Loading...
Agenda 07/22/2008 Item # 8BAgenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 1 of 181 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PUDi -2006 -AR- 10875, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by Q. Grady Minor, is requesting a PUD Rezone from the Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C -2), General Commercial (C -4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts, to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD, which would allow a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial uses. The 25.45 -acre subject property is located east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) just south of Tamiami Trail (US 41), in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. COMPANION ITEM: PUDA- 2007 -AR -11734 OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) consider an application to rezone the subject property from the Rural Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C -2), General Commercial (C -4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a development to be known as the Tamiami Crossing CPUD. CONSIDERATIONS: On the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the subject property is designated both Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center No. 18) and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. A companion item to this rezone petition was submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small -Scale GMP Amendment (CPSS- 06 -01) to incorporate a 7.3 -acre parcel at the extreme southeastern corner of the property, designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict into Activity Center No. 18. Small -Scale Amendment CPSS -06 -01 was approved by the BCC on April 22, 2008; and after the expiration of the Department of Community Affairs' 30 -day challenge period, the entire site was designated Mixed Use Activity Center No. 18, except for 0.88 acres along the southernmost property boundary, which remains part of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict and is the subject of a second companion item, PUDA - 2007 -AR -1 1734, described below. PUDA - 2007 -AR -11734 (the "Artesa Pointe PUDA "), proposes to remove 0.88 acres from the Artesa Pointe PUD (shown in hatch marks on the proposed Conceptual Master Plans) to incorporate this acreage into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD, as stated above. Since the Henderson Creek Subdistrict in which the 0.88 acres is located is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial uses and the approved Artesa Pointe PUD already allows this maximum 325,000 square feet, no commercial development would be eligible for this acreage. Instead, this area would only qualify for use as a surface parking lot to meet the parking demands of the CPUD (as noted on the Master Plans). The Land Development Code (LDC) Section 2.03.06.C.3, Commercial Planned Unit Development District, provides for CPUDs to include the entire range of uses permitted in the General Commercial (C -1) through the Heavy Commercial (C -5) zoning districts. The proposed Page 1 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 2 of 181 CPUD, if approved, would allow for 235,000 square feet of general commercial and retail uses consistent with these districts. A maximum zoned height of 35 feet would be permitted for the principal retail and office buildings, with actual height permitted a maximum of 40 feet. The petitioner had originally submitted one Master Plan for staff to review (Plan A). However, in order to address recent concerns, is now proposing a second option (Plan B). Only one of these two options will the developer be able to select and pursue. Plan A would still propose to locate a large big -box retailer adjacent to US 41, with parking to the west of the building, adjacent to CR 951. If this option were pursued, however, the developer would be required to maintain a reduced zoned building height of 29 feet (32 actual feet) along any portion of the building within 200 feet of the US 41 right -of -way line, exclusive of any architectural tower element(s). Such towers would be permitted a zoned height of 35 feet and an actual height of 38 feet. Signage would be prohibited on the proposed tower element(s). Plan B, if pursued, would allocate the square footage proposed for the large retail building depicted in Plan A between two separate parcels, with parking located between them. All building heights would remain at the maximum zoned height of 35 feet (actual height of 40 feet). Whichever option is ultimately pursued, the project would have two access points from Collier Boulevard and three from US 41. As shown in Exhibit E of the PUD documents (attached to the Ordinance), the applicant is requesting four deviations from the design standards of the Land Development Code and has provided justification to support these deviations. Staff has analyzed these deviations and provides the following analyses and recommendations: Deviation 1 seeks relief from the requirement of LDC Section 4.06.02, only for the portion of the site immediately north of Tract A on Master Plan A (see Exhibit C -1 of the Ordinance), which requires a landscape buffer between platted commercial building lots. According to the petitioner, the purpose of this deviation is to permit a travel aisle in this area to facilitate the circulation of traffic on the site. Because the applicant has committed to providing additional landscaping along Collier Boulevard (to screen the site from this roadway, as described below in Deviation No. 3 and depicted in Exhibit G of the Ordinance), staff recommends approval of this deviation. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.C.1, which permits a maximum of two 80- square -foot on- premises pole or monument signs per public street frontage, as the petitioner would like to permit an on- premises pole or monument sign at each of the site's three accesses along its US 41 frontage, having a maximum cumulative area of 160 square feet. The applicant has invoked the safe and efficient travel of the development's users as justification for this deviation. LDC Section 5.06.04.C. states that shopping centers having frontage of 150 feet or more on a public street shall be permitted one pole or ground sign measuring 80 square feet, if located along an arterial roadway; and that an additional sign may be permitted provided there is a minimum 1000 -foot separation between the two signs. The provision further states that, "[iln no case shall the number of pole or ground signs exceed two per street frontage." Although the subject property's entire US 41 frontage measures approximately 2,200 feet which would result in the three signs proposed by the applicant only being 739 feet and 860 Page 2 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 3 of 181 feet apart instead of the 1,000 feet required (see the monument signs' locations on the Conceptual Master Plans), staff supports the proposed deviation since the proposed cumulative area of the signage would be the equivalent of two signs at 80 square feet each, the maximum signage area permitted by the LDC. Deviation 3 seeks relief from Subsection 5.05.08.E. for Master Plan A. This subsection permits no more than 50 percent of the required parking for interior lots to be located between the primary fagade of a building and its abutting street. The applicant would like to permit 100 percent of the required parking between its primary facade and the Collier Boulevard frontage, justifying doing so because of the irregular shape of a parcel. Architectural Review staff supports this deviation subject to the applicant's enhanced landscape buffer commitment depicted in Exhibit G, which would serve to soften the impact of the project's resultant expanse of parking by diminishing its view from Collier Boulevard. Deviation 4 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.E., which requires a masonry wall between commercial and residential properties. Because the RSF -3 abutting the northwest border of the site is actually occupied by an Embarq station that is surrounded by other commercial uses; and the residential uses of Artesa Pointe to the south would be separated from the CPUD by a collector roadway and the subject site's preserve /water management area, it is staff's opinion that Type B landscape buffers alone at these interfaces would be sufficient to mitigate any conflicts between the uses. As such, staff supports this waiver. FISCAL IMPACT: The rezoning action, in and of itself, will have no fiscal impact on Collier County. There is no guarantee that the project, at build out, will maximize its authorized level of development, however, if the CPUD is approved, a portion of the existing land will be developed and the new development will result in an impact on Collier County public facilities. The County collects all applicable impact fees before the issuance of building permits to help offset the impacts of each new development on its public facilities. These impact fees are used to fund projects identified in the Growth Management Plan's (GMP) Capital Improvement Element (CIE) as needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS) for public facilities. Additionally, in order to meet the requirements of Section 10.02.07(C) of the Land Development Code, fifty percent of the estimated Transportation Impact Fees associated with the project are required to be paid simultaneously with the approval of each final local development order. Other fees collected before the issuance of a building permit include building permit review fees and utility fees associated with connecting to the County's water and sewer system. Please note that the inclusion of impact fees and taxes collected are for informational purposes only; they are not included in the criteria used by Staff and the Planning Commission to analyze this petition. Page 3 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 4 of 181 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT: As previously stated, except for the 0.88 acres designated Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, the entire subject property is now designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center No. 18) in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series. The Artesa Pointe PUD comprises all of the Henderson Creek Subdistrict, and the companion item to this rezone (PUDA- 2007 -AR- 11734) seeks an amendment to remove the 0.88 acres from its boundaries. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial uses (as is the Artesa Pointe PUD), if the 0.88 acres were incorporated into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD, it would still remain within the Henderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, would not be eligible for commercial development. As such, the applicant has included a note on the Conceptual Master Plans stating that no buildings may be constructed in this area. The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated in order to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create focal points within the community. Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows "Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Lard Development Code." The project was submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit Development. "The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of Mixed Use Activity Center." The proposed development area is located within Activity Center No. 18. The land within the proposed CPUD is currently vacant. The property is zoned 42, C -4 and A, and is compatible with the surrounding zoning within the Activity Center boundaries (more specific commercial analysis was submitted with the recently approved GMP amendment petition). The surrounding area within a two -mile radius consists of C -2, C -4, PUD, A, and residential uses. "Market demand and service area./or the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses." No market study was submitted with this application. However, as stated, the site is presently zoned C -2, C -4 and A. Further, the CPUD document proposes retail, office, professional and business service uses that are compatible with the existing commercial zoning in Activity No. 18 and within a two road -mile area. (As noted above, a more specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP amendment petition.) "Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles." There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center No. 18 and within two radial miles, including commercial, residential single - family, residential multi - family and mixed - use PUDs. Page 4 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 5 of 181 "Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads." The project proposes access to US 41 and Collier Boulevard. Transportation Planning Department has reviewed this petition for adequate road capacity and has reconunended approval, subject to the developer commitments contained in Exhibit F. "Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. " Compatibility is required by FLUE Policy 5.4. Comprehensive Planning staff defers a compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. "Natural or man -made constraints." Staff is not aware of any physical constraints to the development of this property. "Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. "This criterion is reviewed by Zoning and Land Development Review staff in the Zoning Review portion of this report. "Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the Land Development Code." Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with access requirements, and necessary provisions have been included in Exhibit F of the CPUD Document. "Coordinate traffic flow on -site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on -site traffic movements, access point location and type, median opening locations and tvpe on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections." A Traffic hnpact Analysis (TIS) was conducted, and the petition has undergone a detailed traffic review by the Transportation Planning Department. "Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent projects." The project proposes two vehicular and pedestrian interconnects to the Artesa Pointe PUD located along the project's southwestem and southeastern boundaries. "Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code." Specific architectural design provisions of the LDC shall apply. However, staff leaves the determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review Department as part of their review. Policy 5.4: Requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety; however, would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses /densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. Page 5 of 12 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 6 of 181 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. Along US 41, a principal arterial highway, the conceptual CPUD Master Plans depict two right - in/right -outs and one full access (the southernmost); and along CR 951, a minor arterial highway, it shows two right - in/right -outs. 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 to minimize the need for traffic signals. A loop road is not depicted on the conceptual CPUD Master Plan due to the unusual shape of the site; however, the Master Plan depicts parking lot aisles that do connect US- 41 and Collier Boulevard. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Although the Conceptual CPUD Master Plans allow for two potential vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the proposed Tamiami Crossings CPUD and the Artesa Pointe PUD, the interconnections themselves should be absolute and expected to be part of the SDP or plat. (To address this issue, a developer commitment has been included in Exhibit F, 2.D.1., requiring two vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to the south.) 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. Being a CPUD, there are no residential densities; however, the development standards and conditions are consistent with other similar types of commercial planned unit developments. FLUE Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states, "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards." To accomplish this, Policy 2.2.2 asserts, "1n order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system." This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry Page 6 of 12 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 7 of 181 detention areas, a lake and wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1, a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement will be provided to staff and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for their review. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME), for the following reasons: Greater than fifteen percent of the existing native vegetation will be retained on -site as preserve and will be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism to prohibit further development. Selection of preserves are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. In accordance with Policies 6.1.1 (6) and 6.1.4, habitat management and exotic vegetation removal /maintenance plans shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, as required by Policy 6.2.6. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7 and the LDC. The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan/Construction Plans). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are identified in the PUD document and are in accordance with the uses identified in Policy 6.2.5. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. GMP Conclusion: The Growth Management Plan is the prevailing document supporting land use decisions such as the proposed CPUD. Staff is required to make a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of its recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a Page 7 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 8 of 181 rezoning petition. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated above, contingent upon approval of the companion Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and with the GMP, including the CCME and Transportation Element, as noted. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses may be deemed consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. AFFORDABLE HOUSING IMPACT: This petition contains no provisions to address the affordable- workforce housing demands that the proposed CPUD might create. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the application and the CPUD document to address environmental concerns. As depicted on the CPUD Master plans provided 3.43 acres of native vegetation on the site; and has provided staff with the commitment to supply an analysis demonstrating that post - development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading, prior to final site plan/construction plan approval, as requested. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION• This petition was heard by the EAC on March 5, 2008, and received a unanimous vote (8 -0) to recommend approval, subject to the following condition: • Stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 feet NGVD or above. The applicant has incorporated this condition into Exhibit F, B.3. of the PUD document. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) heard this petition at their March 20, 2008 meeting, and voted 5 -3 to forward this petition to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following revisions to the CPUD document: 1. The prohibition of tattooing establishments (Group 7299); 2. Front yard setback requirements from Tamiami Trail (US 41) East and Collier Boulevard (CR 951) to be one -foot for every two feet of zoned building height, but not less than 25 feet; 3. Accessory use setbacks to be the same as for the principal structure; 4. To apply the applicant's requested deviation from Subsection 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which requires landscaping buffers between separately platted commercial lots, only to the area immediately north of Tract A; 5. To provide a covered pedestrian walkway to the big -box retailer on Tract C, as described in Subsection 2.D.2 of Exhibit F of the CPUD document; 6. The provision of stormwater management discharge at 4.9 feet NGVD or above; and 7. To provide an analysis demonstrating that post - development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general accordance with the Harvey Page 8 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 9 of 181 Harper methodology for review and approval by County Environmental staff at the time of site development plan review. One of the commissioners opposed to recommending approval for the project was of the opinion that it failed to comply with the following Rezone Findings of the staff report (Attachment A to the staff report): 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14 and 17. This commissioner also believed the project to be inconsistent with the following PUD Findings of the staff report (Attachment B to the staff report): 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8. On June 5, 2008, the applicant requested a continuance from the scheduled BCC hearing date to address concerns about the project expressed by BCC members. In response to these concerns, the applicant has revised the proposal and requested a re- hearing before the CCPC. The newly submitted proposal incorporated all seven of the CCPC's recommended changes noted above, as well as a reduction in zoned height for all buildings from 60 feet to 35 feet and actual height from 65 feet to 40 feet; and a commitment to provide early, 19`s century Old Florida style architecture. In addition, the applicant proposed an alternative Conceptual Master Plan (referred to as "Plan B" and included as Exhibit C -2 of the PUD document), thereby permitting two options for development of the site. Plan B, if implemented, would allocate the square footage proposed for the large retail building depicted in Tract C in Conceptual Master Plan A (included as Exhibit C -1 of the PUD document) between two separate parcels, with parking located between them. Accordingly, it would also make redundant the need for Deviation C (contained in Exhibit E of the PUD document), which permits 100 percent of the required parking to be located adjacent to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). Alternatively, if a big -box retailer is found for the site and Plan A is implemented, the developer would be required to maintain a further reduced zoned building height of 29 feet (32 actual feet) along any portion of the building within 200 feet of the US 41 right -of -way line, exclusive of an architectural tower element, which would be permitted a maximum zoned height of 35 feet and 38 actual feet. Signage would be prohibited on the proposed tower element. The CCPC re -heard the petition at their July 17, 2008 meeting, three days before the scheduled BCC hearing. Due to the time constraints for publication of this Executive Summary posed by such back -to -back hearings, staff will verbally report the outcome of the CCPC's second hearing at the BCC meeting. Staff has not received any letters of objection to this project from the community. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This is a site specific rezone from an "A" Agriculture Zoning District, a C -2 Commercial Convenience Zoning District, a C -4 General Commercial Zoning District and a 0.88 -acre portion of the Artesa Pointe PUD to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as Tamiami Crossing CPUD. Site specific rezones are quasi- judicial in nature. As such the burden falls upon the applicant to prove that the proposed rezone is consistent with all the criteria set forth below. The burden then shifts to the BCC, should it consider denying the rezone, to determine that such denial would not be arbitrary, discriminatory Page 9 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 10 of 181 or unreasonable. This would be accomplished by finding that the proposal does not meet one or more of the listed criteria below. Criteria for CPUD Rezones Ask yourself the follow ng questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for approval or not. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. 2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be ntiade only after consultation Huth the County Attorney. 3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed CPUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. 4. Consider: The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. 5. Is there an adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development? 6. Consider: The timing or sequence of development (as proposed) for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 7. Consider: The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. 8. Consider: Conformity with CPUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. 9. Will the proposed change be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the growth management plan? 10. Will the proposed CPUD Rezone be appropriate considering the existing land use pattern? Page 10 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 11 of 181 11. Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts? 12. Consider: Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. 13. Consider: Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. 14. Will the proposed change adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood? 15. Will the proposed change create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety? 16. Will the proposed change create a drainage problem? 17. Will the proposed change seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas? 18. Will the proposed change adversely affect property values in the adjacent area? 19. Will the proposed change be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations? 20. Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant ofspecial privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 21. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ( "reasonably ") be used in accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...) 22. Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county? 23. Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. 