4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict 46 This Subdistrict is specific to Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66 of Golden Gate Estates Unit 30, and 47 includes four parcels of land containing approximately 16.3 acres, located on the north side 48 of Golden Gate Parkway, east of I-75 and west of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The intent of the 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1854 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 31 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict is to provide for the continued operation of 1 existing uses, and the development and redevelopment of institutional and related uses. The 2 Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring residential uses and will utilize 3 well-planned access points to ensure safe and convenient access onto Golden Gate Parkway. 4 5 The following institutional uses are permitted through the conditional use process within the 6 Subdistrict: 7 a. Churches and other places of worship. 8 b. Group care facilities (Categories I and II) 9 c. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities associated with the David Lawrence 10 Center. 11 d. Essential services as set forth in Section 2.01.03 of the Collier County Land 12 Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. 13 e. Private schools associated with the David Lawrence Center or Parkway Community 14 Church of God, for Tracts 43, 50 and 59 only. 15 f. Day care centers associated with the David Lawrence Center or Parkway Community 16 Church of God. 17 g. Medical offices associated with the David Lawrence Center. 18 5. Mission Subdistrict 19 The Mission Subdistrict is located on the south side of Oil Well Road, approximately one -20 quarter mile west of Everglades Boulevard, and consists of 21.72 acres. The purpose of this 21 Subdistrict is to provide for churches and related uses, including community outreach. The 22 following uses are allowed: 23 a. Churches. 24 b. Child care centers – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the 25 Subdistrict. 26 c. Private schools – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the 27 Subdistrict. 28 d. Individual and family social services (activity centers, elderly or handicapped only; day 29 care centers, adult and handicapped only) – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a 30 church within the Subdistrict. 31 e. Medical outreach to the community, to include activities such as administering 32 influenza vaccine, checking blood pressure, and conducting blood donation drives – 33 must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the Subdistrict. 34 f. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are prohibited in this Subdistrict. 35 g. The maximum total floor area allowed in this Subdistrict is 90,000 square feet. The 36 maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet zoned height, except the worship center 37 shall be permitted a zoned height of 35 feet. Development in this Subdistrict shall be 38 designed to be compatible with the existing, and allowed future, development in the 39 surrounding area. 40 41 In the alternate to the foregoing uses, measures of development intensity, and development 42 standards, this Subdistrict may be developed with single family dwellings in accordance with 43 the Residential Estates Subdistrict. 44 45 Property adjacent to this Subdistrict shall not qualify for the Transitional Conditional Use. 46 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1855 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 32 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 6. Everglades – Randall Subdistrict 1 The Everglades – Randall Subdistrict is located on the northeast corner of Everglades 2 Boulevard and Randall Boulevard, consists of 7.8 acres, and comprises Tract 115 and the 3 east 150 feet of Tract 116, Unit 69, Golden Gate Estates. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to 4 provide for churches and other places of worship and their related uses. 5 6 The following use is permitted within the Subdistrict through the conditional use process: 7 a. Churches and other places of worship 8 The following church-related uses are prohibited within the Subdistrict: 9 a. Day care centers 10 b. Private schools 11 c. Soup kitchens 12 d. Homeless shelters 13 The maximum total floor area allowed in this Subdistrict is 20,000 square feet, including no 14 more than 230 seats. The maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet. Architectural features 15 such as steeples may be a maximum height of 60 feet. 16 For access drives, a throat depth of no less than 30 feet, measured from the roadway edge 17 of the pavement, shall be provided. 18 19 B. Estates – Commercial District 20 21 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 22 On the fringes of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan boundaries, there are several parcels 23 that are located within the Interchange Activity Center #10 at I-75 and Pine Ridge Road as 24 detailed in the County-wide Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Parcels within this Activity 25 Center are subject to the County-wide FLUE and not this Master Plan. See Activity Center 26 and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Map for a detailed map of this Activity Center. 27 28 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 29 This Subdistrict is adjacent to the northwest quadrant of Interchange Activity Center #10, west 30 of the Naples Gateway PUD, and comprises 16.23 acres. It consists of Tracts 1, 12, 13 and 31 28 of Golden Gate Estates, Unit 35, as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 85, of the Public Records 32 of Collier County. The intent of the Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict is to allow for a 33 mix of both retail and office uses to provide for shopping and personal services for the 34 surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance and to provide commercial 35 services appropriately located along a collector roadway, Livingston Road. Well-planned 36 access points will be used to improve current and future traffic flows in the area. Within this 37 Subdistrict no more than 35,000 square feet of office-related uses on +3.2 acres are permitted 38 within the eastern portion of this property, which includes a portion of Tract 28 and a portion 39 of Tract 13. A maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable retail or office area, as allowed 40 in the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) of the Collier County Land Development Code 41 in effect as of the effective date of the adoption of this Subdistrict [Ordinance No. 03-01, 42 adopted January 16, 2003], are permitted within the western 10.52 acres of this property. The 43 C-3 uses are not an entitlement. Such uses will be further evaluated at the time of rezoning 44 application to insure appropriateness in relationship to surrounding properties. 45 A rezoning of the western 10.52 acres is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit 46 Development. Regulations for water management, uniform landscaping, signage, screening 47 and buffering will be included in the rezoning ordinance to ensure compatibility with nearby 48 residential areas, and shall be subject to the following additional criteria: 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1856 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 33 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. a. There shall be no access onto Livingston Woods Lane. 1 b. Shared access shall be encouraged. 2 c. Building heights shall not exceed 35 feet. 3 d. There shall be a minimum setback area of 75 feet along the northern property line. 4 e. Driveway access, parking, and water management facilities may be allowed within the 5 75-foot setback area along the northern property line, but none of these uses shall be 6 located closer than 30 feet to this line. 7 f. No freestanding automobile parking lots, homeless shelters or soup kitchens shall be 8 permitted. 9 g. Within the eastern portion of Tract 28, 2.2 acres, more or less, shall be preserved as 10 wetlands and no development shall occur within that area. 11 h. Within the western 10.52 acres, a loop road shall be constructed through the property 12 to provide access from Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road and to reduce traffic at the 13 intersection. 14 See Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Map for a detailed map of 15 this Subdistrict. 16 17 3. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 18 The Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, containing approximately 56.5 acres, is 19 located on the south side of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road (CR-846), extending 20 from 8th Street NE west to the Corkscrew Canal. This Subdistrict is comprised of the following 21 properties: Tracts 54, 55, 71, 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126 and 127, Golden Gate Estates, 22 Unit 23. This Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map 23 and the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. It is the intent of this Subdistrict to 24 provide commercial goods and services to the surrounding area. 25 All development in the Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: 26 a. All development is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. 27 b. Projects directly abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 75-28 foot wide buffer of retained native vegetation in which no parking or water management 29 uses are permitted; except that, when abutting conditional uses no such buffer is 30 required. 31 c. Shared parking shall be required with adjoining development whenever possible. 32 d. Tract 55 shall only be utilized for native preservation and water management areas. 33 e. The eastern boundary of Tract 55 shall contain, at a minimum, a 50-foot wide 34 retained native vegetation buffer. 35 f. The following limitation shall apply to Tract 71 only: 36 1. Limitation of Uses – Uses shall be limited to the following: 37 a. Automobile Service Station; 38 b. Barber & Beauty Shops; 39 c. Convenience Stores; 40 d. Drug Stores; 41 e. Food Markets; 42 f. Hardware Stores; 43 g. Laundries – Self Service Only; 44 h. Parks, Public or Private; 45 i. Post Offices and Professional Offices; 46 j. Repair Shops – Radio, TV, Small Appliances and Shoes; 47 k. Restaurants, including fast food restaurants but not drive in restaurants; 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1857 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 34 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. l. All Permitted Uses of the C-2, Convenience Commercial, zoning district in the 1 Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended 2 as of April 14. 2009; and, 3 m. Veterinary Clinic with no outside kenneling; 4 5 g. The following limitations shall apply to Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126, 127, and 6 Tract 54: 7 1. Development intensity on Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126, 127 and the west 8 one-half of Tract 54 shall be limited to 360,950 square feet of floor area, of which 9 no more than 285,950 square feet shall be retail development. 10 2. Development intensity on the east one-half of Tract 54 shall be limited to 20,000 11 square feet of commercial development. 12 3. The first phase of the project development, exclusive of the existing 20,000 sq. ft. 13 of development on the east one-half of Tract 54, shall include a grocery anchor, 14 with a minimum of 35,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, prior to any 15 certificates of occupancy being issued beyond 100,000 square feet of commercial 16 development. 17 4. Allowable uses shall be limited to the permitted and conditional uses of the C-4, 18 General Commercial District in the Collier County Land Development Code in 19 effect as of the effective date of the adoption of the amendment of this Subdistrict 20 [Ordinance No. 2010 -32, adopted July 28, 2010], except that the following uses, 21 as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 22 shall be prohibited: 23 a. Tire Dealers, Automotive Retail (Group 5531) 24 b. Automotive Parking (Group 7521) 25 c. Communication Services (Group 4899) 26 d. Drinking Places (Group 5813) 27 e. Fishing Piers (Group 7999) 28 f. Glass and Glazing work (Group 1793) 29 g. Health Services (Groups 8059 - 8069) 30 h. Specialty Outpatient Facilities (Group 8093) 31 i. Houseboat Rental, Lakes Operations, Party and Pleasure Boat rental (Group 32 7999) 33 j. Large Appliance repair service (Group 7623) 34 k. Marinas (Group 4493 and 4499) 35 l. Miscellaneous Repair Services (Groups 7622-7641, 7699) 36 m. Liquor Store, unless operated by a Grocery Retailer (Group 5921) 37 n. Used Merchandise Store (Group 5932) 38 o. Automatic Merchandising Machine Operators (Group 5962) 39 p. Direct Selling Establishment (Group 5963) 40 q. Escort Services, Massage Parlors, Tattoo Parlors, Turkish Baths, Wedding 41 Chapels (Group 7299) 42 r. Betting Information Services, Bath Houses, Billiard Parlors, Bookies and 43 Bookmakers, Cable lifts, Carnival Operation, Circus Companies, Fortune 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1858 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 35 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Tellers, Go-cart racing operation, Off-track betting, Ping Pong Parlors, Rodeo 1 Animal Rentals, Rodeos, Shooting Ranges, Trapshooting Facilities (Group 2 7999) 3 s. Parole offices, Probation offices, Public welfare centers, refugee services, 4 settlement houses (Group 8322) 5 t. Tow-in parking lots (Groups 7514, 7515, 7521) 6 u. Animal Specialty Services (Group 0752) 7 5. At time of rezoning, consideration shall be given to imposing appropriate 8 restrictions on the amount of development allowed in this Subdistrict prior to 9 discontinuance and relocation of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station and Florida 10 Division of Forestry fire tower uses. 11 6. All buildings on Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126 and 127 shall be developed 12 with a unified architectural theme. 13 7. Excluding the commercial zoning on Tract 71 and the existing approved 14 commercial zoning on the east one-half of Tract 54, any additional development in 15 the Subdistrict shall be developed in phases. Phase I shall be limited to 100,000 16 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Subsequent phases shall not receive 17 building permits until the Randall Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection project, 18 including the widening of the segment of Randall Boulevard abutting the 19 Subdistrict, as shown on Exhibit “A” of the Developer Contribution Agreement 20 adopted July 28, 2010 by the Board of County Commissioners, has commenced. 21 No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for subsequent development phases 22 until the Randall Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection project is substantially 23 complete. Neither the building permits limitations nor the Certificates of 24 Occupancy limitations shall apply if satisfactory alternative mitigation is approved 25 by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Transportation Element Policy 26 5.1, or if traffic conditions change in such a manner that adequate capacity is 27 available. 28 29 4. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 30 The purpose of the Subdistrict is to allow for limited commercial and/or medical office uses, in 31 recognition of the subject property's unsuitability for single-family residential development. 32 Limited commercial and/or medical uses at this location will also assist in reducing the 33 distance and the number of vehicular trips generated within the general area through trip 34 capture. The standards contained in this Subdistrict are designed to ensure that uses within 35 the Subdistrict will be compatible with nearby residential development. A loop road shall be 36 required through the property to connect Vanderbilt Beach Road with Collier Boulevard will 37 also serve to lessen vehicular trips through the intersection. 38 39 a. Size and Location: 40 The Subdistrict includes a 6.23-acre parcel, located at the southwest corner of 41 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard (see Commercial Western Estates Infill 42 Subdistrict Map). The parcel is identified as Tract 105, Unit 2, Golden Gate Estates. 43 b. Permitted Uses and Development Intensity: 44 Within the subject property, 3.93 acres of office/medical use is permitted with a 45 maximum of forty-one thousand four hundred and ninety (41,490) square feet of gross 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1859 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 36 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. leaseable area permitted or approximately 6,660 square feet per gross acre. The 1 balance of the area, comprising +2.3 acres, shall remain in open space. Uses allowed 2 within this Subdistrict shall be those office uses, medical uses, and financial institutions 3 permitted whether by right or by conditional use, within the C-1 zoning district, as 4 contained in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 91-102, as of the 5 effective date of the adoption of this Subdistrict [Ordinance No. 03-01, adopted 6 January 16, 2003]. 7 c. Development Standards: 8 1. All permitted uses within this Subdistrict shall be encouraged to be submitted 9 in the form of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for the subject property 10 with special attention to be provided for shared access, water management, 11 uniform landscaping, signage, screening and buffering to ensure compatibility 12 with nearby residential areas. 13 2. Building height shall be limited to two stories, with a maximum height of thirty 14 (30) feet, except that portions of the property within one hundred (100) feet of 15 the buffer described in item #3, below, shall be limited to one story with a 16 maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet. 17 3. There shall be a setback of seventy-five (75) feet in width abutting Estates-18 zoned property. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained 19 within this setback area. Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in 20 this setback area provided that the area is left in a natural state, and drainage 21 conveyance through the setback area shall be allowed, as necessary, in order 22 for stormwater to reach an external outfall. 23 4. The buffer area along Collier Boulevard/CR-951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road 24 shall be 25 feet in width and shall conform to the vegetative requirements of a 25 Type "B" buffer as provided for in the Collier County Land Development Code, 26 in effect as of the date of adoption of this amendment [Ordinance No. 03-01, 27 adopted January 16, 2003]. A loop road shall be constructed, internal to the 28 subject property. This road shall be open to the public, in order to connect 29 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, so as to provide an alternative 30 to use of the intersection. 31 5. The maximum gross leaseable floor area of each individual 32 office/medical/financial building footprint shall be 6,000 square feet. However, 33 buildings may be connected by architectural treatments, and shall be designed 34 to appear similar to residential structures through the treatment of rooflines and 35 other architectural embellishments. 36 6. No development of property within the Subdistrict shall commence until the 37 abutting segment of Collier Boulevard is four-laned. 38 39 5. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 40 This Subdistrict consists of two infill areas. The two areas are located at the northwest corner 41 of Collier Boulevard and Green Boulevard and at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara 42 Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in 43 proximity to the Estates Commercial In-fill Subdistrict (see Golden Gate Urban Commercial 44 Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map) and the need to 45 ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall 46 be permitted under the following criteria: 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1860 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 37 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. a. Commercial uses shall be limited to: 1 1. Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and 2 intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and 3 personal needs, and 4 2. Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services 5 in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be 6 similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land 7 Development Code (Ordinance 91-102), adopted October 30, 1991. 8 b. Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall 9 be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that 10 all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area 11 unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent 12 with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). 13 c. Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements 14 with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate. 15 d. Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with 16 adjoining commercial developments. 17 e. Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. 18 f. Any project located within this Subdistrict at the northwest corner of Golden Gate 19 Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, less and except an easement for Santa 20 Barbara Boulevard right-of-way, shall be subject to the following additional 21 development restrictions: 22 1. The site shall be limited to thirty-five thousand (35,000) square feet of building 23 area. 24 2. Land uses shall be restricted to offices only. 25 3. All principal structures shall be required to have a minimum setback of one 26 hundred (100) feet from the project's northern boundary. 27 4. The northern seventy-five (75) feet of the western sixty (60) percent of the site 28 shall be a green area (open space area). It shall be utilized for only water 29 management facilities, landscape buffers, and similar uses. 30 5. The western sixty (60) percent of the site shall have an outdoor pedestrian-31 friendly patio(s), that total at least five hundred (500) square feet in area and 32 incorporate a minimum of: benches or seating areas for at least twelve (12) 33 persons, and vegetative shading, and a waterfall or water feature of at least 34 one hundred (100) square feet in area, and brick pavers. 35 6. A twenty-five (25) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along the entire 36 frontage of both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 37 7. A minimum buffer of thirty-five (35) feet in width shall be provided along the 38 project's western boundary and along the eastern forty (40) percent of the 39 project's northern boundary. A minimum buffer of fifty (50) feet in width shall 40 be provided along the western sixty (60) percent of the project's northern 41 boundary. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained within 42 these buffers along the project's western and northern boundaries. These 43 buffers shall be supplemented with Oak or Mahogany trees planted a maximum 44 of twenty (20) feet apart in a staggered manner; and a seven (7) foot wall, 45 fence, or hedge that will, within two (2) years of planting, grow to a minimum 46 height of seven (7) feet and be a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent opaque. 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1861 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 38 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 8. All buildings shall have tile or metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above 1 the roofline, and buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for 2 decorative trim. 3 9. Building heights shall be limited to one (1)-story and a maximum of thirty-five 4 (35) feet. 5 10. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and limited to a height of 6 twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring 7 residential land uses. 8 11. There shall be no ingress or egress on Santa Barbara Boulevard. 9 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 10 Recognizing the need to provide for centrally located basic goods and services within a portion 11 Northern Golden Gate Estates, the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has been designated 12 on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. 13 The Subdistrict is located at the NW corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard 14 westward to 3rd Street NW and extending northward to include the southern 180 feet of Tracts 15 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate 16 Estates, totaling approximately 41 acres. 17 The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, 18 personal services and employment for the central areas of Northern Golden Gate Estates. 19 Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents, 20 assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier 21 County. 22 23 All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and 24 limitations: 25 a. Allowable Uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification 26 Manual, shall be limited to the following: 27 1. Amusement and recreation 28 Groups 7911 – Dance studios, schools and halls, excluding discotheques 29 7991 – Physical fitness facilities 30 7999 – Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, 31 allowing only day camps, gymnastics instruction, judo/karate 32 instruction, sporting goods rental and yoga instruction 33 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) 34 Groups 5611 – Men’s and boys’ clothing and accessory stores 35 5621 – Women’s clothing stores 36 5632 – Women’s accessory and specialty stores 37 5641 – Children’s and infants’ wear stores 38 5651 – Family clothing stores 39 5661 – Shoe stores 40 5699 – Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 41 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 42 Groups 5531 – Auto and home supply stores 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1862 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 39 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (No outdoor repair/service. All 1 repairs/services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) 2 Groups 7514 – Passenger car rental 3 5. Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers 4 Groups 5231 – Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 5 5251 – Hardware stores 6 5261 – Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores 7 6. Business services 8 Groups 7334 – Photocopying and duplicating services 9 7335 – Commercial photography 10 7336 – Commercial art and graphic design 11 7338 – Secretarial and court reporting services 12 7342 – Disinfecting and pest control services 13 7352 – Medical equipment rental and leasing 14 7359 – Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified, 15 excluding the following uses: airplane rental and leasing; coin 16 operated machine rental and leasing; industrial truck rental and 17 leasing; oil field equipment rental and leasing; oil well drilling 18 equipment rental; leasing; toilets, portable – rental and leasing; 19 and vending machines – rental only 20 7371 – Computer programming services 21 7372 – Prepackaged software 22 7373 – Computer integrated systems design 23 7374 – Computer processing and data preparation and processing 24 services 25 7375 – Information retrieval services 26 7376 – Computer facilities management services 27 7379 – Computer related services, not elsewhere classified 28 7382 – Security systems services 29 7383 – News syndicates 30 7384 – Photofinishing laboratories 31 7389 – Business services, not elsewhere classified 32 7. Communications 33 Groups 4812 – Radiotelephone communications 34 4841 – Cable and other pay television services 35 8. Construction, special trade contractors (office use only, no on-site materials or 36 equipment storage) 37 Groups 1711 – Plumbing, heating and air-conditioning 38 1721 – Painting and paper hanging industry 39 1731 – Electrical work industry 40 1741 – Masonry, stone setting, and other stone work 41 1742 – Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work 42 1743 – Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work industry 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1863 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 40 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 1751 – Carpentry work 1 1752 – Floor laying and other floor work, not elsewhere classified 2 industry 3 1761 – Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work industry 4 1771 – Concrete work industry 5 1781 – Water well drilling industry 6 1791 – Structural steel erection 7 1793 – Glass and glazing work 8 1794 – Excavation work 9 1795 – Wrecking and demolition work 10 1796 – Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere 11 1799 – Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified 12 9. Depository institutions 13 Groups 6021 – National commercial banks 14 6022 – State commercial banks 15 6029 – Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 16 6035 – Savings institutions, federally chartered 17 6036 – Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 18 6061 – Credit unions, federally chartered 19 6062 – Credit unions, not federally chartered 20 6091 – Non-deposit trust facilities 21 6099 – Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere 22 classified 23 10. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812, including only liquor service accessory to 24 the restaurant use, no outdoor music or televisions, and no windows or walls open 25 to the outside, except as required by code) 26 27 11. Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services 28 Groups 8711 – Engineering services 29 8712 – Architectural services 30 8713 – Surveying services 31 8721 – Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services 32 8741 – Management services 33 8742 – Management consulting services 34 8743 – Public relations services 35 8748 – Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified 36 12. Executive, legislative, and general government, except finance 37 Groups 9111 – Executive offices 38 9121 – Legislative bodies 39 9131 – Executive and legislative offices combined 40 9199 – General government, not elsewhere classified 41 13. Food stores 42 Groups 5411 – Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1864 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 41 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 5421 – Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners 1 5431 – Fruit and vegetable markets 2 5441 – Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 3 5451 – Dairy products stores 4 5461 – Retail bakeries 5 5499 – Miscellaneous food stores, including convenience stores with 6 fuel pumps and carwash 7 14. General merchandise stores 8 Groups 5311 – Department stores 9 5331 – Variety stores 10 5399 – Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 11 15. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores 12 Groups 5712 – Furniture stores 13 5713 – Floor covering stores 14 5714 – Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores 15 5719 – Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 16 5722 – Household appliance stores 17 5731 – Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 18 5734 – Computer and computer software stores 19 5735 – Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 20 5736 – Musical instrument store 21 16. Insurance carriers 22 Groups 6311 – Life insurance 23 6321 – Accident and health insurance 24 6324 – Hospital and medical service plans 25 6331 – Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 26 6351 – Surety insurance 27 6361 – Title insurance 28 6371 – Pension, health and welfare funds 29 6399 – Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 30 6411 – Insurance agents 31 17. Justice, public order and safety 32 Groups 9221 – Police protection 33 9222 – Legal counsel and prosecution 34 9229 – Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified 35 18. Meeting and banquet rooms 36 19. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) 37 Groups 5912 – Drug stores and proprietary stores 38 5921 – Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 39 5932 – Used merchandise stores 40 5941 – Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 41 5942 – Book stores 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1865 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 42 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 5943 – Stationery stores 1 5944 – Jewelry stores, including repair 2 5945 – Hobby, toy, and game shops 3 5946 – Camera and photographic supply stores 4 5947 – Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 5 5948 – Luggage and leather goods stores 6 5949 – Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 7 5992 – Florists 8 5993 – Tobacco stores and stands 9 5994 – News dealers and newsstands 10 5995 – Optical goods stores 11 5999 – Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified (excluding 12 gravestone, tombstones, auction rooms, monuments, 13 swimming pools, and sales barns) 14 20. Non-depository credit institutions 15 Groups 6111 – Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies 16 6141 – Personal credit institutions 17 6153 – Short-term business credit institutions, except agricultural 18 6159 – Miscellaneous business credit institutions 19 6162 – Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 20 6163 – Loan brokers 21 21. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 22 22. Personal services 23 Groups 7212 – Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners 24 7221 – Photographic studios, portrait 25 7231 – Beauty shops 26 7241 – Barber shops 27 7251 – Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 28 7291 – Tax return preparation services 29 7299 – Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified, 30 excluding massage parlors, Turkish baths and escort services 31 23. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy (Group 9311) 32 33 24. Real Estate 34 Groups 6512 – Operators of nonresidential buildings 35 6513 – Operators of apartment buildings 36 6514 – Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 37 6515 – Operators of residential mobile home sites 38 6517 – Lessors of railroad property 39 6519 – Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 40 6531 – Real estate agents and managers 41 6541 – Title abstract offices 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1866 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 43 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 6552 – Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 1 25. Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified (Group 8299) 2 26. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services 3 Groups 6211 – Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 4 6221 – Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 5 6231 – Security and commodity exchanges 6 6282 – Investment advice 7 6289 – Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, 8 not elsewhere classified 9 27. Social services 10 Groups 8322 – Individual and family social services (adult day care centers 11 only) 12 8351 – Child day care services 13 28. Travel agencies (Group 4724) 14 29. Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742, excluding outside 15 kenneling) 16 30. Video tape rental (Group 7841, excluding adult oriented sales and rentals) 17 31. United states postal service (Group 4311, excluding major distribution centers) 18 32. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of 19 permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) 20 by the process outlined in the LDC. 21 22 b. Accessory Uses: 23 Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal 24 uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 25 1. Utility buildings (including water and wastewater plants) which shall be enclosed 26 2. Essential service facilities 27 3. Gazebos, statuary and other architectural features 28 4. Utilities, water and wastewater facilities and/or plants (all processing plants must 29 be enclosed) 30 5. Alcohol service for outdoor dining shall only be accessory to food service 31 c. Operational Standards 32 1. Outdoor music is prohibited 33 34 d. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial 35 Classification Manual, shall be prohibited: 36 1. Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified (Group 7999, 37 except those uses expressly listed above in a.1 are permitted) 38 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 39 3. Business Services 40 Groups 7313 – Radio, television, and publishers’ advertising 41 representatives 42 7331 – Direct mail advertising services 43 4. Correctional Institutions (Group 9223) 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1867 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 44 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) 1 6. Educational services 2 Groups 8211 – Elementary and secondary schools 3 8221 – Colleges, universities, and professional schools 4 8222 – Junior colleges and technical institutes 5 8231 – Libraries 6 7. Health services 7 Groups 8062 – General medical and surgical hospitals 8 8063 – Psychiatric hospitals 9 8069 – Specialty hospitals, except psychiatric 10 8. Miscellaneous Retail 11 Groups 5921 – Liquor stores 12 5961 – Catalog and mail-order houses 13 5962 – Automatic merchandising machine operators 14 9. Personal services 15 Groups 7211 – Power Laundries, family and commercial 16 7261 – Funeral service and crematories 17 10. Social services 18 Groups 8322 – Individual and family social services, excluding adult day care 19 centers 20 8361 – Residential care, including soup kitchens and homeless shelters 21 e. Development intensity shall be limited to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor 22 area. 23 f. No commercial use shall exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, except for a 24 single grocery store use between twenty-seven thousand (27,000) and sixty thousand 25 (60,000) square feet in size, a single commercial use of up to thirty thousand (30,000) 26 square feet in size, and a single commercial use of up to twenty thousand (20,000) 27 square feet in size. 28 g. No building may exceed 30,000 square feet in size, except for the grocery anchored 29 building with inline stores. 30 h. Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments 31 related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified 32 timeframes: 33 1. Right-of-Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right-of-Way for the 34 Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 35 days of a written request from the County. 36 2. The owner will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson 37 Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for 38 reimbursement. 39 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 40 Boulevard are complete, the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy 41 (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development. The applicant must 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1868 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 45 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet, and the 1 grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. 2 i. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and 3 the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all 4 commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. 5 This subdistrict includes a conceptual plan, which identifies the location of the 6 permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict. The 7 preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan 8 requirements for retained native vegetation, including but not limited to the 9 requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME. A more detailed development plan must 10 be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. 11 j. Development standards, including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings 12 shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning. Any future PUD rezone shall include 13 at a minimum: 14 1. Landscape buffers adjacent to external rights-of-way shall be: 15 a. 1st/3rd Streets ‒ Minimum 30’ wide enhanced buffer 16 b. Wilson Boulevard ‒ Minimum 25’ wide enhanced buffer 17 c. Golden Gate Boulevard ‒ Minimum 50’ wide enhanced buffer 18 2. Except for the utility building, no commercial building may be constructed within 19 125 feet of the northern property boundary and within 300’ of the 3rd Street NW 20 boundary of this subdistrict. 21 3. Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property (property zoned 22 E-Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, 23 a seventy-five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330’ of Tract 106, 24 which shall provide a minimum 20’ wide buffer in which no parking uses are 25 permitted. Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed 26 area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width 27 shall consist of retained or re-planted native vegetation and must be consistent 28 with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 29 The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be 30 used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be 31 revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.H of the LDC (native vegetation 32 replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered for approval, 33 use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes 34 shall meet the following criteria: 35 a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. 36 The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-37 period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the 38 existing vegetation. 39 b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management 40 District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District 41 indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to 42 be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1869 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 46 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention 1 area shall not be used for water management. 2 c. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the developer’s engineer shall 3 provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate 4 the necessary storage of water in the water management area. 5 6 7. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 7 The Southbrooke Office Subdistrict is approximately five (5) acres and is located approximately 8 1/4 mile east of Oakes Boulevard on the south side of Immokalee Road. he intent of the 9 subdistrict is to permit general office, medical office, and business service uses generally 10 consistent with those uses permissible by right, or as a conditional use in the C-1 Commercial 11 Professional and General Office zoning district. 12 13 Development within the Subdistrict is encouraged to be rezoned as a PUD in order to provide 14 greater specificity of permitted land uses, development standards and any necessary operational 15 characteristics. A maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial development shall be permitted. 16 All buildings will be limited to single-story, and shall be constructed in a common architectural 17 theme. A minimum 30 feet in width vegetated buffer shall be provided adjacent to Autumn Oaks 18 Lane, which shall consist of retained native vegetation. Access to the Subdistrict shall only be 19 from Immokalee Road. 20 21 3. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION 22 A. Rural Settlement Area District 23 This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 24 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 25 and 1970. In settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property 26 has been “vested” for the types of land uses specified in that certain “PUD” by Settlement Zoning 27 granted by the County as referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT 28 dated the 27th day of January 1986. Twenty-one hundred (2,100) dwelling units and twenty-two 29 (22) acres of neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel use are “vested”. This area is now 30 comprised of the Orange Tree PUD and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, and the types of uses 31 permitted in this District include residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community 32 facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and 33 recreational uses, and essential service uses. 34 By designation in the Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as 35 Settlement Area, the Plan recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban 36 Designation, is appropriate for the following types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, 37 agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf 38 course, open space and recreational, and essential services. 39 Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic 40 boundaries of this District will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above-referenced 41 vested status. The geographic expansion of the Settlement Area to additional lands outside the 42 areas covered by Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 43 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), shall be prohibited. The Settlement Area Land 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1870 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Golden Gate City Sub-Element 47 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Use District is limited to the area described above and shall not be available as a land use district 1 for any other property in the County. 2 4. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES 3 A. Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Overlay 4 Southern Golden Gate Estates is identified as a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) 5 Overlay on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and is subject to the NRPA Overlay 6 provisions of the FLUE. 7 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1871 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) 48 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES C. LIST OF MAPS Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map High Density Residential Subdistrict 1989 Boundaries of Activity Center Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use Activity Center/Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road Interchange Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Center Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center Immokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades – Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria in Golden Gate Estates Immokalee Road/Randall Boulevard Planning Study Area 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1872 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. “Exhibit A” COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT Prepared by Collier County Zoning Division Prepared for COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted (date) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1873 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 2 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN: URBAN GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT SYMBOL DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. The parenthesized Roman numeral symbols enumerated above appear throughout this Element and provide informational citations to adopted documents recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, as required by Florida law. These symbols are for informational purposes only, meant to mark entries amended after the 1997 adoption of the full Element and typically found in the margins of this document, but are not themselves adopted. * Indicates adopted portions (date), 2019 2019-(#) May 9, 2000 2000-25 ** May 9, 2000 2000-26 *** (I) May 9, 2000 2000-27 (II) May 9, 2000 2000-28 (III) May 9, 2000 2000-29 (IV) March 13, 2001 2001-12 (V) May 14, 2002 2002-24 (VI) September 10, 2003 2003-44 (VII) December 16, 2003 2003-67 (VIII) October 26, 2004 2004-71 (IX) June 7, 2005 2005-25 (X) January 25, 2007 2007-19 (XI) December 4, 2007 2007-76 (XII) December 4, 2007 2007-77 (XIII) December 4, 2007 2007-83 (XIV) October 14, 2008 2008-55 (XV) October 14, 2008 2008-56 (XVI) October 14, 2008 2008-59 (XVII) July 28, 2010 2010-31 (XVIII) July 28, 2010 2010-32 (XIX) September 14, 2011 2011-29 (XX) January 9, 2013 2013-15 (XXI) November 18, 2014 2014-41 (XXII) November 10, 2015 2015-62 (XXIII) May 10, 2016 2016-12 (XXIV) June 13, 2017 2017-23 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1874 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 3 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. ** Ordinance No. 2000-25 rescinded and repealed in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM). *** Ordinance No. 2000-26 amended Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, having the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM), more specifically portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Ord. No. 98-56), Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (Ord. No. 97-59) and Drainage (Ord. No. 97-61) sub-elements of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element (Ord. No. 97-63), Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Ord. No. 97-64), Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Ord. No. 97-66), and the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map (Ord. No. 97-67); and readopting Policy 2.2.3 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • The above Ordinance No. 2007-19 is based on the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). • The above Ordinance No. 2013-15 is based on the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1875 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 4 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN – prior to 2000 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. May 19, 1992 92-34 August 4, 1992 92-50 May 25, 1993 93-24 April 12, 1994 94-22 March 14, 1995 95-12 April 14, 1998 98-26 September 8, 1998 98-70 February 23, 1999 99-17 Note: All of the above amendments occurred after adoption of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in 1991 (Ord. No. 91-15) and prior to adoption of amendments in 1997 that were subsequently re-adopted in 2000. These amendments are no longer denoted on the pages of the Element with Roman numeral symbols. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1876 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 5 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. OVERVIEW 2 A. County-Wide Planning Process B. Golden Gate Area Planning Process * III. IMPLEMENTATION SECTION 3 A. Goals, Objectives and Policies 3 B. Land Use Designation Description Section 13 1. Urban 13 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION 9 A. Estates – Mixed Use District 9 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict B. Estates – Commercial District 15 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 3. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 4. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 5. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 3. Agricultural/Rural Settlement Area 45 4. Overlays and Special Features 45 * C. List Of Maps 46 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map High Density Residential Subdistrict 1989 Boundaries of Activity Centers Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use Activity Centers Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) ‒ Interchange Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1877 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 6 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Center Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center Immokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades – Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use in Golden Gate Estates Immokalee Road/Randall Boulevard Planning Study Area 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1878 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 7 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. I. INTRODUCTION 1 As part of the revised Growth Management Plan, the County adopted the original Golden Gate 2 Area Master Plan (GGAMP) in 1991. The GGAMP was further revised in 1997. The Golden Gate 3 Area Master Plan provides growth management regulations for the designated Golden Gate Area 4 (see original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Map). 5 The Golden Gate Area was previously subject to the regulations outlined in the County's Future 6 Land Use Element (FLUE). However, in 1991, the unique characteristics of the area resulted in 7 adoption of a Master Plan for Golden Gate, as a separate Element of the Collier County Growth 8 Management Plan. This Master Plan superseded former Objective 1, Policy 1.1, and Policy 1.3 9 of the FLUE. All other Goals, Objectives, and Policies contained in the FLUE and all other 10 Elements of the Growth Management Plan remain applicable to the Golden Gate Area. In 11 addition, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map will be used instead of the County-Wide 12 Future Land Use Map. 13 In April 1996, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report 14 (EAR) for Collier County. As a result of the recommendations made in the EAR, Ordinance 91-15 15, which adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan, was repealed and a new Ordinance 16 97-64 was adopted. 17 In February of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate a restudy of the 18 Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Accordingly, in June of 2001, Comprehensive Planning Section 19 Staff requested that the Board appoint an advisory committee, consisting of residents of Golden 20 Gate City and Golden Gate Estates, to aid Staff in the restudy process. The Golden Gate Area 21 Master Plan Restudy Committee met on over twenty (20) occasions, between June 2001 and 22 June 2003, to consider proposed amendments to the GGAMP, as well as other matters related to 23 the Golden Gate Area. All meetings were open to the public; many of these meetings were well 24 attended. 25 The restudy process was divided into two phases. The County transmitted Phase I amendments 26 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in April 2003. These amendments were 27 adopted, as Ordinance 2003-44, in September 2003. Phase II amendments were transmitted in 28 June 2004. The Phase II amendments were adopted in October 2004, as Ordinance 2004-71. 29 In February 2015, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate another restudy of 30 the GGAMP. Staff evaluated the Golden Gate Area within 3 distinct areas: 1) Golden Gate City, 31 2) Golden Gate Rural Estates, defined as the Estates area east of Collier Boulevard; and 3) 32 Golden Gate Urban Estates, defined as the Estates area west of Collier Boulevard. Guided by an 33 Oversight Committee, staff conducted eight public workshops along with electronic outreach to 34 gather resident and stakeholder opinions. Most fundamentally, the vision statements created by 35 consensus within the sub-areas of the Golden Gate Area are as follows: 36 Golden Gate City Vision Statement: 37 Golden Gate City is a safe, diverse, family-oriented community that offers easy access to 38 education, parks, shopping and services within a vibrant, walkable community. 39 Rural Golden Gate Estates Vision Statement: 40 The Rural Golden Gate Estates is an interconnected, low-density residential community with 41 limited goods and services in neighborhood centers, defined by rural character with appreciation 42 for nature and quiet surroundings. 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1879 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 8 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Urban Golden Gate Estates Vision Statement: 1 Urban Golden Gate Estates is a low-density, large-lot residential neighborhood in a natural setting 2 with convenient access to the coastal area. 3 This plan includes three major sections: 4 The OVERVIEW section provides an introduction to Countywide and Golden Gate Area planning 5 efforts. 6 The IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY places the Plan into effect. Strategies have been developed 7 to address land use, public facilities, transportation, rural character, emergency management and 8 natural resources. This section includes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies, the Golden Gate 9 Area Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Designation Description Section. The Goals, 10 Objectives and Policies include Goal 2, which deals solely with Golden Gate City. Because the 11 visions and opinions of Estates residents were similar in the Rural and Urban areas, both areas 12 of Golden Gate Estates are covered together in Goals 3-7. 13 The SUPPORT DOCUMENT outlines data and information used to develop the Implementation 14 strategy, including the Goals, Objectives, and Policies. 15 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1880 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 9 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. II. OVERVIEW 1 A. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING PROCESS 2 Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes, the Collier County Growth Management Plan 3 shall contain the following elements: 4 1. Future Land Use 5 2. Housing 6 3. Public Facilities 7 4. Conservation and Coastal Management (Coastal Counties only) 8 5. Intergovernmental Coordination 9 6. Capital Improvements 10 7. Transportation 11 8. Recreation and Open Space 12 In addition to the above Elements, local government comprehensive plans in Florida may, by 13 decision of the local legislative body, contain one or more optional elements. Optional elements 14 are required to comply with certain general criteria under Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, but 15 are not subject to specific requirements (with some exceptions). In 1991, the Board of County 16 Commissioners chose the option of adopting the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, in recognition of 17 the unique characteristics of the Golden Gate Area. 18 In addition to establishing the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s mandatory structure, 19 Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, also subjects the Plan to a mandatory evaluation process every 20 seven (7) years. This process involves the preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Review 21 (EAR) to determine whether, and to what extent, the existing Growth Management Plan has 22 carried out its stated Goals, Objectives and Policies. 23 B. GOLDEN GATE AREA PLANNING PROCESS 24 Objective 4 of the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) allows the countywide 25 planning process to “address specific geographic or issue areas.” Policy 4.1 of this Objective 26 reads as follows: 27 “A detailed Master Plan for Golden Gate Estates has been developed and was incorporated 28 into this Growth Management Plan in February 1991. The Master Plan addresses Natural 29 Resources, Future Land Use, Water Management, Public Facilities and other considerations.” 30 In February 1991, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the original Golden Gate Area 31 Master Plan. The original Master Plan incorporated the recommendations of a Citizens Steering 32 Committee. A revised and updated Master Plan was adopted in 1997, pursuant to 33 recommendations of the County’s 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. In 2001, the Board of 34 County Commissioners established the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee and 35 directed Staff to work with the Committee to further revise and update the Master Plan. The Board 36 of County Commissioners adopted revisions to the GGAMP, incorporating the recommendations 37 of the Restudy Committee, in 2003 and 2004. 38 39 40 41 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1881 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 10 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. III. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 1 This section places the plan into effect. Implementation strategies include the Goals, Objectives 2 and Policies, and the Land Use Designation Description Section. 3 A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 4 GOAL 1: 5 TO GUIDE LAND USE AND PUBLIC FACILITY DECISION MAKING AND TO BALANCE THE 6 NEED TO PROVIDE BASIC SERVICES WITH NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS THROUGH 7 A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH ENSURE THE HEALTH, 8 SAFETY, WELFARE, AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. 9 10 OBJECTIVE 1.1: 11 Develop new or revised uses of land consistent with designations outlined on the Golden Gate 12 Estates Area Future Land Use Map and provisions found in the Land Use Designation Description 13 Section of this Sub Element. 14 15 Policy 1.1.1: 16 The Policies under the above Objective shall identify the Future Land Use Designations, Districts, 17 and Subdistricts for the Urban Golden Gate Estates Area. 18 19 Policy 1.1.2: 20 The Land Use Designation Description Section of this Element shall provide the standards and 21 permitted uses for Urban Golden Gate Estate Area Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts. 22 23 Policy 1.1.3: 24 The Urban Golden Gate Estate Area Future Land Use Map and companion Future Land Use 25 Designations, Districts, and Subdistricts shall be binding on all development orders unless 26 otherwise permitted in this Master Plan effective with the adoption of this Master Plan. 27 28 Policy 1.1.4: 29 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and 30 Subdistricts for: 31 A. URBAN ‒ MIXED USE DISTRICT 32 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 33 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict 34 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict 35 B. URBAN ‒ COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 36 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 37 2. Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict 38 3. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 39 4. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 40 41 42 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1882 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 11 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 1.1.5 1.1.4: 1 The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and 2 Subdistricts for: 3 A. ESTATES – MIXED USE DISTRICT 4 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 5 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 6 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 7 4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict 8 5. Mission Subdistrict 9 6. Everglades – Randall Subdistrict 10 B. ESTATES – COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 11 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 12 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 13 3. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 14 4. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 15 5. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 16 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 17 7. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 18 19 Policy 1.1.6: 20 The AGRICULTURAL/RURAL Future Land Use Designation shall include the following Future 21 Land Use District: 22 A. RURAL SETTLEMENT AREA DISTRICT 23 24 Policy 1.1.7: 25 Overlays and Special Features shall include: 26 A. Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Overlay 27 28 Policy 1.1.8 1.1.5: 29 Conditional Use requests within Urban Golden Gate Estates shall adhere to the guidelines 30 outlined in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict. 31 32 Policy 1.1.9: 33 To obtain Conditional Use approval, a super majority vote (minimum of 4 votes) by the Board of 34 Zoning Appeals shall be required. 35 36 Policy 1.1.10 1.1.6: 37 No development orders shall be issued inconsistent with the Urban Golden Gate Estates Area 38 Sub-Element Master Plan with the exception of those unimproved properties granted a positive 39 determination through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program and identified on the Future Land Use 40 Map Series as properties consistent by Policy and those development orders issued pursuant to 41 conditional uses and rezones approved based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1883 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 12 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. (adopted January 10, 1989, Ordinance 89-05) which was in effect at the time of approval. Any 1 subsequent development orders shall also be reviewed for consistency with the Growth 2 Management Plan based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element. 3 4 Policy 1.1.11 1.1.7: 5 The sites containing existing public educational plants and ancillary plants, and the undeveloped 6 sites owned by the Collier County School Board for future public educational plants and ancillary 7 plants, within the GGAMP area, are depicted on the Future Land Use Map Series in the 8 countywide FLUE and on the Public School Facilities Element Map Series, and referenced in 9 FLUE Policy 5.14 and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 1.2.6. All of these sites are 10 subject to the general Interlocal Agreement, adopted on May 15, 2003 by the Collier County 11 School Board and on May 27, 2003 by the Board of County Commissioners, and as subsequently 12 amended and restated, with an effective date of December 2008, and subject to the implementing 13 land development regulations to be adopted. 14 15 OBJECTIVE 1.2: 16 Ensure public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service. 17 18 Policy 1.2.1: 19 Requests for new uses of land shall be subject to level of service standards and concurrency 20 requirements for public facilities as outlined in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth 21 Management Plan. 22 23 OBJECTIVE 1.3: 24 Protect and preserve the valuable natural resources within the Urban Golden Gate Estates. area. 25 26 Policy 1.3.1: 27 The County shall protect and preserve natural resources within the Urban Golden Gate Estates 28 area in accordance with the Objectives and Policies contained within Goals 6 and 7 of the Collier 29 County Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). 30 31 Policy 1.3.2: 32 As provided for in CCME Policy 6.1.1, the subdivision of tracts up to 13 acres in size and 33 designated Residential Estates Subdistrict shall not trigger preserve requirements. 34 35 Policy 1.3.3: 36 Collier County shall coordinate its planning and permitting activities within the Urban Golden Gate 37 Estates Area with all other applicable environmental planning, permitting and regulatory agencies 38 to ensure that all Federal, State and local natural resource protection regulations are being 39 enforced. 40 41 OBJECTIVE 1.4: 42 Provide a living environment within the Urban Golden Gate Estates Area, which is aesthetically 43 acceptable and protects the quality of life. 44 45 Policy 1.4.1: 46 Collier County shall provide a living environment that is aesthetically acceptable and protects the 47 quality of life through the enforcement of applicable codes and laws. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1884 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 13 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 1 Policy 1.4.2: 2 The County's Code Enforcement Board shall strictly enforce the Land Development Code and 3 other applicable codes and laws to control the illegal storage of machinery, vehicles and junk, and 4 the illegal operation of commercial activities within the Urban Golden Gate Estates Area. 5 6 GOAL 2: 7 TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND USES 8 WITHIN GOLDEN GATE CITY THAT CREATES A SAFE, DIVERSE AND VIBRANT 9 WALKABLE COMMUNTY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED VISION OF GOLDEN GATE 10 CITY. 11 12 OBJECTIVE 2.1: 13 Provide for residential and commercial land uses that meet the needs of Golden Gate City and 14 the surrounding area. 15 16 Policy 2.1.1: 17 Development and redevelopment within Golden Gate City shall be guided by the residential and 18 commercial needs consistent with the stated vision of Golden Gate City. 19 20 Policy 2.1.2: 21 The County shall protect established stable neighborhoods and provide opportunity for 22 redevelopment and renewal through development standards and practices that promote 23 compatibility. 24 25 Policy 2.1.3 26 Within two years, Collier County shall create development standards to guide the transformation 27 of Golden Gate Parkway and the Activity Center into destinations that are convenient, pleasant 28 and safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and maintain strong connections to transit service. 29 30 Policy 2.1.4 31 The Activity Center shall allow uses intended to strengthen the economic health of Golden Gate 32 City. 33 34 Policy 2.1.5 35 Collier County shall discourage new land uses along Golden Gate Parkway and within the Activity 36 Center that impede pedestrian activity and are solely auto-oriented, such as car washes, storage 37 facilities, auto dealerships and drive throughs. Land development regulations will be established 38 within two years to ensure compatibility of auto-oriented uses within the pedestrian environment. 39 40 Policy 2.1.6 41 Residential land use designations shall support the diversity of housing types within Golden Gate 42 City. 43 44 Policy 2.1.7: 45 Collier County shall respond to community-initiated planning programs as they may occur. 46 Community planning programs may take into consideration the following issues: 47 A. Affordable housing based upon home ownership; 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1885 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 14 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. B. Commercial re-vitalization, to include: 1 i. Sidewalks 2 ii. Traffic calming measures 3 iii. Improved street lighting; 4 C. Neighborhood parks, open space and recreational centers; 5 D. Crime reduction; 6 E. Consistent enforcement of land development regulations; and, 7 F. Improved lighting for streets and parking areas. 8 9 OBJECTIVE 2.2: 10 Strengthen the quality of life in Golden Gate City and the surrounding area, and promote a healthy 11 economy through support of redevelopment and renewal in Golden Gate City with focus along 12 Golden Gate Parkway and within the designated Activity Center. 13 14 Policy 2.2.1 15 Collier County shall consider the use of redevelopment tools such as tax increment financing. 16 17 Policy 2.2.2 18 Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate a community renewal plan to include 19 economic development strategies, urban design schemes, and infrastructure improvements. 20 Renewal plans shall be in concert with the vision of Golden Gate City and promote vibrant 21 urbanism, improve aesthetics and support walkability. 22 23 Policy 2.2.3 24 Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate the involvement of Golden Gate City 25 residents and business owners to consider amendments to the Land Development Code to 26 support and implement residential and commercial redevelopment and renewal initiatives. 27 Amendments shall include incentives for remodeling and renovation by creating criteria and 28 standards for variances and/or deviations. 29 30 Policy 2.2.4 31 In collaboration with the Golden Gate City residents and business owners, and other community 32 partners such as the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, Collier County shall initiate a 33 branding and marketing plan for Golden Gate City within two years of adoption. The proposed 34 plan shall be in concert with the overall vision for Golden Gate City. 35 36 Policy 2.2.5 37 Collier County will work to ensure pertinent economic incentive programs are made available to 38 those seeking business creation and redevelopment opportunities. 39 40 OBJECTIVE 2.3 41 Ensure Golden Gate City public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service, planned 42 and implemented in concert with the vision of Golden Gate City. 43 44 Policy 2.3.1 45 Due to the continued use of individual septic systems and private wells within a densely platted 46 urban area, Collier County Public Utilities will expand sewer and water service in accordance with 47 the Implementation Report attached as Appendix A to Resolution No. 2017-222. Expansion plans 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1886 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 15 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. shall consider the renewal areas of Golden Gate Parkway and the area surrounding the Activity 1 Center a priority for expansion and shall coordinate its projects with scheduled road and/or 2 stormwater improvements to maximize efficiency and minimize disruption to businesses and 3 residents. 4 5 Policy 2.3.2 6 Collier County will support all transportation needs within Golden Gate City with an emphasis on 7 walkability. Walkability will be improved through the implementation of the recommendations of 8 the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Walkability Study. 9 10 Policy 2.3.3 11 Redevelopment within the Activity Center shall maintain multiple access points to the surrounding 12 neighborhoods and through the Activity Center while providing safe and direct access to transit 13 stops within or adjacent to the Activity Center. 14 15 Policy 2.3.4 16 Alleys in Golden Gate City may only be vacated if such vacation does not prevent reasonable 17 connection and continuity for future pedestrian, non-motorized and transit trips. Within one year 18 of adoption, Resolution 2013-166 shall be amended to implement this policy. 19 20 Policy 2.3.5 21 To ensure a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment, Collier County shall periodically conduct 22 speed studies in Golden Gate City. When appropriate, traffic calming measures and speed limit 23 reductions may be implemented. 24 25 GOAL 3: 26 TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE AREA WHICH LIES SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 75 (ALLIGATOR 27 ALLEY) TO US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) IS AN AREA OF SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 28 SENSITIVITY AND IS BIOLOGICALLY AND HYDROLOGICALLY IMPORTANT THROUGH 29 PARTICIPATION IN THE PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT AS PART OF THE 30 FEDERAL SAVE OUR EVERGLADES PROGRAM. BASED UPON SUCH CONDITIONS, THE 31 STATE HAS ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP OF ALL LANDS WITHIN THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN 32 GATE ESTATES (SGGE) PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT AREA. 33 34 GOAL 4 2: 35 TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR 36 PURPOSES OF SERVING THE RURAL NEEDS OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES RESIDENTS, 37 SHORTENING VEHICULAR TRIPS, AND PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER. 38 39 OBJECTIVE 4.1 2.1: 40 Meet the locational and rural design criteria contained within the Estates Designation, Estates-41 Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict and Conditional Use Subdistrict of this 42 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan when 43 considering the placement and designation of Neighborhood Centers and Conditional Uses within 44 Urban Golden Gate Estates. 45 46 47 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1887 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 16 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 4.1.1 2.1.1: 1 Neighborhood Centers within Urban Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to the locational and 2 rural design criteria established within the Estates Designation, Estates – Mixed Use District, 3 Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of this Urban Golden Gate Area Estates Master Plan Sub-4 Element, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 5 6 Policy 4.1.2 2.1.2: 7 Conditional Uses within Urban Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to locational and dimensional 8 criteria established within the Conditional Use Subdistrict in the Land Use Designation Description 9 section of this Urban Golden Gate Area Estates Master Plan Sub-Element. 10 11 OBJECTIVE 4.2: 12 Provide for new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers and other Commercial 13 Land Use Designations. 14 15 Policy 4.2.1: 16 Within one year of the completion of the Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor study, the County 17 Manager or designee shall initiate an evaluation of the future land uses along Immokalee Rd. in 18 the vicinity of Randall Blvd., Oil Well Rd. and Wilson Blvd. (as generally shown on the 19 ImmokaleeRd./Randall Blvd. Planning Study Area Map) and make recommendations to the Board 20 of County Commissioners for any proposed changes to the future land uses. 21 22 GOAL 5 3: 23 TO PRESERVE THE AREA’S RURAL CHARACTER, AS DEFINED BY LARGE WOODED 24 LOTS, THE KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK, THE ABILITY TO GROW CROPS, WILDLIFE 25 ACTIVITY, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 26 DEVELOPMENT, AND LIMITATIONS ON COMMERCIAL AND CONDITIONAL USES. 27 28 OBJECTIVE 5.1 3.1: 29 Balance the provision of public infrastructure with the need to preserve the rural character of 30 Urban Golden Gate Estates. 31 32 Policy 5.1.1 3.1.1: 33 Future road and bridge improvements in Urban Golden Gate Estates shall not only provide for 34 safety and reasonable mobility, but shall also contribute to the rural character of the area. 35 Transportation improvements shall be designed in context with their setting. 36 37 Policy 5.1.2 3.1.2 38 The County shall initiate architectural standard requirements in the Land Development Code 39 within two years of adoption that apply to commercial, conditional use and essential services 40 facilities, reflecting the rural character of the Estates area and providing coherence and area 41 identity. 42 43 Policy 5.1.3 3.1.3: 44 The County Manager or designee shall create a public network of greenway corridors within 45 Urban Golden Gate Estates that interconnects public lands and permanently protected green 46 space. The greenway network shall consist of interconnected trails and paths that allow people 47 to move about the Estates area by means other than motorized vehicles. All greenways shall be 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1888 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 17 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. constructed within or abutting existing or future public easements or rights-of-way. In creating the 1 greenway network, the County shall not employ eminent domain proceedings. 2 3 Policy 5.1.4 3.1.4: 4 Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-75 interchange at Golden 5 Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict 6 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties 7 abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new 8 commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate 9 Parkway within the above-defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of 10 the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of 11 the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 12 13 OBJECTIVE 5.2 3.2: 14 Provide for the protection of the rural character of Urban Golden Gate Estates. 15 16 Policy 5.2.1 3.2.1: 17 Rural character protection provisions shall provide for the preservation of such rural amenities as, 18 but not limited to, wooded lots, the keeping of livestock, the ability to grow crops, wildlife activity, 19 and low-density residential development. 20 21 Policy 5.2.2 3.2.2: 22 The growing of food crops and/or the keeping of livestock on properties within Urban Golden Gate 23 Estates shall be permitted, provided that such activities are conducted according to the Land 24 Development Code. 25 26 Policy 5.2.3 3.2.3: 27 Rural character shall be further protected by resisting site-specific Master Plan changes that are 28 out of scale or character with the rural quality of Urban Golden Gate Estates. 29 30 Policy 5.2.4 3.2.4: 31 Recognizing the low density in Urban Golden Gate Estates, the County will initiate a review of 32 written notification requirements in the Land Development Code and the Administrative Code 33 related to land use petitions in Golden Gate Estates, within 1 year of adoption, and consider 34 increasing the specified distance, with particular attention to properties located on dead-end 35 streets. 