24. Consider: The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 25. Consider: The impact of development resulting from the proposed CPUD rezone on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch.106, article II], as amended. Page 11 of 12 Agenda Item No, 8B July 22, 2008 Page 12 of 181 26. Are there other factors, standards, or criteria relating to the CPUD rezone request that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare? The BCC must base its decision upon the competent, substantial evidence presented by the written materials supplied to it, including but not limited to the Staff Report, Executive Summary, maps, studies, letters from interested persons and the oral testimony presented at the BCC hearing as these items relate to these criteria. This item is legally sufficient for Board action. (MMSS) RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the BCC approve PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10875 and the requested Deviations (included as Exhibit F to the Ordinance), subject to the following conditions: 1. That the BCC select one of the two alternative Master Plans (Plan A or Plan B), 2. If Conceptual Master Plan B is selected, then Deviations A and C shall not apply and the developer shall comply with the applicable buffering requirements of LDC Section 4.06.02 and the applicable parking lot design standards of Section 5.05.08. PREPARED BY: John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner Department of Zoning & Land Development Review Page 12 of 12 Page I of 2 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 13 of 181 fi1e: //C: \AgendaTest \Export\1 I I -July% 2022% 202008 \08. %20ADVERTISED %20PUBLIC... 7/15/2008 COLLIER COUNTY -- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Item Number: 88 Item Summary: At the petitioner's request, this item is continued from the June 24, 2008 BCC meeting. This item must be heard AFTER PUDA - 2007 -AR -11734 and requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parts disclosure be provided by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ- 2006-AR- 10875. 0 Grady Minor, representing KRG 951 and 41. LLC, has submitted a PUD rezone for Tamiami Crossing CPUD. The applicant proposes to rezone the A (Agricultural), C -2 (Commercial Convenience), C-4 (General Commercial Zoning) Districts and Artesa Pointe PUD to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district. This is to allow development of commercial land uses with a maximum of 235,000 square feet. The property consists of +/- 25.45 acres and is located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (Companion item to PUDA - 2007 -AR- 11734). Meeting Date: 7/22/2008 9:00:00 AM Prepared By John -David Moss Senior Planner Date Community Development & Zoning &/.and Development 5I1512008 9:17:45 AM Environmental Services Approved By -. Ray Bellows Chief Planner Date Community Development & Zoning &Land Development Review 7/1/2008 10:01 AM Environmental Services Approved By Judy Puig Operations Analyst Date Community Development 8 Community Development 8 7!312006 3:33 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By Marjorie M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Date County Attorney County Attorney Office 71812008 2:51 PM Approved By Susan Murray, AICP Zoning 8 Land Development Director Date Community Development 8 Zoning &Land Development Review 718/2006 2:56 PM Environmental Services Approved By Community Development & Joseph K. Schmitt Date Environmental Services Adminstrator Community Development & Community Development 8 7/0/2008 2:34 PM Environmental Services Environmental Services Admin. Approved By OMB Coordinator OMB Coordinator Date fi1e: //C: \AgendaTest \Export\1 I I -July% 2022% 202008 \08. %20ADVERTISED %20PUBLIC... 7/15/2008 Page 2 of 2 Agenda Item No. 86 July 22, 2008 Page 14 of 181 County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 7/9/2008 3:46 PM Approved By Mark Isackson Budget Analyst Date County Manager's Office Office of Management & Budget 719/2008 4:31 PM Approved By James V. Mudd County Manager Date Board of County 7/10/2008 4:43 PM County Manager's Office Commissioners file: / /C: \AgendaTest\ Export\111- July %2022% 202008 \08. %20ADVERTI SED %20PUBLIC... 7/15/2008 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 15 of 181 Co�i. er County SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: JULY 17, 2008 SUBJECT: PUDZ - 2006 -AR- 10875, TAMIAMI CROSSING COMMERCIAL - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) APPLICANT: KRG 951 & 41, LLC 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 -3565 AGENTS: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REOUESTED ACTION: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider additional mitigation and an alternate Master Plan for an application to rezone the subject property from the Rural Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C -2), General Commercial (C -4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a development to be known as the Tamiami Crossing CPUD, which would allow a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial uses. PROJECT STATUS: The CCPC previously heard this petition on March 20, 2008, and voted 6 -3 to forward it to the Supplemental Report Tamiami Crossing, PUDZ -2006 AR -10875 Pagel of 4 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 16 of 181 Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following revisions to the CPUD document: 1. The prohibition of tattooing establishments (Group 7299); 2. Front yard setback requirements from Tamiami Trail (US 41) East and Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) to be one foot for every two feet of zoned building height, but not less than 25 feet; 3. Accessory use setbacks to be the same as for the principal structure; 4. To apply the deviation from Subsection 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which requires landscaping buffers between separately platted commercial lots, only to the area immediately north of Tract A; 5. To provide a covered pedestrian walkway, as described in Subsection 2.D.2 of Exhibit F of the CPUD document; 6. The provision of stormwater management discharge at 4.9 feet NGVD or above; and 7. To provide an analysis demonstrating that post - development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general accordance with the Harvey Harper methodology for review and approval by County Environmental staff at the time of site development plan review.. Opposition to the project by the CCPC was centered on its perceived failure to comply with 1, 6, 7, 10, 12, 14 and 17 of the Rezone Findings contained in Attachment A to the staff report; and its perceived inconsistency with 1, 3, 6, 7 and 8 of the PUD Findings contained in Attachment B to the staff report. On June 5, 2008, the applicant requested that this item be continued from its scheduled BCC hearing date to address concerns about the project. In response to these concerns, the applicant has revised the proposal and requested that it be re -heard by the CCPC. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSIS: The new proposal has incorporated all seven of the CCPC's recommended changes noted above, as well as a reduction in height for all buildings from 60 feet to 35 feet (zoned) and 65 feet to 40 feet (actual); and a commitment to provide early, 19`h century Old Florida style architecture. In addition, the applicant is also proposing an alternative Conceptual Master Plan (referred to as "Plan B" and included as page three of this report), thereby permitting two options for development of the site. It should be noted that staff does not normally permit applicants to submit various development options, but has made an exception in this case because of the minor variation between the two plans and the fact that both options have provided sufficient mitigation for their respective impacts, as discussed below. The newly proposed Plan B, if implemented, would allocate the square footage proposed for the large retail building depicted in Tract C in the original Conceptual Master Plan (referred to as "Plan A" and included on page two of this report) between two separate parcels, with parking located between them. Accordingly, Plan B would also eliminate the need for Deviation C (contained in Exhibit E of the PUD documents), which permits 100 percent of the required parking to be located adjacent to Collier Boulevard (CR 951). Supplemental Report Tamiami Crossing, PUDZ - 2006 -AR -10875 Page 2 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 17 of 181 _. Alternatively, if a big -box retailer were found for the site and Plan A was implemented, the developer would maintain a reduced zoned building height of 29 feet (32 actual feet) along any portion of the building within 200 feet of the US 41 right -of -way line, exclusive of any architectural tower element(s) which would be permitted a maximum zoned height of 35 feet (38 actual feet). Additionally, signage would be prohibited on the proposed tower element(s). (Additional information about the site can be found in the original staff report submitted for the March 20, 2008 CCPC hearing.) In staffs opinion, this reduction in height of 31 feet (zoned), coupled with the architectural requirements of LDC Section 5.05.08, Architectural and Site Design Standards, would mitigate the impact of those features normally associated with big -box stores, such as the rectangular shape, flat roof, size and massing. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC forward petition PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10875 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition: If Conceptual Master Plan B is selected, then Deviations A and C shall not apply and the developer shall comply with the applicable buffering requirements of LDC Section 4.06.02 and the applicable parking lot design standards of Section 5.05.08. Supplemental Report Tamiami Crossing, PUDZ - 2006 -AR -10875 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: JOHN -DAVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: MARJORIE M. STUDENT - STIRLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY DATE DATE RAY BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: JOSEPH K. SCHMITT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR DATE DATE Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 18 of 181 Tentatively scheduled for the July 22, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN. CHAIRMAN Supplemental Report Tamiami Crossing, PUDZ - 2006 -AR -10875 Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8B AGENDA 1. 008 Page o 181 Co er County STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION HEARING DATE: MARCH 20, 2008 SUBJECT: PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, TAMIAMI CROSSING COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) COMPANION ITEMS: PUDA- 2007 -AR -11734 AND CPSS -06 -01 APPLICANT: John A. Kite and Alvin E. Kite, Jr. KRG 951 and 41, LLC 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 -3565 AGENTS: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates 3800 Via del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 REQUESTED ACTION: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A, 4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 To have the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone the subject property from the Rural Agricultural (A), Commercial Convenience (C -2), General Commercial (C -4) and Artesa Pointe PUD zoning districts to the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a development to be known as the Tamiami Crossing CPUD, which would allow a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial uses. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The 25.45 -acre subject property is located in the southeastern quadrant of the Tamiami Trail (US -41) and Collier Boulevard (CR -951) intersection, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida (see the location map on the following page). PUDZ- 1006 -AR- 70875, Tamiami Crossing MM— MOM p N Z � �i ENo IL C Q Q {.7 Z O N m m a K Q fo 0 N N C at z 0 F w a Q O 0 J f / Y "�i .fl4WV® ti !' E �fa1' !'?jti4at • •• MIN o {L • 1111- iFl pqp y M ' A g EY•�M G� E�� �.�.„a \ Q {.7 Z O N m m a K Q fo 0 N N C at z 0 F w a Q O 0 J E o pqp y g EY•�M G� E�� �.�.„a \ �� �6plO IMY!- Y•I1M Qp ! � E Q {.7 Z O N m m a K Q fo 0 N N C at z 0 F w a Q O 0 J mom- pD O OJ oN o N N TW °ova G N m Q D 6Mx Oj Z j Kp e u 0 N �v pm0 W M �0 4 Kg �O if g j cW V o W UN m= oW w�a WO =6 W� itl i FWG � w i�o 2a a�J Cr z� 049 0z JIQ� o�w6w II Il lljll Ql0n��5 S C VILLU} NWJ U k Q2Z0 m�S " �aoa 0 rE oN 8 �5 >...� off' x low i /�------ -r - - -- / / k JO E oil a € o© / � IIIIIQ @E® kfltl Ai. j -_z._. e N Y4 4 � �O if g j � V o W UN m= g ag K 8 U =6 W� itl i FWG � w o© / � IIIIIQ @E® kfltl Ai. n L 8 O -_z._. N Y4 �O if j �� d i�o Knyo II Il lljll U D YLLY W �y ZO �wn W W tan Y U oa M M o 0 a W o O O -0 °O n L 8 O Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 22 of 181 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: On the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), the subject property is designated both Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center No. 18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. A companion item to this rezone petition has been submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small Scale GMP Amendment (CPSS- 06 -01) to incorporate a 7.3 -acre parcel at the extreme southeastern corner of the property, designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, into Activity Center No. 18. If approved, the entire site would then be designated Mixed Use Activity Center No. 18 except for 0.88 acres along the southernmost property boundary, which would remain part of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict and which is the subject of a second companion item, PUDA- 2007 -AR- 11734, described below. PUDA - 2007 -AR -11734 (the "Artesa Pointe PUDA "), proposes to remove 0.88 acres from the Artesa Pointe PUD to incorporate this acreage into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD, as previously stated (this area is shown in hatch marks on the preceding page). As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict in which the 0.88 acres is located is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial —and the approved Artesa Pointe PUD already allows this maximum 325,000 square feet —no commercial development would be eligible for this acreage. Instead, this area would only qualify for use as a surface parking lot to meet the parking demands of the CPUD (as noted on the Master Plan). LDC Section 2.03.06.C.3, Commercial Planned Unit Development District, provides for CPUDs to include the entire range of uses permitted in the General Commercial (C -1) through the Heavy Commercial (C -5) zoning districts. The proposed CPUD, if approved, would allow for 235,000 square feet of general commercial and retail uses consistent with these districts. A maximum zoned height of 60 feet would be permitted for the principal PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tamiami Crossing 2 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 23 of 181 structures, with actual height, including appurtenances, permitted a maximum height of 67 feet. The project is bordered by US 41 to the north and CR 951 to the west. The Master Plan indicates that the project would have two access points from Collier Boulevard and three from US 41. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: US 41, then a CVS Pharmacy, undeveloped land and commercial uses; zoned Commercial Convenience (C -2), General Commercial (C -4) and Heavy Commercial (C -5) East: State -owned conservation land; zoned Rural Agricultural (A) South: Wal -Mart and Habitat for Humanity single- family residences; zoned Artesa Pointe PUD West: Shell gas station and Carole -K, then CR -951 and commercial uses; zoned C -4, Residential Single Family (RSF -3) (an Embarq telecommunications station) and Eagle Creek PUD GMP CONSISTENCY: As previously stated, the subject property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (Activity Center No. 18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element and on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. This area includes 118.15 acres of A, C -2, and C -4 zoned properties. A petition for f7.3 acres, currently zoned A and designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to incorporate the acreage into Activity Center No. 18. This CPUD rezone is therefore contingent upon approval of that GMP amendment; and if approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict except for the aforementioned 0.88 acres, which would remain under the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation. Artesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Subdistrict, and the companion item to this rezone (PUDA- 2007 -AR- 11734) seeks an amendment to remove 0.88 acres from its boundaries. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial uses (as is the Attesa Pointe PUD), if the 0.88 acres were incorporated into the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD, it would still remain within the Henderson Creek Subdistrict and, therefore, would not be eligible for commercial development. The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated in order to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create focal points within the community. Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows: PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tmniami Crossing Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 24 of 181 "Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encourager) to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except requests for rezoning must meet the requirements far rezoning in the Land Development Code." The project was submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit Development. "The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of Mixed Use Activity Center." The proposed development is located within Activity Center No. 18. The area within the proposed CPUD is currently vacant. The property is zoned C -2, C -4 and A, and is compatible with the surrounding zoning within the Activity Center boundaries (more specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP amendment petition). The surrounding area within a two -mile radius consists of C -2, C -4, PUD, A, and residential uses. "Market demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses." No market study was submitted with this application. However, as stated, the site is presently zoned C -2, C -4 and A. Further, the CPUD document proposes retail, office, professional and business service uses that are compatible with the existing commercial zoning in Activity No. 18 and within a two road -mile area. (As noted above, a more specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP amendment petition.) "Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles." There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center No. 18 and within two radial miles, including commercial, residential single- family, residential multi -family and mixed -use PUDs. "Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads." The project proposes access to US 41 and Collier Boulevard, Transportation Planning Department has reviewed this petition for adequate road capacity and has recommended approval, subject to the developer commitments contained in Exhibit F. "Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties." Compatibility is required by FLUE Policy 5.4, Comprehensive Planning staff defers a compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. "Natural or man -made constraints." Staff is not aware of any physical constraints to the development of this property. "Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code." This criterion is reviewed by Zoning and Land Development Review staff in the "Zoning Review" portion of this report. "Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the Land Development Code." Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tamiami Crossing 4 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 25 of 181 petition for compliance with access requirements, and necessary provisions have been included in Exhibit P of the CPUD Document, "Coordinate traffic flow on -site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan /master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point location and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. " A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted, and the petition has undergone a detailed traffic review by the Transportation Planning Department. "Interconnection (s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent projects." The project proposes two vehicular and pedestrian interconnects to the Artesa Pointe PUD located along the project's southwestern and southeastern boundaries. "Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code." Specific architectural design provisions of the LDC shall apply. However, staff leaves the determination to the Zoning and Land Development Review Department as part of their review. Policy 5.4: Requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning staff leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety; however, would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses /densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation /attraction, etc. 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. Along US 41, a principal arterial highway, the conceptual CPUD Master Plan depicts two right - in/right -outs and one full access (the southernmost); and along CR 951, a minor arterial highway, it shows two right -in /right -outs. 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 to minimize the need for traffic signals. A loop road is not depicted on the conceptual CPUD Master Plan due to the unusual shape of the site; however, the Master Plan depicts parking lot aisles that do connect US -41 and Collier Boulevard, PUDZ - 2006 -AR- 10875, Tamiami Crossing Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 26 of 181 Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. Although the conceptual CPUD Master Plan allows for two potential vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the proposed Tamiami Crossings CPUD and the Artesa Pointe PUD, the interconnections themselves should be absolute and expected to be part of the SDP or plat. (To address this issue, a developer commitment has been included in Exhibit F, 2.F.7., requiring two vehicular and pedestrian interconnections to the south.) 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. Being a CPUD, there are no residential densities; however, the development standards and conditions are consistent with other similar types of commercial planned unit developments. FLUE CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states, "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish this, Policy 2.2.2 asserts, "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of Policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention areas, a lake and wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak flow attenuation during storm events. Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1, a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement will be provided to staff and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for their review. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Greater than fifteen percent of the existing native vegetation will be retained on -site as preserve and will be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism to prohibit further development. Selection of preserves are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.1. PUDZ- 2006-AR- 10875, Tamiarni Crossing Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 27 of 181 • In accordance with Policies 6.1.1 (6) and 6.1.4, habitat management and exotic vegetation removal/maintenance plans shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, as required by Policy 6.2.6. • Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7 and the LDC. • The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6.1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan/Construction Plans). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2,4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. • In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are identified in the PUD document and are in accordance with the uses identified in Policy 6.2.5. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are required at the time of Site Development PlardConstruction Plan submittal. GMP Conclusion: The Growth Management Plan is the prevailing document supporting land use decisions such as the proposed CPUD. Staff is required to make a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of its recommendation of approval, approval with conditions, or denial of a rezoning petition. Staff believes this petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated above, contingent upon approval of the companion Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment; and with the GMP, including the CCME and Transportation Element, as noted. Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes the proposed uses may be deemed consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: y` Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the LDC criteria P UDZ-2 006-AR-1 0875, Tamiami Crossing Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 28 of 181 upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13.B.5. and 10.03.05.H, which establish factual bases to support a recommendation. The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. These evaluations are completed as separate documents, and have been attached to the staff report as Exhibits A and B. In addition to these documents, staff offers the following analysis: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the application and the CPUD document to address environmental concerns. The applicant has committed to providing 3.43 acres of native vegetation on the site; however, has not provided staff with the commitment to supply an analysis demonstrating that post - development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading, prior to final site plan/construction plan approval. As such, this commitment has been included by staff as a condition of approval. This petition was required to have a hearing before the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) on March 5, 2008. The outcome of that hearing is described in the EAC portion of this staff report, below. Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and the applicant has incorporated Transportation staffs revisions within the CPUD document. The US 41 consortium Developer's Contribution Agreement to provide capacity improvements for the project has been approved by the BCC, and the Consortium is actively pursuing their required project bond, which is yet to be posted. As such, Transportation Planning staff is recommending approval of the petition, subject to the transportation - related commitments contained in the CPUD document, and will withhold all Certificates of Occupancy until the necessary bond is posted. Utility Review: The project's location is within the Collier County Water and Sewer District Service Area. The project is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. Per the County's GIS, there are an existing 20 -inch water main and a 12 -inch force main along Collier Boulevard, as well as a 16 -inch water main and a16 -inch force main along the Tainiami Trail. Emergency Management: The Tamiami Crossing CPUD is located in a CAT 1 Hurricane Surge Zone and requires evacuation during many hurricane events. However, this is a commercial project with no residential units proposed; therefore, the Emergency Management Department has no issues with this CPUD. Zonine Review: As depicted on the CPUD Master Plan, included as Exhibit C of the CPUD documents, the site is generally bifurcated, having commercial uses on one side and a preserve /stonnwater management area on the other. As a result of this design approach, compatibility with surrounding parcels is achieved since the proposed commercial uses are adjacent to existing commercially -zoned properties (except for one parcel zoned RSF -3, but which is occupied by an Embarq telecommunications station); and the proposed preserve and water management area appropriately abut the preserve area and residential uses of the of the Artesa Pointe PUD and adjacent State -owned A -zoned land. The subject site would be buffered from the commercial uses to the north by US 41 and a 20 -foot wide Type D landscape buffer, as required by the LDC for all commercial uses adjacent to rights -of -way. The State -owned PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tannimni Crossing 8 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 29 of 181 conservation land to the east would be adequately separated from the CPUD by a ten -foot wide Type A buffer. A 10 -foot wide buffer is proposed along the entire shared length of the Artesa Pointe boundary to the south. This buffer is proposed to be a Type D where it abuts the project's southernmost entrance at Collier Boulevard, along the project's interface with Artesa Pointe's commercial uses; and a Type A at the project's interface with Artesa Pointe's nature preserve/water management area. The buffer would also be Type A along the subject property's 3.43 -acre native preserve, and would increase to a Type B buffer where the project's water management area abuts the residential uses of Artesa Pointe. To the west, the subject property would be separated from other commercial uses along CR 951 by a 10-foot wide Type A buffer. However, because the aforementioned Embarq station is actually located on a parcel zoned RSR -3, a Type B buffer would be provided as required by the LDC. According to LDC Section 5.03.02.E., a masonry wall should also be provided at each of the property's interfaces with the two adjacent residentially -zoned properties. However, the applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement, described in the "Deviations" section of this report, below, The CPUD's development standards are contained in Exhibit B, Table I. of the CPUD document. As the uses proposed for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD are consistent with those permitted in the C -1 through the C -5 zoning districts, the C -3 zoning district was used in the table below as a benchmark to evaluate the proposed development standards against the LDC's standards. As shown in the table, the CPUD would provide appropriate setbacks from its Proposed Development Standards for Principal Structures vs. C -3 Standards of LDC PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tamiarni Crossing Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 30 of 181 abutting roadways and uses. (It should be noted that although setbacks from Artesa Pointe are proposed to be only 15 feet, Environmental Services staff has verified that that project's platted preserve area commences ten feet from its boundary line. Thus, the 25 -foot setback requirement of the LDC for principle structures from preserve areas would be respected.) Maximum zoned building height for both retail and office buildings would be 50 feet, with the actual building height not to exceed 65 feet. Overall, the proposed development standards for principal structures meet the standards of the C -3 zoning district. Along the project's Collier Boulevard frontage, the applicant has provided a commitment (in Exhibit F, section G.2.) stating that the Type D buffer shown would be supplemented to the extent depicted in Exhibit G, entitled "Enhanced Landscape Buffer." The purpose of this enhanced buffer is to mitigate the impact of the applicant's requested deviation (No. 3), which will be discussed in detail in the "Deviations" portion of this report, below. As shown in this exhibit, the Type D buffer has been augmented to provide one additional canopy tree every 30 feet, with all canopy tees in the buffer measuring six feet taller than normally required at the time of planting. In addition, the sabal ( "cabbage ") palms in the buffer are proposed to be staggered from 12 to 18 feet in height rather than simply ten feet in height as required by the LDC. Finally, a royal palm will be installed on either side of the cabbage palm clusters to further enhance the buffer. Overall, 7.36 acres, or 30 percent of the site's area, would be retained as open space —the minimum required by LDC Section 4.07.02.0., Design Standards ---of which 15 percent would be held in the aforementioned 3.43 -acre preserve. As illustrated in the following table, accessory structures would require front yards to be a minimum of zero feet. Staff does not support this setback since "accessory structures" per the LDC include parking structures, which would not be appropriately located abutting internal roadways. Therefore, a condition of approval has been included requiring setbacks to be Proposed Development Standards for Accessory Structures vs. C -3 Standards of LDC PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tamiami Crossing 10 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 31 of 181 consistent with those of the principal structure, as normally required by the LDC. Rear and side yards would be set back a minimum of ten feet, with ten -foot setbacks from preserve areas. Distances between accessory structures would be at least ten feet; and the structures maximum permitted height would be 25 feet. These standards, as shown in the table below, are either equal to or slightly less than those required by the C -3 zoning district. Deviations: In Exhibit E of the CPUD document, the petitioner seeks approval of three deviations from the design standards of the Land Development Code and has provided a justification to support these deviations. Staff has analyzed these deviations and provides the following analyses and recommendations: Deviation 1 seeks relief from the requirement of LDC Section 4.06.02, which requires a landscape buffer between platted commercial building lots. According to the petitioner, the purpose of this deviation is to provide zero -foot setbacks between buildings due to anticipated multiple land ownership of the large anchor building shown on the Master Plan. This deviation would, incidentally, also allow him to forego the installation of internal landscape buffers between the two separately platted tracts shown (or an even greater number of tracts if the site is ultimately re- platted). The petitioner claims that this deviation is justified due to a recent trend in commercial development, Staff is strongly opposed to any such a deviation, as it amounts to an unconditional waiver of the LDC's landscape requirement for Type A buffers between separately platted tracts without any mitigation for impacts. The outcome of this waiver would be the creation of a grossly oveideveloped site without clearly defined uses, and one with an unusually harsh microclimate due to the lack of vegetation to shade each of the individual parcels from adverse ambient temperatures. Moreover, LDC Section 4,06.01 specifically states that the purpose and intent of the landscape code is to: • Improve the aesthetic appearance of commercial, industrial, and residential developments through the requirement of minimum landscaping in ways that harmonize the natural and built environment; • Provide physical and psychological benefits to persons through landscaping by reducing noise and glare; • Screen and buffer the harsher visual aspects of urban development; • Improve environmental quality by reducing and reversing air, noise, heat, and chemical pollution through the preservation of canopy trees and the creation of shade and microclimate; • Reduce heat gain in or on buildings or paved areas through the filtering capacity of trees and vegetation; and • promote the health, safety, and welfare of residents of Collier County by establishing minimum uniform standards for the installation and maintenance of landscaping. Obviously none of these objectives would be achieved by honoring the applicant's requested deviation. Furthermore, this situation would only be fiuther exacerbated by the PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tamiami Crossing 11 Agenda Item No. 86 July 22, 2008 Page 32 of 181 applicant's third requested deviation (see No. 3, below), which staff only supports contingent upon denial of Deviation No, 1. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.C.1, which permits a maximum of two 80- square foot on- premises pole or monument signs per public street frontage, as the petitioner would like to permit an on- premises pole or monument signs at each of the site's three accesses along its US 41 frontage, having a total maximum cumulative area of 160 square feet. The applicant's justification for the deviation is the safe and efficient travel of the development's users. LDC Section 5.06.04.C. states that shopping centers having frontage of 150 feet or more on a public street shall be permitted one pole or ground sign measuring 80 square feet, if located along an arterial roadway; and that an additional sign may be permitted, provided there is a minimum 1000 -foot separation between the two signs. The provision further states that, "(iln no case shall the number of pole or ground signs exceed two per street frontage." Although the subject property's entire US 41 frontage measures approxhnately 2,200 feet, which would result in the three signs proposed by the applicant only being 739 feet and 860 feet apart instead of 1,000 feet (see the monument signs locations on the Conceptual Master Plan on page three), staff supports the proposed deviation since the proposed cumulative area of the signage would be the equivalent of two signs at 80 square feet each, which is the maximum signage area permitted by the LDC. Deviation 3 seeks relief from Section 5.05.08.E., which permits no more than 50 percent of the required parking for interior lots to be located between the primary facade of a building and its abutting street. The applicant would like to permit 100 percent of the required parking between its primary fagade and the Collier Boulevard frontage, justifying doing so because of the irregular shape of a parcel. Architectural Review staff would support this deviation with the applicant's enhanced landscape buffer commitment in Exhibit G, which would serve to moderate the impact of the resultant expanse of parking by adequately partitioning its view from Collier Boulevard, However, as noted above, staff only supports this deviation in conjunction with the denial of Deviation No. 1, since only interior landscaping between platted parcels in addition to the enhanced landscape buffer would sufficiently moderate the impact of locating the site's entire parking needs along its Collier Boulevard frontage. Deviation 4 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.E, which requires a masonry wall between commercial and residential properties. Because the RSF -3 site is actually occupied by an Embarq station that is surrounded by other commercial uses; and the residential uses of Artesa Pointe would be separated from the CPUD by a collector roadway and the subject site's preserve /water management area, it is staffs opinion that the Type B landscape buffers alone provided at these interfaces would be sufficient to mitigate any conflicts between the uses. As such, staff supports this waiver. PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, Tamiami Crossing 12 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 33 of 181 ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC1: This petition was heard by the EAC on March 5, 2008, and received a unanimous vote(9 -0) to be forwarded to the CCPC with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition: • Stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 feet NGVD or above. Staff has incorporated this condition into its stipulations for approval, on the following page. (Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator) The applicant duly noticed and held the NIM for Tamiami Crossing, Artesa Pointe (PUDA- 2007-AR- 11734), and the associated Comprehensive Planning Amendment (CPSS -06 -1) as companion items on September 26, 2007, at Manatee Elementary School. Approximately 70 people attended, some of whom identified themselves as residents of Eagle Creek. Also present were County staff, County Commissioner Donna Fiala, Planning Commissioner Bob Murray, the applicant and his agents. Most of the questions posed by attendees focused on traffic bnpacts and the County's Transportation Divisions' plans for area road improvements. The applicant told the audience that a signal on US -41 between the site and one quarter mile from the Habitat for Humanity project would be sought, with an alternate location further east, subject to the approval of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). The applicant's team stated that there were plans for access' points on CR 951 and US 41, and two interconnection points with Artesa Pointe PUD. Attendees were interested in finding out if there was a big box retailer like Super- Target proposed. Eric Strickland of Kite Development responded that a box retail or grocery store was proposed, and that his firm is indeed a Target developer. He also stated that the project's projected opening was late 2008. The agent added that the proposed zoning was primarily for C- 4 (General Commercial) uses, and that a garden center was also a potential end -user. A commitment was made by members of the applicant's team that there would be no tattoo parlor. The Developer's agent, Richard Yovanovich, stated that the applicant's team was willing to speak with any Homeowners' Associations that were interested in meeting with them. He also told the group that these items would not be on the summary agenda if there were any objections from the neighbors since attendees felt that the Wal -Mart in Artesa Pointe had been approved without adequate notification of the public hearing date. Mr. Yovanovich then advised the audience to file any objections to the proposals with the County's Planning staff. The NIM officially ended at approximately 6:30 p.m. Transportation Planning Director Nick Casalanguida said he and the applicant's team would remain after the meeting to discuss PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, TamiamiGrossing 13 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 34 of 181 developer contribution agreements and improvements of the Collier Boulevard/US -41 intersection, RECOMMENDATION. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPQ forward Petition PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10875 to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, subject to the following stipulations: 1. The applicant shall be permitted one sign at each of the US 41 access points; however, the cumulative area of all the pole or monument signage along this frontage shall not exceed 160 square feet. 2, The site shall be separated from the residential uses along its Artesa Pointe boundary by a minimum Type B buffer, and from the parcel zoned RSF -3 along its western boundary by a minimum Type B buffer. No fence or wall shall be required. 3. Setbacks for all accessory structures shall be the same as those of the principal structure. 4. An "Environmental" subsection in the "Development Commitments" section of the CPUD document shall be included to state, An analysis demonstrating that post development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general accordance with the Harvey Harper methodology, shall be completed and submitted for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval," 5. No tattooing establishments shall be permitted within the CPUD. 6. Stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 feet NGVD or above. Staff also recommends approval of the applicant's requested deviations except.for Deviation 91, which requests a waiver of the LDC's requirement for Type A buffets between separately platted tracts without any mitigation for its impacts. However, should the Board choose to recommend approval of Deviation #I, staff recommends that Deviation 93 be denied, which staff supports only subject to the denial of Deviation 41. PUDZ - 2006 -RR- 10875, Tamiarni Croxsh?g 14 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 35 of 181 PREPARED BY: LQ 7 L-y" 02- .2s a J -DAVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER 7 DA TE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REVIEWED BY: MARJOIU M. STUDENT - STIRLING — �rDATE ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY RAYMON V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTIVI 'NT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 't - V?-) 1 /SUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVED BY: 4JPM�HK.SC1-I ITT ADMN STRATOR DATE UNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the March 20, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: _N 0 ( 3 2' C1% MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN DATE Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings B. PUD Findings PUDZ- 2006 -AR- 10875, TamiandCrossing 14 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT A Page 36 of 181 REZONE FINDINGS PETITION PUDA- 2006 -AR -10875 Tamiami Crossing CPUD Chapter 10.03.05.0 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires that the report and recommendations of 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, where applicable: Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan, Findings: Page three of the staff report expalins how this petition is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The subject property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, (Activity Center 418) Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element and on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series. This area includes 18.15± acres of A, C -2, and C -4 zoned properties. A petition for 7.3± acres, currently A -zoned and designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to incorporate this acreage into Activity Center 918. This CPUD rezone is therefore contingent upon approval of that GMP amendment; and if approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict except for 0.88 acres, which would remain under the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation. 2. The existing land use pattern; Findings: The subject site is generally bordered by commercial zoning districts to the north and west and by the Artesa Pointe PUD the south, which permits commercial uses consistent with the C -1 through C -5 zoning districts. Therefore, the proposed CPUD would be compatible with the existing land use pattern. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Findings: As noted above, the subject site is already surrounded by property with similar land uses. For this reason, the proposed rezone 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. Findings: The location map on page two of the staff report highlights the boundary of the subject parcel. The CPUD is indeed irregular in relation to the majority of parcels in the County, which are typically rectangular. However, the subject property was created by the assemblage of available parcels in the area, which resulted in a rather unusual shape for the proposed PUD. Nevertheless, the district boundaries are not illogically drawn. Pagel of 4 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT A Page 37 of 181 _. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. Findings: The proposed PUDA is not obligatory at this location. However, the request is reasonable because the preponderance of the property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, which is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development and to create focal points within the community. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Findings: The proposed development would not adversely affect the living conditions in the neighborhood as appropriate buffering has been provided adjacent to residential uses in the Artesa Pointe PUD. Furthermore, the proposed use for the property would be similar to that already approved for the Artesa Pointe PUD. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Findings: The Transportation Services Division has reviewed the proposed PUD and has recommended approval of the petition as the project is not projected to lower the Level of Service (LOS) below the adopted LOS for the area. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; Findings: The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems, as the existing water management system is designed to prevent drainage problems on the site, Additionally, the LDC and GMP have regulations in place to ensure review for adequate drainage on the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD, 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; Findings: The proposed change will not have an adverse impact on adjacent properties in terms of reducing light and air. Exhibit B provides the building height and setback standards which should maintain the light and air circulation on adjacent properties. 14. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; Findings: This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by the market. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. Page 2 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT A Page 38 of 181 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; Findings: The adjacent properties allow similar uses. Therefore, the proposal would not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; Findings: As stated, the proposed amendment complies with the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, (Activity Center #18) Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation of the GMP in which it is located. Furthermore, land use applications are subject to a public hearing process to insure that they do not constitute a grant of special privileges or are inconsistent with other properties in the vicinity in which they are situated. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; Findings: There are no substantial reasons why the property could not be used in accordance with existing zoning. However, the proposed use would fulfill the objectives of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; Findings: The proposed amendment conforms to the goals and objectives of the GMP and is compatible with the surrounding property. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. Findings: There are many sites that are already zoned to accommodate the proposed development; however this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a rezoning decision. The proposed CPUD was reviewed and deemed compliant with the GMP and the LDC, as was the Artesa Pointe PUDA proposed in conjunction with this 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. Findings: Any development would require some site alteration and the subject site will have to be cleared to execute the proposed CPUD. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Page 3 of 4 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT A Page 39 of 181 Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. Findings: The proposed CPUD will have to meet the criteria set forth in Section 6.02.00, Adequate Public Facilities and conform to the goals and objectives of the GMP. This petition has been reviewed by county staff, who has concluded that the proposed development is consistent with the elements of the GMP. Page 4 of 4 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT B Page 40 of 181 FINDINGS FOR PUD PETITION PUDA - 2006 -AR -10875 Tamiami Crossing CPUD Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code requires the Planning Commission to make a finding as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the following criteria: 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Fin_ dings: If the companion small scale amendment upon which this application is contingent is approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict (except for 0.88 acres, which would remain under the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation). The Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. The proposed CPUD fulfills the objectives of this designation and will have to be in accordance with all applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) at the time of issuance of any development order. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings: Evidence of unified control was provided with the application. All arrangements for the development of the CPUD are contained within the PUD documents. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) which designates the subject property as both the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict and the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. The subject petition has been found consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP, as explained on page three of the staff report. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Findings: Section 4.07.02 of the LDC has specific development requirements for PUD districts to insure that they are compatible with established or planned uses of the surrounding neighborhoods. As noted in the staff report, the subject parcel is located in Page 1 of 2 Agenda Item No. 88 July 22, 2008 EXHIBIT B Page 41 of 181 both the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict and the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, a latter which permits a maximum commercial gross floor area of 325,000 square feet. As the Artesa Pointe PUD has already been approved for 325,000 square feet of commercial uses, the subject 0.88 acres would not be eligible for any further commercial development. Instead, this acreage would only be limited to parking area, which would be compatible with the surrounding uses. The applicant seeks relief from the requirement of LDC Section 4.06.02, which requires a landscape buffer between platted commercial building lots. Staff is strongly opposed to any such a deviation, as it amounts to an unconditional waiver of the LDC's landscape requirements without any sat of mitigation for its impacts. The result of such a waiver of the normally required Type A buffers between separately platted tracts would merely create the appearance of a grossly overdeveloped site, as well as an extremely hostile microclimate, due to the lack of vegetation to define each of the individual uses and to cool ambient temperatures. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. Findings: Approximately 7.36 acres, or 30 percent of the site's area would be retained as open space —the minimum required by the LDC —of which 15 percent would be held in a 3.43 -acre preserve. 6. The tinting or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Findings: No capacity issues are ]mown at this time and the petition has been reviewed by County Transportation staff who has determined that no Level of Service (LOS) standards will be adversely affected. Policy 2.3 of the GMP requires the certification of public facility availability prior to the issuance of a final local development order. Because of this provision, the development must be in compliance with applicable concurrency management regulation. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Findings: The utility and roadway infrastructure has, or will have, adequate capacity to serve the proposed CPUD and the surrounding development at the time of its build -out. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Findings: Staff has reviewed this petition and found it to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE,) and the other elements of the GMP. The proposed development standards are comparable to the development standards of the C -3 zoning district. Additionally, the proposed buffets and deviations recommended by staff will ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties. Page 2 of 2 ORDINANCE NO. 09- 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 INCLUDES 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 (AGRICULTURAL), C -2 (COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE), C-4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS AND ARTESA POINT PUD TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "CPUD" KNOWN AS THE TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD LOCATED, IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 PAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.45± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the A (Agricultural), C -2 (Commercial Convenience) and C -4 (General Commercial) and Artesa Pointe PUD Zoning Districts to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Tamiami Crossing Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) in accordance with Exhibits A through G, attached hereto and incorporated by reference heroin. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, die Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TW O State. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of Page I of 2 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 42 of 181 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 43 of 181 -- PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super- majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of , 2008. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMLSSIOI, Dwight E. Brock, Clerk OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA M Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: By: Deputy Clerk TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN Marjorie M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviation from LDC Exhibit F — List of Developer Conan fitments Page 2of2 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 44 of 181 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 WWW.COLLIERGOV.NET (239) 403 -2400 FAX (239) 643 -6968 PETITION NO (AR) PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER DATE PROCESSED ASSIGNED PLANNER PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10875 REV: 3 TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD Project: 2005060079 Date: 10/31/07 DUE: 12/4/07 NAME OF APPLICANT (S) KRG 951 AND 41, LLC ADDRESS 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET SUITE 1100 CITY INDIANAPOLIS STATE IN ZIP 46204.3565 TELEPHONE # 317- 809 -6960 CELL # E -MAIL ADDRESS: ESTRICKLAND(c)KITEREALTY.COM FAX # 317 - 577 -5605 NAME OF AGENT D. WAYNE ARNOLD AICP - Q GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES P.A. ADDRESS 3800 VIA DEL REY CITY BONITA SPRINGS STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34134 TELEPHONE # 239 -947 -1144 CELL # E -MAIL ADDRESS: WARNOLD anGRADYMINOR.COM FAX # 239 - 947 -0375 NAME OF AGENT RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH ESQ. - GOODLETTE COLEMAN AND JOHNSON P.A. ADDRESS 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL SUITE 300 CITY NAPLES STATE FLORIDA ZIP 34103 TELEPHONE # 239 - 435 -3535 CELL # E -MAIL ADDRESS: RYOVANOVICH(a)GCJLAW COM FAX # 239- 435 -1218 BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF CCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THATYOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS. KITEE951FLN CPIID I(Tzo ➢c Petitinu Anc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 45 of 181 Complete the following for all Association(s) affiliated with this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. NAME OF PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION: N/A MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP NAME OF MASTER ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE _ ZIP NAME OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION: MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP KTTE95I PLN CPUD Rmonc Pctition.doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 46 of 181 a. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership NOT APPLICABLE b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership KRG 951 & 41, LLC 100% 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 -3565 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest, Name and Address Percentage of Ownership d. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and /or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership KITE951PLN CPUD Rczone Pctition.doc Agenda Item No. 8B e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or 'f ud� a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contraclapurc6sers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Date of Contract: f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired 5� 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 leased =0 f 40"s ­y"suns, If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: Date of option: Date option terminates: , or Anticipated closing date: h. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: (If space is inadequate, attach on separate page.) If request involves change to more than one zoning district, include separate legal description for property involved in each district. Applicant shall submit four (4) copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 9" to 400' scale) if required to do so at the pre - application meeting. NOTE: The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. KUBS I PLN CPUD Rczone PetitionAm Section /Township /Range S3lT51S /R26E Lot: Block: Subdivision: Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 48 of 181 Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. #: 00726240005, 00726080003, 00726160004, 00726120002, 0072 320006, 00726280007, 00726721809, 00725841007, 00726724204 and 00726724301 Metes & Bounds Description: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "O.S. -3" OF TRAIL RIDGE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 °55'57" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "O.S: 3 ", FOR A DISTANCE OF 683.32 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3620 AT PAGES 2872 THROUGH 2876 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00. 04'03" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS, FORA DISTANCE OF 200.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT "C" OF SAID TRAIL RIDGE; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 °55'57" WEST. ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET TO THE NORTH ERLYMOSTWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT "C "; THENCE RUN SOUTH 02 °3029" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C ", FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 90 °00'00" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C ", FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD #951 (RIGHT -OF- WAY VARIES); THENCE RUN NORTH 02 °30'29" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.20 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 04 °12'04" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 640.85 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 °42'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.66 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 15 °42'49" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.41 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 35 °39'44" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD No. 90 (TAMIAMI TRAIL 200.00 FOOT RIGHT -OF -WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 54 °20'16" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,927.32 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35 °39'44" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRAIL RIDGE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 54 °20'16" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRAIL RIDGE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 855.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 25.451 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Size of property: ft. X ft, =Total Sq. Ft. Acres 25.45± Address /general location of subject property: No site address, property is located on the south side of U.S. 41 approximately 300 feet east of Collier Boulevard. PUD District (LDC 2.03.116): Zoning ❑ Residential ❑ Community Facilities ® Commercial ❑ Industrial Land use N C -2 /ST, C -3 /ST, C -4, C -5, A Commercial, CVS Pharmacy and undeveloped land S PUD Commercial and Residential, Artesa Pointe PUD E A Undeveloped State owned land W PUD, C -4, RSF -3 Residential - Eagle Creek PUD County Utilities Convenience Store KITE951PLN CPUD Rezone PcwionAoc Agenda Item No. 813 Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subject qq55 6' ofo, give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space Is inadec ua�te, aach on separate page). NO Section /Township /Range / ! Lot: Block: Subdivision: Plat Book Page #: Property I.D. Metes & Bounds Description: This application is requesting a rezone from the A. Rural Agriculture, C -2, C -4. and PUD (Artesia Pointe) zoning district(s) to the CPUD (COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: Vacant, Undeveloped Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: Commercial. Retail Original PUD Name: Ordinance No.: Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development Code, staffs analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B) The Tamiami Crossing Commercial Planned Unit Development proposes a maximum of 235,000 square feet of general commercial and retail land uses on 24.57± acres. The property is located on Tamiami Trail (U,S. 41) and Collier Boulevard (S.R. 951). Access to the project is from Tamiami Trail and Collier Boulevard. The project is located within the Mixed Use Activity Center Sub District designation (Activity Center #18) as identified on the Future Land Use Map, as described in the Activity Center Sub- District of the urban — Commercial District in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE).. The proposed commercial uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element. The conceptual master plan prepared for the property identifies the proposed building areas in support of the light industrial land uses. The conceptual master plan also identifies proposed points of ingress /egress to the site, landscape buffers and areas proposed for storm water retention. The proposed development is compatible with surrounding commercial development which also lies within the Urban Residential Sub - district, and adjacent Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. Natural ground elevation is approximately 9'± NGVD. The entire site is located within FEMA Flood Zone AE5, as identified on the FIRM Map, Community No. 120067, Panel no 605G and 615G, November 17, 2005. 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. KrrE95 H` N CPUD Rczone Petition.doc Agenda Item No. 8B The subject property is located in the Mixed Use Activity Center Sub District designM 4 Center #18) as identified on the Future Land Use Map, which permits land uses such ��I 4Ac al. The site is presently undeveloped, and all contiguous properties are being developed with commercial and residential land uses. The site has access to Collier Boulevard and U.S. 41. Urban services are presently available to the property and sufficient capacity exists to serve the proposed land uses. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other Instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The documents submitted with the application provide evidence of unified control. A portion of the subject property is under contract for purchase and appropriate disclosures are provided in the application. 3. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the growth management plan. The Statement of Compliance located in the CPUD document discusses consistency with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The proposed commercial land uses are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Future Land Use Element and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed commercial development is compatible with the surrounding land use pattern. The internal arrangement of the proposed development, access points and project buffers are consistent with the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code and sound planning principles with respect to urban development within Mixed Use Activity Centers. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The proposed commercial development will provide open space in accordance with the LDC. Open spaces will be provided for this project and will include areas for landscape buffers, building landscaping, preserves, and water management areas. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The proposed timing of development will be required to be consistent with the County's concurrency management system in effect at the time development order approvals are granted. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. At the filing date of the zoning application there are no plans to expand the boundaries of the proposed CPUD. Adjacent properties are presently under development. The application includes all properties under the unified control of the applicant and current property owners. Krf8951PLN CPUD Rr.one Pctition.duc Agenda Item No. 8B 8, Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regpliiis ir��e particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as me%1mg°pu'Qc _. purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The proposed CPUD includes development standards and conditions which are consistent with other similar types of commercial planned developments. The CPUD document and master plan include buffers and development standards which also fulfill objectives to promote economic development in Collier County. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions, however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to ascertain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? ❑ Yes ® No If so, what was the nature of that hearing? NOTICE: This application will be considered 'open" when the determination of "sufficiency" has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered "closed" when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to suppiy of six f6) months. An application deemed "closed" will not receive further processing and an application 'closed" through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed 'closed" may be re- opened by submitting a new application, repayment of all application fees and granting of 3 determination of "sufficiency ". Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code. Section 10.03.05.0. KITE951 PLN CPUD Rewne Petition.doc Aqenda Item No. 8B 1, Ry IR�llDZ� s RUA 10�ll1 (PIJD A) r THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST 15 TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW W /COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION. NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT RF AC_CFPTFn- REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Boom 1 Additional set If located in the Bayshore /Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area) X Copies of detailed description of why amendment is necessary 24 X Completed Application (download from website for current form) 24 X Pre-application meeting notes 24 X PUD Document & Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 See" x 11" copy 24 X Revised Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36 "and One 8'h" x 11" copy 24 X Original PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF AMENDING THE PUD 24 X Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 24 X Revised PUD document w /amended Title page w /ord #'s, LDC 10.02.13.A.2 24 X Deeds /Legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD Is amended) 2 X List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation 2 X Owner /Affidavit signed & notarized 2 X Covenant of Unified Control 2 X Completed Addressing checklist 2 X Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital /electronic coy of EIS or exemption justification 4 X Historical Survey or waiver request 4 X Utility Provisions Statement w /sketches 4 X Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4 X Survey, signed & sealed 4 X Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver 7 X Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min scaled 1" =400' 5 X Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans (CDRom or Diskette) 1 X IT-1 Receiving Land Areas Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida Division of Forestry 239 -690 -3 00 for info; ation regarding "Wildfire Mitigation r, ention ", LDC Se Ion 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c. E r�� Applicant /Ag Signature Date KITE95I Pt.N CPUD Rezone PailionAm Agenda Item No. 88 July 22, 2008 Page 53 of 181 ORDINANCE NO. 08- 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 INCLUDES 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 (AGRICULTURAL), C -2 (COMMERCIAL CONVENIENCE), C- 4 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL) ZONING DISTRICTS AND ARTESA POINTE PUD TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT "CPUD" KNOWN AS THE TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD LOCATED, IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.45± ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, KRG 951 and 41, LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor & Associates, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from the A (Agricultural), C -2 (Commercial Convenience) and CA (General Commercial) and Artesa Pointe PUD Zoning Districts to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Zoning District for a project to be known as the Tamiami Crossing Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) in accordance with Exhibits A through G, attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Page 1 of 2 nv Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 54 of 181 The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, Ware hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super - majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this day of 2008. ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Dwight E. Brock, Clerk OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ME , Deputy Clerk Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Marjorie M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney By: TOM HENNING. CHAIRMAN Exhibit A — Permitted Uses Exhibit B — Development Standards Exhibit C — Master Plan Exhibit D — Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviation from LDC Exhibit F — List of Developer Commitments Exhibit G — Landscape Buffer Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT A FOR TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD PERMITTED USES I. PERMITTED USES Agenda Item No. 86 July 22, 2008 Page 55 of 181 The 25.45± acre commercial project shall not be developed with more than a maximum of 235,000 square feet of commercial floor area. No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: I . Amusement and recreation services: Groups 7911 and 7991. 2. Apparel and accessory stores: Groups 5611 - 5699. 3, Attorney Offices and Legal Services: Group 8111. 4. Automotive Dealers and Gasoline Service Stations: Groups 5511 (new and used motor vehicle dealers), 5531 (auto and home supply store), 5541 (gasoline service stations [automobile service stations only, with services and repairs as described in the Land Development Code, convenience food and beverage stores, and excluding buck stops - retail. Diesel pumps shall only be provided for automobiles and trucks of one ton or less capacity]) and 5571 (motorcycle dealers). 5. Automotive Repair, Services and Parking: Groups 7514, 7515, 7542 (only for automobiles and trucks/buses of one ton capacity or less). 6. Boat Dealers: Group 5551. 7. Bowling Center: Group 7933. 8. Building Materials: Groups 5211 -5231. 9. Business Services: Groups 7311, 7313, 7322 - 7338, 7361, 7371 - 7384. 10. Depository Institutions and Non - depository Credit Institutions: Groups 6021- 6163. 11. Drinking Establishments and Places: Group 5813 (cocktail lounges permitted only in conjunction with a restaurant). 12. Eating Establishments and Places: Group 5812. 13. Educational Services: Groups 8211 — 8249 and 8299 (no exterior instruction of motorized equipment). Page I of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 56 of 181 14. Food Stores: Groups 5411, 5421, 5431 (except roadside sales) and 5499. 15. Garden Supply Group: 5261. 16. General Merchandise Stores: Groups 5311 - 5399 (including warehouse clubs and discount retail superstores). 17. Hardware Stores: Group 5251. 18. Health Services: Groups 8011 - 8099. 19. Professional Offices: Groups 6712 - 6799. 20. Home Furniture, Furnishings and Equipment Stores: Groups 5712 - 5736. 21. Hotels and Motels: Group 7011. 22, Insurance Agencies, Brokers and Carriers: Groups 6311 - 6399 and 6411. 23. Management Services: Groups 8711 - 8748. 24. Membership Organizations: Groups 8611, 8621, 8641 and 8661. 25, Miscellaneous Repair Services: Groups 7622 - 7631. 26. Miscellaneous Retail Services: Groups 5912, 5932 (antiques only), 5941 - 5949 and 5992 - 5999 (except auction rooms, monument and tombstone sales). 27. Movie Picture Theaters: Group 7832. 28. Museums and Art Galleries: Group 84I2. 29. Personal Services: Group 7212 (dry- cleaning and laundry pickup stations only), 7215, 7217, 7219 - 7291, and 7299 (car title /tag service and tanning salons only). 30. Public Administration: Groups 9111 - 9661. 31. Real Estate agents and managers (Groups 6512 - 6514, 6519, 6531 - 6552, excluding mobile home brokerage on- site). 32. Security and Commodity Brokers, Dealers, Exchanges and Services: Groups 6211 -6289. 33. Social Services: Groups 8322 (only adult day care centers, counseling centers, and senior citizens associations), and 8351. 34. Travel Agencies: Group 4724. Pape 2 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 57 of 181 35. Veterinarian's Office: Group 0742 (for household pets only and without overnight boarding or outdoor kennels). 36. Videotape Rental: Group 7841. 37. Any other commercial use or professional service which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses, as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals. B. Accessory Uses/Structures: Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: 1. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the pennitted principal uses. 2. Cocktail lounges (Group 5813), only in conjunction with eating places. 3. Caretaker's residence. 4. Sidewalk sales: outdoor seasonal sales shall be permitted (except roadside sales). II. PROHIBITED USES The following uses shall be prohibited: Tattooing establishments (Group 7299). III. PRESERVE TRACT USES No building or structure or part thereof, shall be erected altered or used, or land used in whole or in part, for other than the following, subject to the issuance of regional, state and federal permits, when required: A. Principal Uses: 1. Boardwalks, nature trails and shelters. 2. Water management structures. 3. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use that is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Board of Zoning Appeals, or designee, determines to be compatible in the Preserve Tracts. Page 3 of 12 EXHIBIT B FOR TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD DEVELOPMENTSTANDARDS Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 58 of 181 Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in the applicable sections of the Land Development Code (LDC) in effect as of the date of approval of the site development plan (SDP) or subdivision plat. TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT SPS = same as principal structure * whichever is greater ** Per subdivided lot, excluding parking areas under buildings ** *See Exhibit F Section 2.G.2 for further height restrictions on the large format retailer building. PUD docsfi I9 Page 4 of 12 Al2 -1 0875 1 KITE951PLN PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 S . Ft, N/A MINIMUMLOT WIDTH 75 Ft. N/A _ MINIMUM YARDS External From Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) 1 foot of setback for every 2 feet of zoned building height, but not less than 25 feet. SPS From Collier Blvd. 1 foot of setback for every 2 feet of zoned building height, but not less than 25 feet. SPS From Pasedo Dr 25 Ft. SPS From Artesa Pointe PUD Boundary 15 Ft. SPS From Western Project Boundary 25 Ft. SPS From Eastern Project Boundary 25 Ft. _ SPS MINIMUM YARDS (Internal) Internal Drives/ROW 10 Ft. SPS Rear 15 Ft. SPS Side 10 Ft. SPS Preserve 25 Ft. SPS MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN STRUCTURES 10 Ft, or sum of building heights 10 Ft. MAXIMUM HEIGHT Retail Buildings * ** Zoned 35 Ft. Actual 40 Ft. 25 Ft, Office Buildings Zoned 35 Ft. Actual 40 Ft. 25 Ft. MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 S . Ft. ** N/A MAX, GROSS LEASABLE AREA 235,000 S . Ft. N/A SPS = same as principal structure * whichever is greater ** Per subdivided lot, excluding parking areas under buildings ** *See Exhibit F Section 2.G.2 for further height restrictions on the large format retailer building. PUD docsfi I9 Page 4 of 12 Al2 -1 0875 1 KITE951PLN .1 •• °. a V O J L ~ tf] W Tw — � m IL c N O OZ ON ° � VQ❑ LLX / O a ry criN E � m r F h Y U T N ¢ JLL' OJT C_ .yY / V1, -64� NJ `<❑ Q Z W a �Qa 0 % i z N G o❑ ` ❑Z 3 pp y¢1 g Rr0 �z No ° /' \ ❑ p 3 DSSO r ri Q�6❑Q ZON // /fir •'•�•�•••'•�'�•�• .dy�7= \ "0.N/''r / �% rp�r•.