36 37 Policy 5.2.5 3.2.5: 38 Consistent with public safety requirements and best practices for rural areas, outdoor lighting 39 within Urban Golden Gate Estates shall be placed, constructed and maintained in such manner 40 as to prevent or reduce light pollution. In implementing this Policy, the County shall: 41 a. Adhere to the “Collier County Lighting Standards” (County Manager’s Office Standards dated 42 January 6, 2017) as amended, with respect to new and existing County owned or maintained 43 sites and structures. 44 b. Continue to coordinate with FPL and FDOT to improve roadway and security lighting 45 consistent with International Dark Skies Association best practices. 46 c. Consider changes to the Land Development Code and other applicable ordinances to 47 create voluntary or mandatory outdoor lighting standards for commercial, residential or 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1889 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 18 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. other uses consistent with International Dark Skies Association best practices, and 1 determine the extent such standards apply to new or existing development. 2 3 OBJECTIVE 5.3 3.3: 4 Encourage the preservation of natural resources in Urban Golden Gate Estates, including 5 protection and enhancement of its watershed. 6 7 Policy 5.3.1 3.3.1: 8 The Land Development Code shall continue to allow and further encourage the preservation of 9 native vegetation and wildlife indigenous to the Urban Golden Gate Estates Area. 10 11 Policy 5.3.2 3.3.2: 12 The County shall continue to pursue the Watershed Management Plan initiatives in Urban Golden 13 Gate Estates as financial and staff resources become available. 14 15 Policy 5.3.3 3.3.3: 16 The County shall encourage the combination of parcels smaller than 2.25 acres with other parcels 17 in order to preserve and enhance low-density environmental advantages. Within two years of 18 adoption of this policy, County staff will present recommendations for property owner incentives 19 to the Board of County Commissioners. 20 21 Policy 5.3.4 3.3.4: 22 The County will evaluate the use of transferable development rights for the purpose of securing 23 the preservation of wetland or other environmentally significant land within Urban Golden Gate 24 Estates, in a timeframe directed by the Board. 25 26 Policy 5.3.5 3.3.5: 27 Within two years of adoption, the County, in coordination with the Floodplain Management 28 Committee, will initiate a study on the feasibility of dispersed water management (DWM) for single 29 family Estates lots, and determine the extent to which it will rely on voluntary, incentive or 30 mandatory provisions and whether provisions will apply to developed and undeveloped Estates 31 parcels. 32 33 Policy 5.3.6 3.3.6: 34 The County will continue to identify and implement educational opportunities related to water 35 resources for parcel owners, homeowners, builders, real estate professionals and the public to 36 aid in understanding and addressing site-specific financial and environmental impacts as well as 37 area-wide impacts to water resources. 38 39 Policy 5.3.7 3.3.7: 40 The County will periodically coordinate with the South Florida Water Management District to 41 review the Level of Service Standards for primary water management canals within the County 42 and their effect on Urban Golden Gate Estates. 43 44 Policy 5.3.8 3.3.8: 45 The County shall continue to pursue a best management practices approach to making septage 46 treatment available to residents and businesses within Urban Golden Gate Estates, as a 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1890 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 19 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. component of bio-solid processing, either directly, through a private entity, or through a public -1 private partnership. 2 3 GOAL 6 4: 4 TO PROVIDE FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT COUNTY AND LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK, 5 WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SEEKING TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF 6 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES IN FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE 7 GOLDEN GATE AREA. 8 9 OBJECTIVE 6.1: 10 Increase the number of route alternatives for traffic moving through the Golden Gate Area in both 11 east-west and north-south directions, consistent with neighborhood traffic safety considerations, 12 and consistent with the preservation of the area’s rural character. 13 14 Policy 6.1.1: 15 In planning to increase the number of route alternatives through the Estates Area, Collier County 16 will prioritize the following routes over other alternatives: 17 a. The extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from its current terminus to DeSoto Boulevard. 18 b. The development of a north-south connection from the eastern terminus of White 19 Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. 20 c. The development of a new east-west roadway crossing the Estates Area south of Golden 21 Gate Boulevard. 22 23 Policy 6.1.2: 24 The County shall coordinate with FDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organization to submit a 25 revised interchange justification report for an interchange at I-75 in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd. 26 (Section 31-34, Township 49, Range 28). 27 28 Policy 6.1.3: 29 Everglades Blvd., between Golden Gate Blvd and I-75, shall not be expanded beyond 4 lanes. 30 31 OBJECTIVE 6.2 4.1: 32 Increase linkages within the local road system for the purposes of limiting traffic on arterials and 33 major collectors within Urban Golden Gate Estates, shortening vehicular trips, and increasing 34 overall road system capacity. 35 36 Policy 6.2.1 4.1.1: 37 The County shall continue to explore alternative financing methods to facilitate both east - west 38 and north-south bridging of canals within Urban Golden Gate Estates. 39 40 Policy 6.2.2 4.1.2: 41 The County shall update the 2008 Bridge Study to prioritize bridge construction based on 42 emergency response times, evacuation times, cost components, anticipated development 43 patterns and other considerations and shall report its recommendations to the Board of County 44 Commissioners within two years of adoption of this policy. 45 46 47 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1891 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 20 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 6.2.3 4.1.3: 1 Planning and right-of-way acquisition for bridges within the Urban Golden Gate Estates Area local 2 road system shall include consideration of the costs and benefits of including sidewalks and bike 3 lanes. 4 5 Policy 6.2.4 4.1.4: 6 Sidewalks and bike lanes shall provide access to government facilities, schools, commercial 7 areas and the planned Metropolitan Planning Organization greenway network. 8 9 Policy 6.2.5 4.1.5: 10 Planning, funding and implementation of potential greenway trails shall be coordinated between 11 the County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. 12 13 OBJECTIVE 6.3: 14 Explore alternative financing methods to accelerate paving of lime rock roads. 15 16 Policy 6.3.1: 17 The County will consider the acceleration of the paving of lime rock roads, including a cost/benefit 18 analysis, in its annual budget review. 19 20 GOAL 7 5: 21 TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE GREATER URBAN 22 GOLDEN GATE AREA, AS WELL AS THE HEALTH OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT, 23 THROUGH THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT PREPARE FOR, MITIGATE, 24 AND RESPOND TO, NATURAL AND MANMADE DISASTERS. 25 26 OBJECTIVE 7.1 5.1: 27 Coordinate with local emergency services officials in engineering and constructing road 28 improvements within Urban Golden Gate Estates to ensure that the access needs of fire 29 department, police and emergency management personnel and vehicles are met. 30 31 Policy 7.1.1 5.1.1: 32 Collier County shall hold at least one annual public meeting with Urban Golden Gate Estates Area 33 emergency services providers and the local civic association in order to ensure that emergency 34 needs are addressed during the acquisition of right-of-way for design and construction of road 35 improvements. 36 37 Policy 7.1.2 5.1.2: 38 Collier County shall continue to coordinate with Golden Gate Area emergency services providers 39 to prioritize necessary road improvements related to emergency evacuation needs. 40 41 OBJECTIVE 7.2 5.2: 42 Ensure that the needs of all applicable emergency services providers are included and 43 coordinated in the overall public project design for capital improvement projects within the Urban 44 Golden Gate Estates Area. 45 46 47 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1892 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 21 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 7.2.1 5.2.1: 1 Preparation of Collier County’s annual Schedule of Capital Improvements for projects within the 2 Urban Golden Gate Estates Area shall be coordinated with the independent Fire Districts that 3 serve Golden Gate Estates (Fire Districts), public and private utilities, Emergency Medical 4 Services Department and the Collier County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that public project 5 designs are consistent with the needs of these agencies. 6 7 Policy 7.2.2 5.2.2: 8 The Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue Districts, Collier County Emergency Medical Services 9 Department and the Collier County Sheriff’s Department will receive copies of pre-construction 10 plans for capital improvement projects in the Golden Gate Area and will be invited to review and 11 comment on plans for the public projects. 12 13 OBJECTIVE 7.3 5.3: 14 Maintain and implement public information programs through the Collier County Bureau of 15 Emergency Services, Collier County Sheriff’s Department, Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue 16 Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and other appropriate agencies, to inform 17 residents and visitors of the Greater Golden Gate Area regarding the means to prevent, prepare 18 for, and cope with, man-made and natural disasters. 19 20 Policy 7.3.1 5.3.1: 21 The Fire Districts that serve the Golden Gate area, and other appropriate agencies, shall embark 22 on an education program to assist residents in knowing and understanding the value and need 23 for prescribed burning on public lands in high risk fire areas. 24 25 Policy 7.3.2 5.3.2: 26 The Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and 27 Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall actively promote the Firewise Communities 28 Program through public education in Urban Golden Gate Estates. 29 30 Policy 7.3.3 5.3.3: 31 The Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and 32 the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall hold one or more annual “open house” 33 presentations in the Golden Gate area emphasizing issues related to wildfires, flooding, 34 emergency access and general emergency management. 35 36 OBJECTIVE 7.4 5.4: 37 Pursue appropriate planning and mitigation measures to address the threat of wildfires in Urban 38 Golden Gate Estates. 39 40 Policy 7.4.1 5.4.1: 41 Collier County shall evaluate the Land Development Code for Urban Golden Gate Estates and 42 shall eliminate any requirements that are found to be inconsistent with acceptable fire prevention 43 standards. This evaluation process shall be coordinated with the Golden Gate Fire Central and 44 Rescue Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and the Collier County Bureau of 45 Emergency Services. 46 47 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1893 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 22 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 7.4.2: 1 Within one year of adoption, the County shall begin to evaluate the need to purchase or dedicate 2 parcels within Golden Gate Estates for the purpose of providing staging areas for wildfire 3 prevention activities for the Florida Forest Service, Fire Districts, Collier County or other agency 4 use and will consider whether potential parcels may be used for other public purposes including 5 ride sharing or park and ride facilities allowed by Conditional Use. 6 7 Policy 7.4.3 5.4.2: 8 The County shall explore annually, options for funding wildfire prevention measures undertaken 9 by the County, Florida Forest Service and/or independent Fire Districts, including but not limited 10 to Urban Golden Gate Estates Municipal Services Taxing Units (MSTU) revenue, grant funding 11 and general fund revenue. 12 13 Policy 7.4.4 5.4.3: 14 The County shall review annually and update as necessary, all interlocal agreements and mutual 15 aid agreements to assure coordination of legal, procedural and educational components of wildfire 16 prevention. 17 18 Policy 7.4.5: 19 All new residential structures shall comply with NFPA (National Fire Protection Association, 20 Incorporated) 299 Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, 1997 Edition, or the 21 most recent edition, as adopted by reference in the Florida Fire Code. 22 23 Policy 7.4.6: 24 Modified portions of existing structures shall meet NFPA Standards through the adoption of 25 appropriate regulations in the County Building Codes. 26 27 Policy 7.4.5 5.4.4: 28 County-owned property within Urban Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to an active, on-going 29 management plan to reduce the damage caused by wildfires originating from County-owned 30 properties. 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1894 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 23 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. B. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION 1 The following section describes the three land use designations shown on the Urban Golden Gate 2 Estates Area Future Land Use Map. These designations generally indicate the types of land uses 3 for which zoning may be requested. However, these land use designations do not guarantee that 4 a zoning request will be approved. Requests may be denied by the Board of County 5 Commissioners based on criteria in the Land Development Code or in special studies completed 6 for the County. 7 1. URBAN DESIGNATION: 8 URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT AND URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 9 Urban Designated Areas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier 10 County: areas with the greatest residential densities and areas in close proximity, which have or 11 are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban 12 Designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land 13 uses be located within them. 14 The boundaries of the Urban Designated areas have been established based on several factors 15 including: 16 • patterns of existing development, 17 • patterns of approved but unbuilt development, 18 • natural resources, water management, and hurricane risk, 19 • existing and proposed public facilities, 20 • population projections, and 21 • land needed to accommodate growth. 22 The Urban Designation will also accommodate future non-residential uses including essential 23 services as defined by the most recently adopted Collier County Land Development Code. Other 24 permitted non-residential land uses may include: 25 a. parks, open space and recreational use; 26 b. water-dependent and water-related uses; 27 c. child care centers; 28 d. community facilities such as churches, cemeteries, schools, and school facilities co-29 located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers, where 30 feasible and mutually acceptable, fire and police stations; 31 e. utility and communication facilities. 32 f. support medical facilities such as physician's offices, medical clinics, treatment, research 33 and rehabilitative centers and pharmacies (as long as the dominant use is medical related) 34 may also be permitted provided they are granted concurrent with or located within ¼ mile 35 of existing or approved hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care 36 treatment for all types of injuries and traumas, such as, Golden Gate Urgent Care. 37 Stipulations to ensure that the construction of such support medical facilities is concurrent 38 with hospitals or such medical centers shall be determined at the time of zoning approval. 39 40 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1895 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 24 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Group Housing shall be permitted within the Urban Mixed-Use District and Urban Commercial 1 Districts subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land 2 Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and consistent with locational 3 requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). 4 Group Housing includes the following type facilities: 5 a. Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in 6 residential areas. 7 b. Group Care Facility, 8 c. Care Units, 9 d. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and 10 e. Nursing Homes. 11 A. Urban-Mixed Use District 12 This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and commercial land uses 13 including single-family, multi-family, duplex, and mixed use (Planned Unit Development). 14 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 15 All land within the urban mixed-use designation is zoned and platted. However, any parcel to 16 be rezoned residential is subject to and must be consistent with the Density Rating System. 17 DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: 18 a. BASE DENSITY – Four (4) residential units per gross acre is the eligible density, though 19 not an entitlement. 20 b. DENSITY BONUSES – Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are 21 dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with 22 surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. 23 The following densities per gross acre may be added to the base density. In no case 24 shall the maximum permitted density exceed 16 residential dwelling units per gross acre. 25 i. Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus 26 • 16 dwelling units – If a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that 27 has been found to be “Consistent By Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-28 evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units 29 per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is 30 converted to residential zoning. These dwelling units may be distributed over the 31 entire project. 32 ii. Proximity to Activity Center 33 • 3 dwelling units - Within 1 mile of Activity Center 34 iii. Affordable Housing Bonus 35 To encourage the provision of affordable housing within certain Districts and 36 Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to 12 residential units 37 per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements 38 of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land 39 Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and if the affordable housing 40 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1896 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 25 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. units are targeted for families earning no greater than 140% of the median income for 1 Collier County. 2 3 iv. Residential In-fill 4 If the project is 10 acres or less in size; located within an area with central public water 5 and sewer service; compatible with surrounding land uses; has no common site 6 development plan with adjoining property; no common ownership with any adjacent 7 parcels; and the parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill 8 residential density. 9 • 3 dwelling units 10 v. Roadway Access 11 Density credits based on future roadways will be awarded if the developer commits to 12 construct a portion of the roadway (as determined by the County) or the road is 13 scheduled for completion during the first five years of the Capital Improvement 14 Schedule. 15 • Add 1 dwelling unit - if direct access to two or more arterial or collector roads as 16 identified in the Transportation Element. 17 c. There are Density Bands located around Activity Centers. The density band around 18 an Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the 19 intersection around which the Activity Center is situated. If 50% or more of a project is 20 within the density band, the additional density applies to the entire project. Density bands 21 shall not apply within the Estates Designation. 22 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict: 23 To encourage higher density residential and promote mixed uses in close proximity to Activity 24 Centers, those residential zoned properties permitting up to 12 dwelling units per acre which 25 were located within and consistent with the Activity Center designation at Golden Gate 26 Parkway and Coronado Parkway established by the 1989 Collier County Growth Management 27 Plan and subsequently removed by the creation of a new Activity Center via the adoption of 28 the Golden Gate Area Master Plan are recognized as being consistent with this Master Plan 29 and are outlined on the High Density Residential Subdistrict Map. 30 31 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict: 32 The primary purpose of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict (see Downtown Center 33 Commercial Subdistrict Map) is to encourage redevelopment along Golden Gate Parkway in 34 order to improve the physical appearance of the area and create a vibrant and viable 35 downtown district within Golden Gate City. Emphasis shall be placed on the creation of a 36 pedestrian-oriented boulevard. 37 The provisions of this Subdistrict are intended to ensure harmonious development of 38 commercial and mixed-use buildings at a pedestrian scale that are compatible with residential 39 development within and outside of the Subdistrict. 40 41 42 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1897 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 26 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. The Subdistrict allows the aggregation of properties in order to promote flexibility in site 1 design. The types of uses permitted within this Subdistrict are low intensity retail, office, 2 personal services, institutional, and residential. Non-residential development is intended to 3 serve the needs of residents within the Subdistrict, surrounding neighborhoods, and 4 passersby. 5 a. All development or redevelopment within the boundaries of the Downtown Center 6 Commercial Subdistrict shall include: 7 i. Provisions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 8 ii. An emphasis on building aesthetics. 9 ii. Emphasis on the orderly circulation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 10 iii. Provision for broad sidewalks. 11 iv. Enhanced streetscaping. 12 v. Project interconnections, where possible and feasible. 13 vi. Quality designs for building façades, including lighting, uniform signage and 14 landscaping. 15 b. Permitted uses within this Subdistrict shall include only the following, except as may 16 be restricted in an implementing zoning overlay district, and except as may be 17 prohibited in Paragraph D, below: 18 i. Those uses permitted by right within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts, as 19 outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC); 20 ii. Residential uses permitted by right in the existing residential zoning districts in 21 this Subdistrict; 22 iii. Those permitted uses that may be allowed in an implementing zoning overlay 23 district. 24 c. Conditional uses allowed by this Subdistrict shall include only: 25 i. Those conditional uses allowed within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts, as 26 outlined in the LDC; 27 ii. Those conditional uses allowed, by the LDC, within existing residential Zoning 28 Districts in this Subdistrict; 29 iii. Those conditional uses that may be allowed in an implementing zoning overlay 30 district; and, 31 d. Prohibited uses in this Subdistrict are as follows: 32 i. Automatic food and drink vending machines located exterior to a building. 33 ii. Any commercial use employing drive-up, drive-in or drive-through delivery of 34 goods or services. 35 iii. Enameling, painting or plating as a primary use. However, these uses are 36 permitted if secondary to an artist’s or craft studio. 37 iv. Single-room occupancy hotels, prisons, detention facilities, halfway houses, soup 38 kitchens or homeless shelters. 39 v. Uses as may be prohibited in an implementing zoning overlay district. 40 41 B. Urban Commercial District 42 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1898 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 27 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. The Activity Center designated on the Future Land Use Map is intended to accommodate 1 commercial zoning within the Urban Designated Area. Activity Centers are intended to be 2 mixed-use (commercial, residential, institutional) in character. The Activity Center concept is 3 designed to concentrate new and existing commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts 4 can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial 5 development, and to create focal points within the community. The size and configuration of 6 the Activity Center is outlined on the Urban Mixed-Use Activity Center – Golden Gate Parkway 7 and Coronado Parkway Map. 8 The standard for intensity of commercial uses allowed within each Activity Center is the full 9 array of uses allowed in the C-1 through C-5 Zoning Districts, as identified in the Land 10 Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) excluding the following new 11 commercial uses: 12 13 Hotels and motels that locate within an Activity Center will be allowed to develop at a density 14 consistent with the Land Development Code. Residential density for residential projects 15 located within the boundaries of the Mixed-Use Activity Center shall be allowed to develop at 16 a density of up to 22 residential units per gross acre. This density may be distributed 17 throughout the project, including any portion located outside of the boundary of the Mixed-18 Use Activity Center. 19 20 Certain uses specifically intended to support economic development in Golden Gate City are 21 allowed within the Mixed Use Activity Center. The following uses, as identified with a number 22 from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual are permissible. 23 a. Advanced manufacturing, including automated apparel (2211-2299, and 2311-2399), 24 light assembly (3679) and 3D printing (3571, 3629); 25 b. Call centers (7338); 26 c. Software development and programming (7371); 27 d. Internet technologies and electronic commerce (7374); 28 e. Data and information processing (7374); 29 f. Professional services that are export based such as laboratory research or testing 30 activities (8734); 31 g. Other uses as may be determined by the Board of County Commissioners consistent 32 with the intent of supporting economic development in Golden Gate City. 33 34 2. Golden Gate Urban Commercial In-fill Subdistrict 35 This Subdistrict is located at the southwest quadrant of C.R. 951 and Golden Gate Parkway. 36 Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in proximity to the Commercial In -fill 37 Subdistrict (see Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates 38 Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map) and the need to ensure adequate development standards 39 to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the following criteria: 40 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to: 41 i. Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and 42 intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and 43 personal needs, and 44 ii. Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in 45 areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1899 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 28 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land 1 Development Code (Ordinance 91-102), adopted October 30, 1991. 2 b. Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall 3 be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that 4 all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area 5 unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent 6 with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan); 7 c. Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements 8 with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate; 9 d. Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with 10 adjoining commercial developments; and 11 e. Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. 12 3. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 13 The boundaries of the Subdistrict are hereby expanded to include the former Commercial 14 Subdistrict and also to extend approximately one (1) block to the east of the former boundary 15 (see Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Map). The intent of the Santa Barbara 16 Commercial Subdistrict is to provide Golden Gate City with an area that is primarily 17 commercial, with an allowance for certain conditional uses. The types of uses permitted within 18 this Subdistrict are low intensity retail, offices, personal services, and institutional uses, such 19 as churches and day care centers. Such development is intended to serve the needs of 20 residents within the Subdistrict and surrounding neighborhoods and persons traveling nearby. 21 Commercial and institutional uses permitted within this Subdistrict are those that: 22 a. Generate/attract relatively low traffic volumes; 23 b. Are appropriately landscaped and buffered to protect nearby residential properties; 24 and 25 c. Are architecturally designed to be compatible with nearby residential areas. 26 27 4. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 28 The primary purpose of the Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (see Collier Boulevard 29 Commercial Subdistrict Map) is to encourage redevelopment along Collier Boulevard in order 30 to improve the physical appearance of the area. This Subdistrict is intended to allow a mix of 31 uses, including heavy commercial within those areas presently zoned C-5. 32 This Subdistrict includes properties zoned RMF-12, C-4, and C-5. This Subdistrict will allow 33 commercial development on lands presently zoned residential. 34 Buildings shall be limited to three stories, not to exceed 50 feet, inclusive of under building 35 parking. 36 Within one year of the effective date of this Subdistrict, the Land Development Code shall be 37 amended to establish a zoning overlay containing regulations to implement this Subdistrict. 38 39 a. All development and redevelopment within this Subdistrict shall include: 40 1. Provisions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 41 2. An emphasis on building aesthetics. 42 3. Emphasis on the orderly circulation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1900 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 29 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 4. Provision for adequate ingress and egress, which may include local street vacation 1 or relocation if alternative access is provided. 2 5. Provision for broad sidewalks or pathways. 3 6. Enhanced streetscaping. 4 7. Shared parking and/or property interconnections, where possible and feasible. 5 8. Quality designs for building facades, including lighting, uniform signage and 6 landscaping. 7 8 2 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION 9 This designation is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited 10 opportunities for other land uses. Typical lots are 2.25 acres in size. Howe ver, there are some 11 legal non-conforming lots as small as 1.14 acres. Residential density is limited to a maximum of 12 one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of 13 guesthouses. Multiple family dwelling units, duplexes, and other structures containing two or 14 more principal dwellings, are prohibited in all Districts and Subdistricts in this Designation. 15 Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses, including: 16 a. Conditional uses and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code, except 17 as prohibited in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. Also, refer to the Conditional Uses 18 Subdistrict. 19 b. Parks, open space and recreational uses. 20 c. Group Housing shall be permitted subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in 21 the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and 22 consistent with locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). 23 d. Schools and school facilities in the Estates Designation north of I-75, and where feasible 24 and mutually acceptable, co-locate schools with other public facilities, such as parks, 25 libraries and community centers to the extent possible. 26 Group Housing includes the following type facilities: 27 aa. Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in 28 residential areas. 29 bb. Group Care Facility, 30 cc. Care Units, 31 dd. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and 32 ee. Nursing Homes. 33 All of the above uses shall be consistent with all of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 34 Golden Gate Area Master Plan. 35 36 A. Estates ‒ Mixed-Use District 37 38 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 39 Single-family residential development is allowed within this Subdistrict at a maximum density 40 of one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive 41 of guesthouses. 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1901 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 30 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 1 Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, 2 one Neighborhood Centers have has been designated on the Urban Golden Gate Estates 3 Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that 4 commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request 5 commercial zoning. 6 a. The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural 7 design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood 8 Centers. 9 b. Locations 10 Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within 11 Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates. (See Golden Gate 12 Estates Neighborhood Centers Map). The centers are designed to concentrate all 13 new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning 14 District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid 15 strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. 16 Four One Neighborhood Centers are is established as follows: 17 i. Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. 18 This center consists of three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden 19 Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist 20 of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 21 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate 22 Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant 23 shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 24 Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE 25 quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres 26 of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and 27 right-of-way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The SW 28 quadrant of the Center is approximately 11.78 acres in size and consists of Tract 29 124, 125, and the north 150 feet of Tract 126, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. 30 ii. i. Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road Center. 31 The center at Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road is located on both sides of 32 the intersection. Tracts 109-114, Unit 26, Golden Gate Estates are included in 33 this center as eligible for commercial development. (See Collier Boulevard/Pine 34 Ridge Road Center Map). The E1/2 of Tract 107, Unit 26 is also included within 35 this center but is only to be used for buffer, water management and open space. 36 iii. Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. 37 This Center consists of all four quadrants at the intersection of Everglades and 38 Golden Gate Boulevards (See Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard 39 Center Map). The NE quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size 40 and consists of Tract 1, Unit 77 of Golden Gate Estates. The SE quadrant of the 41 Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 97, Unit 81 of 42 Golden Gate Estates. The NW quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 43 acres in size and consists of Tract 128, Unit 76 of Golden Gate Estates. The SW 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1902 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 31 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 1 96, Unit 81 of Golden Gate Estates. 2 3 iv. The Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard Center 4 This Center is located in the southwest and the southeast quadrants of the 5 intersection. This Center consists of three Tracts: Tract 128, Unit 47, is 5.15 + 6 acres and is located within the southwest quadrant of the Center, south of the 7 fire station; and, Tracts 113 and 16, Unit 46, are 4.05 +acres and 5.15 + acres 8 respectively, and are within the southeast quadrant of the Center, east of the 9 fire station. 10 c. Criteria for land uses at the centers are is as follows: 11 i. Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial so as to provide 12 for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of 13 automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning 14 districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 15 04-41, as amended), except as prohibited below. 16 ii. The Neighborhood Center located at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and 17 Collier Boulevard may be developed at 100% commercial and must provide 18 internal circulation. Any rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. 19 This Neighborhood Center may also be utilized for single-family residential or 20 conditional uses allowed in the Estates zoning district such as churches, social 21 or fraternal organizations, childcare centers, schools, and group care facilities. 22 iii. Parcels immediately adjacent to commercial zoning within the Neighborhood 23 Centers located at the intersections Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 24 Boulevard (excluding the SW quadrant), Golden Gate Boulevard and 25 Everglades Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road may qualify 26 for Conditional Use under the transitional conditional use provision of the 27 Conditional Uses Subdistrict of this Master Plan Element. 28 iv. iii. A single project shall utilize no more than 50% of the total allowed commercial 29 acreage. This percentage may be increased at the discretion of the Board of 30 County Commissioners. 31 v. iv.The project shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with 32 adjoining developments. 33 vi. v. Access points shall be limited to one per 180 feet commencing from the right-34 of -way of the major intersecting streets of the Neighborhood Center. A 35 maximum of three curb cuts per quadrant shall be allowed. 36 vii. vi.Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments, 37 whenever possible. 38 viii. vii.Driveways accessing parcels on opposite sides of the roadway shall be in 39 direct alignment, except when the roadway median between the two parcels 40 has no opening. 41 ix. viii. Projects shall provide a 25-foot wide landscape buffer abutting the external 42 right-of-way. This buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1903 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 32 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. spaced no more than 30 feet on center, and a double row hedge at least 24 1 inches in height at time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height 2 within one year. A minimum of 50% of the 25-foot wide buffer area shall be 3 comprised of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. 4 Existing native trees must be retained within this 25-foot wide buffer area to aid 5 in achieving this buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be 6 retained, where possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement. Water 7 retention/detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in nat ural 8 state, and drainage conveyance through the buffer area shall be allowed if 9 necessary to reach an external outfall. 10 11 a. For Tract 114, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 26, access shall be 12 restricted to 11th Avenue S.W. Also, vehicular interconnection shall 13 be provided to the adjacent property(s) in the Pine Ridge 14 Road/Collier Boulevard Neighborhood Center. 15 b. All buildings shall have tile roofs, ‘Old Style Florida’ metal roofs, or 16 decorative parapet walls above the roofline. The buildings shall be 17 finished in light, subdued colors, except for decorative trim. 18 x. Building heights shall be limited to one (1) story, with a maximum height of 19 thirty-five (35) feet. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 20 xi. ix. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally–designed, and shall be 21 limited to a height of twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be 22 shielded from neighboring residential land uses and consistent with Policy 23 5.2.4. 24 xii. x.Commercial uses shall encourage pedestrian traffic through placement 25 of sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking 26 areas. Adjacent projects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a 27 continuous pathway through the Neighborhood Center is created. 28 xiii. xi All buildings and projects within any single specific quadrant of the 29 Subdistrict shall utilize a common architectural theme. This theme shall be 30 applicable to both building design and signage. 31 xiv. No building footprint shall exceed 5,000 square feet, unless the project is 32 submitted in the form of a PUD. Walkways or courtyards shall connect 33 adjacent buildings. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 34 xv. Drive-through establishments shall be limited to banks, with no more than 35 3 lanes; the drive-through areas shall be architecturally integrated with the 36 rest of the building. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 37 xvi. xii Fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the 38 required landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential 39 uses. If constructed, such fences or walls shall not exceed five (5) feet in 40 height. Walls shall be constructed of brick or stone. Fences shall be of 41 wood or concrete post or rail types, and shall be of open design (not 42 covered by slats, boards or wire). 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1904 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 33 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. xvii. xiii Projects directly abutting residential property (property zoned E-Estates 1 and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, a 2 seventy-five (75) feet wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. 3 Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area 4 shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width 5 shall consist of retained native vegetation and must be consistent with 6 subsection 3.05.07H. of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 7 The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and 8 be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm 9 shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07H. of the LDC (native 10 vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered 11 for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water 12 management purposes shall meet the following criteria: 13 a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being 14 retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase 15 the annual hydro-period unless it is proven that such would have no 16 adverse impact to the existing vegetation. 17 b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water 18 Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official 19 document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within 20 the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water 21 management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such 22 a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for 23 water management. 24 c. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall 25 provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to 26 facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. 27 xix. xiv Projects within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict that are 28 submitted as PUDs shall provide a functional public open-space 29 component. Such public open-space shall be developed as green space 30 within a pedestrian-accessible courtyard, as per Section 4.06.03B. of the 31 Collier County Land Development Code, as in effect at the time of P.U.D. 32 approval. 33 xx. xv. The following principal permitted uses are prohibited within 34 Neighborhood Centers: 35 a. Drinking Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921) 36 b. Mail Order Houses (5961) 37 c. Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962) 38 d. Power Laundries (7211) 39 e. Crematories (7261) (Does not include non-crematory Funeral 40 Parlors) 41 f. Radio, TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising 42 Services (7331) 43 g. NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999) 44 h. General Hospitals (8062), Psychiatric Hospitals (8063), and Specialty 45 Hospitals (8069) 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1905 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 34 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. i. Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211), Colleges (8221), Junior 1 Colleges (8222) 2 j. Libraries (8231) 3 k. Correctional Institutions (9223) 4 l. Waste Management (9511) 5 m. Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens. 6 xxi. The following additional restrictions and standards apply to Tract 124 and 7 the north 150 feet of Tract 126, within the southwest quadrant of the 8 Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center: 9 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to the following: 10 1. medical offices and clinics and professional offices, except 11 surveyors; and, 12 2. medical related uses, such as a wellness center. 13 b. The ordinance rezoning this property to allow commercial uses shall 14 include the following requirements: 15 1. no less than sixty percent (60%) of the gross square footage 16 shall be designated for medical offices and clinics; and, 17 2. parking for the entire project shall be that required for medical 18 office or clinic use by the Land Development Code (Ordinance 19 No. 04-41, as amended), so as to allow 100 percent medical 20 office use. 21 c. Parking lot lighting shall be restricted to bollards except as may be 22 required to comply with lighting standards in the Land Development 23 Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and other governing 24 regulations. 25 d. The Neighborhood Center boundaries of this quadrant shall not be 26 further expanded. 27 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 28 Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning district within the Urban 29 Golden Gate Estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional 30 uses, one of the following four sets of criteria shall be met: 31 a. Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: 32 Those Essential Services Conditional Uses, as identified within Section 2.01.03 G. of 33 the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the 34 Estates Zoning District, except as prohibited in certain Neighborhood Centers, and are 35 described as: 36 1. electric or gas generating plants, 37 2. effluent tanks, 38 3. major re-pump stations, 39 4. sewage treatment plants, including percolation ponds, 40 5. hospitals and hospices, 41 6. water aeration or treatment plants, 42 7. governmental facilities (except for those Permitted Uses identified in Section 43 2.01.03 of the Land Development Code), 44 8. public water supply acquisition, withdrawal, or extraction facilities, and 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1906 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 35 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 9. public safety service facilities, and other similar facilities. 1 b. Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: 2 1. Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-3 75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, there shall be no further conditional 4 uses for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road 5 and Santa Barbara Boulevard, except: as permitted within the Golden Gate 6 Parkway Institutional Subdistrict and the Golden Gate Estates Commercial 7 Infill Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraphs 3. and 5. below; for the 8 properties identified as Unit 30 Tracts 113-115 and the N 150’ of tract 116 that 9 have existing Conditional Uses; and, for essential services, as described in 10 paragraph a., above. 11 2. Further, no properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway, 12 between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, shall be approved 13 for conditional uses except: as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway 14 Institutional Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraph 3. below; and, for 15 essential services, as described in paragraph a. above. 16 3. In consideration of the improvements associated with the interchange at 17 Interstate 75 and Golden Gate Parkway, the existing conditional use (church 18 and related facilities) located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Parkway 19 and 66th Street S.W. may be expanded in acreage and intensity along the south 20 side of Golden Gate Parkway to the east of 66th Street S.W., but the total project 21 area shall not exceed approximately 9.22 acres (see Golden Gate Parkway 22 Interchange Conditional Uses Area Map). 23 4. The parcel located immediately south of the Commercial Western Estates Infill 24 Subdistrict, on the west side of Collier Boulevard, and at the southwest 25 quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, 26 shall be eligible for a transitional conditional use designation. 27 5. Conditional use for expansion of the existing educational and charitable social 28 organization (Naples Bridge Center) is allowed on the east 150 feet of Tract 75 29 and the west 150 feet of Tract 82, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. The maximum 30 building area permitted on the two parcels shall be limited to 15,000 square 31 feet. Use of Tract 82 shall be limited to parking, water management and open 32 space uses. See Conditional Uses Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Special 33 Provisions map. 34 6. The property located on Collier Boulevard identified as Golden Gate Estates 35 Unit 1, north 150 feet of TR 114, less right-of-way, shall be eligible for 36 Conditional Use. 37 38 c. Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions: 39 Conditional uses shall be allowed immediately adjacent to designated Neighborhood 40 Centers subject to the following criteria: 41 1. Properties eligible for conditional uses shall abut the arterial or collector road 42 serving the Neighborhood Center, 43 2. Such uses shall be limited to transitional conditional uses that are compatible with 44 both residential and commercial such as neighborhood churches, social or 45 fraternal organizations, childcare centers, schools, and group care facilities, 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1907 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 36 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 3. All conditional uses shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with 1 adjoining developments whenever possible, 2 4. Conditional uses abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 3 75-foot buffer of native vegetation in which no parking or water management uses 4 are permitted, 5 5. Conditional uses adjoining the commercial uses within Neighborhood Centers 6 shall, whenever possible, share parking areas, access and curb cuts with the 7 adjoining commercial use, in order to facilitate traffic movement. 8 9 d. Transitional Conditional Uses: 10 Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined 11 as an area located between existing non-residential and residential areas. The 12 purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to 13 existing non-residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential 14 use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non-residential and residential 15 areas. 16 The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests: 17 1. Site shall be directly adjacent to a non-residential use (zoned or developed) or 18 directly adjacent to an intersection of a 4-lane or greater roadway with a 4-lane or 19 greater roadway, existing or planned, as identified in the Metropolitan Planning 20 Organization’s Long Range Transportation “cost feasible” plan; 21 2. Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more, in size or be at least 150 feet in wid th and shall 22 not exceed 5 acres; 23 3. Conditional Use Site abutting Estates zoned property without an approved 24 conditional use shall provide, at a minimum, a 75-foot buffer of native vegetation 25 in which no parking or water management uses are permitted; 26 4. Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place of worship, school, social or 27 fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home, hospice, rest home, 28 home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home, rehabilitation centers; 29 5. Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses; and 30 6. Site shall not be adjacent to permitted (by right) Essential Service uses, as 31 identified in Section 2.01.03 of the Land Development Code, except may be 32 located adjacent to libraries and museums. and electrical substations. 33 7. For a Transitional Conditional Use petition at a major intersection, in an effort to 34 avoid the concentration of the same type of conditional use at a single intersection, 35 the existing land uses at the intersection shall be considered. 36 37 e. Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 38 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County 39 Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use 40 District. Conditional use permits for the purpose of extending the time period for 41 use of the structure as a model home shall be required, and shall be subject to the 42 provisions of Section 5.04.04B. and C. of the Collier County Land Development 43 Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. Such conditional uses shall not be 44 subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be 45 allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1908 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 37 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning 1 district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be 2 allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 3 3. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates 4 zoning district, is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97 (See Special 5 Exception to Conditional Use Location Criteria Map). 6 4. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates 7 Zoning District is allowed on the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate 8 Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be 9 limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area (See Special Exception 10 to Conditional Use Location Criteria Map). 11 5. Conditional Use for a cellular tower may be is allowed anywhere in the Estates 12 Zoning District only on parcels no smaller than 2.25 acres and adjacent to a 13 roadway classified within the Transportation Element as a Collector or Arterial. 14 15 4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict 16 This Subdistrict is specific to Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66 of Golden Gate Estates Unit 30, and 17 includes four parcels of land containing approximately 16.3 acres, located on the north side 18 of Golden Gate Parkway, east of I-75 and west of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The intent of the 19 Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict is to provide for the continued operation of 20 existing uses, and the development and redevelopment of institutional and related uses. The 21 Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring residential uses and will utilize 22 well-planned access points to ensure safe and convenient access onto Golden Gate Parkway. 23 24 The following institutional uses are permitted through the conditional use process within the 25 Subdistrict: 26 a. Neighborhood Cchurches and other places of worship. 27 b. Group care facilities (Categories I and II) 28 c. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities associated with the David Lawrence 29 Center. 30 d. Essential services as set forth in Section 2.01.03 of the Collier County Land 31 Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. 32 e. Private schools associated with the David Lawrence Center or Parkway Community 33 Church of God, for Tracts 43, 50 and 59 only. 34 f. Day care centers associated with the David Lawrence Center or Parkway Community 35 Church of God. 36 g. Medical offices associated with the David Lawrence Center. 37 5. Mission Subdistrict 38 The Mission Subdistrict is located on the south side of Oil Well Road, approximately one -39 quarter mile west of Everglades Boulevard, and consists of 21.72 acres. The purpose of this 40 Subdistrict is to provide for churches and related uses, including community outreach. The 41 following uses are allowed: 42 a. Churches. 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1909 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 38 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. b. Child care centers – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the 1 Subdistrict. 2 c. Private schools – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the 3 Subdistrict. 4 d. Individual and family social services (activity centers, elderly or handicapped only; day 5 care centers, adult and handicapped only) – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a 6 church within the Subdistrict. 7 e. Medical outreach to the community, to include activities such as administering 8 influenza vaccine, checking blood pressure, and conducting blood donation drives – 9 must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the Subdistrict. 10 f. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are prohibited in this Subdistrict. 11 g. The maximum total floor area allowed in this Subdistrict is 90,000 square feet. The 12 maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet zoned height, except the worship center 13 shall be permitted a zoned height of 35 feet. Development in this Subdistrict shall be 14 designed to be compatible with the existing, and allowed future, development in the 15 surrounding area. 16 17 In the alternate to the foregoing uses, measures of development intensity, and development 18 standards, this Subdistrict may be developed with single family dwellings in accordance with 19 the Residential Estates Subdistrict. 20 21 Property adjacent to this Subdistrict shall not qualify for the Transitional Conditional Use. 22 23 6. Everglades – Randall Subdistrict 24 The Everglades – Randall Subdistrict is located on the northeast corner of Everglades 25 Boulevard and Randall Boulevard, consists of 7.8 acres, and comprises Tract 115 and the 26 east 150 feet of Tract 116, Unit 69, Golden Gate Estates. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to 27 provide for churches and other places of worship and their related uses. 28 29 The following use is permitted within the Subdistrict through the conditional use process: 30 a. Churches and other places of worship 31 The following church-related uses are prohibited within the Subdistrict: 32 a. Day care centers 33 b. Private schools 34 c. Soup kitchens 35 d. Homeless shelters 36 The maximum total floor area allowed in this Subdistrict is 20,000 square feet, including no 37 more than 230 seats. The maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet. Architectural features 38 such as steeples may be a maximum height of 60 feet. 39 For access drives, a throat depth of no less than 30 feet, measured from the roadway edge 40 of the pavement, shall be provided. 41 42 B. Estates – Commercial District 43 44 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 45 On the fringes of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan boundaries, there are several parcels 46 that are located within the Interchange Activity Center #10 at I-75 and Pine Ridge Road as 47 detailed in the County-wide Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Parcels within this Activity 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1910 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 39 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Center are subject to the County-wide FLUE and not this Master Plan. See Activity Center 1 and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Map for a detailed map of this Activity Center. 2 3 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 4 This Subdistrict is adjacent to the northwest quadrant of Interchange Activity Center #10, west 5 of the Naples Gateway PUD, and comprises 16.23 acres. It consists of Tracts 1, 12, 13 and 6 28 of Golden Gate Estates, Unit 35, as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 85, of the Public Records 7 of Collier County. The intent of the Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict is to allow for a 8 mix of both retail and office uses to provide for shopping and personal services for the 9 surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance and to provide commercial 10 services appropriately located along a collector roadway, Livingston Road. Well-planned 11 access points will be used to improve current and future traffic flows in the area. Within this 12 Subdistrict no more than 35,000 square feet of office-related uses on +3.2 acres are permitted 13 within the eastern portion of this property, which includes a portion of Tract 28 and a portion 14 of Tract 13. A maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable retail or office area, as allowed 15 in the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) of the Collier County Land Development Code 16 in effect as of the effective date of the adoption of this Subdistrict [Ordinance No. 0 3-01, 17 adopted January 16, 2003], are permitted within the western 10.52 acres of this property. The 18 C-3 uses are not an entitlement. Such uses will be further evaluated at the time of rezoning 19 application to insure appropriateness in relationship to surrounding properties. 20 A rezoning of the western 10.52 acres is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit 21 Development. Regulations for water management, uniform landscaping, signage, screening 22 and buffering will be included in the rezoning ordinance to ensure compatibility with nearby 23 residential areas, and shall be subject to the following additional criteria: 24 a. There shall be no access onto Livingston Woods Lane. 25 b. Shared access shall be encouraged. 26 c. Building heights shall not exceed 35 feet. 27 d. There shall be a minimum setback area of 75 feet along the northern property line. 28 e. Driveway access, parking, and water management facilities may be allowed within the 29 75-foot setback area along the northern property line, but none of these uses shall be 30 located closer than 30 feet to this line. 31 f. No freestanding automobile parking lots, homeless shelters or soup kitchens shall be 32 permitted. 33 g. Within the eastern portion of Tract 28, 2.2 acres, more or less, shall be preserved as 34 wetlands and no development shall occur within that area. 35 h. Within the western 10.52 acres, a loop road shall be constructed through the property 36 to provide access from Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road and to reduce traffic at the 37 intersection. 38 See Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Map for a detailed map of 39 this Subdistrict. 40 41 3. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 42 The Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, containing approximately 56.5 acres, is 43 located on the south side of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road (CR-846), extending 44 from 8th Street NE west to the Corkscrew Canal. This Subdistrict is comprised of the following 45 properties: Tracts 54, 55, 71, 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126 and 127, Golden Gate Estates, 46 Unit 23. This Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1911 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 40 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. and the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. It is the intent of this Subdistrict to 1 provide commercial goods and services to the surrounding area. 2 All development in the Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: 3 a. All development is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. 4 b. Projects directly abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 75-5 foot wide buffer of retained native vegetation in which no parking or water management 6 uses are permitted; except that, when abutting conditional uses no such buffer is 7 required. 8 c. Shared parking shall be required with adjoining development whenever possible. 9 d. Tract 55 shall only be utilized for native preservation and water management areas. 10 e. The eastern boundary of Tract 55 shall contain, at a minimum, a 50-foot wide 11 retained native vegetation buffer. 12 f. The following limitation shall apply to Tract 71 only: 13 1. Limitation of Uses – Uses shall be limited to the following: 14 a. Automobile Service Station; 15 b. Barber & Beauty Shops; 16 c. Convenience Stores; 17 d. Drug Stores; 18 e. Food Markets; 19 f. Hardware Stores; 20 g. Laundries – Self Service Only; 21 h. Parks, Public or Private; 22 i. Post Offices and Professional Offices; 23 j. Repair Shops – Radio, TV, Small Appliances and Shoes; 24 k. Restaurants, including fast food restaurants but not drive in restaurants; 25 l. All Permitted Uses of the C-2, Convenience Commercial, zoning district in the 26 Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended 27 as of April 14. 2009; and, 28 m. Veterinary Clinic with no outside kenneling; 29 30 g. The following limitations shall apply to Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126, 127, and 31 Tract 54: 32 1. Development intensity on Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126, 127 and the west 33 one-half of Tract 54 shall be limited to 360,950 square feet of floor area, of which 34 no more than 285,950 square feet shall be retail development. 35 2. Development intensity on the east one-half of Tract 54 shall be limited to 20,000 36 square feet of commercial development. 37 3. The first phase of the project development, exclusive of the existing 20,000 sq. ft. 38 of development on the east one-half of Tract 54, shall include a grocery anchor, 39 with a minimum of 35,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, prior to any 40 certificates of occupancy being issued beyond 100,000 square feet of commercial 41 development. 42 4. Allowable uses shall be limited to the permitted and conditional uses of the C-4, 43 General Commercial District in the Collier County Land Development Code in 44 effect as of the effective date of the adoption of the amendment of this Subdistrict 45 [Ordinance No. 2010 -32, adopted July 28, 2010], except that the following uses, 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1912 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 41 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1 shall be prohibited: 2 a. Tire Dealers, Automotive Retail (Group 5531) 3 b. Automotive Parking (Group 7521) 4 c. Communication Services (Group 4899) 5 d. Drinking Places (Group 5813) 6 e. Fishing Piers (Group 7999) 7 f. Glass and Glazing work (Group 1793) 8 g. Health Services (Groups 8059 - 8069) 9 h. Specialty Outpatient Facilities (Group 8093) 10 i. Houseboat Rental, Lakes Operations, Party and Pleasure Boat rental (Group 11 7999) 12 j. Large Appliance repair service (Group 7623) 13 k. Marinas (Group 4493 and 4499) 14 l. Miscellaneous Repair Services (Groups 7622-7641, 7699) 15 m. Liquor Store, unless operated by a Grocery Retailer (Group 5921) 16 n. Used Merchandise Store (Group 5932) 17 o. Automatic Merchandising Machine Operators (Group 5962) 18 p. Direct Selling Establishment (Group 5963) 19 q. Escort Services, Massage Parlors, Tattoo Parlors, Turkish Baths, Wedding 20 Chapels (Group 7299) 21 r. Betting Information Services, Bath Houses, Billiard Parlors, Bookies and 22 Bookmakers, Cable lifts, Carnival Operation, Circus Companies, Fortune 23 Tellers, Go-cart racing operation, Off-track betting, Ping Pong Parlors, Rodeo 24 Animal Rentals, Rodeos, Shooting Ranges, Trapshooting Facilities (Group 25 7999) 26 s. Parole offices, Probation offices, Public welfare centers, refugee services, 27 settlement houses (Group 8322) 28 t. Tow-in parking lots (Groups 7514, 7515, 7521) 29 u. Animal Specialty Services (Group 0752) 30 5. At time of rezoning, consideration shall be given to imposing appropriate 31 restrictions on the amount of development allowed in this Subdistrict prior to 32 discontinuance and relocation of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station and Florida 33 Division of Forestry fire tower uses. 34 6. All buildings on Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126 and 127 shall be developed 35 with a unified architectural theme. 36 7. Excluding the commercial zoning on Tract 71 and the existing approved 37 commercial zoning on the east one-half of Tract 54, any additional development in 38 the Subdistrict shall be developed in phases. Phase I shall be limited to 100,000 39 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Subsequent phases shall not receive 40 building permits until the Randall Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection project, 41 including the widening of the segment of Randall Boulevard abutting the 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1913 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 42 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Subdistrict, as shown on Exhibit “A” of the Developer Contribution Agreement 1 adopted July 28, 2010 by the Board of County Commissioners, has commenced. 2 No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for subsequent development phases 3 until the Randall Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection project is substantially 4 complete. Neither the building permits limitations nor the Certificates of 5 Occupancy limitations shall apply if satisfactory alternative mitigation is approved 6 by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Transportation Element Policy 7 5.1, or if traffic conditions change in such a manner that adequate capacity is 8 available. 9 10 4 3. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 11 The purpose of the Subdistrict is to allow for limited commercial and/or medical office uses, in 12 recognition of the subject property's unsuitability for single-family residential development. 13 Limited commercial and/or medical uses at this location will also assist in reducing the 14 distance and the number of vehicular trips generated within the general area through trip 15 capture. The standards contained in this Subdistrict are designed to ensure that uses within 16 the Subdistrict will be compatible with nearby residential development. A loop road shall be 17 required through the property to connect Vanderbilt Beach Road with Collier Boulevard will 18 also serve to lessen vehicular trips through the intersection. 19 20 a. Size and Location: 21 The Subdistrict includes a 6.23-acre parcel, located at the southwest corner of 22 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard (see Commercial Western Estates Infill 23 Subdistrict Map). The parcel is identified as Tract 105, Unit 2, Golden Gate Estates. 24 b. Permitted Uses and Development Intensity: 25 Within the subject property, 3.93 acres of office/medical use is permitted with a 26 maximum of forty-one thousand four hundred and ninety (41,490) square feet of gross 27 leaseable area permitted or approximately 6,660 square feet per gross acre. The 28 balance of the area, comprising +2.3 acres, shall remain in open space. Uses allowed 29 within this Subdistrict shall be those office uses, medical uses, and financial institutions 30 permitted whether by right or by conditional use, within the C-1 zoning district, as 31 contained in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 91-102, as of the 32 effective date of the adoption of this Subdistrict [Ordinance No. 03-01, adopted 33 January 16, 2003]. 34 c. Development Standards: 35 1. All permitted uses within this Subdistrict shall be encouraged to be submitted 36 in the form of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for the subject property 37 with special attention to be provided for shared access, water management, 38 uniform landscaping, signage, screening and buffering to ensure compatibility 39 with nearby residential areas. 40 2. Building height shall be limited to two stories, with a maximum height of thirty 41 (30) feet, except that portions of the property within one hundred (100) feet of 42 the buffer described in item #3, below, shall be limited to one story with a 43 maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet. 44 3. There shall be a setback of seventy-five (75) feet in width abutting Estates-45 zoned property. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1914 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 43 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. within this setback area. Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in 1 this setback area provided that the area is left in a natural state, and drainage 2 conveyance through the setback area shall be allowed, as necessary, in order 3 for stormwater to reach an external outfall. 4 4. The buffer area along Collier Boulevard/CR-951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road 5 shall be 25 feet in width and shall conform to the vegetative requirements of a 6 Type "B" buffer as provided for in the Collier County Land Development Code, 7 in effect as of the date of adoption of this amendment [Ordinance No. 03-01, 8 adopted January 16, 2003]. A loop road shall be constructed, internal to the 9 subject property. This road shall be open to the public, in order to connect 10 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, so as to provide an alternative 11 to use of the intersection. 12 5. The maximum gross leaseable floor area of each individual 13 office/medical/financial building footprint shall be 6,000 square feet. However, 14 buildings may be connected by architectural treatments, and shall be designed 15 to appear similar to residential structures through the treatment of rooflines and 16 other architectural embellishments. 17 6. No development of property within the Subdistrict shall commence until the 18 abutting segment of Collier Boulevard is four-laned. 19 20 5 4. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 21 This Subdistrict consists of two infill areas. The two areas are located at the northwest corner 22 of Collier Boulevard and Green Boulevard and at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara 23 Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in 24 proximity to the Estates Commercial In-fill Subdistrict (see Golden Gate Urban Commercial 25 Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map) and the need to 26 ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall 27 be permitted under the following criteria: 28 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to: 29 1. Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and 30 intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and 31 personal needs, and 32 2. Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services 33 in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be 34 similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land 35 Development Code (Ordinance 91-102), adopted October 30, 1991. 36 b. Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall 37 be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that 38 all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area 39 unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent 40 with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). 41 c. Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements 42 with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate. 43 d. Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with 44 adjoining commercial developments. 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1915 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 44 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. e. Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. 1 f. Any project located within this Subdistrict at the northwest corner of Golden Gate 2 Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, less and except an easement for Santa 3 Barbara Boulevard right-of-way, shall be subject to the following additional 4 development restrictions: 5 1. The site shall be limited to thirty-five thousand (35,000) square feet of building 6 area. 7 2. Land uses shall be restricted to offices only. 8 3. All principal structures shall be required to have a minimum setback of one 9 hundred (100) feet from the project's northern boundary. 10 4. The northern seventy-five (75) feet of the western sixty (60) percent of the site 11 shall be a green area (open space area). It shall be utilized for only water 12 management facilities, landscape buffers, and similar uses. 13 5. The western sixty (60) percent of the site shall have an outdoor pedestrian-14 friendly patio(s), that total at least five hundred (500) square feet in area and 15 incorporate a minimum of: benches or seating areas for at least twelve (12) 16 persons, and vegetative shading, and a waterfall or water feature of at least 17 one hundred (100) square feet in area, and brick pavers. 18 6. A twenty-five (25) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along the entire 19 frontage of both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 20 7. A minimum buffer of thirty-five (35) feet in width shall be provided along the 21 project's western boundary and along the eastern forty (40) percent of the 22 project's northern boundary. A minimum buffer of fifty (50) feet in width shall 23 be provided along the western sixty (60) percent of the project's northern 24 boundary. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained within 25 these buffers along the project's western and northern boundaries. These 26 buffers shall be supplemented with Oak or Mahogany trees planted a maximum 27 of twenty (20) feet apart in a staggered manner; and a seven (7) foot wall, 28 fence, or hedge that will, within two (2) years of planting, grow to a minimum 29 height of seven (7) feet and be a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent opaque. 30 8. All buildings shall have tile or metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above 31 the roofline, and buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for 32 decorative trim. 33 9. Building heights shall be limited to one (1)-story and a maximum of thirty-five 34 (35) feet. 35 10. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and limited to a height of 36 twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring 37 residential land uses. 38 11. There shall be no ingress or egress on Santa Barbara Boulevard. 39 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 40 Recognizing the need to provide for centrally located basic goods and services within a portion 41 Northern Golden Gate Estates, the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has been designated 42 on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. 43 The Subdistrict is located at the NW corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard 44 westward to 3rd Street NW and extending northward to include the southern 180 feet of Tracts 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1916 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 45 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate 1 Estates, totaling approximately 41 acres. 2 The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, 3 personal services and employment for the central areas of Northern Golden Gate Estates. 4 Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents, 5 assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier 6 County. 