•r. •r .' �° I \; '�.yl,\ ❑age I(! L ; (1 i a i C °A ,� 00 _ 26 3q QUWU U� WO �� U❑ WM p II 11 J� II U Q Z N ❑ g W ❑ } ❑ N LL UQj� Ud � _W N� W ❑N � ❑ � Q IZ� N W LZzN °c Q m N 4 l6 F w 0a N uo a 0 0 000 0 CO W — � O � Z — � m W ". J) Q ON 0 .0 w g U LL i ?ax Ilk, $SS U xa a � o^b. ap ��yl• wa w♦-• Oa LL' pZ a @@Gy� 'i V �o °ao� 8� ��/� Nz WO> Iy NIOU ¢J rcF a at, � : ./ FMS OOal Z9 Itr A $ po '•. •' ti's ,.'••., ��,r ! j q /AL w\`wmi d�l dn G7 6.. '7 k At ¢ o o 61 j/ � m � W'' i� yea �" __ — ^_ �,q §g• awwV �> �X iI NQ�tN� JO '„3 etiWri J � U Q ? W N w pr N 3 j JyLL O Q awl K K w ZIN Z? f S 1 m N as lwi W � Ew i w w w 00 rWi �f3 a O ©® o EXHIBIT D FOR TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD LEGAL DESCRIPTION Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 61 of 181 The subject property being 25.45± acres is located in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, and is more fully described as follows: A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 51 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT "O,S. -3" OF TRAIL RIDGE, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 055'57" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT "O.S. -3", FOR A DISTANCE OF 683.32 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3620 AT PAGES 2872 THROUGH 2876 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00 °04'03" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS, FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT "C" OF SAID TRAIL RIDGE; THENCE RUN NORTH 89 055'57" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET TO THE NORTHERLYMOSTWBSTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT "C'; THENCE RUN SOUTH 02 030'29" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C ", FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 90 °00'00" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C ", FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 4951 (RIGHT -OF -WAY VARIES); THENCE RUN NORTH 02 °30'29" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.20 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 04 °12'04" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 640.85 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89 042'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.66 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 15 042'49" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.41 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTII 35 039'44" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 200.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD No. 90 ( TAMIAMI TRAIL 200.00 FOOT RIGHT - OF -WAY); THENCE RUN SOUTH 54 °20'16" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT - OF -WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,927.32 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35 °39'44" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 400.00 FEET TO A POINT ON TIIE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRAIL RIDGE ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 71 THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 54 °20'16" WEST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRAIL RIDGE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 855.70 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE PARCEL OF LAND HEREIN DESCRIBED, CONTAINING 25.451 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PU docs0_19 Page 7 of 12 AR -10875 / KITE951 PLN 0 C C. 1113 Agenda Item No. 86 July 22. 2008 EXHIBIT E Page 62 of 181 FOR TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD DEVIATIONS Landscape buffer(s). The developer requests a deviation from Subsection 4.06.02, Table 2.4 (footnote 3) of the LDC, only for that portion of the project immediately north of Tract A. This deviation would provide relief from the above - referenced LDC provision which requires a landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots, to permit a zero foot setback between buildings and no landscape buffer(s) between separately platted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan. Project signage. The developer requests a deviation from Subsections 5.06.04.C.1 and 5.06.04.C.3 which permits a maximum of two pole or monument signs per street frontage at a maximum of 80 square feet each and 1,000 feet separation, to permit a maximum of three on- premises pole or monument signs along the projects U.S. 4I frontage. The maximum sign area for the three signs shall not exceed 160 square feet, and no single sign shall exceed 80 square feet. Parking distribution. The developer requests a deviation from Subsections 5.05.08.E of the LDC which permits no more than 50% of the required parking area for interior lots to be located between the primary fagade and the abutting street, to permit 100% of the required parking area to be permitted between the primary fagade and the Collier Boulevard road frontage. The landscape buffer adjacent to Collier Boulevard shall be enhanced with 16 -foot tall canopy tree clusters, and palm tree clusters, as identified in deviation Exhibit G, and as described in Exhibit F, Item 2.G.2. The developer shall provide a covered pedestrian walkway as described in Subsection 2.D.2. of Exhibit F of this Ordinance. Fences and Walls. The developer requests a deviation from LDC Subsection 5.03.02.E.2, which requires placement of a concrete or masonry wall between non - residential and residential development, to permit the Tamiami Crossing CPUD to provide type B buffer, without a masonry wall where the project abuts residentially -zoned property in two areas of the site. PUD docs6_19 Paso 8 of 12 AR -10875 / Kn'E951 PLN EXHIBIT F FOR TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 63 of 181 1. Regulations for development of the Taniani Crossing CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this CPUD Document and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order to which said regulations relate. Where this CPUD Ordinance does not provide development standards, then the provisions of the specific sections of the LDC that are otherwise applicable shall apply. 2. Any commitments made by the developer will be added to this exhibit as they are made during the review and approval process. A. CPUD MASTER PLANS Exhibit "C -1" and Exhibit 11C -2" depict the conceptual master plans for two proposed development options. 2. Exhibit "C-l", "Conceptual Master Plan "A ", Large Format Retailer" illustrates the proposed development for a 170,000 square -foot or larger single tenant retailer and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or SDP approval. Subject to the provisions of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. a. The building setback shall be a ratio of 2 feet vertical to 1 foot horizontal or a minimum of 25 feet from the US 41 right -of -way line. b. All loading areas shall be fully screened from the sight line of travel on US 41 with landscape and hardscape features. c. The required landscape buffer along US 41 shall be increased with tree and shrub material as depicted in Exhibit "G ". d. Conceptual Plan "C -1" shall adhere to the applicable architectural commitments in Exhibit "F" paragraph G.1. 3. Exhibit "C -2 ", Conceptual Master Plan `B" illustrates the proposed development for multi - tenant retailers, each less than 170,000 square -feet and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or SDP approval. Subject to the provisions of the LDC, amendments may be made from time to time. 4. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all common areas in the project. Pige 9 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 B. WATER MANAGEMENT Page 64 of 181 1. A copy of the South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD) surface water permit application shall be sent to Collier County Development Services Staff with the final plat or SDP submittal. 2. A copy of the SFWMD surface water permit shall be submitted to Collier County prior to final SDP or final plat approval. 3. The stormwater management control elevation discharge shall be 4.9 feet NGVD or above. C. UTILPPIES Water distribution, sewage collection and transmission and interim water and/or sewage treatment facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained in accordance with applicable County ordinances and other applicable County rules and regulations. 2. Except on an interim basis for structures such as sales /construction trailers and models, the project shall be, required to hook -up to and utilize public water and sewer facilities. D. TRANSPORTATION 1. The Conceptual Master Plans "A" and `B" depict two potential vehicular and pedestrian interconnections with the adjacent property to the south. The developer shall assure that these interconnections accommodate the perpetual use of such access by incorporating the appropriate language into the applicable development covenants, and SDP or plat. E. PLANNING 1. Enhanced Landscape Buffer along the Collier Boulevard frontage. The 20- foot Type `D' Buffer shall be enhanced with additional palm trees provided at a ratio of 3 palms per 60 linear feet. The required canopy trees shall be a minimum of 16 -feet tall at the time of planting and shall be staggered in clusters 20 feet on center. Clusters of 3 palms between required canopy tree clusters shall be planted no more than 8 feet on center. The palms shall be 12 -foot to 18 -foot staggered heights. The distance between required canopy tree clusters and palm clusters shall be no more than 30 feet apart. All required plants shall be native species. 2. The developer shall provide a covered pedestrian walkway over the longest landscape island (which island is depicted on Exhibit C -1, the Conceptual Master Plan) running from the parking area of the project to the main entrance of the building on Tract C. The walkway shall be a minimum of eight feet in width with the covering to be a minimum of Pl1D docs6 19 Puge 10 or 12 AR -10875 / KrFF951 PLN Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 twelve feet at its peak. The covered walkway may be in the four 8f at 181 pergola or arbor covered with shade - producing vegetation. F. ENVIRONMENTAL An analysis demonstrating that post - development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general accordance with the Harvey Harper methodology shall be completed and submitted for review and approval at the time of site development plan review. G. ARCHITECTURE The theme for all buildings in the center for Conceptual Master Plans "A" and "B" shown in Exhibits C -1 and C -2, shall be "Old Florida Style" or "Florida Cracker Style ". 2. The large format retailer building in Exhibit C -1, Conceptual Master Plan "A ", shall comply with the additional following commitments: a. The building height of any building or portions of buildings within 200 feet of the US 41 right -of -way line, excluding any tower element, shall be reduced to a maximum zoned height of 29 feet (or a maximum actual height of 32 feet). The tower element(s) shall be a maximum zoned height of 35 feet, with a maximum actual height of 38 feet. 1. Buildings or portions of buildings beyond 200 feet from the US 41 right -of -way shall not exceed the maximum heights listed in Exhibit B, Table 1.. 2. Signage shall not be permitted on any tower element on the large format retailer building. PUD dns6_19 Pap l l of 12 AR -] 0875 / KITE951PLN \ Z \ \ \ ƒ §� = a�• ,! Q ! 4 /% 2 � � ] a \ `® � l 2 ) #4 � $ \ \ \ I. II. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF MARCH 5 & 6, 2008 NAME OF PETITIONER /PROJECT: Petition No.: Petition Name: Applicaut/Developet Engineering Consultant: Environmental Consultant: LOCATION: Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 67 of 181 Item VI, A. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10875 TAMIAMI CROSSING COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) KRG 951 and 41, LLC Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. The subject property is located in the southeastern quadrant of the Tamiami Trail (US -41) and Collier Boulevard (CR -951) intersection, in Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida HI. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: ZONING DESCRIPTION N - Commercial Convenience (C -2), General US 41, CVS Pharmacy, Commercial (G4), Heavy Conn aercial undeveloped land, and (C -5) and Falling Waters PUD commercial uses S - Artesa Pointe PUD Wal -Mart and single- family residences E - Rural Agricultural (A) Undeveloped State -owned land W - C -4, Residential Single Family (RSF -3) Shell gas station and and Eagle Creek PUD Circle -K, then CR -951 and commercial uses IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EAC Meeting Page 2 of] 2 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 68 of 181 The subject property is presently designated both Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict ( #18), Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map and Map Series of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). A companion item to this CPUD rezone petition has been submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small Scale GMP Amendment (CPSS- 06 -01) to incorporate a 7.3 -acre A -zoned parcel, designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, into Activity Center 418. If approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use Activity Center #18, except for .88 acres along the southern property boundary, which would remain part of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict and is the subject of a second companion item, PUDA- 2007 -AR- 11734. PUDA- 2007 -AR -11734 (the "Artesa Pointe PUDA "), as stated, proposes to remove 0.88 acres from the Artesa Pointe PUD to incorporate this acreage into the proposed Tamiami Crossing PUD. As the Henderson Creek Subdistrict in which the 0.88 acres is located is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial —and the approved Artesa Pointe PUD already allows the maximum 325,000 square feet of commercial —no commercial development would be eligible for this acreage. Instead, the area would be used to meet parking requirements for the CPUD. Pursuant to LDC Section 2.03.06.C.3, the Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district is construed to include the entire range of uses permitted in the General Commercial (G1) through (C -5) zoning districts. The proposed CPUD, if approved, would allow for 235,000 square feet of general commercial and retail uses consistent with these districts. A maximum zoned height of 60 feet would be permitted, with actual height, including appurtenances, to be a maximum of 67 feet. V. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: As previously stated, the subject property is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, (Activity Center #18) Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, and Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Future Land Use Element, Future Land Use Map and Map Series. This area includes 18.15± acres of A, Agricultural, C -2 and C -4 zoning. A petition for 7.3± acres of the 25.45± acres currently zoned A, Agricultural, and designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been submitted to the Comprehensive Planning Department for a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment to incorporate the 7.3± acre parcel into Activity Center #18, making a total of 25.451 acres for a Planned Unit Development, to be known as Tamiami Crossings CPUD. This CPUD rezone is therefore contingent upon approval of that EAC Meeting Page 3 of 12 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 69 of 181 GMP amendment. If approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use Activity Center, except for the .88 acres that would remain designated Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict. Artesa Pointe PUD presently comprises all of the Henderson Creek Subdistrict, and is in the process of a PUD amendment to remove .88 acres from its boundaries, to be incorporated into the proposed Tamiami Crossing PUD boundaries. The Henderson Creek Subdistrict is limited to a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial. The approved Artesa Pointe PUD allows for a maximum of 325,000 square feet of commercial. Therefore, through incorporating the .88 acres into the proposed Tanuami Crossing PUD, the boundaries remain within the the Henderson Creek Subdistrict, and no commercial building area is eligible to be developed on the .88 acres. The Mixed Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows: "Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in the form of a Planned Unit Development. There shall be no minimum acreage limitation for such Planned Unit Developments except requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code ". The project was submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit Development. "The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two road miles of Mixed Else Activity Center." The proposed development is located within Activity Center #18. The area within the proposed PUD is currently vacant, however is zoned C -2, C -4 and A, and is compatible with the surrounding zoning within the Activity Center boundaries. (More specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP amendment petition.) The surrounding area within a two mile radius consists of C -2, C -4, PUD, Agricultural and residential uses. "Alarket demand and service area for the proposed commercial land uses to be used as a guide to explore the feasibility of the requested land uses." No market study was submitted with this application. However, the site is presently zoned C -2 and C -4 and A. Further, the PUD document proposes retail, office, professional and business service uses that appear to be compatible with the existing commercial zoning in Activity #18 and a two road -mile area. (More specific commercial analysis was submitted with the GMP amendment petition.) EAC Meeting Page 4 of 12 Agenda Item No, 8B July 22, 2008 Page 70 of 181 "Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two radial miles. " There is a variety of existing land uses within Activity Center #'18 and within two radial miles, including commercial, residential single - family, residential multi - family and mixed -use PUDs. "Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads." The project proposes access to US 41 and Collier Boulevard (CR 95I). Transportation Planning Department has reviewed this petition for road capacity and has found it sufficient. "Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. " Compatibility is also required by FLUE Policy 5.4. Comprehensive Planning staff defers the compatibility determination to the Department of Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. "Natural or man -made constraints. " Staff is not aware of any physical constraints to development of this property. "Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. " This criterion is to be reviewed by Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of this petition in its entirety. " Can%rmance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers contained in the Land Development Code. " Access provisions are included in the PiJD Document. Additionally, Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with access requirements and limitations. "Coordinate traffic flow on -site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan /master plan indicating on -site traffic movements, access point location and type, median opening locations and type on the abutting roadway(s), location of traffic signals on the abutting roadway(s), and internal and external vehicular and pedestrian interconnections. " Detailed traffic review has been performed by the Transportation Planning Department. "Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future adjacent projects." The project proposes two vehicular and pedestrian interconnects with the Artesa Pointe PUD. "Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code." The PUD document provides for commercial land uses designed to be harmonious with the adjacent Artesa Pointe PUD and surrounding commercial development by using common architectural themes, quality screening /buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible and applying the provisions of the specific section of the LDC that are otherwise applicable. RAC Meeting Page 5 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 71 of 181 Policy 5.4: Requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning and Land Development Review as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, staff would note that in reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses /densities on the subject site, the compatibility analysis might include a review of both the subject proposal and surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location, traffic generation /attraction, etc. 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 conceptual PUD Master Plan indicates two right - in /right -outs and one full access connection between the project and US 41 to the north, which is a principal arterial highway, and one right -in /right -out connection to CR 951 to the west, which is a minor arterial highway. 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 to minimize the need for traffic signals. A loop road is not depicted on the conceptual PUD Master Plan and might not be expected given the conceptual master plan layout. However, that Master Plan does depict parking lot aisles and drives that connect to US -41 and Collier Boulevard. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The conceptual PUD Master Plan allows for two (2) potential vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the proposed Tamiami Crossings CPUD and Artesia Pointe PUD to the south of the project, but the interconnections themselves should be absolute and expected to be part of the SDPs /PPLs.) 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. Being a CPUD, there are no residential densities; however, the development standards and conditions are consistent with other similar types of commercial planned developments. EAC Meeting Page 6 of 12 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 72 of 181 CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone may be found consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE). Conservation & Coastal Management Element: Objective 2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan states "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging into estuaries shall meet all applicable federal, state, or local water quality standards. To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the specific and cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stormwater systems should be designed in such a way that discharged water does not degrade receiving waters and an attempt is made to enhance the timing, quantity, and quality of fresh water (discharge) to the estuarine system. This project is consistent with the objectives of policy 2.2.2 in that it attempts to mimic or enhance the quality and quantity of water leaving the site by utilizing interconnected dry detention areas, a lake and a wetlands to provide water quality retention and peak now attenuation during storm events. Pursuant to Objective 2.4 and Policies 2.4.1, a copy of the Environmental Impact Statement will be provided to staff and the Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve for their review. The project as proposed is consistent with the Policies in Objective 6.1 and 6.2 of the Conservation d Coastal Management Element, for the following reasons: Greater than fifteen percent (15 %) of the existing native vegetation will be retained on -site and set aside as preserves and be protected by a permanent conservation mechanism to prohibit further development. Selection of preserves, are consistent with the criteria listed in Policy 6.1.I. In accordance with Policies 6.1.1 (6) and 6.1.4, habitat management and exotic vegetation removal /maintenance plans shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan /Construction Plan submittal. Preserve areas shall be required to be maintained free of Category I invasive exotic plants, as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, as required by Policy 6.2.6. Littoral shelf planting areas within wet detention ponds shall be required at the time of Site Development Plan /Construction Plan submittal, and will be required to meet the minimum planting area requirement in Policy 6.1.7 and the LDC. EAC Meeting Page 7 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 73 of 181 The requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to Policy 6, 1.8 has been satisfied. Jurisdictional wetlands have been identified as required in Policies 6.2.1 and 6.2.2. Pursuant to Policy 6.2.4, the County shall require appropriate agency permits prior to the issuance of a final local development order permitting site improvements (Site Development Plan/Construction Plans). As stated in Policies 6.2.3 and 6.2.4, where permits issued by jurisdictional agencies allow for impacts to wetlands within the Urban Designated Area and require mitigation for such impacts, this shall be deemed to meet the objective of protection and conservation of wetlands and the natural functions of wetlands within this area. In accordance with Policy 6.2.6, required preservation areas are identified on the PUD master plan. Allowable uses within the preserve areas are identified in the PUD document and are in accordance with the uses identified in Policy 6.2.5. Uses within preserve areas shall not include any activity detrimental to drainage, flood control, water conservation, erosion control, or fish and wildlife conservation and preservation. Wildlife surveys for listed species in accordance with Policy 7.1.2 are included in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Wildlife habitat management plans for listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction Plan submittal. VI. MAJOR ISSUES: Stormwater Mana ement: Section 8.06.03 0.2. of the Collier County Land Development Code states "The surface water management aspects of any petition, that is or will be reviewed and permitted by South Florida Water Management District ( SFWMD), are exempt from review by the EAC except to evaluate the criteria for allowing treated stormwater to be discharged into Preserves as allowed in Section 3.05.07." Tamiami Crossings has applied for a SFWMD permit to construct and operate a stormwater management system. The application number is 070316 -23, and it was applied for on 16 Mar 2007. It has undergone 5 Requests for Additional Information (RAI). This proposed water management system consists of interconnected inlets and detention basins, The first half inch of runoff is directed to dry detention areas for pretreatment. Excess runoff will be routed into wet detention areas. The water quality detention amount will be as per code. Final discharge will be through a control structure to a spreader swale along the property line and then to the US 41 roadside swale system, east to I- Ienderson Creek. LAC Meeting Page 8 of 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 74 of 181 The petitioner estimates the dry season water table at 2.1 ft. NGVD, The on -site wetlands have been incorporated into the runoff treatment chain. Once runoff has received pretreatment, it will be directed to the wetlands for storage. This should help maintain a reasonable hydroperiod in those wetlands. Environmental: Site Description: The project site is undeveloped 25.45 acre parcel forested with Pine Flatwoods, Cypress - Cabbage Palm and Hydric Pine Flatwoods. Also on site are approximately 1.92 acres of previously cleared land. The eastern most portion of the property was historically used for agricultural purposes (row crops). Wetlands: The project site contains approximately 13.68 acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands and approximately 11.77 acres of uplands. Wetlands were verified by SFWMD staff on May 11, 2007. Four wetlands occur on site and these are identified on the exhibits included in the EIS. Wetlands on site include Pine - Cypress- Cabbage Palm (FLUCFCS Code 624), Hydric Pinc Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 625) and a FIydric Utility Easement (FLUCFCS Code 830H). The total percentage of proposed wetland impacts on site is 87 percent, for a total 11.96 acres. Approximately 1.72 acres of wetlands will be preserved on the property. A UMAM analysis of the proposed impacts is included as an attachment in the EIS. Seasonal high water elevations and normal pool elevations within the wetlands on site were determined by locating water marks, moss collars and /or lichen lines on pine trees within the wetlands. Spot elevation at these locations, were 4.91, 4.96 and 4.95 feet NGVD. The approved and permitted control elevation for the project to the south is 4.1 feet NGVD. In combination with the on -site biological indicators and control elevation of the adjacent property, the proposed control elevation for the project site is 4.1 feet NGVD. No improvements to the hydrology of the wetlands on site are proposed. Treated stormwater will be allowed to enter the wetland portion of the preserve as described in this staff report and in the Surface and Ground Water Management section of the EIS. Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 EAC Meeting Page 75 of 181 Page 9 of 12 Preservation Requirements: Approximately 23.53 acres of native vegetation occur on the project site. A portion of the existing native vegetation on site (0.87 acres) has already been accounted for in the adjacent Artesa Pointe PUD and therefore is excluded from the native vegetation requirement calculations for the project site. In accordance with the requirements of the LDC and GMP, 15 percent (3.4 acres) of the native vegetation will be retained on -site. The proposed on site preserve area includes 1.72 acres of Pine - Cypress - Cabbage Palm wetland and 1.77 acres of Pine Flatwoods upland habitat. The proposed preserve is located adjacent to two of the existing preserves within the Artesa Pointe PUD, to the south. Listed Species: A .listed species survey was conducted by two environmental scientists from Boyland Environmental Consultants, Inc. on September 30, 2005 and October 27, 2005. FLUCFCS mapping had been conducted on the property prior to this _ survey. An updated species survey was also performed on February 13, 20, 22 and 23, 2007. During the surveys, particular attention was placed on locating potential fox squirrel nests, red- cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity trees, and bald eagle nests within the forested portions of the property. Nearly 100 percent of the property that was considered potential gopher tortoise habitat was surveyed. A list of listed species which could potentially occur on site is included in the Protected Species Survey included in the EIS. No listed wildlife species were found on the property. Several listed plants were identified on site. These consisted of epiphytes including several species of air plant (Tillandsia spp.) and butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis). Listed plants that may be impacted because of exotic vegetation removal or development will be relocated into the preserve, where feasible. EAC Meeting Page 10 of t2 VH. RECOMMENDATIONS: Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 76 of 181 Staff recommends approval of Cominercial Planned Unit Development No. PUDZ- 2006 -AR -10875 "Tamiami Crossing CPUD" with the following conditions: Stormwater Management: The treatment system must be designed to treat the first inch and a half of runoff from the site for water quality. This is as per the latest Collier County standards. Environmental: 1. Add the following sentence to Note #2 on the PUD master plan and on the Conceptual Water Management Plan. "A minimum of 3.43 acres of native vegetation shall be retained or provided in accordance with the LDC." 2. Add an "Environmental" subsection to the "Development Commitments" section of the PUD document and include the following condition in the subsection. "An analysis demonstrating that post development pollutant loading will be less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general accordance with the Harvey Harper methodology, shall be completed and submitted for review and approval prior to final site plan/construction plan approval." Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 GAC Meeting Page 77 of 181 Page I I of 12 PREPARED BY; STAN CFIRZANO KI, P.E. DATE ENGINEERING R IEW MANAGER ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT '2161260L SfEPHER LENB RGER DATE SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT JOHW -DAVID MOSS, AICP PRINCIPAL PLANNER DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2-11,91es DATE Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 HAC Meeting Page 78 of 181 Page 12 of 12 REVIEWED BY; B BA,,,l 1S.- BURCE -9&N 7ss�., n1 , .� DATE PRINCIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT i WILLIAM D. LORE , Jr., .E., DIRECTOR, DATE ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT JEFF \NT COUNTY ATTORNEY OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: DATE 229/0,5' EPH K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR, ATE E MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT &ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 79 of 181 TAMIAMI CROSSING PUD Environmental Impact Statement Section 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East Collier County, Florida I Welland & Wildlife Sme)s " wmrerdal Permilling, lmpa I ssessmeivs 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4, Foil Myers, Florida, 33966 Phone: (239) 418- 0671Fax: (239) 418 -0672 July 18, 2006 Revised February 5, 2007 Revised October 24, 2007 February 4, 2008 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22. 2008 Page 80 of 181 4. Information required for application. a. Applicant information. i, Responsible person who wrote the EIS and his/her education and job related environmental experience. Rae Ann Boylan, B.S., Al. S., Biology, Fnviromnenlal Sciences, 21 years experience, R(icAnn_FiBovlanFrnv.com; (239) 418 -0671 Kimberly Schlachla, B.S., Lnvironmental Sciences, 8 years experience; (139) 418 -0671 ii. Owner(s)lapent(s) name, address, phone number & e -mail address. Owners: KRG 951 & 41, LLC 30 South Meridian Street Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 4620-1-3565 Folio Numbers: 00726240005 00726080003 00716160004 00726120002 00726320006 Craig R. FPoodward, TR PO Box I Afarco Island, FL 34146 -0001 Folio Numbers: 00726280007 00725841007 South Collier one, Inc. 661 Sowh Collier Boulevard Alarco Island, FL 34145 -5605 Folio Numbers: 00726721809 00726724204 00716724301 Agents: D. Payne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Afinor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 2 Agenda Item No. 86 July 22, 2008 Page 81 of 181 Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 293- 947 -1144 Fax: 239 -947 -0375 war•r:oliltir)i,i•c(h,ii7 r ?or.com Richard D. i ovanovich, Esq. Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tmrriand Trail, Suite 300 Naples, Florida 34103 239 -435 -3535 Fax 239 -435 -1218 re+ovanorichna,�LCy1amcont b. Mapping and support graphics. i. General location map. See attached harp titled Location Map: ii. Native habitats and their boundaries identified on an aerial photograph of the site extending at least 200 feet outside the parcel boundary. This does not mean the applicant is required to go on to adjoining properties. Habitat identification consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) shall be depicted on an aerial photograph having a scale of one inch equal to at least 200 feet when available from the County. Other scale aerials may be used where appropriate for the size of the project, provided the photograph and overlays are legible at the scale provided. A legend for each of the FLUCFCS categories found on -site shall be included on the aerial. See attached map titles FL UCFCS Map Extending 200 Feet. iii, Topographic map, and existing drainage patterns if applicable. Where possible, elevations within each of FLUCFCS categories shall be provided; See attached map titled FLUCFCS MAP with TOPO. iv. Soils map at scale consistent with that used for the Florida Department of Transportation Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System determinations. See attached Harp titled SOILSMap. Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 82 of 181 v. Proposed drainage plan indicating basic flow patterns, outfall and off -site drainage. See Concept Drainage plans provided by Engineer. vi. development plan including phasing program, service area of existing and proposed public facilities, and existing and proposed transportation network in the impact area. .See attached Engineering PUD master plans. vii. Site plan showing preserves on -site, and how they align with preserves on adjoining and neighboring properties. Include on the plan locations of proposed and existing development, roads, and areas for stormwater retention, as shown on approved master plans for these sites, as well as public owned conservation lands, conservation acquisition areas, major flowways and potential wildlife corridors. The on -site preserve location was determined based on the offsite preserve to the south. There is an existing mater management berm between the properties. The preserve was located to be as contiguous as feasible to the offsite preserve. The remaining site boundaries abut major roads. No other conservation areas, wildlife corridors, or fo ways are located within or adjacent to this site. See attached PUD Master Plan and ADJACENT PRESERVE Map. A map showing the onsite preserve and the location of the offsite preserve has been attached. viii. For properties in the RLSA or RFMU districts, a site plan showing the location of the site, and land use designations and overlays as identified in the Growth Management Plan. A'ot applicable, the project is not within those districts. c. Project description and GMP consistency determination. i. Provide an overall description of the project with respect to environmental and water management issues. The site is located in an urban portion of development surrounded by major roads and development. The project site contains 13.68 acres ofSF1fMD Jurisdictional wetlands, and 11.77 acres of uplands. There are four wetland areas onsite. There wetlands were verified by SFWMD staff on ]clay I1, 2007. Welland 1 (7.13 acres) near the center of the site. It Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 83 of 181 consists of a Pine- Cypress Cabbage Palm and other hardwood species. This wetland also contains Hydric Pine Flatwoods with herbaceous groundcover. Wetland 2 (6.28 acres) is located in the north and west portion of the site and also contains a Pine- Cypress Cabbage Pahn mix wetland another portion in this wetland includes a hydric Power line easement that is cleared and maintained, but also contains some hydric vegetation. Wetland 3 (0.19 acres) and Wetland 4 (0.08 acres) are located in the south west corner of the site and also contain a Hydric Pine Flatwoods community. These severed wetlands from the adjacent development appear to have one time been connected to wetland 1. The remainder of the site is comprised ofpine flatwoods, Brazilian pepper invaded Pine flatwoods, and open lands which have the appearance of an old crop field. The f trrows are still evident, and both native and exotic vegetation are present. Historical aerials show this area as being cleared in the past The proposed site plan will impact the following wetland habitats, Pine - Cypress- Cabbage Pahn, Hydric Pine Flatwoods, and the Hydric Utility Easement. The wetlands are isolated and -- surrounded by roads and development. Secondary impacts to these wetlands have resulted in decreased hydrology, exotics, and reduced wildlife utilization. Offsite mitigation will be provided for impacts to wetlands, to be permitted by the SFFVMD. By providing offsite mitigation, no net loss ofwetlandf unction will occur. Offsite mitigation also provides the ability to expand existing habitat for preservation that would knowingly be utilized by other listed Wildlife species. South Florida Water Management permitting will also require that no adverse secondary or cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of this development and no adverse water quality or discharge impacts are anticipated. All impacts to the onsite wetlands, habitatfimction, and impacts within the watershed will be mitigated for in order to acquire the proper approvals. The proposed onsile preservation and enhancement on -site includes 1.72 acres of Pine - Cypress - Cabbage Pahn wetland habitat and 1.77 acres of Pine Flatwoods upland habitat. This onsite preservation will include a portion of an onsite wetland and a portion of the pine flahvoods to maintain the heterogeneity of the site. Listed plant species including various species of Wild pines, and also the Butterfly Orchid were located on the site. Several of the trees where these were found are included within the preserve. Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 84 of 181 ii. Explain how the project is consistent with each of the Objectives and Policies in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management PIan, where applicable. The project site includes native wetlands and native upland habitat. The project's indigenous preserve area of 3.49 acres will contain portions ofan onsite wetland, indigenous lands, and uplands, while remaining contiguous to off -site preserves. The onsite preservation and enhancement on -site includes 1.72 acres of Pine- Cypress - Cabbage Pabn wetland habitat and 1.77 acres of Pine Flatwoods upland habitat. This project is consistent with Policy 6.1.1 whereas the standards mid criteria have been met to preserve native vegetation on -site, by providing 15% indigenous vegetation for a connner•cial development. The total site preservation exceeds that required by the PUD. The site will preserve 15.4% of the required onsite indigenous areas. In accordance ivith Policy 6.1.1. (2), preserved native vegetation will include canopy; under- story, and groundcover•. The preserve areas have been designed to accommodate the indigenous communities, maintain a single contiguous preserve, and have been located adjacent to an offsite preserve. No wildlife corridors are present in this area In accordance with Policy 6.1.1. (4), the preserve has been selected to preserve areas in accordance with the descending order ofprio•ity as noted in the LDC and GMP. Preservation of habitat known to be utilized by listed species is a priority in preserve selection. In addition, preservation ofivetlands and uplands which buffer wetlands, are also criteria which follow in descending order the priority for protection. Since this site contains listed air plant species, areas where that species is known to occur were included in the preservation location. This project proposes to preserve both a potion of the wetland and adjacent upland habitat which may be utilized by listed species. Therefore this policy has been addresses in accordance with the criteria. This project is consistent with Policy 6.1.1. (6) 6 {Mere as a management plan has been provided to identify actions to be taken to enswe the preserve will./ unction as proposed. The plan includes exotic removal crud ruainlenance. Agenda Item No. 8B July 22. 2008 Page 85 of 181 This project is consistent with Policy 6.1.4 Where as all prohibited invasive exotic vegetation will be removed from new development and maintained accordingly. In accordance with Policy 6.2.1., the wetlands have been field verified and approved by the SFWMD and delineated on the plans accordingly. A site inspection with staff was conducted on May H, 2007 to review the site conditions and wetland lines. An application is currently under review with SFWMD. Since these issues are the only issues that are highlighted in the objectives, the project is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. d. Native vegetation preservation. i. Identify the acreage and community type of all upland and wetland habitats found on the project site, according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCFCS). Provide a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on -site by vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory and ground cover) and vegetation dominance (dominant, common and occasional). 260 Other Open Lands (1.51 + /- acres) This upland conmunitg) has a nearly absent canopy with scattered live oak, slash pine, java phnn, Brazilian pepper, and cabbage palm. The mid- canopy and shrubs that were present include wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. Other vegetation found in the groundcover includes grape vine, dogfennel, button weed, smilax, nut sedge, finger grass, broom sedge, chocolate weed, black root, and poison ivy. This area has fiarrows and swales reminiscent of an abandoned agriculture row crop field. However, current agricultural usage could not be determined An aerial dated,fron 1463 shows the area in agricultural use. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION DOMINANCE (D-Dominant, C-Comma , 0- occasional (C-Canopy, M•Alydsroq} G. Ground corer Slash Pine C O Live Oak C O Java Plum C O Brazilian Pepper C O Cabbage Palm C O Wax Myrtle M Brazilian Pepper M Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 86 of 181 Grape Vine G DOMINANCE (D- Dominant, C-Common, 0- Oecasiona7 Dog Fennel G C False Button Weed G C Smilax G M Finger Grass G M Broom Sedge G M Nut Sedge G' Al Chocolate Weed G M Black Root G M Poison Ivy G _ 411 Pine Flatwoods (9.62 +1 - acres) This upland forested convnunity has a canopy dominated by Florida slash pine with scattered cabbage pater. The sub- canopy in some areas consisted of scattered Brazilian pepper, live oak, myrsine, beauty berry, downy rose myrtle, and scattered melaleuca. Saw palmetto dominated most of the under stoq in these areas. Other vegetation noted inchides sunrac, smilax, poison lily, love vine, grape vine, black root, finger grass, wax myrtle, and ear leaf acacia. Some disturbed spoil piles were noted within this mapping area near U.S. 41. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION (C- Canop)5 M- Afids(op5 G- Graurd cover) DOMINANCE (D- Dominant, C-Common, 0- Oecasiona7 Slash Pine C D Cabbage _Palm C O Brazilian Pepper M O Live Oak M C Myrsine M C Beauty Berry Al C Downy Rose Myrtle M C Melaleuca M O Saw Palmetto Al D Wax ilf),rile M Ear leafAcocia M Black Root G Finger Grass G Sumac G Smilax G Poison h'}+ G Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 87 of 181 411E3 Pine Flabvoods (Exotics 50 -74%) (0.41 + 1- acres) This upland forested community has a canopy dominated by Slash Pine and Brazilian Pepper. Brazilian pepper also dominates the mid -story in this area. The highly disturbed area is located in the northwest corner of the property and is adjacent to commercial lands. VEGETATIONTYPE COMPOSITION (GCanopy, Af- Midstory, G. Groundevver DOMINANCE (D- Dondnaa, C- Cmrmmn, O.Occasianur Slash Pine C D Brazilian Pepper M D Ear Leaf Acacia M C 624 Pine- Cypress - Cabbage Palni (11.92 + /- acres) This community has a canopy comprised ofscattered cypress, cabbage palm, laurel oak, red maple, Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, and Florida slash pine. The sub - canopy is comprised of saltbush, scattered biwonbush, melaleuca, wild coffee, myrsine, cypress, Brazilian pepper and wax myrtle. The under story was dominated by swamp fern in most areas with other vegetation including blue maidencane, pluchea rosea, dogfennel, St. ,John 's Wort, hydrocotyle, tickseed, spar-tina, yellow -eyed grass, sate grass, with some scatted areas ofgrapevine or poison hy. This community was the most common found throughout the site. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION (C-Canopy, Af- Afids1my, G. Grornrd eover DOMINANCE (D- Dominant, C- Common, O- aeCaStanar Cypress C D Cabbage Palm C D Laurel Oak C C Red Maple C C Brazilian Pepper C C Melaleuca C C Slash Pine C D Salt bush M Button Bush M O Melaleuca M Wild Coffee M Myrsine M Cypress M Brazilian Pepper M Wax Myrtle M M Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 88 of 181 Swamp Fern I G I D 625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods (1.58 + /- acres) This wetland community has a sparse canopy comprised of scattered Slash pine. Other canopy trees noted include cypress, dahoon holly, and cabbage palm. The sub - canopy species noted included scattered butlonbush, salibush and max myrlle. Ground cover was dominated by grasses and herbaceous vegetation. These hydric species included hat pins, St. John's Wort, panic grass, beak rush, spartina, and blue maidencane. Algal matting was present in these areas. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION DOMINANCE (D- Dondna++y C•Comnron, O- orrasianaf (C-Canopy, M-3 idstory, G- Cround corer ) Slash Pine C C/O Cabbage Pahn C O Cypress C O Dahoon Holly C O Bulton Bush M O Wax Myrtle M Saltbush M Various Grass G D Hat Pins G St. John's Wort G Panic Grass G Beak Rush G spartina G Bhee Maidencane G 814 Roads and Trails (0.23 +1 - acres) This area includes the access to the adjacent development and is compose of a paved road with associated fill, curbing, sidewalk, and landscaping. 830 Utility Easement (Hydric) (0.18 +1 - acres) This herbaceous wetland community was dominated by blue maidencane in most areas with other vegetation imchiding St. John's Wort, tickseed, .smilax, saw grass, dog fennel, yellow eyed grass, beak rush, hat pins, and forked panic grass. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION DOMINANCE W- Dand,=4 C- Conmmn, O- Occasional (C-Canopp, Af- Afidstogy G- Ground corer Blue Maidencane C I D 10 Agenda Item No- 8B July 22, 2008 Page 89 of 181 St. John's Wort G KletlandAereage Tickseed G 260 Smilax G Saiv Grass G Pine Flatwoods Dog Fennel G 9.62 Yellow Eyed Grass G -- Beak Rush G 624 Hat Pins G For Panic Grass G Hvdrie Pine Flatwoods FLUCCS Code Community KletlandAereage OSW acreage Non - wetland 260 Other Open Lands 1.51 411 Pine Flatwoods 9.62 4HE3 Pine Flatwoods Exotics 50 -74% -- - 0 -41 624 Plne -qp ress -Cabbn a Patin 11.92 -- 625 Hvdrie Pine Flatwoods 1.58 -- 814 Roads and Trails -- 0.23 830H Hydrlc UtI114, Easement 018 - Total: 13.68 11.77 Total Site Acreage: 25.45 ii. Explain how the project meets or exceeds the native vegetation preservation requirement in Goal b of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan, and Chapters 4 and 10 of the Land Development Code. Provide an exhibit illustrating such. Include calculations identifying the acreage for preservation and impact, per FLUCFCS category. See attached EXISTING INDIGENOUS Map. The properly contains approximately 23.53 acres ofnative indigenous habitat. A portion of the existing offite indigenous has been included in the Artesia PUD (aka Henderson Creek PUD). This includes 0.24 acres of Hydric Pine Flarivoods and 0.63 acres of Pine Flahvoods totaling 0.87 acres of indigenous, This sub parcel acreage and requirement for it have been excluded fi-om the requirement calculations since it has already been provided offsite in the adjacent preserve. The Goal 6 of the Growth Management Plan, requires 15% of the indigenous habitat be preserved in order to meet Collier County indigenous requirements. As a result, the project is required to preserve 3.43 acres of indigenous habitat. I1 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 90 of 181 The project proposes to preserve 3.49 acres, which exceeds the required amount. See attached INDIGENOUS PRESERVE Map with CALCS FLUCCS Community Upland Wetland Impact Preserve Acreage Acreage Acreage Acreage 411 Pine Flahvoods 9.62 ac. -- 7.85 ac. 1.77 ac. 411 E3 Pine Flatrvoods 0.41 0.41 (Exotics 50 -74%) 629 Pine- Cypress- 11.92 ac. 10.20 ac. 1.72 ac. Cabbage Pahn 625 Hydric Pine 1.58 ac. 1.58 ac. -- Flalwoods Totals 10.03 ac. 13.50 ac. 1 21.96 ac. 3.49 ac. iii. For sites already cleared and in agricultural use, provide documentation that the parcel (s) are in compliance with the 25- year rezone limitation in Policy 6.1.