7 8 All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and 9 limitations: 10 a. Allowable Uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification 11 Manual, shall be limited to the following: 12 1. Amusement and recreation 13 Groups 7911 – Dance studios, schools and halls, excluding discotheques 14 7991 – Physical fitness facilities 15 7999 – Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, 16 allowing only day camps, gymnastics instruction, judo/karate 17 instruction, sporting goods rental and yoga instruction 18 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) 19 Groups 5611 – Men’s and boys’ clothing and accessory stores 20 5621 – Women’s clothing stores 21 5632 – Women’s accessory and specialty stores 22 5641 – Children’s and infants’ wear stores 23 5651 – Family clothing stores 24 5661 – Shoe stores 25 5699 – Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 26 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 27 Groups 5531 – Auto and home supply stores 28 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (No outdoor repair/service. All 29 repairs/services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) 30 Groups 7514 – Passenger car rental 31 5. Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers 32 Groups 5231 – Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 33 5251 – Hardware stores 34 5261 – Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores 35 6. Business services 36 Groups 7334 – Photocopying and duplicating services 37 7335 – Commercial photography 38 7336 – Commercial art and graphic design 39 7338 – Secretarial and court reporting services 40 7342 – Disinfecting and pest control services 41 7352 – Medical equipment rental and leasing 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1917 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 46 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 7359 – Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified, 1 excluding the following uses: airplane rental and leasing; coin 2 operated machine rental and leasing; industrial truck rental and 3 leasing; oil field equipment rental and leasing; oil well drilling 4 equipment rental; leasing; toilets, portable – rental and leasing; 5 and vending machines – rental only 6 7371 – Computer programming services 7 7372 – Prepackaged software 8 7373 – Computer integrated systems design 9 7374 – Computer processing and data preparation and processing 10 services 11 7375 – Information retrieval services 12 7376 – Computer facilities management services 13 7379 – Computer related services, not elsewhere classified 14 7382 – Security systems services 15 7383 – News syndicates 16 7384 – Photofinishing laboratories 17 7389 – Business services, not elsewhere classified 18 7. Communications 19 Groups 4812 – Radiotelephone communications 20 4841 – Cable and other pay television services 21 8. Construction, special trade contractors (office use only, no on-site materials or 22 equipment storage) 23 Groups 1711 – Plumbing, heating and air-conditioning 24 1721 – Painting and paper hanging industry 25 1731 – Electrical work industry 26 1741 – Masonry, stone setting, and other stone work 27 1742 – Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work 28 1743 – Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work industry 29 1751 – Carpentry work 30 1752 – Floor laying and other floor work, not elsewhere classified 31 industry 32 1761 – Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work industry 33 1771 – Concrete work industry 34 1781 – Water well drilling industry 35 1791 – Structural steel erection 36 1793 – Glass and glazing work 37 1794 – Excavation work 38 1795 – Wrecking and demolition work 39 1796 – Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere 40 1799 – Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified 41 9. Depository institutions 42 Groups 6021 – National commercial banks 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1918 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 47 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 6022 – State commercial banks 1 6029 – Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 2 6035 – Savings institutions, federally chartered 3 6036 – Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 4 6061 – Credit unions, federally chartered 5 6062 – Credit unions, not federally chartered 6 6091 – Non-deposit trust facilities 7 6099 – Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere 8 classified 9 10. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812, including only liquor service accessory to 10 the restaurant use, no outdoor music or televisions, and no windows or walls open 11 to the outside, except as required by code) 12 13 11. Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services 14 Groups 8711 – Engineering services 15 8712 – Architectural services 16 8713 – Surveying services 17 8721 – Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services 18 8741 – Management services 19 8742 – Management consulting services 20 8743 – Public relations services 21 8748 – Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified 22 12. Executive, legislative, and general government, except finance 23 Groups 9111 – Executive offices 24 9121 – Legislative bodies 25 9131 – Executive and legislative offices combined 26 9199 – General government, not elsewhere classified 27 13. Food stores 28 Groups 5411 – Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 29 5421 – Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners 30 5431 – Fruit and vegetable markets 31 5441 – Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 32 5451 – Dairy products stores 33 5461 – Retail bakeries 34 5499 – Miscellaneous food stores, including convenience stores with 35 fuel pumps and carwash 36 14. General merchandise stores 37 Groups 5311 – Department stores 38 5331 – Variety stores 39 5399 – Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 40 15. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores 41 Groups 5712 – Furniture stores 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1919 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 48 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 5713 – Floor covering stores 1 5714 – Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores 2 5719 – Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 3 5722 – Household appliance stores 4 5731 – Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 5 5734 – Computer and computer software stores 6 5735 – Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 7 5736 – Musical instrument store 8 16. Insurance carriers 9 Groups 6311 – Life insurance 10 6321 – Accident and health insurance 11 6324 – Hospital and medical service plans 12 6331 – Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 13 6351 – Surety insurance 14 6361 – Title insurance 15 6371 – Pension, health and welfare funds 16 6399 – Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 17 6411 – Insurance agents 18 17. Justice, public order and safety 19 Groups 9221 – Police protection 20 9222 – Legal counsel and prosecution 21 9229 – Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified 22 18. Meeting and banquet rooms 23 19. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) 24 Groups 5912 – Drug stores and proprietary stores 25 5921 – Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 26 5932 – Used merchandise stores 27 5941 – Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 28 5942 – Book stores 29 5943 – Stationery stores 30 5944 – Jewelry stores, including repair 31 5945 – Hobby, toy, and game shops 32 5946 – Camera and photographic supply stores 33 5947 – Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 34 5948 – Luggage and leather goods stores 35 5949 – Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 36 5992 – Florists 37 5993 – Tobacco stores and stands 38 5994 – News dealers and newsstands 39 5995 – Optical goods stores 40 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1920 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 49 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 5999 – Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified (excluding 1 gravestone, tombstones, auction rooms, monuments, 2 swimming pools, and sales barns) 3 20. Non-depository credit institutions 4 Groups 6111 – Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies 5 6141 – Personal credit institutions 6 6153 – Short-term business credit institutions, except agricultural 7 6159 – Miscellaneous business credit institutions 8 6162 – Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 9 6163 – Loan brokers 10 21. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 11 22. Personal services 12 Groups 7212 – Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners 13 7221 – Photographic studios, portrait 14 7231 – Beauty shops 15 7241 – Barber shops 16 7251 – Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 17 7291 – Tax return preparation services 18 7299 – Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified, 19 excluding massage parlors, Turkish baths and escort services 20 23. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy (Group 9311) 21 22 24. Real Estate 23 Groups 6512 – Operators of nonresidential buildings 24 6513 – Operators of apartment buildings 25 6514 – Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 26 6515 – Operators of residential mobile home sites 27 6517 – Lessors of railroad property 28 6519 – Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 29 6531 – Real estate agents and managers 30 6541 – Title abstract offices 31 6552 – Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 32 25. Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified (Group 8299) 33 26. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services 34 Groups 6211 – Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 35 6221 – Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 36 6231 – Security and commodity exchanges 37 6282 – Investment advice 38 6289 – Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, 39 not elsewhere classified 40 27. Social services 41 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1921 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 50 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Groups 8322 – Individual and family social services (adult day care centers 1 only) 2 8351 – Child day care services 3 28. Travel agencies (Group 4724) 4 29. Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742, excluding outside 5 kenneling) 6 30. Video tape rental (Group 7841, excluding adult oriented sales and rentals) 7 31. United states postal service (Group 4311, excluding major distribution centers) 8 32. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of 9 permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) 10 by the process outlined in the LDC. 11 12 b. Accessory Uses: 13 Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal 14 uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 15 1. Utility buildings (including water and wastewater plants) which shall be enclosed 16 2. Essential service facilities 17 3. Gazebos, statuary and other architectural features 18 4. Utilities, water and wastewater facilities and/or plants (all processing plants must 19 be enclosed) 20 5. Alcohol service for outdoor dining shall only be accessory to food service 21 c. Operational Standards 22 1. Outdoor music is prohibited 23 24 d. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial 25 Classification Manual, shall be prohibited: 26 1. Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified (Group 7999, 27 except those uses expressly listed above in a.1 are permitted) 28 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 29 3. Business Services 30 Groups 7313 – Radio, television, and publishers’ advertising 31 representatives 32 7331 – Direct mail advertising services 33 4. Correctional Institutions (Group 9223) 34 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) 35 6. Educational services 36 Groups 8211 – Elementary and secondary schools 37 8221 – Colleges, universities, and professional schools 38 8222 – Junior colleges and technical institutes 39 8231 – Libraries 40 7. Health services 41 Groups 8062 – General medical and surgical hospitals 42 8063 – Psychiatric hospitals 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1922 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 51 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 8069 – Specialty hospitals, except psychiatric 1 8. Miscellaneous Retail 2 Groups 5921 – Liquor stores 3 5961 – Catalog and mail-order houses 4 5962 – Automatic merchandising machine operators 5 9. Personal services 6 Groups 7211 – Power Laundries, family and commercial 7 7261 – Funeral service and crematories 8 10. Social services 9 Groups 8322 – Individual and family social services, excluding adult day care 10 centers 11 8361 – Residential care, including soup kitchens and homeless shelters 12 e. Development intensity shall be limited to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor 13 area. 14 f. No commercial use shall exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, except for a 15 single grocery store use between twenty-seven thousand (27,000) and sixty thousand 16 (60,000) square feet in size, a single commercial use of up to thirty thousand (30,000) 17 square feet in size, and a single commercial use of up to twenty thousand (20,000) 18 square feet in size. 19 g. No building may exceed 30,000 square feet in size, except for the grocery anchored 20 building with inline stores. 21 h. Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments 22 related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified 23 timeframes: 24 1. Right-of-Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right-of-Way for the 25 Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 26 days of a written request from the County. 27 2. The owner will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson 28 Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for 29 reimbursement. 30 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 31 Boulevard are complete, the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy 32 (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development. The applicant must 33 obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet, and the 34 grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. 35 i. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and 36 the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all 37 commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. 38 This subdistrict includes a conceptual plan, which identifies the location of the 39 permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict. The 40 preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan 41 requirements for retained native vegetation, including but not limited to the 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1923 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 52 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME. A more detailed development plan must 1 be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. 2 j. Development standards, including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings 3 shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning. Any future PUD rezone shall include 4 at a minimum: 5 1. Landscape buffers adjacent to external rights-of-way shall be: 6 a. 1st/3rd Streets ‒ Minimum 30’ wide enhanced buffer 7 b. Wilson Boulevard ‒ Minimum 25’ wide enhanced buffer 8 c. Golden Gate Boulevard ‒ Minimum 50’ wide enhanced buffer 9 2. Except for the utility building, no commercial building may be constructed within 10 125 feet of the northern property boundary and within 300’ of the 3rd Street NW 11 boundary of this subdistrict. 12 3. Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property (property zoned 13 E-Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, 14 a seventy-five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330’ of Tract 106, 15 which shall provide a minimum 20’ wide buffer in which no parking uses are 16 permitted. Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed 17 area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width 18 shall consist of retained or re-planted native vegetation and must be consistent 19 with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 20 The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be 21 used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be 22 revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.H of the LDC (native vegetation 23 replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered for approval, 24 use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes 25 shall meet the following criteria: 26 a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. 27 The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-28 period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the 29 existing vegetation. 30 b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management 31 District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District 32 indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to 33 be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District 34 cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention 35 area shall not be used for water management. 36 c. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the developer’s engineer shall 37 provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate 38 the necessary storage of water in the water management area. 39 40 41 42 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1924 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 53 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 7. 5. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 1 The Southbrooke Office Subdistrict is approximately five (5) acres and is located approximately 2 1/4 mile east of Oakes Boulevard on the south side of Immokalee Road. he intent of the 3 subdistrict is to permit general office, medical office, and business service uses generally 4 consistent with those uses permissible by right, or as a conditional use in the C-1 Commercial 5 Professional and General Office zoning district. 6 7 Development within the Subdistrict is encouraged to be rezoned as a PUD in order to provide 8 greater specificity of permitted land uses, development standards and any necessary operational 9 characteristics. A maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial development shall be permitted. 10 All buildings will be limited to single-story, and shall be constructed in a common architectural 11 theme. A minimum 30 feet in width vegetated buffer shall be provided adjacent to Autumn Oaks 12 Lane, which shall consist of retained native vegetation. Access to the Subdistrict shall only be 13 from Immokalee Road. 14 15 3. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION 16 A. Rural Settlement Area District 17 This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 18 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 19 and 1970. In settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property 20 has been “vested” for the types of land uses specified in that certain “PUD” by Settlement Zoning 21 granted by the County as referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT 22 dated the 27th day of January 1986. Twenty-one hundred (2,100) dwelling units and twenty-two 23 (22) acres of neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel use are “vested”. This area is now 24 comprised of the Orange Tree PUD and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, and the types of uses 25 permitted in this District include residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community 26 facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and 27 recreational uses, and essential service uses. 28 By designation in the Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as 29 Settlement Area, the Plan recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban 30 Designation, is appropriate for the following types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, 31 agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf 32 course, open space and recreational, and essential services. 33 Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic 34 boundaries of this District will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above-referenced 35 vested status. The geographic expansion of the Settlement Area to additional lands outside the 36 areas covered by Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 37 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), shall be prohibited. The Settlement Area Land 38 Use District is limited to the area described above and shall not be available as a land use district 39 for any other property in the County. 40 4. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES 41 A. Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Overlay 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1925 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Urban Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 54 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Southern Golden Gate Estates is identified as a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) 1 Overlay on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and is subject to the NRPA Overlay 2 provisions of the FLUE. 3 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1926 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) 55 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmitt al hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES C. LIST OF MAPS Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map High Density Residential Subdistrict 1989 Boundaries of Activity Center Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use Activity Center/Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road Interchange Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Center Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center Immokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades – Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria in Golden Gate Estates Immokalee Road/Randall Boulevard Planning Study Area 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1927 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) i Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. “Exhibit A” COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT Prepared by Collier County Zoning Division Prepared for COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Adopted (date) 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1928 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element ii Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN: RURAL GOLDEN GATE ESTATES SUB-ELEMENT SYMBOL DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. The parenthesized Roman numeral symbols enumerated above appear throughout this Element and provide informational citations to adopted documents recorded in the Official Records of Collier County, as required by Florida law. These symbols are for informational purposes only, meant to mark entries amended after the 1997 adoption of the full Element and typically found in the margins of this document, but are not themselves adopted. * Indicates adopted portions ** Ordinance No. 2000-25 rescinded and repealed in its entirety Collier County Ordinance No. 99-63, which had the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives (date), 2019 2019-(#) May 9, 2000 2000-25 ** May 9, 2000 2000-26 *** (I) May 9, 2000 2000-27 (II) May 9, 2000 2000-28 (III) May 9, 2000 2000-29 (IV) March 13, 2001 2001-12 (V) May 14, 2002 2002-24 (VI) September 10, 2003 2003-44 (VII) December 16, 2003 2003-67 (VIII) October 26, 2004 2004-71 (IX) June 7, 2005 2005-25 (X) January 25, 2007 2007-19 (XI) December 4, 2007 2007-76 (XII) December 4, 2007 2007-77 (XIII) December 4, 2007 2007-83 (XIV) October 14, 2008 2008-55 (XV) October 14, 2008 2008-56 (XVI) October 14, 2008 2008-59 (XVII) July 28, 2010 2010-31 (XVIII) July 28, 2010 2010-32 (XIX) September 14, 2011 2011-29 (XX) January 9, 2013 2013-15 (XXI) November 18, 2014 2014-41 (XXII) November 10, 2015 2015-62 (XXIII) May 10, 2016 2016-12 (XXIV) June 13, 2017 2017-23 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1929 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element iii Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM). *** Ordinance No. 2000-26 amended Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, having the effect of rescinding certain EAR-based (1996 EAR) objectives and policies at issue in Administration Commission Case No. ACC-99-02 (DOAH Case No. 98-0324GM), more specifically portions of the Intergovernmental Coordination Element (Ord. No. 98-56), Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge (Ord. No. 97-59) and Drainage (Ord. No. 97-61) sub-elements of the Public Facilities Element, Housing Element (Ord. No. 97-63), Golden Gate Area Master Plan (Ord. No. 97-64), Conservation and Coastal Management Element (Ord. No. 97-66), and the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map (Ord. No. 97-67); and readopting Policy 2.2.3 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. • The above Ordinance No. 2007-19 is based on the 2004 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). • The above Ordinance No. 2013-15 is based on the 2011 Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1930 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element iv Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. AMENDMENTS TO COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN – prior to 2000 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN DATE AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. May 19, 1992 92-34 August 4, 1992 92-50 May 25, 1993 93-24 April 12, 1994 94-22 March 14, 1995 95-12 April 14, 1998 98-26 September 8, 1998 98-70 February 23, 1999 99-17 Note: All of the above amendments occurred after adoption of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan in 1991 (Ord. No. 91-15) and prior to adoption of amendments in 1997 that were subsequently re-adopted in 2000. These amendments are no longer denoted on the pages of the Element with Roman numeral symbols. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1931 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element v Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. OVERVIEW 2 A. County-Wide Planning Process B. Golden Gate Area Planning Process * III. IMPLEMENTATION SECTION 3 A. Goals, Objectives and Policies 3 B. Land Use Designation Description Section 13 1. Urban 13 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION 10 A. Estates – Mixed Use District 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 4. Mission Subdistrict 5. Everglades – Randall Subdistrict B. Estates - Commercial District 21 1. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 2. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 2. AGRICULTURE/RURAL DESIGNATION 27 A. Agricultural/Rural Settlement Area 45 3. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES 45 A. Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Overlay * C. List of maps 46 Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map High Density Residential Subdistrict 1989 Boundaries of Activity Centers Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use Activity Centers Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1932 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element vi Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Pine Ridge Road (CR 896) ‒ Interchange Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Center Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center Immokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades – Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use in Golden Gate Estates Immokalee Road/Randall Boulevard Planning Study Area 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1933 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 1 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. I. INTRODUCTION 1 As part of the revised Growth Management Plan, the County adopted the original Golden Gate 2 Area Master Plan (GGAMP) in 1991. The GGAMP was further revised in 1997. The Golden Gate 3 Area Master Plan provides growth management regulations for the designated Golden Gate Area 4 (see original Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Map). 5 The Golden Gate Area was previously subject to the regulations outlined in the County's Future 6 Land Use Element (FLUE). However, in 1991, the unique characteristics of the area resulted in 7 adoption of a Master Plan for Golden Gate, as a separate Element of the Collier County Growth 8 Management Plan. This Master Plan superseded former Objective 1, Policy 1.1, and Policy 1.3 9 of the FLUE. All other Goals, Objectives, and Policies contained in the FLUE and all other 10 Elements of the Growth Management Plan remain applicable to the Golden Gate Area. In 11 addition, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map will be used instead of the County-Wide 12 Future Land Use Map. 13 In April 1996, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report 14 (EAR) for Collier County. As a result of the recommendations made in the EAR, Ordinance 91-15 15, which adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan, was repealed and a new Ordinance 16 97-64 was adopted. 17 In February of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate a restudy of the 18 Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Accordingly, in June of 2001, Comprehensive Planning Section 19 Staff requested that the Board appoint an advisory committee, consisting of residents of Golden 20 Gate City and Golden Gate Estates, to aid Staff in the restudy process. The Golden Gate Area 21 Master Plan Restudy Committee met on over twenty (20) occasions, between June 2001 and 22 June 2003, to consider proposed amendments to the GGAMP, as well as other matters related to 23 the Golden Gate Area. All meetings were open to the public; many of these meetings were well 24 attended. 25 The restudy process was divided into two phases. The County transmitted Phase I amendments 26 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in April 2003. These amendments were 27 adopted, as Ordinance 2003-44, in September 2003. Phase II amendments were transmitted in 28 June 2004. The Phase II amendments were adopted in October 2004, as Ordinance 2004-71. 29 In February 2015, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate another restudy of 30 the GGAMP. Staff evaluated the Golden Gate Area within 3 distinct areas: 1) Golden Gate City, 31 2) Golden Gate Rural Estates, defined as the Estates area east of Collier Boulevard; and 3) 32 Golden Gate Urban Estates, defined as the Estates area west of Collier Boulevard. Guided by an 33 Oversight Committee, staff conducted eight public workshops along with electronic outreach to 34 gather resident and stakeholder opinions. Most fundamentally, the vision statements created by 35 consensus within the sub-areas of the Golden Gate Area are as follows: 36 Golden Gate City Vision Statement: 37 Golden Gate City is a safe, diverse, family-oriented community that offers easy access to 38 education, parks, shopping and services within a vibrant, walkable community. 39 Rural Golden Gate Estates Vision Statement: 40 The Rural Golden Gate Estates is an interconnected, low-density residential community with 41 limited goods and services in neighborhood centers, defined by rural character with appreciation 42 for nature and quiet surroundings. 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1934 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 2 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Urban Golden Gate Estates Vision Statement: 1 Urban Golden Gate Estates is a low-density, large-lot residential neighborhood in a natural setting 2 with convenient access to the coastal area. 3 This plan includes three major sections: 4 The OVERVIEW section provides an introduction to Countywide and Golden Gate Area planning 5 efforts. 6 The IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY places the Plan into effect. Strategies have been developed 7 to address land use, public facilities, transportation, rural character, emergency management and 8 natural resources. This section includes the Goals, Objectives, and Policies, the Golden Gate 9 Area Future Land Use Map and the Land Use Designation Description Section. The Goals, 10 Objectives and Policies include Goal 2, which deals solely with Golden Gate City. Because the 11 visions and opinions of Estates residents were similar in the Rural and Urban areas, both areas 12 of Golden Gate Estates are covered together in Goals 3-7. 13 The SUPPORT DOCUMENT outlines data and information used to develop the Implementation 14 strategy, including the Goals, Objectives, and Policies. 15 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1935 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 3 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. II. OVERVIEW 1 A. COUNTY-WIDE PLANNING PROCESS 2 Pursuant to Section 163.3177(6), Florida Statutes, the Collier County Growth Management Plan 3 shall contain the following elements: 4 1. Future Land Use 5 2. Housing 6 3. Public Facilities 7 4. Conservation and Coastal Management (Coastal Counties only) 8 5. Intergovernmental Coordination 9 6. Capital Improvements 10 7. Transportation 11 8. Recreation and Open Space 12 In addition to the above Elements, local government comprehensive plans in Florida may, by 13 decision of the local legislative body, contain one or more optional elements. Optional elements 14 are required to comply with certain general criteria under Section 163.3177, Florida Statutes, but 15 are not subject to specific requirements (with some exceptions). In 1991, the Board of County 16 Commissioners chose the option of adopting the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, in recognition of 17 the unique characteristics of the Golden Gate Area. 18 In addition to establishing the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s mandatory structure, 19 Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, also subjects the Plan to a mandatory evaluation process every 20 seven (7) years. This process involves the preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Review 21 (EAR) to determine whether, and to what extent, the existing Growth Management Plan has 22 carried out its stated Goals, Objectives and Policies. 23 B. GOLDEN GATE AREA PLANNING PROCESS 24 Objective 4 of the Collier County Future Land Use Element (FLUE) allows the countywide 25 planning process to “address specific geographic or issue areas.” Policy 4.1 of this Objective 26 reads as follows: 27 “A detailed Master Plan for Golden Gate Estates has been developed and was incorporated 28 into this Growth Management Plan in February 1991. The Master Plan addresses Natural 29 Resources, Future Land Use, Water Management, Public Facilities and other considerations.” 30 In February 1991, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the original Golden Gate Area 31 Master Plan. The original Master Plan incorporated the recommendations of a Citizens Steering 32 Committee. A revised and updated Master Plan was adopted in 1997, pursuant to 33 recommendations of the County’s 1996 Evaluation and Appraisal Report. In 2001, the Board of 34 County Commissioners established the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee and 35 directed Staff to work with the Committee to further revise and update the Master Plan. The Board 36 of County Commissioners adopted revisions to the GGAMP, incorporating the recommendations 37 of the Restudy Committee, in 2003 and 2004. 38 39 40 41 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1936 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 4 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. III. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 1 This section places the plan into effect. Implementation strategies include the Goals, Objectives 2 and Policies, and the Land Use Designation Description Section. 3 A. GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 4 GOAL 1: 5 TO GUIDE LAND USE AND PUBLIC FACILITY DECISION MAKING AND TO BALANCE THE 6 NEED TO PROVIDE BASIC SERVICES WITH NATURAL RESOURCE CONCERNS THROUGH 7 A WELL PLANNED MIX OF COMPATIBLE LAND USES WHICH ENSURE THE HEALTH, 8 SAFETY, WELFARE, AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE LOCAL RESIDENTS. 9 10 OBJECTIVE 1.1: 11 Develop new or revised uses of land consistent with designations outlined on the Rural Golden 12 Gate Estates Area Future Land Use Map and provisions found in the Land Use Designation 13 Description Section of this Sub-Element. 14 15 Policy 1.1.1: 16 The Policies under the above Objective shall identify the Future Land Use Designations, Districts, 17 and Subdistricts for the Rural Golden Gate Estates Area. 18 19 Policy 1.1.2: 20 The Land Use Designation Description Section of this Element shall provide the standards and 21 permitted uses for Rural Golden Gate Estates Area Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts. 22 23 Policy 1.1.3: 24 The Rural Golden Gate Estates Area Future Land Use Map and companion Future Land Use 25 Designations, Districts, and Subdistricts shall be binding on all development orders unless 26 otherwise permitted in this Master Plan effective with the adoption of this Master Plan. 27 28 Policy 1.1.4: 29 The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and 30 Subdistricts for: 31 A. URBAN ‒ MIXED USE DISTRICT 32 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 33 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict 34 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict 35 B. URBAN ‒ COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 36 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 37 2. Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict 38 3. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 39 4. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 40 41 42 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1937 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 5 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 1.1.5 1.1.4: 1 The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and 2 Subdistricts for: 3 A. ESTATES – MIXED USE DISTRICT 4 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 5 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 6 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 7 4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict 8 5. Mission Subdistrict 9 6. Everglades – Randall Subdistrict 10 B. ESTATES – COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 11 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 12 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 13 3. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 14 4. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 15 5. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 16 6. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 17 7. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 18 19 Policy 1.1.6 1.1.5: 20 The AGRICULTURAL/RURAL Future Land Use Designation shall include the following Future 21 Land Use District: 22 A. RURAL SETTLEMENT AREA DISTRICT 23 24 Policy 1.1.7 1.1.6: 25 Overlays and Special Features shall include: 26 A. Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Overlay 27 28 Policy 1.1.8 1.1.7: 29 Conditional Use requests within Rural Golden Gate Estates shall adhere to the guidelines outlined 30 in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict. 31 32 Policy 1.1.9 1.1.8: 33 To obtain Conditional Use approval, a super majority vote (minimum of 4 votes) by the Board of 34 Zoning Appeals shall be required. 35 36 Policy 1.1.10 1.1.9: 37 No development orders shall be issued inconsistent with the Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub- 38 Element Master Plan with the exception of those unimproved properties granted a positive 39 determination through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program and identified on the Future Land Use 40 Map Series as properties consistent by Policy and those development orders issued pursuant to 41 conditional uses and rezones approved based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1938 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 6 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. (adopted January 10, 1989, Ordinance 89-05) which was in effect at the time of approval. Any 1 subsequent development orders shall also be reviewed for consistency with the Growth 2 Management Plan based on the County-Wide Future Land Use Element. 3 4 Policy 1.1.11 1.1.10: 5 The sites containing existing public educational plants and ancillary plants, and the undeveloped 6 sites owned by the Collier County School Board for future public educational plants and ancillary 7 plants, within the GGAMP Rural Golden Gate Estates area, are depicted on the Future Land Use 8 Map Series in the countywide FLUE and on the Public School Facilities Element Map Series, and 9 referenced in FLUE Policy 5.14 and Intergovernmental Coordination Element Policy 1.2.6. All of 10 these sites are subject to the general Interlocal Agreement, adopted on May 15, 2003 by the 11 Collier County School Board and on May 27, 2003 by the Board of County Commissioners, and 12 as subsequently amended and restated, with an effective date of December 2008, and subject to 13 the implementing land development regulations to be adopted. 14 15 OBJECTIVE 1.2: 16 Ensure public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service. 17 18 Policy 1.2.1: 19 Requests for new uses of land shall be subject to level of service standards and concurrency 20 requirements for public facilities as outlined in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth 21 Management Plan. 22 23 OBJECTIVE 1.3: 24 Protect and preserve the valuable natural resources within the Rural Golden Gate Estates area. 25 26 Policy 1.3.1: 27 The County shall protect and preserve natural resources within the Rural Golden Gate Estates 28 area in accordance with the Objectives and Policies contained within Goals 6 and 7 of the Collier 29 County Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). 30 31 Policy 1.3.2: 32 As provided for in CCME Policy 6.1.1, the subdivision of tracts up to 13 acres in size and 33 designated Residential Estates Subdistrict shall not trigger preserve requirements. 34 35 Policy 1.3.3: 36 Collier County shall coordinate its planning and permitting activities within the Rural Golden Gate 37 Estates area with all other applicable environmental planning, permitting and regulatory agencies 38 to ensure that all Federal, State and local natural resource protection regulations are being 39 enforced. 40 41 OBJECTIVE 1.4: 42 Provide a living environment within the Rural Golden Gate Estates area, which is aesthetically 43 acceptable and protects the quality of life. 44 45 Policy 1.4.1: 46 Collier County shall provide a living environment that is aesthetically acceptable and protects the 47 quality of life through the enforcement of applicable codes and laws. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1939 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 7 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 1.4.2: 1 The County's Code Enforcement Board shall strictly enforce the Land Development Code and 2 other applicable codes and laws to control the illegal storage of machinery, vehicles and junk, and 3 the illegal operation of commercial activities within the Rural Golden Gate Estates area. 4 5 GOAL 2: GOLDEN GATE CITY 6 TO PRESERVE AND ENHANCE A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL LAND USES 7 WITHIN GOLDEN GATE CITY THAT CREATES A SAFE, DIVERSE AND VIBRANT 8 WALKABLE COMMUNTY CONSISTENT WITH THE STATED VISION OF GOLDEN GATE 9 CITY. 10 11 OBJECTIVE 2.1: 12 Provide for residential and commercial land uses that meet the needs of Golden Gate City and 13 the surrounding area. 14 15 Policy 2.1.1: 16 Development and redevelopment within Golden Gate City shall be guided by the residential and 17 commercial needs consistent with the stated vision of Golden Gate City. 18 19 Policy 2.1.2: 20 The County shall protect established stable neighborhoods and provide opportunity for 21 redevelopment and renewal through development standards and practices that promote 22 compatibility. 23 24 Policy 2.1.3 25 Within two years, Collier County shall create development standards to guide the transformation 26 of Golden Gate Parkway and the Activity Center into destinations that are convenient, pleasant 27 and safe for pedestrians and cyclists, and maintain strong connections to transit service. 28 29 Policy 2.1.4 30 The Activity Center shall allow uses intended to strengthen the economic health of Golden Gate 31 City. 32 33 Policy 2.1.5 34 Collier County shall discourage new land uses along Golden Gate Parkway and within the Activity 35 Center that impede pedestrian activity and are solely auto-oriented, such as car washes, storage 36 facilities, auto dealerships and drive throughs. Land development regulations will be established 37 within two years to ensure compatibility of auto-oriented uses within the pedestrian environment. 38 39 Policy 2.1.6 40 Residential land use designations shall support the diversity of housing types within Golden Gate 41 City. 42 43 Policy 2.1.7: 44 Collier County shall respond to community-initiated planning programs as they may occur. 45 Community planning programs may take into consideration the following issues: 46 A. Affordable housing based upon home ownership; 47 B. Commercial re-vitalization, to include: 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1940 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 8 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. i. Sidewalks 1 ii. Traffic calming measures 2 iii. Improved street lighting; 3 C. Neighborhood parks, open space and recreational centers; 4 D. Crime reduction; 5 E. Consistent enforcement of land development regulations; and, 6 F. Improved lighting for streets and parking areas. 7 8 OBJECTIVE 2.2: 9 Strengthen the quality of life in Golden Gate City and the surrounding area, and promote a healthy 10 economy through support of redevelopment and renewal in Golden Gate City with focus along 11 Golden Gate Parkway and within the designated Activity Center. 12 Policy 2.2.1 13 Collier County shall consider the use of redevelopment tools such as tax increment financing. 14 15 Policy 2.2.2 16 Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate a community renewal plan to include 17 economic development strategies, urban design schemes, and infrastructure improvements. 18 Renewal plans shall be in concert with the vision of Golden Gate City and promote vibrant 19 urbanism, improve aesthetics and support walkability. 20 21 Policy 2.2.3 22 Within two years of adoption, Collier County shall initiate the involvement of Golden Gate City 23 residents and business owners to consider amendments to the Land Development Code to 24 support and implement residential and commercial redevelopment and renewal initiatives. 25 Amendments shall include incentives for remodeling and renovation by creating criteria and 26 standards for variances and/or deviations. 27 28 Policy 2.2.4 29 In collaboration with the Golden Gate City residents and business owners, and other community 30 partners such as the Greater Naples Chamber of Commerce, Collier County shall initiate a 31 branding and marketing plan for Golden Gate City within two years of adoption. The proposed 32 plan shall be in concert with the overall vision for Golden Gate City. 33 34 Policy 2.2.5 35 Collier County will work to ensure pertinent economic incentive programs are made available to 36 those seeking business creation and redevelopment opportunities. 37 38 OBJECTIVE 2.3 39 Ensure Golden Gate City public facilities are provided at an acceptable level of service, planned 40 and implemented in concert with the vision of Golden Gate City. 41 42 Policy 2.3.1 43 Due to the continued use of individual septic systems and private wells within a densely platted 44 urban area, Collier County Public Utilities will expand sewer and water service in accordance with 45 the Implementation Report attached as Appendix A to Resolution No. 2017-222. Expansion plans 46 shall consider the renewal areas of Golden Gate Parkway and the area surrounding the Activity 47 Center a priority for expansion and shall coordinate its projects with scheduled road and/or 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1941 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 9 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. stormwater improvements to maximize efficiency and minimize disruption to businesses and 1 residents. 2 3 Policy 2.3.2 4 Collier County will support all transportation needs within Golden Gate City with an emphasis on 5 walkability. Walkability will be improved through the implementation of the recommendations of 6 the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Walkability Study. 7 8 Policy 2.3.3 9 Redevelopment within the Activity Center shall maintain multiple access points to the surrounding 10 neighborhoods and through the Activity Center while providing safe and direct access to transit 11 stops within or adjacent to the Activity Center. 12 13 Policy 2.3.4 14 Alleys in Golden Gate City may only be vacated if such vacation does not prevent reasonable 15 connection and continuity for future pedestrian, non-motorized and transit trips. Within one year 16 of adoption, Resolution 2013-166 shall be amended to implement this policy. 17 Policy 2.3.5 18 To ensure a safe and pleasant pedestrian environment, Collier County shall periodically conduct 19 speed studies in Golden Gate City. When appropriate, traffic calming measures and speed limit 20 reductions may be implemented. 21 22 GOAL 3 2: 23 TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE AREA WHICH LIES SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 75 (ALLIGATOR 24 ALLEY) TO US 41 (TAMIAMI TRAIL) IS AN AREA OF SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 25 SENSITIVITY AND IS BIOLOGICALLY AND HYDROLOGICALLY IMPORTANT THROUGH 26 PARTICIPATION IN THE PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT AS PART OF THE 27 FEDERAL SAVE OUR EVERGLADES PROGRAM. BASED UPON SUCH CONDITIONS, THE 28 STATE HAS ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP OF ALL LANDS WITHIN THE SOUTHERN GOLDEN 29 GATE ESTATES (SGGE) PICAYUNE STRAND RESTORATION PROJECT AREA. 30 31 GOAL 4 3: 32 TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITED COMMERCIAL SERVICES AND CONDITIONAL USES FOR 33 PURPOSES OF SERVING THE RURAL NEEDS OF GOLDEN GATE ESTATES RESIDENTS, 34 SHORTENING VEHICULAR TRIPS, AND PRESERVING RURAL CHARACTER. 35 36 OBJECTIVE 4.1 3.1: 37 Meet the locational and rural design criteria contained within the Estates Designation, Estates-38 Mixed Use District, Neighborhood Center Subdistrict and Conditional Use Subdistrict of this Rural 39 Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan Sub-Element, of the Collier County Growth Management 40 Plan when considering the placement and designation of Neighborhood Centers and Conditional 41 Uses within Rural Golden Gate Estates. 42 43 Policy 4.1.1 3.1.1: 44 Neighborhood Centers within Rural Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to the locational and 45 rural design criteria established within the Estates Designation, Estates – Mixed Use District, 46 Neighborhood Center Subdistrict of this Rural Golden Gate Estates Area Master Plan Sub-47 Element, of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1942 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 10 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 4.1.2 3.1.2: 1 Conditional Uses within Rural Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to locational and dimensional 2 criteria established within the Conditional Use Subdistrict in the Land Use Designation Description 3 section of this Rural Golden Gate Area Master Plan Sub-Element. 4 5 OBJECTIVE 4.2 3.2: 6 Provide for new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers or and other future 7 Commercial Land Use Designations. 8 9 Policy 4.2.1 3.2.1: 10 Within one year of the completion of the Randall Blvd. and Oil Well Rd. Corridor study, the County 11 Manager or designee shall initiate an evaluation of the future land uses along Immokalee Rd. in 12 the vicinity of Randall Blvd., Oil Well Rd. and Wilson Blvd. (as generally shown on the 13 ImmokaleeRd./Randall Blvd. Planning Study Area Map) and make recommendations to the Board 14 of County Commissioners for any proposed changes to the future land uses. 15 16 GOAL 5 4: 17 TO PRESERVE THE AREA’S RURAL CHARACTER, AS DEFINED BY LARGE WOODED 18 LOTS, THE KEEPING OF LIVESTOCK, THE ABILITY TO GROW CROPS, WILDLIFE 19 ACTIVITY, ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 20 DEVELOPMENT, AND LIMITATIONS ON COMMERCIAL AND CONDITIONAL USES. 21 22 OBJECTIVE 5.1 4.1: 23 Balance the provision of public infrastructure with the need to preserve the rural character of Rural 24 Golden Gate Estates. 25 26 Policy 5.1.1 4.1.1: 27 Future road and bridge improvements in Rural Golden Gate Estates shall not only provide for 28 safety and reasonable mobility, but shall also contribute to the rural character of the area. 29 Transportation improvements shall be designed in context with their setting. 30 31 Policy 5.1.2 4.1.2: 32 The County shall initiate architectural standard requirements in the Land Development Code 33 within two years of adoption that apply to commercial, conditional use and essential services 34 facilities, reflecting the rural character of the Estates area and providing coherence and area 35 identity. 36 37 Policy 5.1.3 4.1.3: 38 The County Manager or designee shall create a public network of greenway corridors within Rural 39 Golden Gate Estates that interconnects public lands and permanently protected green space. 40 The greenway network shall consist of interconnected trails and paths that allow people to move 41 about the Estates area by means other than motorized vehicles. All greenways shall be 42 constructed within or abutting existing or future public easements or rights-of-way. In creating the 43 greenway network, the County shall not employ eminent domain proceedings. 44 45 Policy 5.1.4: 46 Recognizing the residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-75 interchange at Golden 47 Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1943 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 11 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties 1 abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new 2 commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate 3 Parkway within the above-defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing portion of 4 the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of 5 the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 6 7 OBJECTIVE 5.2 4.2: 8 Provide for the protection of the rural character of Rural Golden Gate Estates. 9 10 Policy 5.2.1 4.2.1: 11 Rural character protection provisions shall provide for the preservation of such rural amenities as, 12 but not limited to, wooded lots, the keeping of livestock, the ability to grow crops, wildlife activity, 13 and low-density residential development. 14 15 Policy 5.2.2 4.2.2: 16 The growing of food crops and/or the keeping of livestock on properties within Rural Golden Gate 17 Estates shall be permitted, provided that such activities are conducted according to the Land 18 Development Code. 19 20 Policy 5.2.3 4.2.3: 21 Rural character shall be further protected by resisting site-specific Master Plan changes that are 22 out of scale or character with the rural quality of Golden Gate Estates. 23 24 Policy 5.2.4 4.2.4: 25 Recognizing the low density in Rural Golden Gate Estates, the County will initiate a review of 26 written notification requirements in the Land Development Code and the Administrative Code 27 related to land use petitions in Golden Gate Estates, within 1 year of adoption, and consider 28 increasing the specified distance, with particular attention to properties located on dead-end 29 streets. 30 31 Policy 5.2.5 4.2.5: 32 Consistent with public safety requirements and best practices for rural areas, outdoor lighting 33 within Rural Golden Gate Estates shall be placed, constructed and maintained in such manner 34 as to prevent or reduce light pollution. In implementing this Policy, the County shall: 35 a. Adhere to the “Collier County Lighting Standards” (County Manager’s Office Standards dated 36 January 6, 2017) as amended, with respect to new and existing County owned or maintained 37 sites and structures. 38 b. Continue to coordinate with FPL and FDOT to improve roadway and security lighting 39 consistent with International Dark Skies Association best practices. 40 c. Consider changes to the Land Development Code and other applicable ordinances to 41 create voluntary or mandatory outdoor lighting standards for commercial, residential or 42 other uses consistent with International Dark Skies Association best practices, and 43 determine the extent such standards apply to new or existing development. 44 45 OBJECTIVE 5.3 4.3: 46 Encourage the preservation of natural resources in Rural Golden Gate Estates, including 47 protection and enhancement of its watershed. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1944 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 12 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 5.3.1 4.3.1: 1 The Land Development Code shall continue to allow and further encourage the preservation of 2 native vegetation and wildlife indigenous to the Rural Golden Gate Estates Area. 3 4 Policy 5.3.2 4.3.2: 5 The County shall continue to pursue the Watershed Management Plan initiatives in Rural Golden 6 Gate Estates as financial and staff resources become available. 7 8 Policy 5.3.3 4.3.3: 9 The County shall encourage the combination of parcels smaller than 2.25 acres with other parcels 10 in order to preserve and enhance low-density environmental advantages. Within two years of 11 adoption of this policy, County staff will present recommendations for property owner incentives 12 to the Board of County Commissioners. 13 14 Policy 5.3.4 4.3.4: 15 The County will evaluate the use of transferable development rights for the purpose of securing 16 the preservation of wetland or other environmentally significant land within Rural Golden Gate 17 Estates, in a timeframe directed by the Board. 18 19 Policy 5.3.5 4.3.5: 20 Within two years of adoption, the County, in coordination with the Floodplain Management 21 Committee, will initiate a study on the feasibility of dispersed water management (DWM) for single 22 family Estates lots, and determine the extent to which it will rely on voluntary, incentive or 23 mandatory provisions and whether provisions will apply to developed and undeveloped Estates 24 parcels. 25 26 Policy 5.3.6 4.3.6: 27 The County will continue to identify and implement educational opportunities related to water 28 resources for parcel owners, homeowners, builders, real estate professionals and the public to 29 aid in understanding and addressing site-specific financial and environmental impacts as well as 30 area-wide impacts to water resources. 31 32 Policy 5.3.7 4.3.7: 33 The County will periodically coordinate with the South Florida Water Management District to 34 review the Level of Service Standards for primary water management canals within the County 35 and their effect on Rural Golden Gate Estates. 36 37 Policy 5.3.8 4.3.8: 38 The County shall continue to pursue a best management practices approach to making sept age 39 treatment available to residents and businesses within Rural Golden Gate Estates, as a 40 component of bio-solid processing, either directly, through a private entity, or through a public -41 private partnership. 42 43 GOAL 6 5: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 44 TO PROVIDE FOR A SAFE AND EFFICIENT COUNTY AND LOCAL ROADWAY NETWORK, 45 WHILE AT THE SAME TIME SEEKING TO PRESERVE THE RURAL CHARACTER OF RURAL 46 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES IN FUTURE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE 47 GOLDEN GATE AREA. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1945 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 13 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. OBJECTIVE 6.1 5.1: 1 Increase the number of route alternatives for traffic moving through the Rural Golden Gate Area 2 in both east-west and north-south directions, consistent with neighborhood traffic safety 3 considerations, and consistent with the preservation of the area’s rural character. 4 5 Policy 6.1.1 5.1.1: 6 In planning to increase the number of route alternatives through the Rural Golden Gate Estates 7 Area, Collier County will prioritize the following routes over other alternatives: 8 a. The extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road from its current terminus to DeSoto Boulevard. 9 b. The development of a north-south connection from the eastern terminus of White 10 Boulevard to Golden Gate Boulevard. 11 c. The development of a new east-west roadway crossing the Estates Area south of Golden 12 Gate Boulevard. 13 14 Policy 6.1.2 5.1.2: 15 The County shall coordinate with FDOT and the Metropolitan Planning Organization to submit a 16 revised interchange justification report for an interchange at I-75 in the vicinity of Everglades Blvd. 17 (Section 31-34, Township 49, Range 28). 18 19 Policy 6.1.3 5.1.3: 20 Everglades Blvd., between Golden Gate Blvd and I-75, shall not be expanded beyond 4 lanes. 21 22 OBJECTIVE 6.2 5.2: 23 Increase linkages within the local road system for the purposes of limiting traffic on arterials and 24 major collectors within Rural Golden Gate Estates, shortening vehicular trips, and increasing 25 overall road system capacity. 26 27 Policy 6.2.1 5.2.1: 28 The County shall continue to explore alternative financing methods to facilitate both east - west 29 and north-south bridging of canals within Rural Golden Gate Estates. 30 31 Policy 6.2.2 5.2.2: 32 The County shall update the 2008 Bridge Study to prioritize bridge construction based on 33 emergency response times, evacuation times, cost components, anticipated development 34 patterns and other considerations and shall report its recommendations to the Board of County 35 Commissioners within two years of adoption of this policy. 36 37 Policy 6.2.3 5.2.3: 38 Planning and right-of-way acquisition for bridges within the Estates Area local road system shall 39 include consideration of the costs and benefits of including sidewalks and bike lanes. 40 41 Policy 6.2.4 5.2.4: 42 Sidewalks and bike lanes shall provide access to government facilities, schools, commercial 43 areas and the planned Metropolitan Planning Organization greenway network. 44 45 Policy 6.2.5 5.2.5: 46 Planning, funding and implementation of potential greenway trails shall be coordinated between 47 the County and the Metropolitan Planning Organization. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1946 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 14 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. OBJECTIVE 6.3 5.3: 1 Explore alternative financing methods to accelerate paving of lime rock roads. 2 3 Policy 6.3.1 5.3.1: 4 The County will consider the acceleration of the paving of lime rock roads, including a cost/benefit 5 analysis, in its annual budget review. 6 7 GOAL 7 6: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 8 TO PROTECT THE LIVES AND PROPERTY OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE GREATER RURAL 9 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES AREA, AS WELL AS THE HEALTH OF THE NATURAL 10 ENVIRONMENT, THROUGH THE PROVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES THAT PREPARE 11 FOR, MITIGATE, AND RESPOND TO, NATURAL AND MANMADE DISASTERS. 12 13 OBJECTIVE 7.1 6.1: 14 Coordinate with local emergency services officials in engineering and constructing road 15 improvements within Rural Golden Gate Estates to ensure that the access needs of fire 16 department, police and emergency management personnel and vehicles are met. 17 18 Policy 7.1.1 6.1.1: 19 Collier County shall hold at least one annual public meeting with Golden Gate Area emergency 20 services providers and the local civic association in order to ensure that emergency needs are 21 addressed during the acquisition of right-of-way for design and construction of road 22 improvements. 23 24 Policy 7.1.2 6.1.2: 25 Collier County shall continue to coordinate with Golden Gate Area emergency services providers 26 to prioritize necessary road improvements related to emergency evacuation needs. 27 28 OBJECTIVE 7.2 6.2: 29 Ensure that the needs of all applicable emergency services providers are included and 30 coordinated in the overall public project design for capital improvement projects within the Rural 31 Golden Gate Estates Area. 32 33 Policy 7.2.1 6.2.1: 34 Preparation of Collier County’s annual Schedule of Capital Improvements for projects within the 35 Rural Golden Gate Estates Area shall be coordinated with the independent Fire Districts that 36 serve Rural Golden Gate Estates (Fire Districts), public and private utilities, Emergency Medical 37 Services Department and the Collier County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that public project 38 designs are consistent with the needs of these agencies. 39 40 Policy 7.2.2 6.2.2: 41 The Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue Districts, Collier County Emergency Medical Services 42 Department and the Collier County Sheriff’s Department will receive copies of pre-construction 43 plans for capital improvement projects in the Rural Golden Gate Estates Area and will be invited 44 to review and comment on plans for the public projects. 45 46 47 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1947 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 15 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. OBJECTIVE 7.3 6.3: 1 Maintain and implement public information programs through the Collier County Bureau of 2 Emergency Services, Collier County Sheriff’s Department, Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue 3 Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and other appropriate agencies, to inform 4 residents and visitors of the Greater Golden Gate Area regarding the means to prevent, prepare 5 for, and cope with, man-made and natural disasters. 6 7 Policy 7.3.1 6.3.1: 8 The Fire Districts that serve the Golden Gate area, and other appropriate agencies, shall embark 9 on an education program to assist residents in knowing and understanding the value and need 10 for prescribed burning on public lands in high risk fire areas. 11 12 Policy 7.3.2 6.3.2: 13 The Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and 14 Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall actively promote the Firewise Communities 15 Program through public education in Rural Golden Gate Estates. 16 17 Policy 7.3.3 6.3.3: 18 The Golden Gate Fire Central and Rescue Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and 19 the Collier County Bureau of Emergency Services shall hold one or more annual “open house” 20 presentations in the Golden Gate Area emphasizing issues related to wildfires, flooding, 21 emergency access and general emergency management. 22 23 OBJECTIVE 7.4 6.4: 24 Pursue appropriate planning and mitigation measures to address the threat of wildfires in Rural 25 Golden Gate Estates. 26 27 Policy 7.4.1 6.4.1: 28 Collier County shall evaluate the Land Development Code for Rural Golden Gate Estates and 29 shall eliminate any requirements that are found to be inconsistent with acceptable fire prevention 30 standards. This evaluation process shall be coordinated with the Golden Gate Fire Central and 31 Rescue Districts, the Greater Naples Fire Rescue District and the Collier County Bureau of 32 Emergency Services. 33 34 Policy 7.4.2 6.4.2: 35 Within one year of adoption, the County shall begin to evaluate the need to purchase or dedicate 36 parcels within Rural Golden Gate Estates for the purpose of providing staging areas for wildfire 37 prevention activities for the Florida Forest Service, Independent Fire Districts, Collier County or 38 other agency use and will consider whether potential parcels may be used for other public 39 purposes including ride sharing or park and ride facilities allowed by Conditional Use. 40 41 Policy 7.4.3 6.4.3: 42 The County shall explore annually, options for funding wildfire prevention measures undertaken 43 by the County, Florida Forest Service and/or independent Fire Districts, including but not limited 44 to Rural Golden Gate Estates Municipal Services Taxing Units (MSTU) revenue, grant funding 45 and general fund revenue. 46 47 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1948 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 16 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Policy 7.4.4 6.4.4: 1 The County shall review annually and update as necessary, all interlocal agreements and mutual 2 aid agreements to assure coordination of legal, procedural and educational components of wildfire 3 prevention. 4 5 Policy 7.4.5: 6 All new residential structures shall comply with NFPA (National Fire Protection Association, 7 Incorporated) 299 Standard for Protection of Life and Property from Wildfire, 1997 Edition, or the 8 most recent edition, as adopted by reference in the Florida Fire Code. 9 10 Policy 7.4.6: 11 Modified portions of existing structures shall meet NFPA Standards through the adoption of 12 appropriate regulations in the County Building Codes. 13 14 Policy 7.4.7 6.4.5: 15 County-owned property within Rural Golden Gate Estates shall be subject to an active, on-going 16 management plan to reduce the damage caused by wildfires originating from County-owned 17 properties. 18 19 20 21 [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 22 23 24 25 26 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1949 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 17 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. B. LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION 1 The following section describes the three land use designations shown on the Rural Golden Gate 2 Estates Area Future Land Use Map. These designations generally indicate the types of land uses 3 for which zoning may be requested. However, these land use designations do not guarantee that 4 a zoning request will be approved. Requests may be denied by the Board of County 5 Commissioners based on criteria in the Land Development Code or in special studies completed 6 for the County. 7 1. URBAN DESIGNATION: 8 URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT AND URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 9 Urban Designated Areas on the Future Land Use Map include two general portions of Collier 10 County: areas with the greatest residential densities and areas in close proximity, which have or 11 are projected to receive future urban support facilities and services. It is intended that Urban 12 Designated areas accommodate the majority of population growth and that new intensive land 13 uses be located within them. 14 The boundaries of the Urban Designated areas have been established based on several factors 15 including: 16 • patterns of existing development, 17 • patterns of approved but unbuilt development, 18 • natural resources, water management, and hurricane risk, 19 • existing and proposed public facilities, 20 • population projections, and 21 • land needed to accommodate growth. 22 The Urban Designation will also accommodate future non-residential uses including essential 23 services as defined by the most recently adopted Collier County Land Development Code. Other 24 permitted non-residential land uses may include: 25 a. parks, open space and recreational use; 26 b. water-dependent and water-related uses; 27 c. child care centers; 28 d. community facilities such as churches, cemeteries, schools, and school facilities co-29 located with other public facilities such as parks, libraries, and community centers, where 30 feasible and mutually acceptable, fire and police stations; 31 e. utility and communication facilities. 32 f. support medical facilities such as physician's offices, medical clinics, treatment, research 33 and rehabilitative centers and pharmacies (as long as the dominant use is medical related) 34 may also be permitted provided they are granted concurrent with or located within ¼ mile 35 of existing or approved hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care 36 treatment for all types of injuries and traumas, such as, Golden Gate Urgent Care. 37 Stipulations to ensure that the construction of such support medical facilities is concurrent 38 with hospitals or such medical centers shall be determined at the time of zoning approval. 39 40 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1950 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 18 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Group Housing shall be permitted within the Urban Mixed-Use District and Urban Commercial 1 Districts subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land 2 Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and consistent with locational 3 requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). 4 Group Housing includes the following type facilities: 5 a. Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in 6 residential areas. 7 b. Group Care Facility, 8 c. Care Units, 9 d. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and 10 e. Nursing Homes. 11 A. Urban-Mixed Use District 12 This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and commercial land uses 13 including single-family, multi-family, duplex, and mixed use (Planned Unit Development). 14 1. Urban Residential Subdistrict 15 All land within the urban mixed-use designation is zoned and platted. However, any parcel to 16 be rezoned residential is subject to and must be consistent with the Density Rating System. 17 DENSITY RATING SYSTEM: 18 a. BASE DENSITY – Four (4) residential units per gross acre is the eligible density, though 19 not an entitlement. 20 b. DENSITY BONUSES – Density bonuses are discretionary, not entitlements, and are 21 dependent upon meeting the criteria for each bonus provision and compatibility with 22 surrounding properties, as well as the rezone criteria in the Land Development Code. 23 The following densities per gross acre may be added to the base density. In no case 24 shall the maximum permitted density exceed 16 residential dwelling units per gross acre. 25 i. Conversion of Commercial Zoning Bonus 26 • 16 dwelling units – If a project includes the conversion of commercial zoning that 27 has been found to be “Consistent By Policy” through the Collier County Zoning Re-28 evaluation Program (Ordinance No. 90-23), then a bonus of up to 16 dwelling units 29 per acre may be added for every one (1) acre of commercial zoning that is 30 converted to residential zoning. These dwelling units may be distributed over the 31 entire project. 32 ii. Proximity to Activity Center 33 • 3 dwelling units - Within 1 mile of Activity Center 34 iii. Affordable Housing Bonus 35 To encourage the provision of affordable housing within certain Districts and 36 Subdistricts in the Urban Designated Area, a maximum of up to 12 residential units 37 per gross acre may be added to the base density if the project meets the requirements 38 of the Affordable Housing Density Bonus Ordinance (Section 2.06.00 of the Land 39 Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and if the affordable housing 40 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1951 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 19 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. units are targeted for families earning no greater than 140% of the median income for 1 Collier County. 2 3 iv. Residential In-fill 4 If the project is 10 acres or less in size; located within an area with central public water 5 and sewer service; compatible with surrounding land uses; has no common site 6 development plan with adjoining property; no common ownership with any adjacent 7 parcels; and the parcel in question was not created to take advantage of the in-fill 8 residential density. 9 • 3 dwelling units 10 v. Roadway Access 11 Density credits based on future roadways will be awarded if the developer commits to 12 construct a portion of the roadway (as determined by the County) or the road is 13 scheduled for completion during the first five years of the Capital Improvement 14 Schedule. 15 • Add 1 dwelling unit - if direct access to two or more arterial or collector roads as 16 identified in the Transportation Element. 17 c. There are Density Bands located around Activity Centers. The density band around 18 an Activity Center shall be measured by the radial distance from the center of the 19 intersection around which the Activity Center is situated. If 50% or more of a project is 20 within the density band, the additional density applies to the entire project. Density bands 21 shall not apply within the Estates Designation. 22 2. High Density Residential Subdistrict: 23 To encourage higher density residential and promote mixed uses in close proximity to Activity 24 Centers, those residential zoned properties permitting up to 12 dwelling units per acre which 25 were located within and consistent with the Activity Center designation at Golden Gate 26 Parkway and Coronado Parkway established by the 1989 Collier County Growth Management 27 Plan and subsequently removed by the creation of a new Activity Center via the adoption of 28 the Golden Gate Area Master Plan are recognized as being consistent with this Master Plan 29 and are outlined on the High Density Residential Subdistrict Map. 30 31 3. Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict: 32 The primary purpose of the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict (see Downtown Center 33 Commercial Subdistrict Map) is to encourage redevelopment along Golden Gate Parkway in 34 order to improve the physical appearance of the area and create a vibrant and viable 35 downtown district within Golden Gate City. Emphasis shall be placed on the creation of a 36 pedestrian-oriented boulevard. 37 The provisions of this Subdistrict are intended to ensure harmonious development of 38 commercial and mixed-use buildings at a pedestrian scale that are compatible with residential 39 development within and outside of the Subdistrict. 40 41 The Subdistrict allows the aggregation of properties in order to promote flexibility in site design. 42 The types of uses permitted within this Subdistrict are low intensity retail, office, personal services, 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1952 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 20 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. institutional, and residential. Non-residential development is intended to serve the needs of 1 residents within the Subdistrict, surrounding neighborhoods, and passersby. 2 a. All development or redevelopment within the boundaries of the Downtown Center 3 Commercial Subdistrict shall include: 4 i. Provisions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 5 ii. An emphasis on building aesthetics. 6 ii. Emphasis on the orderly circulation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 7 iii. Provision for broad sidewalks. 8 iv. Enhanced streetscaping. 9 v. Project interconnections, where possible and feasible. 10 vi. Quality designs for building façades, including lighting, uniform signage and 11 landscaping. 12 b. Permitted uses within this Subdistrict shall include only the following, except as may 13 be restricted in an implementing zoning overlay district, and except as may be 14 prohibited in Paragraph D, below: 15 i. Those uses permitted by right within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts, as 16 outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC); 17 ii. Residential uses permitted by right in the existing residential zoning districts in 18 this Subdistrict; 19 iii. Those permitted uses that may be allowed in an implementing zoning overlay 20 district. 21 c. Conditional uses allowed by this Subdistrict shall include only: 22 i. Those conditional uses allowed within the C-1, C-2 and C-3 Zoning Districts, as 23 outlined in the LDC; 24 ii. Those conditional uses allowed, by the LDC, within existing residential Zoning 25 Districts in this Subdistrict; 26 iii. Those conditional uses that may be allowed in an implementing zoning overlay 27 district; and, 28 d. Prohibited uses in this Subdistrict are as follows: 29 i. Automatic food and drink vending machines located exterior to a building. 30 ii. Any commercial use employing drive-up, drive-in or drive-through delivery of 31 goods or services. 32 iii. Enameling, painting or plating as a primary use. However, these uses are 33 permitted if secondary to an artist’s or craft studio. 