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan and Chapters 4 and 10 of the Land Development Code. For sites cleared prior to January 2003, provide documentation that the parcel (s) are in compliance with the 10 -year rezone limitation previously identified in the Growth Management Plan and Land Development Code. See attached aerial which documents the site was previously cleared for agricultural use prior to 1964 for r•oiv crops. This aerial is dated November 16, 1963 as noted on the copy provided 260 Other Open Lands (1.51 + 1- acres) This cornnntnity describes agricultural lands which had been previously cleared for agricultural use. This upland community has a nearly absent canopy with scattered live oak, slash pine, java phut, Brazilian pepper, and cabbage palm. The few mid- canopy and shrubs that were present include wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. Other vegetation found in the groundcover includes grape vine, dog fennel, butron weed, smilax, nut sedge, finger grass, broom sedge, chocolate weed, black root, and poison hy. This area has fto rows 12 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 91 of 181 and swales reminiscent of an abandoned agriculture row crop field. However, current agricultural usage could not be determined. iv. Have preserves or acreage requirements for preservation previously been identified for the site during previous development order approvals? If so, identify the location and acreage of these preserves, and provide an explanation if they are different from what is proposed. Yes. Approximately 0. 87 acres of this site was originally included in the PUD for Artesia, (aka Henderson Creek PUD). The indigenous requirement for the 0.87 of indigenous on that sub parcel was provided on the adjacent site. The preserves are adjacent and no changes to the offsite preserves are proposed Therefore no preservation is being provided for that 0.87 acres. See attached Henderson Creek PUD Master Concept Plan. v. For properties with Special Treatment "ST" overlays, show the ST overlay on the development plan and provided an explanation as to why these areas are being impacted or preserved. Not applicable, e. Wetlands. i. Define the number of acres of Collier County jurisdictional wetlands (pursuant to Policy 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan) according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCFCS). Include a description of each of the FLUCFCS categories identified on -site by vegetation type (species), vegetation composition (canopy, midstory and ground cover) and vegetation dominance (dominant, common and occasional). Wetland determinations are required to be verified by the South Florida Water Management District or Florida Department of Environmental Protection, prior to submission to the County. The project site contains 13.68 acres ofSFWdID Jurisdictional wellmrds, and 11.77 acres of uplands. There are four wetland areas onsite. These wetlands were verified by SFWt1ID staff on May 11, 2007. Wetland 1 (713 acres) near the center of the site. It consists of a Pine- Cypress Cabbage Palm and other hardwood 13 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 92 of 181 species. This wetland also contains Hydric Pine Flathvoods with herbaceous groundcover. Wetland 2 (6.28 acres) is located in the north and west portion of the site and also contains a Pine -C) press Cabbage Palm mix wetland Another portion in this wetland includes a lrydric Power line easement that is cleared and maintained, but also contains some hydric vegetation. Wetland 3 (0.19 acres) and Wetland 4 (0.08 acres) are located in the south west corner of the site and also contains a Hydric Pine Flatwoods community. These severed wetlands front the adjacent development appear to have one time been connected to wetland 1. The wetlands have been field verified and approved by the SFWMD and delineated on the plans accordingly. A site inspection with staff was conducted on May 11, 2007 to review the site conditions and wetland lines. 624 Pine- Cypress - Cabbage Palm (11.92 + /- acres) This community has a canopy comprised ofseattered cypress, cabbage palm, laurel oak, red maple, Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, and Florida slash pine. The sub - canopy is comprised of saltbrrsh, scattered bultonbush, melaleuca, wild coffee, myrsine, cypress, Brazilian pepper and wax myrtle. The wider story was dominated by swamp fern in most areas with other vegetation inchiding blue maidencane, pluchea rosea, dog fennel, St. John 's Wort, hydrocotyle, tickseed, spartina, yellow -eyed grass, saw grass, with some scatted areas ofgrapevine or poison hy. This community was the most common found throughout the site. VEGETATIONTYPE COMPOSITION (C-Canopy, nt- andsmpy G- Ground caret ) DOMINANCE (D- Dominant, C- Common, O- oeeafonnr Cypress C D Cabbage Palm C D Laurel Oak C C Red Maple C C Brazilian Pepper C C Aelaleuca C C Slash Pine C D Salt bush M Button Bush M O Melaleuca M Wild Coffee M Myrsine — Ty Cypress I Al 14 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 93 of 181 Brazilian Pepper M DOMINANCE (D- Dominant, C- Conmmn, O- Occasional) Wax Myrtle M C/O Swamp Fern G D 625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods (1.58 + 1- acres) This wetland community has a sparse canopy comprised of scattered Slash pine. Other canopy trees noted include cypress, dahoon holly, and cabbage palm. The sub - canopy species noted included scattered buttonbush, saltbush and wax myrtle. Ground cover was dominated by grasses and herbaceous vegetation. These hydric species included hat pins, St. John's Wort, panic grass, beak rash, spartina, and blue maidencane. Algal matting was present in these areas. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION (C- Canop),, M- Afidstory, G- Grorntdemer DOMINANCE (D- Dominant, C- Conmmn, O- Occasional) Slash Pine C C/O Cabbage Patin C O Cypress C O Dahoon Holly C O Button Bush M O Yi'ax Myrtle M Saltbush M Various Grass G D Hat Pins G St. John's Wort G Panic Grass G Beak Rush G Spartina G Blase Maidencane G 830 Utility Easement (Hydric) (0.18 + /- acres) This herbaceous wetland community was do ninated by blue maidencane in most areas with other vegetation including St. John's Tf,'ort, lickseed, smilax, saw grass, dog fennel, yellow eyed grass, beak rush, hat pins, and forked panic grass. VEGETATION TYPE COMPOSITION (C- Canopy, AI- Afidstor)y G. Grmmd cover ) DOMINANCE (D- Dominant, C- Common, O- occasional Blue Maidencane G D St. John's Wort G Tickseed G Smilax G Saw Grass I G l5 Agenda Item No. 88 July 22, 2008 Page 94 of 181 Dog Fennel G Yellow Eyed Grass G Beak Rush G Hat Pins G Forked Panic Grass G ii. Determine seasonal and historic high water levels utilizing lichen lines or other biological indicators. Indicate how the project design improves /affects predevelopment hydroperiods. Provide a narrative addressing the anticipated control clevation(s) for the site. Seasonal high water elevations, and normal pool elevations ivere determined using a biological indicators located within the onsite wetlands. The biological indicators included locating the water marks, moss collars, and /or lichen lines on trees. Those elevations include 4.91', 4.96', and 4.95'. These lines were located on pine trees within the wetlands. The approved and permitted control elevation for the project to the south is 4.1 NGVD. In combination with the onsite indicators and the control elevation to the adjacent property, the proposed Conn•ol Elevation is 4.1 'NGVD. No improvements to the hydrolo& of the wetlands are proposed. All impacts to the hydrology of the wetlands will be addressed through rvetlat7d pernrittirsg process with SFf "MD and the proposed mitigation iii. Indicate the proposed percent of defined wetlands to be impacted and the effects of proposed impacts on the functions of these wetlands. Provide an exhibit showing the location of wetlands to be impacted and those to be preserved on -site. Describe how impacts to wetlands have been minimized. See attached WETLAND IMPACTS Map and WETLAND PRESERVE Map. The total percentage of wetland impacts onsite is 87 percent or 11.96 acres. Approximately 1. 72 acres ofivellands will be preserved on -site. The wetlands onsite have been impacted by historic drainage alterations in the basin as well cis the past farming activity in the 16 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 95 of 181 area. The historic drainage alterations include US 41 located north of the site and CR 951 located to the west of the site. The development to the so nth has also severed the existing wetlands from adjoining areas. All of these adjacent activities have altered the historic sheet f ow patterns. The main impact to the wetland on site is the drainage alterations that have resulted f -om historic impacts in the basin. Under the do nothing option, this is an existing impact, which is only going to continue to degrade the wetland on the site, with or without the construction of the project. Hydrology would not be provided to the remaining on site wetland, and the areas would continue to degrade ivith the presence of exotics expanding within the system. The plan has been minimized to the maximum extent possible while still allowingfor a feasible project. The original plan included impacts to all of the wetlands on site as well as most of the uplands with only the preservation of the open lands which are not indigenous communities in the south east corner. The original plan has been modified several times to accormnodate both the wetland and uplands, and to located the preserve adjacent to offsite preserves. See attached Preliminary Site Development Plan. A UMAM analysis of the proposed impacts is included as an attachment. iv. Indicate how the project design compensates for wetland impacts pursuant to the Policies and Objectives in Goal 6 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Growth Management Plan. For sites in the RFMU district, provide an assessment, based on the South Florida Water Management District's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method, that has been accepted by either the South Florida Water Management District or the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. For sites outside the RFMU district, and where higher quality wetlands are being retained on -site, provide justification based on the Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method. This site is not located in the RFMU district. All Environmental issues including wetland impacts with South Florida li'ater management will be addressed. Mitigation for wetland impacts will be provided for through onsite and offsite mitigation per approval of the SFYPMD and calculated using the UMAM. See attached UMAM sheets and estimated mitigation requirements. These estimates have not been finalized with SFWMD. 17 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 96 of 181 The following summarizes wetland impacts by FLUCCS: Direct Impacts FLUCCS ` Wetland lm act 4crea e 624 10.48 625 1.70 830H 0.18 Total 12.36 Secondary, Impacts FLUCCS , Wetlan7linliactAcfeage - 624 1 1.72 ([17, 100% = 1.72 Total 11.72 UMAMAnalysis for Direct Impacts and Secondary Impacts at 100% to Wetlands On -Site Wetland I FLUCFCS I Delta Acrea a I Loss 624 10.54 15.82 13.14 625 10.54 11.31 10.71 Total 1 1 7.13 13.85 Wetland 2 FLUCFCS Delta Ac)-ea e Loss 624 0.48 638 3.06 830H 0.41 0.18 0.07 Total 1 6.56 13.13 Nfetland 3 FLUCFCS Delta I Acrea -e Loss 625 0.44 10.31 10.14 Total 10.31 10.14 Wetland 4 FLUCFCS Delta Acreage Loss 625 0.44 0.08 0.03 Total d 0.03 Loss = 3.85+3.13+0.14 +0.03 =7.15. f. Surface and ground water management. i. Provide an overall description of the proposed water management system explaining how it works, the basis of Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 97 of 181 design, historical drainage flows, off -site flows coming in to the system and how they will be incorporated in the system or passed around the system, positive outfall availability, Wet Season Water Table and Dry Season Water Table, and how they were determined, and any other pertinent information pertaining to the control of storm and ground water. The water management system will consist of a series of inlets interconnected with drainage pipes and wet detention basins. All runoff from the developed portion of the site will first be directed to a dry pre - treatment area with a storage volume equal to or greater than 0.5 inch ofrunoff. Once the pre- treatment volume is attained, additional runoff will overflow into the proposed wet detention. The greater of either the f rsi inch ofrunofffr•om the site or 2.5 ° times the percentage of imperviousness will be detained for water quality. Discharge through a water control structure will be to the drainage system along the U.S. 41 Road R/W via a spreader Swale system along the property line. Discharge will be limited to the rate permitted by Collie- County Ord. 90 -10. Existing on -site elevations vary between 4.2 and 5.5 feet N. G. V.D. Grades in the roadside swale area adjacent to the project site in U. S. 41 and Collier Boulevard are behveen 1.5 and 3.8 feet N.G.V.D. The historical drainage pattern would be toward the roadside areas and then toward Henderson Creek via the roadside swales. The control elevation for the project is proposed at 4_ I feet N.G.VD. using on -site high water marks and permitted control elevations for the adjacent projects, The diy season water table is estimated at 2.1 feet N.G. V.D. The on -site wetland preserve has been incorporated into the water management system. Once ruunofffr•om the site has receivedpre- treatment in the dty detention areas, it will be directed for storage in the wetland area. This will provide for long term maintenance of appropriate hydroperiods in the wetland, which is currently largely surrounded by development and isolated f,orn sources of stormvrater runoff. ii. Provide an analysis of potential water quality impacts of the project by evaluating water quality loadings expected from the project (post development conditions considering the proposed land uses and stormwater management controls) compared with water quality loadings of the project area as it exists in its pre- development conditions. This analysis is required for projects impacting five (5) or more acres of wetlands. The analysis shall be performed using methodologies approved by Federal and State water quality agencies. 19 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 98 of 181 The project's water management system is designed to rnalcinrize water quality enhancement, thereby meeting or exceeding the requirements of SFWMD Basis of Review Sections 4.2.4 and 5.9.1(b). The project brill use wet detention to attenuate storm flows discharging from the site and to protect the native preserve and wetlands. In addition, the project will use pollution prevention nreasru•es (both during and after construction) along with design features that will improve travel time to discharge locations and allow for additional "scrubbing" oflhe storm water prior to discharge. The water management system design proposed for the project combines d y pre- treannent and wel detention. The volumes provided are typical of projects in Southwest Florida. Nutrient loading calculations using the Harvey Harper methodology is underway and will be provided prior to development to confirm that post development loadings will be equal to or lower than pre - development runoff. Projects designed under the South Florida Water management District design criteria easily meet conditions required to lower nutrient loadings for siormwater discharge fr-onr the site. PRE- CONSTRUCTIONAND DURING CONSTRUCTION Structural and Non .Structural Controls (Basis of Review 4.2.4.1 (a) -(0) 1. Follow practices outlined in Pollution Prevention Plan. 2. Install perimeter berm(s) or silt fences with strmv bale barrier(s) adjacent to wetland areas. 3. Continue clearing and grading. 4. Construction of storm water management lakes 5. Stockpile excavated soil. 6. Stabilize denuded areas and stockpiles within 21 days of last construction aetiviiy in that area 7. Monitor rain events and check condition of erosion control measures after each significant event. Other Controls 1. Proper handling ofhazardous or potentially hazardous materials. 2. Proper disposal of all trash and other waste products. 3. Spill prevention and notification 4 Contractor training and responsibility POST - CONSTRUCTION Non - Structural Controls (Basis of Review 5.9.1(b)) 20 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 99 of 181 This project will use Best Management Practices (BMP's) intended to improve the quality of storm neater runoff by reducing the generation and accumulation ofpotential storm water runoff contaminants at or near the respective sources for each constituent. 1. Nutrient and Pesticide Management: The owner must commit themselves to the practice of responsible and careful landscape design and maintenance to prevent contamination of surface waters. 2. Street Sweeping: This practice involves sweeping and vacuuming the primary streets and parking areas to remove dry weather accumulation ofpollutants, especiallyparticulate matter, before wash - off of these pollutants can occur during a storm event. This practice reduces the potential for pollution impacts on receiving water bodies by removing particulate matter and associated chemical constituents. 3. Solid YPaste Management: In general, solid waste management involves issues related to the management and handling of urban refrrse, litter and leaves that will minimize the impact of these constituents as water pollutants, 4. Water Management System Maintenance: Inspection ofall components of the system on a regular basis. Cleaning of system as necessary to keep system to operate as designed. The water management system will be designed to meet or exceed the mininnmr design criteria as outlined in the Basis of Review. In addition, pre - construction and long terra monitoring and maintenance ofthe system combined with proper fertilizer and pesticide use will improve water quality in the storm water discharges beyond minimum requirements. iii. Identify any Wellfield Risk Management Special Treatment Overlay Zones (WRM -ST) within the project area and provide an analysis for how the project design avoids the most intensive land uses within the most sensitive WRM -STs. The project is not within a WRM -ST overlay zone. g. Listed species, i. Provide a plant and animal species survey to include at a minimum, listed species known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on -site, and conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. State actual survey times and dates, and provide a 21 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 100 of 181 map showing the location(s) of species of special status identified on -site. A protective species was conducted on the property on September 30, 2005 and October 27, 2005. The survey ivas conducted on September 30 behveen the hours of 10 :00am and 4:00pm and on October 27 from 11: 00am to 1: 00pni. An updated survey )vas per formed on this site in February of 2007. Dates included February 13, 20, 22, and 23 behveen the hours of 9 am and 4:00 pm. ii. Identify all listed species that are known to inhabit biological communities similar to those existing on the site or that have been directly observed on the site. The folloiving is a table showing tivhich species have the potential to inhabit each FL UCCS community. FLUCCS Potential Listed Species 260 Alone 411 Beautifid Pmv my _ Big C ress Fm Squirrel Eastern Indi o Snake Fakahatchee Burmarnria Florida Black Bear Florida Coontie Florida Panther Gopher Fro Gopher Tonoise Red - Cockaded Moodpecker Sarin leaf Soulheaslern American Kestrel Avisled Air Plant 624 American Alligator Everglades Mink Florida Black Bear Florida Panther Ga her Fro Little Blue Heron Snmv y E ret Tricolored Heron Wood Stork 625 American Alligator Everglades Mink Florida Black Bear Florida Panther 22 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 101 of 181 iii. indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to species of special status. A plant and animal survey was conducted according to FGFWFC guidelines. Overlapping belt transects, approximately 6 to 10feet apart were walked, depending on the density of the vegetation. fn addition,'periodic stop- look - listens techniques were utilized to observe potential listed species. Aro protected species or signs thereof were identified during the species survey. See the attached protected species survey results. Mitigation will be provided for wetland impacts onsite. The offsite mitigation will provide for preservation of habitat in a location where those species are located in perpetuity. The preservation of onsite habitat including both wetland and upland communities will provide an ecologically diverse community which will provide forage and cover for other species. The preserve also incorporated existing trees where some air plant and orchid species Were located during the survey. iv. Provide habitat management plans for each of the listed species known to occur on the property. For sites with bald eagle nests and/or nest protection zones, bald eagle management plans are required, copies of which shall be included as exhibits attached to the PUD documents, where applicable. Attached is a management plan for the listed species observed on site. v. Where applicable, include correspondence received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with regards to the project. Explain how the concerns of these agencies have been met. A protected species survey was conducted on the property. Upon submitting a copy of the environmental supplement will be sent to the FFff,CC and the USFWS. Since no known wildlife listed 23 Gopher Frog Little Blue Heron Snowy Egret Tricolored Heron Wood Stork 814 NONE 830 NONE iii. indicate how the project design minimizes impacts to species of special status. A plant and animal survey was conducted according to FGFWFC guidelines. Overlapping belt transects, approximately 6 to 10feet apart were walked, depending on the density of the vegetation. fn addition,'periodic stop- look - listens techniques were utilized to observe potential listed species. Aro protected species or signs thereof were identified during the species survey. See the attached protected species survey results. Mitigation will be provided for wetland impacts onsite. The offsite mitigation will provide for preservation of habitat in a location where those species are located in perpetuity. The preservation of onsite habitat including both wetland and upland communities will provide an ecologically diverse community which will provide forage and cover for other species. The preserve also incorporated existing trees where some air plant and orchid species Were located during the survey. iv. Provide habitat management plans for each of the listed species known to occur on the property. For sites with bald eagle nests and/or nest protection zones, bald eagle management plans are required, copies of which shall be included as exhibits attached to the PUD documents, where applicable. Attached is a management plan for the listed species observed on site. v. Where applicable, include correspondence received from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), with regards to the project. Explain how the concerns of these agencies have been met. A protected species survey was conducted on the property. Upon submitting a copy of the environmental supplement will be sent to the FFff,CC and the USFWS. Since no known wildlife listed 23 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 102 of 181 species were located or found to reside onsite, it is anticipated these agencies may not have concerns regarding listed species at this time. Ifan issue arises with the agencies during SFWMD permitting, they will be met according to the permit conditions. b. Other. i. For multi -slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and for all marina facilities, show how the project is consistent with the marina sitting and other criteria in the Manatee Protection Plan. ii. Include the results of any environmental assessments and /or audits of the property. If applicable, provide a narrative of the cost and measures needed to clean up the site. Not applicable, there are no dockingfacilities. ii. Include the results of any environmental assessments and /or audits of the property. If applicable, provide a narrative of the cost and measures needed to clean up the site. A protected species survey was per fortned; it is attached. Also attached is a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment for this site. iii. For sites located in the Big Cypress Area of Critical State Concern - Special Treatment (ACSC -ST) overlay district, show how the project is consistent with the development standards and regulations established for the ACSC-ST. Not applicable. iv. Soil sampling or ground water monitoring reports and programs shall be required for sites that occupy old farm fields, old golf courses or for which there is a reasonable basis for believing that there has been previous contamination on site. The amount of sampling and testing shall be determined by the Environmental Services staff along with the Pollution Control Department and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. A small portion of the site was previously cleared and possibly utilized for farming, Site development to the east and south in the remaining portion would have already tested similar areas. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been conducted by Professional Service Industries, Inc ror this project and has been included as an attachment. v. Provide documentation from the Florida Master Site File, Florida Department of State and any printed historic archaeological surveys that have been conducted on the project 24 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 103 of 181 area. Locate any known historic or archaeological sites and their relationships to the proposed project design. Demonstrate how the project design preserves the historiclarebaeological integrity of the site. A request has been made to the Florida Department of State to research the Master Site File. The response indicated no previously recorded resources within this parcel. Additional formal review of the project as a whole will be completed in conjunction with the permitting with the South Florida Water Management District See attached response letter f om FDS. 5. Additional data. The County Manager or his designee may require additional data or information necessary in order to make a thorough and complete evaluation of the EIS and project. 6. Relation between EIS and development of regional impact (DRI). In any instance where the proposed project requires both an EIS and a DRI, their data may be embodied in one report provided such report includes all the required information on both the EIS and DRI. and DRI. 25 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 104 of 181 R'uflmuf A'- Itildllfc Surrc9s.