34 iv. Single-room occupancy hotels, prisons, detention facilities, halfway houses, soup 35 kitchens or homeless shelters. 36 v. Uses as may be prohibited in an implementing zoning overlay district. 37 38 B. Urban Commercial District 39 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 40 The Activity Center designated on the Future Land Use Map is intended to accommodate 41 commercial zoning within the Urban Designated Area. Activity Centers are intended to be 42 mixed-use (commercial, residential, institutional) in character. The Activity Center concept is 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1953 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 21 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. designed to concentrate new and existing commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts 1 can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial 2 development, and to create focal points within the community. The size and configuration of 3 the Activity Center is outlined on the Urban Mixed-Use Activity Center – Golden Gate Parkway 4 and Coronado Parkway Map. 5 The standard for intensity of commercial uses allowed within each Activity Center is the full 6 array of uses allowed in the C-1 through C-5 Zoning Districts, as identified in the Land 7 Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) excluding the following new 8 commercial uses: 9 10 Hotels and motels that locate within an Activity Center will be allowed to develop at a density 11 consistent with the Land Development Code. Residential density for residential projects 12 located within the boundaries of the Mixed-Use Activity Center shall be allowed to develop at 13 a density of up to 22 residential units per gross acre. This density may be distributed 14 throughout the project, including any portion located outside of the boundary of the Mixed-15 Use Activity Center. 16 17 Certain uses specifically intended to support economic development in Golden Gate City are 18 allowed within the Mixed Use Activity Center. The following uses, as identified with a number 19 from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual are permissible. 20 a. Advanced manufacturing, including automated apparel (2211-2299, and 2311-2399), 21 light assembly (3679) and 3D printing (3571, 3629); 22 b. Call centers (7338); 23 c. Software development and programming (7371); 24 d. Internet technologies and electronic commerce (7374); 25 e. Data and information processing (7374); 26 f. Professional services that are export based such as laboratory research or testing 27 activities (8734); 28 g. Other uses as may be determined by the Board of County Commissioners consistent 29 with the intent of supporting economic development in Golden Gate City. 30 31 2. Golden Gate Urban Commercial In-fill Subdistrict 32 This Subdistrict is located at the southwest quadrant of C.R. 951 and Golden Gate Parkway. 33 Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in proximity to the Commercial In -fill 34 Subdistrict (see Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates 35 Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map) and the need to ensure adequate development standards 36 to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the following criteria: 37 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to: 38 i. Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and 39 intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and 40 personal needs, and 41 ii. Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and service s in 42 areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar 43 to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land 44 Development Code (Ordinance 91-102), adopted October 30, 1991. 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1954 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 22 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. b. Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall 1 be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that 2 all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area 3 unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent 4 with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan); 5 c. Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements 6 with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate; 7 d. Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with 8 adjoining commercial developments; and 9 e. Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. 10 11 3. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict 12 The boundaries of the Subdistrict are hereby expanded to include the former Commercial 13 Subdistrict and also to extend approximately one (1) block to the east of the former boundary 14 (see Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Map). The intent of the Santa Barbara 15 Commercial Subdistrict is to provide Golden Gate City with an area that is primarily 16 commercial, with an allowance for certain conditional uses. The types of uses permitted within 17 this Subdistrict are low intensity retail, offices, personal services, and institutional uses, such 18 as churches and day care centers. Such development is intended to serve the needs of 19 residents within the Subdistrict and surrounding neighborhoods and persons traveling nearby. 20 Commercial and institutional uses permitted within this Subdistrict are those that: 21 a. Generate/attract relatively low traffic volumes; 22 b. Are appropriately landscaped and buffered to protect nearby residential properties; 23 and 24 c. Are architecturally designed to be compatible with nearby residential areas. 25 26 4. Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 27 The primary purpose of the Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict (see Collier Boulevard 28 Commercial Subdistrict Map) is to encourage redevelopment along Collier Boulevard in order 29 to improve the physical appearance of the area. This Subdistrict is intended to allow a mix of 30 uses, including heavy commercial within those areas presently zoned C-5. 31 This Subdistrict includes properties zoned RMF-12, C-4, and C-5. This Subdistrict will allow 32 commercial development on lands presently zoned residential. 33 Buildings shall be limited to three stories, not to exceed 50 feet, inclusive of under building 34 parking. 35 Within one year of the effective date of this Subdistrict, the Land Development Code shall be 36 amended to establish a zoning overlay containing regulations to implement this Subdistrict. 37 38 a. All development and redevelopment within this Subdistrict shall include: 39 1. Provisions for bicycle and pedestrian travel. 40 2. An emphasis on building aesthetics. 41 3. Emphasis on the orderly circulation of vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1955 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 23 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 4. Provision for adequate ingress and egress, which may include local street vacation 1 or relocation if alternative access is provided. 2 5. Provision for broad sidewalks or pathways. 3 6. Enhanced streetscaping. 4 7. Shared parking and/or property interconnections, where possible and feasible. 5 8. Quality designs for building facades, including lighting, uniform signage and 6 landscaping. 7 2 1. ESTATES DESIGNATION 8 This designation is characterized by low density semi-rural residential lots with limited 9 opportunities for other land uses. Typical lots are 2.25 acres in size. However, there are some 10 legal non-conforming lots as small as 1.14 acres. Residential density is limited to a maximum of 11 one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive of 12 guesthouses. Multiple family dwelling units, duplexes, and other structures containing two or 13 more principal dwellings, are prohibited in all Districts and Subdistricts in this Designation. 14 Generally, the Estates Designation also accommodates future non-residential uses, including: 15 a. Conditional uses and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code, except 16 as prohibited in the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict. Also, refer to the Conditional Uses 17 Subdistrict. 18 b. Parks, open space and recreational uses. 19 c. Group Housing shall be permitted subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in 20 the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and 21 consistent with locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.001 F.S.). 22 d. Schools and school facilities in the Estates Designation north of I-75, and where feasible 23 and mutually acceptable, co-locate schools with other public facilities, such as parks, 24 libraries and community centers to the extent possible. 25 Group Housing includes the following type facilities: 26 aa. Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in 27 residential areas. 28 bb. Group Care Facility, 29 cc. Care Units, 30 dd. Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and 31 ee. Nursing Homes. 32 All of the above uses shall be consistent with all of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 33 Golden Gate Area Master Plan. 34 35 A. Estates ‒ Mixed-Use District 36 37 1. Residential Estates Subdistrict 38 Single-family residential development is allowed within this Subdistrict at a maximum density 39 of one unit per 2.25 gross acres, or one unit per legal non-conforming lot of record, exclusive 40 of guesthouses. 41 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1956 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 24 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 2. Neighborhood Center Subdistrict 1 Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, 2 Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Rural Golden Gate Estates Area Future 3 Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial 4 zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial 5 zoning. 6 a. The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural 7 design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood 8 Centers. 9 b. Locations 10 Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within 11 Rural Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates. (See Golden 12 Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Map). The centers are designed to concentrate 13 all new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning 14 District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid 15 strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. 16 Four Three Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: 17 i. Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. 18 This center consists of three quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden 19 Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist 20 of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 21 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate 22 Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant 23 shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 24 Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE 25 quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres 26 of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and 27 right-of-way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The SW 28 quadrant of the Center is approximately 11.78 acres in size and consists of Tract 29 124, 125, and the north 150 feet of Tract 126, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. 30 The acreage specified for the SE and SW quadrants may be increased through 31 the rezone process if such increase will support infrastructure improvements 32 necessary to allow changes or expansion of allowed uses, or to improve 33 functionality of the infrastructure improvements, based on the developed square 34 footage as of January 1, 2018. For purposes of this paragraph, infrastructure 35 improvements include site ingress and egress, drainfield, package plant or 36 improved stormwater management. 37 38 ii. Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road Center. 39 The center at Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road is located on both sides of 40 the intersection. Tracts 109-114, Unit 26, Golden Gate Estates are included in 41 this center as eligible for commercial development. (See Collier Boulevard/Pine 42 Ridge Road Center Map). The E1/2 of Tract 107, Unit 26 is also included within 43 this center but is only to be used for buffer, water management and open space. 44 iii. ii. Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1957 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 25 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. This Center consists of all four quadrants at the intersection of Everglades and 1 Golden Gate Boulevards (See Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard 2 Center Map). The NE quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size 3 and consists of Tract 1, Unit 77 of Golden Gate Estates. The SE quadrant of the 4 Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 97, Unit 81 of 5 Golden Gate Estates. The NW quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 6 acres in size and consists of Tract 128, Unit 76 of Golden Gate Estates. The SW 7 quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 8 96, Unit 81 of Golden Gate Estates. 9 10 iv. The Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard Center 11 This Center is located in the southwest and the southeast quadrants of the 12 intersection. This Center consists of three Tracts: Tract 128, Unit 47, is 5.15 + 13 acres and is located within the southwest quadrant of the Center, south of the 14 fire station; and, Tracts 113 and 16, Unit 46, are 4.05 +acres and 5.15 + acres 15 respectively, and are within the southeast quadrant of the Center, east of the 16 fire station. 17 c. Criteria for land uses at the centers are as follows: 18 i. Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial so as to provide 19 for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of 20 automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning 21 districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance No. 22 04-41, as amended), except as prohibited below. 23 ii. The Neighborhood Center located at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and 24 Collier Boulevard may be developed at 100% commercial and must provide 25 internal circulation. Any rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. 26 This Neighborhood Center may also be utilized for single-family residential or 27 conditional uses allowed in the Estates zoning district such as churches, social 28 or fraternal organizations, childcare centers, schools, and group care facilities. 29 iii. ii Parcels immediately adjacent to commercial zoning within the Neighborhood 30 Centers located at the intersections Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 31 Boulevard (excluding the SW quadrant), Golden Gate Boulevard and 32 Everglades Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road may qualify 33 for Conditional Use under the transitional conditional use provision of the 34 Conditional Uses Subdistrict of this Master Plan Element. 35 iii. A single project shall utilize no more than 50% of the total allowed commercial 36 acreage. This percentage may be increased at the discretion of the Board of 37 County Commissioners. 38 iv. The project shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with 39 adjoining developments. 40 v. Access points shall be limited to one per 180 feet commencing from the right-41 of -way of the major intersecting streets of the Neighborhood Center. A 42 maximum of three curb cuts per quadrant shall be allowed. 43 vi. Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments, 44 whenever possible. 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1958 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 26 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. vii. Driveways accessing parcels on opposite sides of the roadway shall be in direct 1 alignment, except when the roadway median between the two parcels has no 2 opening. 3 viii. Projects shall provide a 25-foot wide landscape buffer abutting the external 4 right-of-way. This buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be 5 spaced no more than 30 feet on center, and a double row hedge at least 24 6 inches in height at time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height 7 within one year. A minimum of 50% of the 25-foot wide buffer area shall be 8 comprised of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. 9 Existing native trees must be retained within this 25-foot wide buffer area to aid 10 in achieving this buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be 11 retained, where possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement. Water 12 retention/detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural 13 state, and drainage conveyance through the buffer area shall be allowed if 14 necessary to reach an external outfall. 15 16 a. For Tract 114, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 26, access shall be 17 restricted to 11th Avenue S.W. Also, vehicular interconnection shall 18 be provided to the adjacent property(s) in the Pine Ridge 19 Road/Collier Boulevard Neighborhood Center. 20 b. a. All buildings shall have tile roofs, ‘Old Style Florida’ metal roofs, or 21 decorative parapet walls above the roofline. The buildings shall be 22 finished in light, subdued colors, except for decorative trim. 23 ix. Building heights shall be limited to one (1) story, with a maximum height of thirty-24 five (35) feet. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 25 x. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally–designed, and shall be limited to a 26 height of twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from 27 neighboring residential land uses and consistent with Policy 5.2.4. 28 xi. Commercial uses shall encourage pedestrian traffic through placement of 29 sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking areas. 30 Adjacent projects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a continuous 31 pathway through the Neighborhood Center is created. 32 xii. All buildings and projects within any single specific quadrant of the Subdistrict 33 shall utilize a common architectural theme. This theme shall be applicable to 34 both building design and signage. 35 xiii. No building footprint shall exceed 5,000 square feet, unless the project is 36 submitted in the form of a PUD. Walkways or courtyards shall connect adjacent 37 buildings. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 38 xiv. Drive-through establishments shall be limited to banks, with no more than 3 39 lanes; the drive-through areas shall be architecturally integrated with the rest of 40 the building. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. 41 xv. Fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required 42 landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses. If 43 constructed, such fences or walls shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. Walls 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1959 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 27 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. shall be constructed of brick or stone. Fences shall be of wood or concrete post 1 or rail types, and shall be of open design (not covered by slats, boards or wire). 2 xvi. Projects directly abutting residential property (property zoned E-Estates and 3 without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, a seventy-five 4 (75) feet wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. Twenty-five (25) 5 feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape 6 buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained 7 native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.05.07H. of the Collier 8 County Land Development Code (LDC). The native vegetation retention area 9 may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. 10 Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07H. 11 of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to 12 be considered for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water 13 management purposes shall meet the following criteria: 14 a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being 15 retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase 16 the annual hydro-period unless it is proven that such would have no 17 adverse impact to the existing vegetation. 18 b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water 19 Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official 20 document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within 21 the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water 22 management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such 23 a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for 24 water management. 25 c. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall 26 provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to 27 facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. 28 xix. Projects within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict that are submitted 29 as PUDs shall provide a functional public open-space component. Such 30 public open-space shall be developed as green space within a 31 pedestrian-accessible courtyard, as per Section 4.06.03B. of the 32 Collier County Land Development Code, as in effect at the time of P.U.D. 33 approval. 34 xx. The following principal permitted uses are prohibited within 35 Neighborhood Centers: 36 a. Drinking Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921) 37 b. Mail Order Houses (5961) 38 c. Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962) 39 d. Power Laundries (7211) 40 e. Crematories (7261) (Does not include non-crematory Funeral 41 Parlors) 42 f. Radio, TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising 43 Services (7331) 44 g. NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999) 45 h. General Hospitals (8062), Psychiatric Hospitals (8063), and Specialty 46 Hospitals (8069) 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1960 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 28 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. i. Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211), Colleges (8221), Junior 1 Colleges (8222) 2 j. Libraries (8231) 3 k. Correctional Institutions (9223) 4 l. Waste Management (9511) 5 m. Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens. 6 xxi. The following additional restrictions and standards apply to Tract 124 and 7 the north 150 feet of Tract 126, within the southwest quadrant of the 8 Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center: 9 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to the following: 10 1. medical offices and clinics and professional offices, except 11 surveyors; and, 12 2. medical related uses, such as a wellness center. 13 b. The ordinance rezoning this property to allow commercial uses shall 14 include the following requirements: 15 1. no less than sixty percent (60%) of the gross square footage 16 shall be designated for medical offices and clinics; and, 17 2. parking for the entire project shall be that required for medical 18 office or clinic use by the Land Development Code (Ordinance 19 No. 04-41, as amended), so as to allow 100 percent medical 20 office use. 21 c. Parking lot lighting shall be restricted to bollards except as may be 22 required to comply with lighting standards in the Land Development 23 Code (Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended) and other governing 24 regulations. 25 d. The Neighborhood Center boundaries of this quadrant shall not be 26 further expanded. 27 3. Conditional Uses Subdistrict 28 Various types of conditional uses are permitted in the Estates zoning district within the Rural 29 Golden Gate Estates area. In order to control the location and spacing of new conditional 30 uses, one of the following four sets of criteria shall be met: 31 a. Essential Services Conditional Use Provisions: 32 Those Essential Services Conditional Uses, as identified within Section 2.01.03 G. of 33 the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the 34 Estates Zoning District, except as prohibited in certain Neighborhood Centers, and are 35 described as: 36 1. electric or gas generating plants, 37 2. effluent tanks, 38 3. major re-pump stations, 39 4. sewage treatment plants, including percolation ponds, 40 5. hospitals and hospices, 41 6. water aeration or treatment plants, 42 7. governmental facilities (except for those Permitted Uses identified in Section 43 2.01.03 of the Land Development Code), 44 8. public water supply acquisition, withdrawal, or extraction facilities, and 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1961 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 29 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 9. public safety service facilities, and other similar facilities. 1 b. Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: 2 1. Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the I-3 75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, there shall be no further conditional 4 uses for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road 5 and Santa Barbara Boulevard, except: as permitted within the Golden Gate 6 Parkway Institutional Subdistrict and the Golden Gate Estates Commercial 7 Infill Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraphs 3. and 5. below; for the 8 properties identified as Unit 30 Tracts 113-115 and the N 150’ of tract 116 that 9 have existing Conditional Uses; and, for essential services, as described in 10 paragraph a., above. 11 2. Further, no properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway, 12 between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, shall be approved 13 for conditional uses except: as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway 14 Institutional Subdistrict; as provided in subparagraph 3. below; and, for 15 essential services, as described in paragraph a. above. 16 3. In consideration of the improvements associated with the interchange at 17 Interstate 75 and Golden Gate Parkway, the existing conditional use (church 18 and related facilities) located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Parkway 19 and 66th Street S.W. may be expanded in acreage and intensity along the south 20 side of Golden Gate Parkway to the east of 66th Street S.W., but the total project 21 area shall not exceed approximately 9.22 acres (see Golden Gate Parkway 22 Interchange Conditional Uses Area Map). 23 4. The parcel located immediately south of the Commercial Western Estates Infill 24 Subdistrict, on the west side of Collier Boulevard, and at the southwest 25 quadrant of the intersection of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, 26 shall be eligible for a transitional conditional use designation. 27 5. Conditional use for expansion of the existing educational and charitable social 28 organization (Naples Bridge Center) is allowed on the east 150 feet of Tract 75 29 and the west 150 feet of Tract 82, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates. The maximum 30 building area permitted on the two parcels shall be limited to 15,000 square 31 feet. Use of Tract 82 shall be limited to parking, water management and open 32 space uses. See Conditional Uses Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Special 33 Provisions map. 34 6. The property located on Collier Boulevard identified as Golden Gate Estates 35 Unit 1, north 150 feet of TR 114, less right-of-way, shall be eligible for 36 Conditional Use. 37 38 c. Neighborhood Center Transitional Conditional Use Provisions: 39 Conditional uses shall be allowed immediately adjacent to designated Neighborhood 40 Centers subject to the following criteria: 41 1. Properties eligible for conditional uses shall abut the arterial or collector road 42 serving the Neighborhood Center, 43 2. Such uses shall be limited to transitional conditional uses that are compatible with 44 both residential and commercial such as neighborhood churches, social or 45 fraternal organizations, childcare centers, schools, and group care facilities, 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1962 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 30 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 3. All conditional uses shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with 1 adjoining developments whenever possible, 2 4. Conditional uses abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 3 75-foot buffer of native vegetation in which no parking or water management uses 4 are permitted, 5 5. Conditional uses adjoining the commercial uses within Neighborhood Centers 6 shall, whenever possible, share parking areas, access and curb cuts with the 7 adjoining commercial use, in order to facilitate traffic movement. 8 9 d. Transitional Conditional Uses: 10 Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined 11 as an area located between existing non-residential and residential areas. The 12 purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to 13 existing non-residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential 14 use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non-residential and residential 15 areas. 16 The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests: 17 1. Site shall be directly adjacent to a non-residential use (zoned or developed) or 18 directly adjacent to an intersection of a 4-lane or greater roadway with a 4-lane or 19 greater roadway, existing or planned, as identified in the Metropolitan Planning 20 Organization’s Long Range Transportation “cost feasible” plan; 21 2. Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more, in size or be at least 150 feet in width and shall 22 not exceed 5 acres; 23 3. Conditional use Site abutting Estates zoned property without an approved 24 conditional use shall provide, at a minimum, a 75-foot buffer of native vegetation 25 in which no parking or water management uses are permitted; 26 4. Site shall not be adjacent to a church, neighborhood church or other place of 27 worship, school, social or fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent 28 home, hospice, rest home, home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home, 29 rehabilitation centers; 30 5. Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses; and 31 6. Site shall not be adjacent to permitted (by right) Essential Service uses, as 32 identified in Section 2.01.03 of the Land Development Code, except may be 33 located adjacent to libraries and museums. and electrical substations. 34 7. For a Transitional Conditional Use petition at a major intersection, in an effort to 35 avoid the concentration of the same type of conditional use at a single intersection, 36 the existing land uses at the intersection shall be considered. 37 38 e. Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 39 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County 40 Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use 41 District. Conditional use permits for the purpose of extending the time period for 42 use of the structure as a model home shall be required, and shall be subject to the 43 provisions of Section 5.04.04.B. and C. of the Collier County Land Development 44 Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. Such conditional uses shall not be 45 subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be 46 allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 47 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1963 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 31 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning 1 district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be 2 allowed anywhere within the Estates-Mixed Use District. 3 3. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship, as provided for in the Estates 4 zoning district, is allowed on Tract 22, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97 (See Special 5 Exception to Conditional Use Location Criteria Map). 6 4. Conditional Use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates 7 Zoning District is allowed on the north 180 feet of Tract 107, Unit 30, Golden Gate 8 Estates. Church-related day care use shall not be allowed. Development shall be 9 limited to a maximum of 12,000 square feet of floor area (See Special Exception 10 to Conditional Use Location Criteria Map). 11 5 4. Conditional Use for a cellular tower may be is be allowed anywhere in the 12 Estates Zoning District only on parcels no smaller than 2.25 acres and adjacent to 13 a roadway classified within the Transportation Element as a Collector or Arterial. 14 15 4. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict 16 This Subdistrict is specific to Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66 of Golden Gate Estates Unit 30, and 17 includes four parcels of land containing approximately 16.3 acres, located on the north side 18 of Golden Gate Parkway, east of I-75 and west of Santa Barbara Boulevard. The intent of the 19 Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict is to provide for the continued operation of 20 existing uses, and the development and redevelopment of institutional and related uses. The 21 Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring residential uses and will utilize 22 well-planned access points to ensure safe and convenient access onto Golden Gate Parkway. 23 24 The following institutional uses are permitted through the conditional use process within the 25 Subdistrict: 26 a. Churches and other places of worship. 27 b. Group care facilities (Categories I and II) 28 c. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities associated with the David Lawrence 29 Center. 30 d. Essential services as set forth in Section 2.01.03 of the Collier County Land 31 Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended. 32 e. Private schools associated with the David Lawrence Center or Parkway Community 33 Church of God, for Tracts 43, 50 and 59 only. 34 f. Day care centers associated with the David Lawrence Center or Parkway Community 35 Church of God. 36 g. Medical offices associated with the David Lawrence Center. 37 54. Mission Subdistrict 38 The Mission Subdistrict is located on the south side of Oil Well Road, approximately one -39 quarter mile west of Everglades Boulevard, and consists of 21.72 acres. The purpose of this 40 Subdistrict is to provide for churches and related uses, including community outreach. The 41 following uses are allowed: 42 a. Churches. 43 b. Child care centers – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the 44 Subdistrict. 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1964 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 32 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. c. Private schools – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the 1 Subdistrict. 2 d. Individual and family social services (activity centers, elderly or handicapped only; day 3 care centers, adult and handicapped only) – must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a 4 church within the Subdistrict. 5 e. Medical outreach to the community, to include activities such as administering 6 influenza vaccine, checking blood pressure, and conducting blood donation drives – 7 must be not-for-profit and affiliated with a church within the Subdistrict. 8 f. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters are prohibited in this Subdistrict. 9 g. The maximum total floor area allowed in this Subdistrict is 90,000 square feet. The 10 maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet zoned height, except the worship center 11 shall be permitted a zoned height of 35 feet. Development in this Subdistrict shall be 12 designed to be compatible with the existing, and allowed future, development in the 13 surrounding area. 14 15 In the alternate to the foregoing uses, measures of development intensity, and development 16 standards, this Subdistrict may be developed with single family dwellings in accordance with 17 the Residential Estates Subdistrict. 18 19 Property adjacent to this Subdistrict shall not qualify for the Transitional Conditional Use. 20 21 6 5. Everglades – Randall Subdistrict 22 The Everglades – Randall Subdistrict is located on the northeast corner of Everglades 23 Boulevard and Randall Boulevard, consists of 7.8 acres, and comprises Tract 115 and the 24 east 150 feet of Tract 116, Unit 69, Golden Gate Estates. The purpose of this Subdistrict is to 25 provide for churches and other places of worship and their related uses. 26 27 The following use is permitted within the Subdistrict through the conditional use process: 28 a. Churches and other places of worship 29 The following church-related uses are prohibited within the Subdistrict: 30 a. Day care centers 31 b. Private schools 32 c. Soup kitchens 33 d. Homeless shelters 34 The maximum total floor area allowed in this Subdistrict is 20,000 square feet, including no 35 more than 230 seats. The maximum height of buildings shall be 30 feet. Architectural features 36 such as steeples may be a maximum height of 60 feet. 37 For access drives, a throat depth of no less than 30 feet, measured from the roadway edge 38 of the pavement, shall be provided. 39 40 B. Estates – Commercial District 41 42 1. Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 43 On the fringes of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan boundaries, there are several parcels 44 that are located within the Interchange Activity Center #10 at I-75 and Pine Ridge Road as 45 detailed in the County-wide Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Parcels within this Activity 46 Center are subject to the County-wide FLUE and not this Master Plan. See Activity Center 47 and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Map for a detailed map of this Activity Center. 48 49 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1965 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 33 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 2. Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict 1 This Subdistrict is adjacent to the northwest quadrant of Interchange Activity Center #10, west 2 of the Naples Gateway PUD, and comprises 16.23 acres. It consists of Tracts 1, 12, 13 and 3 28 of Golden Gate Estates, Unit 35, as recorded in Plat Book 7, Page 85, of the Public Records 4 of Collier County. The intent of the Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict is to allow for a 5 mix of both retail and office uses to provide for shopping and personal services for the 6 surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance and to provide commercial 7 services appropriately located along a collector roadway, Livingston Road. Well-planned 8 access points will be used to improve current and future traffic flows in the area. Within this 9 Subdistrict no more than 35,000 square feet of office-related uses on +3.2 acres are permitted 10 within the eastern portion of this property, which includes a portion of Tract 28 and a portion 11 of Tract 13. A maximum of 80,000 square feet of gross leasable retail or office area, as allowed 12 in the Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) of the Collier County Land Development Code 13 in effect as of the effective date of the adoption of this Subdistrict [Ordinance No. 03-01, 14 adopted January 16, 2003], are permitted within the western 10.52 acres of this property. The 15 C-3 uses are not an entitlement. Such uses will be further evaluated at the time of re zoning 16 application to insure appropriateness in relationship to surrounding properties. 17 A rezoning of the western 10.52 acres is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit 18 Development. Regulations for water management, uniform landscaping, signage, screening 19 and buffering will be included in the rezoning ordinance to ensure compatibility with nearby 20 residential areas, and shall be subject to the following additional criteria: 21 a. There shall be no access onto Livingston Woods Lane. 22 b. Shared access shall be encouraged. 23 c. Building heights shall not exceed 35 feet. 24 d. There shall be a minimum setback area of 75 feet along the northern property line. 25 e. Driveway access, parking, and water management facilities may be allowed within the 26 75-foot setback area along the northern property line, but none of these uses shall be 27 located closer than 30 feet to this line. 28 f. No freestanding automobile parking lots, homeless shelters or soup kitchens shall be 29 permitted. 30 g. Within the eastern portion of Tract 28, 2.2 acres, more or less, shall be preserved as 31 wetlands and no development shall occur within that area. 32 h. Within the western 10.52 acres, a loop road shall be constructed through the property 33 to provide access from Pine Ridge Road to Livingston Road and to reduce traffic at the 34 intersection. 35 See Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Map for a detailed map of 36 this Subdistrict. 37 38 3 1. Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict 39 The Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, containing approximately 56.5 acres, is 40 located on the south side of Randall Boulevard and Immokalee Road (CR-846), extending 41 from 8th Street NE west to the Corkscrew Canal. This Subdistrict is comprised of the following 42 properties: Tracts 54, 55, 71, 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126 and 127, Golden Gate Estates, 43 Unit 23. This Subdistrict has been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map 44 and the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Map. It is the intent of this Subdistrict to 45 provide commercial goods and services to the surrounding area. 46 All development in the Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: 47 a. All development is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. 48 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1966 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 34 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. b. Projects directly abutting Estates zoned property shall provide, at a minimum, a 75-1 foot wide buffer of retained native vegetation in which no parking or water management 2 uses are permitted; except that, when abutting conditional uses no such buffer is 3 required. 4 c. Shared parking shall be required with adjoining development whenever possible. 5 d. Tract 55 shall only be utilized for native preservation and water management areas. 6 e. The eastern boundary of Tract 55 shall contain, at a minimum, a 50-foot wide 7 retained native vegetation buffer. 8 f. The following limitation shall apply to Tract 71 only: 9 1. Limitation of Uses – Uses shall be limited to the following: 10 a. Automobile Service Station; 11 b. Barber & Beauty Shops; 12 c. Convenience Stores; 13 d. Drug Stores; 14 e. Food Markets; 15 f. Hardware Stores; 16 g. Laundries – Self Service Only; 17 h. Parks, Public or Private; 18 i. Post Offices and Professional Offices; 19 j. Repair Shops – Radio, TV, Small Appliances and Shoes; 20 k. Restaurants, including fast food restaurants but not drive in restaurants; 21 l. All Permitted Uses of the C-2, Convenience Commercial, zoning district in the 22 Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance No. 04-41, as amended 23 as of April 14, 2009; and, 24 m. Veterinary Clinic with no outside kenneling; 25 26 g. The following limitations shall apply to Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126, 127, and 27 Tract 54: 28 1. Development intensity on Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126, 127 and the west 29 one-half of Tract 54 shall be limited to 360,950 square feet of floor area, of which 30 no more than 285,950 square feet shall be retail development. 31 2. Development intensity on the east one-half of Tract 54 shall be limited to 20,000 32 square feet of commercial development. 33 3. The first phase of the project development, exclusive of the existing 20,000 sq. ft. 34 of development on the east one-half of Tract 54, shall include a grocery anchor, 35 with a minimum of 35,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area, prior to any 36 certificates of occupancy being issued beyond 100,000 square feet of commercial 37 development. 38 4. Allowable uses shall be limited to the permitted and conditional uses of the C-4, 39 General Commercial District in the Collier County Land Development Code in 40 effect as of the effective date of the adoption of the amendment of this Subdistrict 41 [Ordinance No. 2010 -32, adopted July 28, 2010], except that the following uses, 42 as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 43 shall be prohibited: 44 a. Tire Dealers, Automotive Retail (Group 5531) 45 b. Automotive Parking (Group 7521) 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1967 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 35 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. c. Communication Services (Group 4899) 1 d. Drinking Places (Group 5813) 2 e. Fishing Piers (Group 7999) 3 f. Glass and Glazing work (Group 1793) 4 g. Health Services (Groups 8059 - 8069) 5 h. Specialty Outpatient Facilities (Group 8093) 6 i. Houseboat Rental, Lakes Operations, Party and Pleasure Boat rental (Group 7 7999) 8 j. Large Appliance repair service (Group 7623) 9 k. Marinas (Group 4493 and 4499) 10 l. Miscellaneous Repair Services (Groups 7622-7641, 7699) 11 m. Liquor Store, unless operated by a Grocery Retailer (Group 5921) 12 n. Used Merchandise Store (Group 5932) 13 o. Automatic Merchandising Machine Operators (Group 5962) 14 p. Direct Selling Establishment (Group 5963) 15 q. Escort Services, Massage Parlors, Tattoo Parlors, Turkish Baths, Wedding 16 Chapels (Group 7299) 17 r. Betting Information Services, Bath Houses, Billiard Parlors, Bookies and 18 Bookmakers, Cable lifts, Carnival Operation, Circus Companies, Fortune 19 Tellers, Go-cart racing operation, Off-track betting, Ping Pong Parlors, Rodeo 20 Animal Rentals, Rodeos, Shooting Ranges, Trapshooting Facilities (Group 21 7999) 22 s. Parole offices, Probation offices, Public welfare centers, refugee services, 23 settlement houses (Group 8322) 24 t. Tow-in parking lots (Groups 7514, 7515, 7521) 25 u. Animal Specialty Services (Group 0752) 26 5. At time of rezoning, consideration shall be given to imposing appropriate 27 restrictions on the amount of development allowed in this Subdistrict prior to 28 discontinuance and relocation of the Big Corkscrew Island Fire Station and Florida 29 Division of Forestry fire tower uses. 30 6. All buildings on Tracts 72, 89, 90, 107, 108, 125, 126 and 127 shall be developed 31 with a unified architectural theme. 32 7. Excluding the commercial zoning on Tract 71 and the existing approved 33 commercial zoning on the east one-half of Tract 54, any additional development in 34 the Subdistrict shall be developed in phases. Phase I shall be limited to 100,000 35 square feet of gross leasable floor area. Subsequent phases shall not receive 36 building permits until the Randall Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection project, 37 including the widening of the segment of Randall Boulevard abutting the 38 Subdistrict, as shown on Exhibit “A” of the Developer Contribution Agreement 39 adopted July 28, 2010 by the Board of County Commissioners, has commenced. 40 No Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for subsequent development phases 41 until the Randall Boulevard/Immokalee Road intersection project is substantially 42 complete. Neither the building permits limitations nor the Certificates of 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1968 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 36 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. Occupancy limitations shall apply if satisfactory alternative mitigation is approved 1 by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to Transportation Element Policy 2 5.1, or if traffic conditions change in such a manner that adequate capacity is 3 available. 4 5 4. Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict 6 The purpose of the Subdistrict is to allow for limited commercial and/or medical office uses, in 7 recognition of the subject property's unsuitability for single-family residential development. 8 Limited commercial and/or medical uses at this location will also assist in reducing the 9 distance and the number of vehicular trips generated within the general area through trip 10 capture. The standards contained in this Subdistrict are designed to ensure that uses within 11 the Subdistrict will be compatible with nearby residential development. A loop road shall be 12 required through the property to connect Vanderbilt Beach Road with Collier Boulevard will 13 also serve to lessen vehicular trips through the intersection. 14 15 a. Size and Location: 16 The Subdistrict includes a 6.23-acre parcel, located at the southwest corner of 17 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard (see Commercial Western Estates Infill 18 Subdistrict Map). The parcel is identified as Tract 105, Unit 2, Golden Gate Estates. 19 b. Permitted Uses and Development Intensity: 20 Within the subject property, 3.93 acres of office/medical use is permitted with a 21 maximum of forty-one thousand four hundred and ninety (41,490) square feet of gross 22 leaseable area permitted or approximately 6,660 square feet per gross acre. The 23 balance of the area, comprising +2.3 acres, shall remain in open space. Uses allowed 24 within this Subdistrict shall be those office uses, medical uses, and financial institutions 25 permitted whether by right or by conditional use, within the C-1 zoning district, as 26 contained in the Collier County Land Development Code, Ordinance 91-102, as of the 27 effective date of the adoption of this Subdistrict [Ordinance No. 03-01, adopted 28 January 16, 2003]. 29 c. Development Standards: 30 1. All permitted uses within this Subdistrict shall be encouraged to be submitted 31 in the form of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.) for the subject property 32 with special attention to be provided for shared access, water management, 33 uniform landscaping, signage, screening and buffering to ensure compatibility 34 with nearby residential areas. 35 2. Building height shall be limited to two stories, with a maximum height of thirty 36 (30) feet, except that portions of the property within one hundred (100) feet of 37 the buffer described in item #3, below, shall be limited to one story with a 38 maximum height of twenty-five (25) feet. 39 3. There shall be a setback of seventy-five (75) feet in width abutting Estates-40 zoned property. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained 41 within this setback area. Water retention/detention areas shall be allowed in 42 this setback area provided that the area is left in a natural state, and drainage 43 conveyance through the setback area shall be allowed, as necessary, in order 44 for stormwater to reach an external outfall. 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1969 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 37 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 4. The buffer area along Collier Boulevard/CR-951 and Vanderbilt Beach Road 1 shall be 25 feet in width and shall conform to the vegetative requirements of a 2 Type "B" buffer as provided for in the Collier County Land Development Code, 3 in effect as of the date of adoption of this amendment [Ordinance No. 03-01, 4 adopted January 16, 2003]. A loop road shall be constructed, internal to the 5 subject property. This road shall be open to the public, in order to connect 6 Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard, so as to provide an alternative 7 to use of the intersection. 8 5. The maximum gross leaseable floor area of each individual 9 office/medical/financial building footprint shall be 6,000 square feet. However, 10 buildings may be connected by architectural treatments, and shall be designed 11 to appear similar to residential structures through the treatment of rooflines and 12 other architectural embellishments. 13 6. No development of property within the Subdistrict shall commence until the 14 abutting segment of Collier Boulevard is four-laned. 15 16 5. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict 17 This Subdistrict consists of two infill areas. The two areas are located at the northwest corner 18 of Collier Boulevard and Green Boulevard and at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara 19 Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in 20 proximity to the Estates Commercial In-fill Subdistrict (see Golden Gate Urban Commercial 21 Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map) and the need to 22 ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall 23 be permitted under the following criteria: 24 a. Commercial uses shall be limited to: 25 1. Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and 26 intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and 27 personal needs, and 28 2. Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and s ervices 29 in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be 30 similar to C-1, C-2, or C-3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land 31 Development Code (Ordinance 91-102), adopted October 30, 1991. 32 b. Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall 33 be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that 34 all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area 35 unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent 36 with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). 37 c. Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements 38 with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate. 39 d. Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with 40 adjoining commercial developments. 41 e. Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. 42 f. Any project located within this Subdistrict at the northwest corner of Golden Gate 43 Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, less and except an easement for Santa 44 Barbara Boulevard right-of-way, shall be subject to the following additional 45 development restrictions: 46 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1970 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 38 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 1. The site shall be limited to thirty-five thousand (35,000) square feet of building 1 area. 2 2. Land uses shall be restricted to offices only. 3 3. All principal structures shall be required to have a minimum setback of one 4 hundred (100) feet from the project's northern boundary. 5 4. The northern seventy-five (75) feet of the western sixty (60) percent of the site 6 shall be a green area (open space area). It shall be utilized for only water 7 management facilities, landscape buffers, and similar uses. 8 5. The western sixty (60) percent of the site shall have an outdoor pedestrian-9 friendly patio(s), that total at least five hundred (500) square feet in area and 10 incorporate a minimum of: benches or seating areas for at least twelve (12) 11 persons, and vegetative shading, and a waterfall or water feature of at least 12 one hundred (100) square feet in area, and brick pavers. 13 6. A twenty-five (25) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along the entire 14 frontage of both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 15 7. A minimum buffer of thirty-five (35) feet in width shall be provided along the 16 project's western boundary and along the eastern forty (40) percent of the 17 project's northern boundary. A minimum buffer of fifty (50) feet in width shall 18 be provided along the western sixty (60) percent of the project's northern 19 boundary. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained within 20 these buffers along the project's western and northern boundaries. These 21 buffers shall be supplemented with Oak or Mahogany trees planted a maximum 22 of twenty (20) feet apart in a staggered manner; and a seven (7) foot wall, 23 fence, or hedge that will, within two (2) years of planting, grow to a minimum 24 height of seven (7) feet and be a minimum of ninety-five (95) percent opaque. 25 8. All buildings shall have tile or metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above 26 the roofline, and buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for 27 decorative trim. 28 9. Building heights shall be limited to one (1)-story and a maximum of thirty-five 29 (35) feet. 30 10. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and limited to a height of 31 twenty-five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring 32 residential land uses. 33 11. There shall be no ingress or egress on Santa Barbara Boulevard. 34 6 2. Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict 35 Recognizing the need to provide for centrally located basic goods and services within a portion 36 Northern Golden Gate Estates, the Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict has been designated 37 on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. 38 The Subdistrict is located at the NW corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard 39 westward to 3rd Street NW and extending northward to include the southern 180 feet of Tracts 40 142 and 106 of Unit 11 and the southern 255 feet of Tract 111 of Unit 11 of Golden Gate 41 Estates, totaling approximately 41 acres. 42 The Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict is intended to provide convenient shopping, 43 personal services and employment for the central areas of Northern Golden Gate Estates. 44 Commercial development in this Subdistrict will reduce driving distances for many residents, 45 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1971 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 39 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. assist in minimizing the road network required, and reduce traffic impacts in this area of Collier 1 County. 2 3 All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and 4 limitations: 5 a. Allowable Uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial Classification 6 Manual, shall be limited to the following: 7 1. Amusement and recreation 8 Groups 7911 – Dance studios, schools and halls, excluding discotheques 9 7991 – Physical fitness facilities 10 7999 – Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified, 11 allowing only day camps, gymnastics instruction, judo/karate 12 instruction, sporting goods rental and yoga instruction 13 2. Apparel and accessory stores (no adult oriented sales) 14 Groups 5611 – Men’s and boys’ clothing and accessory stores 15 5621 – Women’s clothing stores 16 5632 – Women’s accessory and specialty stores 17 5641 – Children’s and infants’ wear stores 18 5651 – Family clothing stores 19 5661 – Shoe stores 20 5699 – Miscellaneous apparel and accessory stores 21 3. Automotive dealers and gasoline service stations 22 Groups 5531 – Auto and home supply stores 23 4. Automotive repair, services and parking (No outdoor repair/service. All 24 repairs/services to be performed by authorized automotive technician.) 25 Groups 7514 – Passenger car rental 26 5. Building materials, hardware, garden supply, and mobile home dealers 27 Groups 5231 – Paint, glass, and wallpaper stores 28 5251 – Hardware stores 29 5261 – Retail nurseries, lawn and garden supply stores 30 6. Business services 31 Groups 7334 – Photocopying and duplicating services 32 7335 – Commercial photography 33 7336 – Commercial art and graphic design 34 7338 – Secretarial and court reporting services 35 7342 – Disinfecting and pest control services 36 7352 – Medical equipment rental and leasing 37 7359 – Equipment rental and leasing, not elsewhere classified, 38 excluding the following uses: airplane rental and leasing; coin 39 operated machine rental and leasing; industrial truck rental and 40 leasing; oil field equipment rental and leasing; oil well drilling 41 equipment rental; leasing; toilets, portable – rental and leasing; 42 and vending machines – rental only 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1972 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 40 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 7371 – Computer programming services 1 7372 – Prepackaged software 2 7373 – Computer integrated systems design 3 7374 – Computer processing and data preparation and processing 4 services 5 7375 – Information retrieval services 6 7376 – Computer facilities management services 7 7379 – Computer related services, not elsewhere classified 8 7382 – Security systems services 9 7383 – News syndicates 10 7384 – Photofinishing laboratories 11 7389 – Business services, not elsewhere classified 12 7. Communications 13 Groups 4812 – Radiotelephone communications 14 4841 – Cable and other pay television services 15 8. Construction, special trade contractors (office use only, no on-site materials or 16 equipment storage) 17 Groups 1711 – Plumbing, heating and air-conditioning 18 1721 – Painting and paper hanging industry 19 1731 – Electrical work industry 20 1741 – Masonry, stone setting, and other stone work 21 1742 – Plastering, drywall, acoustical, and insulation work 22 1743 – Terrazzo, tile, marble, and mosaic work industry 23 1751 – Carpentry work 24 1752 – Floor laying and other floor work, not elsewhere classified 25 industry 26 1761 – Roofing, siding, and sheet metal work industry 27 1771 – Concrete work industry 28 1781 – Water well drilling industry 29 1791 – Structural steel erection 30 1793 – Glass and glazing work 31 1794 – Excavation work 32 1795 – Wrecking and demolition work 33 1796 – Installation or erection of building equipment, not elsewhere 34 1799 – Special trade contractors, not elsewhere classified 35 9. Depository institutions 36 Groups 6021 – National commercial banks 37 6022 – State commercial banks 38 6029 – Commercial banks, not elsewhere classified 39 6035 – Savings institutions, federally chartered 40 6036 – Savings Institutions, not federally chartered 41 6061 – Credit unions, federally chartered 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1973 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 41 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 6062 – Credit unions, not federally chartered 1 6091 – Non-deposit trust facilities 2 6099 – Functions related to depository banking, not elsewhere 3 classified 4 10. Eating and drinking places (Group 5812, including only liquor service accessory to 5 the restaurant use, no outdoor music or televisions, and no windows or walls open 6 to the outside, except as required by code) 7 8 11. Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services 9 Groups 8711 – Engineering services 10 8712 – Architectural services 11 8713 – Surveying services 12 8721 – Accounting, auditing, and bookkeeping services 13 8741 – Management services 14 8742 – Management consulting services 15 8743 – Public relations services 16 8748 – Business consulting services, not elsewhere classified 17 12. Executive, legislative, and general government, except finance 18 Groups 9111 – Executive offices 19 9121 – Legislative bodies 20 9131 – Executive and legislative offices combined 21 9199 – General government, not elsewhere classified 22 13. Food stores 23 Groups 5411 – Grocery stores (minimum 27,000 square feet) 24 5421 – Meat and fish (seafood) markets, including freezer provisioners 25 5431 – Fruit and vegetable markets 26 5441 – Candy, nut, and confectionery stores 27 5451 – Dairy products stores 28 5461 – Retail bakeries 29 5499 – Miscellaneous food stores, including convenience stores with 30 fuel pumps and carwash 31 14. General merchandise stores 32 Groups 5311 – Department stores 33 5331 – Variety stores 34 5399 – Miscellaneous general merchandise stores 35 15. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores 36 Groups 5712 – Furniture stores 37 5713 – Floor covering stores 38 5714 – Drapery, curtain, and upholstery stores 39 5719 – Miscellaneous home furnishings stores 40 5722 – Household appliance stores 41 5731 – Radio, television, and consumer electronics stores 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1974 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 42 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 5734 – Computer and computer software stores 1 5735 – Record and prerecorded tape stores (no adult oriented sales) 2 5736 – Musical instrument store 3 16. Insurance carriers 4 Groups 6311 – Life insurance 5 6321 – Accident and health insurance 6 6324 – Hospital and medical service plans 7 6331 – Fire, marine, and casualty insurance 8 6351 – Surety insurance 9 6361 – Title insurance 10 6371 – Pension, health and welfare funds 11 6399 – Insurance carriers, not elsewhere classified 12 6411 – Insurance agents 13 17. Justice, public order and safety 14 Groups 9221 – Police protection 15 9222 – Legal counsel and prosecution 16 9229 – Public order and safety, not elsewhere classified 17 18. Meeting and banquet rooms 18 19. Miscellaneous retail (no adult oriented sales) 19 Groups 5912 – Drug stores and proprietary stores 20 5921 – Liquor stores (accessory to grocery or pharmacy only) 21 5932 – Used merchandise stores 22 5941 – Sporting goods stores and bicycle shops 23 5942 – Book stores 24 5943 – Stationery stores 25 5944 – Jewelry stores, including repair 26 5945 – Hobby, toy, and game shops 27 5946 – Camera and photographic supply stores 28 5947 – Gift, novelty, and souvenir shops 29 5948 – Luggage and leather goods stores 30 5949 – Sewing, needlework, and piece goods stores 31 5992 – Florists 32 5993 – Tobacco stores and stands 33 5994 – News dealers and newsstands 34 5995 – Optical goods stores 35 5999 – Miscellaneous retail stores, not elsewhere classified (excluding 36 gravestone, tombstones, auction rooms, monuments, 37 swimming pools, and sales barns) 38 20. Non-depository credit institutions 39 Groups 6111 – Federal and federally-sponsored credit agencies 40 6141 – Personal credit institutions 41 6153 – Short-term business credit institutions, except agricultural 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1975 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 43 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 6159 – Miscellaneous business credit institutions 1 6162 – Mortgage bankers and loan correspondents 2 6163 – Loan brokers 3 21. Offices and clinics of dentist (Group 8021) 4 22. Personal services 5 Groups 7212 – Garment pressing, and agents for laundries and drycleaners 6 7221 – Photographic studios, portrait 7 7231 – Beauty shops 8 7241 – Barber shops 9 7251 – Shoe repair shops and shoeshine parlors 10 7291 – Tax return preparation services 11 7299 – Miscellaneous personal services, not elsewhere classified, 12 excluding massage parlors, Turkish baths and escort services 13 23. Public finance, taxation, and monetary policy (Group 9311) 14 15 24. Real Estate 16 Groups 6512 – Operators of nonresidential buildings 17 6513 – Operators of apartment buildings 18 6514 – Operators of dwellings other than apartment buildings 19 6515 – Operators of residential mobile home sites 20 6517 – Lessors of railroad property 21 6519 – Lessors of real property, not elsewhere classified 22 6531 – Real estate agents and managers 23 6541 – Title abstract offices 24 6552 – Land subdividers and developers, except cemeteries 25 25. Schools and educational services, not elsewhere classified (Group 8299) 26 26. Security and commodity brokers, dealers, exchanges, and services 27 Groups 6211 – Security brokers, dealers, and flotation companies 28 6221 – Commodity contracts brokers and dealers 29 6231 – Security and commodity exchanges 30 6282 – Investment advice 31 6289 – Services allied with the exchange of securities or commodities, 32 not elsewhere classified 33 27. Social services 34 Groups 8322 – Individual and family social services (adult day care centers 35 only) 36 8351 – Child day care services 37 28. Travel agencies (Group 4724) 38 29. Veterinary services for animal specialties (Group 0742, excluding outside 39 kenneling) 40 30. Video tape rental (Group 7841, excluding adult oriented sales and rentals) 41 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1976 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 44 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 31. United states postal service (Group 4311, excluding major distribution centers) 1 32. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of 2 permitted principal uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) 3 by the process outlined in the LDC. 4 5 b. Accessory Uses: 6 Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal 7 uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 8 1. Utility buildings (including water and wastewater plants) which shall be enclosed 9 2. Essential service facilities 10 3. Gazebos, statuary and other architectural features 11 4. Utilities, water and wastewater facilities and/or plants (all processing plants must 12 be enclosed) 13 5. Alcohol service for outdoor dining shall only be accessory to food service 14 c. Operational Standards 15 1. Outdoor music is prohibited 16 17 d. The following uses, as identified with a number from the Standard Industrial 18 Classification Manual, shall be prohibited: 19 1. Amusement and recreation services, not elsewhere classified (Group 7999, 20 except those uses expressly listed above in a.1 are permitted) 21 2. Air and water resource and solid waste management (Group 9511) 22 3. Business Services 23 Groups 7313 – Radio, television, and publishers’ advertising 24 representatives 25 7331 – Direct mail advertising services 26 4. Correctional Institutions (Group 9223) 27 5. Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) (Group 5813) 28 6. Educational services 29 Groups 8211 – Elementary and secondary schools 30 8221 – Colleges, universities, and professional schools 31 8222 – Junior colleges and technical institutes 32 8231 – Libraries 33 7. Health services 34 Groups 8062 – General medical and surgical hospitals 35 8063 – Psychiatric hospitals 36 8069 – Specialty hospitals, except psychiatric 37 8. Miscellaneous Retail 38 Groups 5921 – Liquor stores 39 5961 – Catalog and mail-order houses 40 5962 – Automatic merchandising machine operators 41 9. Personal services 42 Groups 7211 – Power Laundries, family and commercial 43 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1977 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 45 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. 7261 – Funeral service and crematories 1 10. Social services 2 Groups 8322 – Individual and family social services, excluding adult day care 3 centers 4 8361 – Residential care, including soup kitchens and homeless shelters 5 e. Development intensity shall be limited to 190,000 square feet of gross leasable floor 6 area. 7 f. No commercial use shall exceed fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, except for a 8 single grocery store use between twenty-seven thousand (27,000) and sixty thousand 9 (60,000) square feet in size, a single commercial use of up to thirty thousand (30,000) 10 square feet in size, and a single commercial use of up to twenty thousand (20,000) 11 square feet in size. 12 g. No building may exceed 30,000 square feet in size, except for the grocery anchored 13 building with inline stores. 14 h. Development within this Subdistrict shall be phased and the following commitments 15 related to area roadway improvements shall be completed within the specified 16 timeframes: 17 1. Right-of-Way for Golden Gate Boulevard Expansion and Right-of-Way for the 18 Wilson Boulevard Expansion will be donated to the County at no cost within 120 19 days of a written request from the County. 20 2. The owner will pay its fair share for the intersection improvements at Wilson 21 Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard within 90 days of County request for 22 reimbursement. 23 3. Until the intersection improvements at Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson 24 Boulevard are complete, the County shall not issue a Certificate(s) of Occupancy 25 (CO) for more than 100,000 square feet of development. The applicant must 26 obtain a C.O. for a grocery store as part of this 100,000 square feet, and the 27 grocery store must be the first C.O. obtained. 28 i. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and 29 the rezone ordinance must contain development standards to ensure that all 30 commercial land uses will be compatible with neighboring residential uses. 31 This subdistrict includes a conceptual plan, which identifies the location of the 32 permitted development area and required preserve area for this subdistrict. The 33 preserve area depicted on the conceptual plan shall satisfy all comprehensive plan 34 requirements for retained native vegetation, including but not limited to the 35 requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME. A more detailed development plan must 36 be developed and utilized for the required PUD rezoning. 37 j. Development standards, including permitted uses and setbacks for principal buildings 38 shall be established at the time of PUD rezoning. Any future PUD rezone shall include 39 at a minimum: 40 1. Landscape buffers adjacent to external rights-of-way shall be: 41 a. 1st/3rd Streets ‒ Minimum 30’ wide enhanced buffer 42 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1978 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 46 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. b. Wilson Boulevard ‒ Minimum 25’ wide enhanced buffer 1 c. Golden Gate Boulevard ‒ Minimum 50’ wide enhanced buffer 2 2. Except for the utility building, no commercial building may be constructed within 3 125 feet of the northern property boundary and within 300’ of the 3rd Street NW 4 boundary of this subdistrict. 5 3. Any portion of the Project directly abutting residential property (property zoned 6 E-Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, 7 a seventy-five (75) feet wide buffer, except the westernmost 330’ of Tract 106, 8 which shall provide a minimum 20’ wide buffer in which no parking uses are 9 permitted. Twenty-five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed 10 area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width 11 shall consist of retained or re-planted native vegetation and must be consistent 12 with subsection 3.05.07.H of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). 13 The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be 14 used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be 15 revegetated to meet subsection 3.05.07.H of the LDC (native vegetation 16 replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered for approval, 17 use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes 18 shall meet the following criteria: 19 a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. 20 The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro-21 period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the 22 existing vegetation. 23 b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management 24 District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District 25 indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to 26 be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District 27 cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention 28 area shall not be used for water management. 29 c. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the developer’s engineer shall 30 provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate 31 the necessary storage of water in the water management area. 32 33 7. Southbrooke Office Subdistrict 34 The Southbrooke Office Subdistrict is approximately five (5) acres and is located approximately 35 1/4 mile east of Oakes Boulevard on the south side of Immokalee Road. he intent of the 36 subdistrict is to permit general office, medical office, and business service uses generally 37 consistent with those uses permissible by right, or as a conditional use in the C-1 Commercial 38 Professional and General Office zoning district. 39 40 Development within the Subdistrict is encouraged to be rezoned as a PUD in order to provide 41 greater specificity of permitted land uses, development standards and any necessary operational 42 characteristics. A maximum of 40,000 square feet of commercial development shall be permitted. 43 All buildings will be limited to single-story, and shall be constructed in a common architectural 44 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1979 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) Rural Golden Gate Estates Sub-Element 47 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. theme. A minimum 30 feet in width vegetated buffer shall be provided adjacent to Autumn Oaks 1 Lane, which shall consist of retained native vegetation. Access to the Subdistrict shall only be 2 from Immokalee Road. 3 4 3 2. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL DESIGNATION 5 A. Rural Settlement Area District 6 This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 7 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 8 and 1970. In settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property 9 has been “vested” for the types of land uses specified in that certain “PUD” by Settlement Zoning 10 granted by the County as referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT 11 dated the 27th day of January 1986. Twenty-one hundred (2,100) dwelling units and twenty-two 12 (22) acres of neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel use are “vested”. This area is now 13 comprised of the Orange Tree PUD and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, and the types of uses 14 permitted in this District include residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community 15 facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and 16 recreational uses, and essential service uses. 17 By designation in the Growth Management Plan and the Golden Gate Area Master Plan as 18 Settlement Area, the Plan recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban 19 Designation, is appropriate for the following types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, 20 agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf 21 course, open space and recreational, and essential services. 22 Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic 23 boundaries of this District will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above-referenced 24 vested status. The geographic expansion of the Settlement Area to additional lands outside the 25 areas covered by Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 26 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), shall be prohibited. The Settlement Area Land 27 Use District is limited to the area described above and shall not be available as a land use district 28 for any other property in the County. 29 4 3. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES 30 A. Southern Golden Gate Estates Natural Resource Protection Overlay 31 Southern Golden Gate Estates is identified as a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) 32 Overlay on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map and is subject to the NRPA Overlay 33 provisions of the FLUE. 34 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1980 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption) 48 Words with no underline or strike through are as presented to the CCPC at the Transmittal hearing. Words underlined are added, and words struck through are deleted as CCPC transmittal changes. Words double underlined are added, and words double struck through are deleted as BCC transmittal changes. FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES C. List of Maps Golden Gate Area Master Plan Study Areas Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map Golden Gate City Future Land Use Map High Density Residential Subdistrict 1989 Boundaries of Activity Center Golden Gate Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict Urban Mixed Use Activity Center/Golden Gate Parkway and Coronado Parkway Golden Gate Urban Commercial Infill Subdistrict and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Pine Ridge Road Interchange Activity Center and Pine Ridge Road Mixed Use Subdistrict Golden Gate Estates Neighborhood Centers Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center Collier Boulevard/Pine Ridge Road Center Golden Gate Boulevard/Everglades Boulevard Center Immokalee Road/Everglades Boulevard Center Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict Commercial Western Estates Infill Subdistrict Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Conditional Uses Area Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict Mission Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Estates Shopping Center Subdistrict Conceptual Plan Everglades – Randall Subdistrict Southbrooke Office Subdistrict Conditional Uses Subdistrict: Golden Gate Parkway Special Provisions Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria in Golden Gate Estates Immokalee Road/Randall Boulevard Planning Study Area 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 1981 Attachment: Supplemental Memo w_backup (9281 : GGAMP Restudy Amendments Adoption)