+_,1•jurrb+rnrerrfnl PcrrouiJJi+>,Y, I 1000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4, Fort Myers, Florida, 33966 Phone:(239) 418 -0671 Fax:(239) 418 -0672 KIMBERLY SCHLACHTA Environmental Scientist AREA OF EXPERTISE Environmental science applications involved in completing environmental assessments, delineating jurisdictional wetlands with State and Federal Agencies, performing wildlife surveys and relocations, providing species management plans and wildlife permitting, wetlands monitoring and permit compliance, vegetation and habitat mapping, utilizing GIS /GPS, environmental permitting, and environmental applications for rezoning and planning in Lee and Collier counties. EDUCATION Auburn University, B.S. Environmental Science, College of Engineering, 1997 Fort Myers High School, 1992 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Florida Association of Environmental Professionals CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES Ms. Schlachta conducts extensive fieldwork, in Southwest Florida and subsequently produces the following types of reports /surveys: protected species surveys, wetland surveys (feasibility/ environmental land use planning), environmental impact statements, wetlands monitoring, and wildlife monitoring. In addition, she is involved with wildlife and wetlands permitting with State and Federal regulatory agencies along with permit compliance. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE Ms. Schlachta has acquired substantial environmental experience conducting fieldwork and producing . reports and applications for environmental land use planning and development. A native of Southwest Florida, she also has over nine years of full time experience in Lee, Collier, Charlotte, Glades, Okeechobee, and Hendry counties, working with Boylan Environmental Consultants. In the process, she has worked with a wide range of engineers, planners, developers and agencies. She has conducted land assessments and wetland determinations with regulatory agencies. Ms. Schlachta also performs protected species surveys that include Local and Federally listed species such as the Gopher Tortoise, Big Cypress Fox Squirrel, Florida Scrub Jay, the Red- Cockaded Woodpecker, Audubon's Crested Caracara and Bald Eagle. She has also spent time at Cecil Webb Wildlife Refuge to study and learn the sounds and flight patterns of the Red - cockaded woodpecker, and attended several workshops regarding the handling and management of the Gopher Tortoise. Before joining Boylan Environmental Consultants, she worked with entomologists at the University of Florida to reestablish and monitor the population of the endangered Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly in the Florida Keys. Locally, she has worked at the Nature Center helping to educate others on local environmental issues. She has also worked in Costa Rica with the CCC (Caribbean Conservation Commission) monitoring and tagging nesting sea turtles. Management practices of the endangered Giant Tortoise were also studied while at the Charles Darwin Research Station in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador. Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 105 of 181 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 106 of 181 •6 I�f'1. �..�L� -. �1 ^-3 ! • tl�. J •I C��- BEEN ... o •• f IL L l =• \ - �'e•�'- •.',•• \�� �r \. ��1 •i -- '.(- _.�� •�I •` 1'�1„ i =_lam Golf :\ Course a. ai vc lk Nr • J ai 6 S;iI� t )� i� f i , t` r •4 i r ' \ 4 _ I // J 3.P Tn�,�n�..m r...,.,.:..• n. o0o n.r _ —_ �.__ _. LIZ- EI A 111:..,N, 26 -f �4 i `7 IN N� 77 A NIN V Its, -f �4 i `7 IN N� 77 A NIN V Y `4 Pi 9 eb Y e 3 • L° J�- 187 r ( i is ti It u ,r mk, ./� ,ice ,I Jl ' pa- �}{�!�y • p 0 m N w 9 No W PQi In R C d Q OIOr. -00 N Q+ 0 11 ha o `G waa E y y (m O N c bq 3 =W LL a, N C C -j LL (, O4.gaTa I JO w W P 1n P m a m r C b� C C c y - c MR Nr�eP -n w W to DAN Q P $ O d F i h N P �w � 1!� P P F 0 N ppN I P ,y w F p / N w P N 0 CL 8 U a Z a NI^ vJ CC co U � cQ U- G J Q LL F-„ d .{ m tl p� W °� m`o°mmromm o� <^N NNIhN LO mLO N� a�G �mO 6 c LO 0 LO �13 y d U � ui �o a Co yU� —1 p y 4 N Q 0 m L i V c U mm -o'¢ w o -vim NN N7<t (o t0 Z �►- m- w-ti-�E m N C Q) 4, U N N fl J ti 8 t� 0 I EL U U z FO O cU G cQ G m s: L Q LL LL U J � a$ ;a�. pW � i o .- N � N U U U U U U U N d m m m m m m LO m � i LO ONE ih ,per —'IL e�ai0��00 N d� "< .��♦ .wit 11 It) ti •t�di Lo 4 O �ih rn .rgi� tzt; a co -100 .�itT'9 sit 14 • }it W, 'Q �m m Vl c o V' -- W i 0 3 �U- c o m m a cz CZ J C) C.) EY m t.) lz Ll 1 U N z Q) Cx- 4) U- oaMn i�x W I 1 I C• m M Nt. toz N S}tT CD CD CO CO �i i \ 'OY Y d t• a dq, M W e r d• I r•6�dt nt •tilt •�d`h mil C) D- o C7 C() 3 O U v LL U �c_C J G LL wm 11 U � o L3 q F aaW � G�dt ,ct i ih ,per �t d d� "< .��♦ .wit �4 r'�i� •t�di �i♦ �ih .rgi� .�itT'9 sit 14 • }it .wit mil C) D- o C7 C() 3 O U v LL U �c_C J G LL wm 11 U � o L3 q F aaW � J Tr � m t0 'K �I y N N C O ZZ y w ua Z � 0.2 3 N ME q 0 D U U z U U) 0 U cf) Q 75 Q E— U � \I rdi t m co or p N � Z p N d N r N >.r - � N N m O d C N m Q Wood _o O i 4 N T� mJ m m CL a 1 ¢S Y. LLI § , y/ r / # l 111 Al Pit 1 0 g It YIN x z ,a Ql �5 a °° O O v lilt w i tl� � Cc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 116 of 181 fil jl Oio a fl Q a 6 4 Q a a fl Q a 5 aapg is 3g iIC i�R � 8 0 U z F fil jl Oio a fl Q a 6 4 Q a a fl Q a 5 aapg is 3g iIC i�R � 8 0 •5� � � ��� f v rY X , e 5 [7�I 7 4 n 1 w 3 � e ae f s Ol x e IT ti ` J / t �•, uiw �J � My • z � e � � Ya tt5 414 � E 'j i"•i e�P' - a Y �� ONtOW Nwt. ° cOM t x(000 O U mmmmmmm m t—N NmMco LO In tp tt o» N F 't Foi Q N SR It u) � � J U w O Co C wa y a E j .y m v� O J O CO CD 3° a c a j o m" ULL m v w oar, CL .zz N-t t (ND ttoN W U f0 ro Cl) O 3 H W > a # i y z -s-mE N U m _ Lq m m 4 N { 7r p i CO > > a # ♦ # ♦ ♦ > "S C i m { • N ♦ a a f ♦ a a♦ i a i a ~1 s a • a ♦ • > i 4 { { y M # { ♦ i a uj F > f a • a A A mm O O O O m }°- N v c m 3 F F tl� 0 N m m N O �a Cl) U h g� (0 O BE I,1 Q Z {n o g U w Q Q Q �6 °o�m rowm mR d NrM 0 c CO WG) Ci NMa rPN � Q Nrh lD OtD 00 z W to U` U J U s o 4 J 't OF- =s Lo N O~ O w �� N l0 0 a A c m Lu { 7r p i CO > > a # ♦ # ♦ ♦ > "S C i m { • N ♦ a a f ♦ a a♦ i a i a ~1 s a • a ♦ • > i 4 { { y M # { ♦ i a uj F > f a • a A A mm O O O O m }°- N v c m 3 F F tl� 0 N m m N O �a Cl) U h g� (0 O BE I,1 Q Z {n o g U w Q Q Q �6 J (V O 9 e O 'OR \ O C O co w m N m O (Qh F(p (DOO O M V F U mCo m m m m c^ (o !FNm MM h LO et 0) to eh a�6iO�ti00 N t u I I h � J Lr) Cc y4 O ++ 61 C I- to (ap O N b � V � y N ivy ° Ali m *4:, o lu F- C O p 3 Ll ac�� m U TL (cs U �m C.) 43 m lr m m a ro a Z CLz2 w(T Q F F 0' (n C} M NF F F eh et cNO m! of ro U l6 O d) T I- Q a 0 Z 3 W N N � O d� 3: N w ti a 0 z )0 acm om am u O N oCT, a oc0N rnrn oo JU Q T(() (D O(D 00 00 f2 CIVi IL U 5 = o o F a J N N N M~ N N~ p (L (D (o (D 00 (D co Z N h d p � c A m LLI a) F F c m ti N f0 ME U Z v Cn Q U a o � o C g Q W Q V _ 'O U r c A CO � yo , 2�0 M $ N ( m Ci m N N g J N> d o w� �g #Jaa2ak a C13 Cl m CO � N mw 4 §w¢£ae / q %co %;8;k Q \ § @Q /qGa % / � C); (:s q § $ E 2 , Q Lo § / o Q ]} 7 /�) t 4 5 LIJ G«8w3 @x °owa ®® «_ (D CZ � °$ @ \ \$2 )` ® @\M ? \\ \ / \} (0 21%! It / a*��mOD00 / } \ | ) Q / § / j \ N O �C EL \ 3 w Z § 0 cc _ \ Q z /5 w 3 — / ) ! ]\ |\ §j \\ /g d���| !, I A 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 O CO (0 CO N 0) 1� M It U m C6mmmmm � N �N CD m N kn to *Oto N� ti 030�� -00 ti R. m 0 Co W a 0 to Como b �U 0 ( � y c rao 0L� c) i5,: ;axo O �N04 CO ti It co(0 N< Nv� It (0 a N IR O r U LO v L6 N I J U (6 M LO M N U) O z ui a Q 0 0.. 0 z co U Q Q F-- CL O z W c� 0 z 0 z F- U) W �W � ! a 0»'OR « oco oco NQ) w e(n Nt # ) § 7 | \ C13 m m m m ] U U') Lr) 2 \ \ 6d /was q < . \ * 7e a g \\ \/« Cc « '0 % -0 k\\ \ CO }� Cl. w* C) (1) 5\\« =c ) ) | O p CL / } n Z \ % \ E § Q § LU / r) 75; ® / roar )| §§. | ]| ddb r/ 9 e * e e o 0 OOp O aDNO^ f,4 M cn 1* to O O O Qf r^ U mmmmmmm m tiN�^Nco 0) to to to 7 MLO NN Nt p j p F p p N t LO u LO c O a rm m Q E h y U p W Vj b �a0�Lu 0 Q 3 LL C C = U- c U ti b 41 U � co N N 00 M N7Itco(ocow N CO tMtl m N U LUm rn M U) W 4 O W C7 Z + + r + + + N 0 co N + a + + + + + + # + # t++ + + + + + +tl + + a + + t + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ## 11 (NO BE III a d < U r� w l J > CC Z w CC (n W O °' U o Z w Q C) G z Q � � w m 0 C WW �� N� gg (O y' N D o D o o 0 q ON(p CON MN °O U J N a_ d y y N Z W S 3 (n (p 70)(ON� CF C� nO1O�X -4 N W i °, W Q o + CC c 0 31 Q E W m Z) 4 M a OL O Z O H a �m ti W o> Q) e U) Ox �Q W H O `M N m U y y (gym N CZ ) , 4L. ? N N ci b Q U Q a U o 3 y W s maoComC� + + U J O 2 L - r r * * * + ++ �K Nj m Q C a + ++ + + + + + + + + + + ++ V Q cz lij ` c ay � + +++ +� + ++ + r t 3 W w as + + N a * * * 7 + + + * + *t+ > = L+ H + + + + + + 1 M , , + + N V +t r N + + + + + U N D ^ M r + + + + . d Ir Ch (O W co + + + + U) + D + D tl t * Q O N * O W U' O Z O w (n ti N N \ (Q (p N Cl) W r N h N V� m �m A mw— 'o 0 CO o� 4 J � .V N = � N IL C N m Q 5 a� A FE, gal 33 i M 6i� x � n TZ b € b YF I RUN I Agenda Ite No. 8B July 2, 2008 Page 12 of 181 1 Q C`' w0 va D D , D Q a age Q Q fl F D Q a 6 fl D a � a yak mp e J6 ns �a Nme�p7� a v o z a ogm`a"omaS °eE;9 o am�mz a sr Agenda Item No. 8E July 22, 21MOE Collier Boulevard(C.R. 851) Page 127 of 81 v _ 9 fib, El =1J / a i N J 0 11 �t Preliminary Development Plan MI �G d py sy_ Tamlami Trail &Collier Boulevard sumEMERIDIAN srneEr Naples, Florida REALTY GROUP INOIANWOLIS, IN 4M p 317- 5775600 FAX 317577 -5605 i , Tamiami Crossing PUD PRESERVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. July 17, 2006 Revised April 30, 2007 Revised August 29, 2007 Revised February 1, 2008 PRESERVE MANAGEMENT Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 128 of 181 A. Installation of protective barriers and sionage (LDC Section 3.05.04 F.) All protective barriers shall be installed and maintained for the period of time beginning with the commencement of any phase of land clearing or building operations and ending with the completion of that phase of the construction work on the site, unless otherwise approved to be removed by the development services director's field representative. All protective barriers shall be installed pursuant to the Tree Protection Manual for Builders and Developers, division of forestry, State of Florida or other methods approved by the Development services director. Signage shall be placed around the preserve areas to identify and protect the preserve during construction. The boundary of the Preserve shall be posted with appropriate signage denoting the area as a Preserve. Sign(s) should note that the posted area is a protected area. The signs shall be no closer than ten feet from residential property lines; be limited to a maximum height of four feet and a maximum size of two square feet; and otherwise comply with Section 5.06.00 of the LOC. Maximum sign spacing shall be 300 feet. B. Vegetation Removal, Non - native Vegetation, and Nuisance or Invasive Plant Control. Wetland preserves, conservation areas, preserves, open space areas, and undeveloped portions of the property will be walked and all non - native and nuisance or invasive plant species shall be removed from all preserves (per LDC 3.5.7.1.H.1.9.1i). These plants will be killed in a manner consistent with current exotic and nuisance plant removal practices while ensuring that neighboring plants are left unharmed and the soil left as undisturbed as possible. All exotic vegetation, as defined by County Code, and all Category I Exotics as defined by the Florida Exotic Pest Plant Council, shall be removed from all preserves. All exotic vegetation within the first 75 feet of the outer edge of every preserve shall be physically removed, or the tree cut down to grade and the stump treated. Subsequent annual removal of these plants (in perpetuity) shall be the responsibility of the property owner. Treated vegetation debris may be left in place; however, in the case where the extent of exotic vegetation is such that the resultant cut debris from the woody vegetation would create a physical impediment to the colonization of native plants, the exotic vegetation shall be removed from the preserve. Where aesthetics is a concern, debris should be removed from the area. Trees too large to practicably cut or remove, may be girdled and sprayed with an herbicide and left standing. When prohibited exotic vegetation is removed, but the base of the vegetation remains, the base shall be treated with an U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved herbicide and a visual tracer dye shall be applied. All exotic and nuisance vegetative debris must be removed from the preserve by hand removal methods. Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 129 of 181 C. Annual Maintenance. Wetland preserves, conservation areas, preserves, open space areas, and undeveloped portions of the property will be walked and inspected at least once yearly for the presence of exotic vegetation. The maintenance program will be conducted in perpetuity. Q. General Maintenance. Preserves shall be maintained in their natural state and must be kept free of refuse and debris. E. Monitoring. Annual monitoring reports in accordance with annual inspections of the preserve by the preserve manager shall be provided to Collier County upon request. The monitoring report will document the exotic maintenance and the will contain the following: Panoramic Photographs from 4 Photo points Percent coverage of exotic and nuisance plant species Survival of planted material Success of mitigation activities Wildlife observations Maintenance recommendations G. Designation of a Preserve Manager, LDC 3.5.7.1.H.1.g.iii). A Preserve Manager shall be identified as the responsible party to ensure that the Preserve Management Plan is being complied with. The developer shall also be identified. Both parties will be responsible until such time that the homeowners association takes over the management of the preserve. At that time, the homeowner's association shall amend the plan to provide the homeowner association information and information regarding the person hired by the association to manage the preserve. The homeowner's association and the preserve manager shall be responsible for annual maintenance of the preserve, in perpetuity. Preserve Manager: Rae Ann Boylan Boylan Environmental 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, FL 33919 (239) 418 -0671 Developer: TBD G. Wildlife Habitat Management. No listed species were observed on this site. H. Allowable Uses Within Preserve Areas. (LDC 3.5.7.1.H.1.h). Passive recreational uses such as pervious nature trails or boardwalks are allowed within the preserve areas, as long as any clearing required to facilitate these uses does not impact the minimum required vegetation. For the purpose of this section, passive recreational uses are those uses that would allow limited access to the preserve in a manner that will not cause any negative impacts to the preserve, such as pervious pathways, benches and educational signs are permitted in the preserve. Fences may be utilized outside of the preserves to provide protection in the preserves in accordance with the protected species section 3.11.3.1.0. Fences and walls are not permitted within the preserve area. I. INSPECTIONS SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PRESERVES. The preserve areas shall be inspected in accordance with the following schedule: 1. Prior to preliminary acceptance, of the phase of the required subdivision improvements; 2. Within the associated phase of the final site development plan prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 0 m a U (0 ri W Q j W co a N z z_ � O U CL w O N F-- z O Q 2 F- a F' Cc 8 IL U (D z O U Q L C-0 z cr- 0 z 0 w w w Ir n q tl NOV-28 -2805 11:28 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATP Glenda B. Hood Secretary of State DIVL9I0N OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES November 28, 2005 ' Alicia Lewis BEC, Inc. 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, FL 33912 Fax: 239-418-0672 Dear Ms. Lewis: In response to your inquiry of November 21, 2005, the Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in the following parcels: T5IS, R26B, Section 3 In interpreting the results of our search, please remember the following points: Agenda Item No. 8B J ly , 2008 Pagg of 181 Areas which have not been completely surveyed, such as yours, may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, unrecorded historically important structures, or both. As you may know, state and federal laws require formal environmental review for some projects. Record searches by the staff of the Florida Master Site File do not constitute such a review of cultural resources. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance Review Section of the Bureau of Historic Preservation at 850- 245 -6333 or at tbis address. Sincerely, CA Michelle Caldwell Cromer Data Analyst, Florida Master Site File Division of Historical Resources R. A. Gray Building 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 Phone: 850- 245 -6440 State SunCom: 205 -6440 Fax line: 850 -245 -6439 Email: fmsftle @dos.statefl.tu Web: hrtp://www.dos.state. l.us/dhrlmst7 $00 S, Rr000ugh Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0250 . http : / /Www.ftheritage com O Duectdls Office Q Archaedlegkal Research O Histode FreservaHon 0 Hamrical Mn =s (850) 245.6900 • FAX: 24.56435 (850) 2456444 c FAX: 243.6435 (850) W-033 • FAX; 245-6437 (850) 245-64M - FAX: 2496433 O Palm Beach Regional office (561) 279 -1475 • FAX: 279 -1476 73t. Augaatine Regional Office O Tampa Regional Office (904) 6215045 • VAN: 8255044 (813) 2723643 - PAX: 272.2340 TOTAL P.03 TAMIAMI CROSSING Protected Species Survey ft et7and d- I4ildhJi� $wrevs,,wrmenla! Pernritmig, 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida, 33966 Phone :( 239) 418 -0671 Fax:( 239) 418 -0672 April 30, 2007 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 132 of 181 Page 1 of 7 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 133 of 181 INTRODUCTION Two environmental scientists from Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc conducted a field investigation on the f acre property on September 30, 2005 and October 27, 2005. The purpose of this field investigation was to identify the presence of protected species and habitat. FLUCCS mapping has already been conducted on the property. The survey was conducted on September 30 between the hours of 10:00am and 4:00pm and on October 27 from 11:00am to 1:00pm. During the site inspection on September 30, 2005 the temperature was in the mid to high 80's ranging from 82 °F to 89.1 °F. It was partly cloudy outside with a breeze from 5.8 mph to 11.5 mph east northeast. On October 27, 2005 the temperatures were in the high 60's to low 70's ranging from 67.1 OF to 73.8 °F. A slight breeze blew 9.2 mph toward the northeast. The skies were clear. An updated survey was performed on this site in February of 2007. Dates included February 13, 20, 22, and 23. The site is located in portions of Section 3, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. Specifically, it is located directly south of US 41 and east of CR 951. SURVEY METHODOLOGY Where possible, the species survey was conducted using the parallel belt transect survey methodology discussed in the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission publication "Ecology and Habitat Protection Needs of Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) Populations Found on Lands Slated for Large -scale Development in Florida." This method is comprised of a several step process. First, vegetation communities or land -uses on the study area are delineated on an aerial photograph using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCFCS). Next, the FLUCFCS codes are cross - referenced with a Protected Species List. This species list names the protected species that have a probability of occurring in that particular FLUCFCS community. With a list of the potential listed plants and animals, each FLUCFCS community is searched in the field for these species. An intensive pedestrian survey is conducted using meandering & belt transects and 10 x 50 binoculars as a means of searching for plants and animals. In addition, periodic "stop - look - listen" and quiet stalking methods are conducted for animals. Signs or sightings of these species are then recorded. Particular attention was placed upon locating potential fox squirrel nests, locating RCW cavity trees, and eagle's nests within the forested portions of the property. Nearly 100 percent of the property that was considered as potential tortoise habitat was surveyed. Page 2 of 7 Agenda Item No, 813 July 22, 2008 Page 134 of 181 SITE CONDITIONS The temperature was in the high 80's to low 90's with partially cloudy skies during the field investigation. The site was undeveloped, but appears to have a long history of disturbance. In general, the property is composed of pasture with evidence of cow trails. One jurisdictional wetland community was identified on the site. Listed below are the vegetation communities or land -uses identified on the site as shown on the attached protected species survey map. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation 1999) for definitions. 260 Other Open Lands (1.51 + /- acres) This upland community has a nearly absent canopy with scattered live oak slash pine, java plum, Brazilian pepper, and cabbage palm. The mid - canopy and shrubs that were present include wax myrtle and Brazilian pepper. Other vegetation found in the groundcover includes grape vine, dog fennel, button weed smilax, nut sedge, finger grass, broom sedge, chocolate weed black root, and poison tiy. This area has furrows and swales reminiscent ofan abandoned agriculture row crop field. However, current agricultural usage could not be determined. An aerial dated from 1963 shows the area in agricultural use. 411 Pine Flatwoods (9.62 + 1- acres) This upland forested community has a canopy dominated by Florida slash pine with scattered cabbage palm, The sub - canopy in some areas consisted of scattered Brazilian pepper, live oak myrsine, beauty berry, downy rose myrtle, and scattered melaleuca. Saw palmetto dominated most of the under story in these areas. Other vegetation noted includes sumac, smilax, poison ivy, love vine, grape vine, black root, finger grass, wax myrtle, and ear leaf acacia. Some disturbed spoil piles were noted within this mapping area near U.S. 41. 411E3 Pine Flatwoods (Exotics 50 -74%) (0.41 + /- acres) This upland forested community has a canopy dominated by Slash Pine and Brazilian Pepper. Brazilian pepper also dominates the mid -story in this area. Ae highly disturbed area is located in the northwest corner of the property and is adjacent to commercial lands. 624 Pine - Cypress- Cabbage Palm (11.92 + /- acres) This community has a canopy comprised ofscattered cypress, cabbage palm, laurel oak red maple, Brazilian pepper, melaleuca, and Florida slash pine. The sub- canopy is comprised of saltbush, Page 3 of 7 Agenda Item No. 88' July 22, 2008 Page 135 of 181 scattered buttonbush, melaleuca, wild coffee, myrsine, cypress, Brazilian pepper and wax myrtle. The under story was dominated by swamp fern in most areas with other vegetation including blue maidencane, pluchea rosea, dogfennet, St. John 's Wort, hydrocotyle, tickseed, spartina, yellow -eyed grass, saw grass, with some scatted areas of grapevine or poison ivy. This community was the most common found throughout the site. 625 Hydric Pine Flatwoods (1.58 + 1- acres) This wetland community has a sparse canopy comprised of scattered Slash pine. Other canopy trees noted include cypress, dahoon holly, and cabbage palm. The sub - canopy species noted included scattered buttonbush, sahbush and wax myrtle. Ground cover was dominated by grasses and herbaceous vegetation. These hydric species included hat pins, St. John's Wort, panic grass, beak rush, spartina, and blue maidencane. Algal matting was present in these areas. 814 Roads and Trails (0.23 + 1- acres) This area includes the access to the adjacent development and is compose of a paved road with associated fill, curbing, sidewalk, and landscaping. 830 Utility Easement (Hydric) (0.18 + 1- acres) This herbaceous wetland comnnmio, was dominated by blue maidencane in most areas with other vegetation including St. John's Wort, tickseed smilax, saw grass, dog fennel, yellow eyed grass, beak rush, hat pins, and forked panic grass. FLUCCS Code Community WetlandAereage OSW acreage Non - wetland 260 Other Open Lands 1.51 411 Pine Flatwoods 9.62 411E3 Pine Flanvoods(Exotics 50 -7415) 0.41 624 Piue -Cy ress -Cabba a Palm 11.91 615 Hydric Pine Flatwoods 1.58 814 Roads and Trails -- 0.23 830H 11 dric Uti1i F.asamerrt 0.18 Total: 13.68 11.77 Total Cite Acreage: 25.45 Page 4 of 7 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 136 of 1S1 FLUCFCS COMMUNITIES BY PERCENTAGE FLUCFCS DESCRIPTION ACRES PERCENT 260 Other Open Lands 1.51 5.9% 411 Pine Flatwoods 9.62 37.8% 411E3 Pine Flatwoods (Exotics 50 -74 %) 0.41 1.6% 624 Pine-Cypress-Cabbage Palm 11.92 46.8% 625 H dric Pine Flatwoods 1.58 6.2% 814 Roads and Trails 0. 10.9% 930H Utility Easement Hydric 0.18 0.7% Total 25.45 100% *Total Wetland *Total Upland SPECIES PRESENCE 13.68 0.54% 11.77 0.46% During our field survey for protected species on the property, we did not observe any protected wildlife species. Epiphytes including various listed air plant (Tillandsia sp.) species and the Florida Butterfly Orchid (Errcyclia tampensis) were commonly observed throughout the site. Locations are noted as tree locations on the Species Survey map where these epiphytes were found. Other species observed include the presence of gray squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, a downy woodpecker and evidence of other small mammal usage on the property. The various listed species that may occur in the vegetation communities or land -use types found on the property have been tabulated on the attached table. DISCUSSION During the survey, no listed wildlife species or signs thereof were observed on the site. Several listed plants species were observed including Wild Pine (Tillandsia sp.) species and the Florida Butterfly Orchid (Errcyclia lampensis). Page 5 of 7 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 137 of 181 Table. Protected species having the potential to occur in the corresponding FLUCFCS community or land -types with corresponding field survey results, FLUCFCS Potential Listed Species % Coverage Present Absent Density Visibility (ft) 110 Burrowing Owl 95 X 40 Gopher Tortoise 95 X 40 212 Unimproved Pasture Florida Panther 95 X 100+ Florida Sand hill Crane 95 X 20 213 Florida Panther 95 X 20 Florida Sand hill Crane 95 X 20 Red Cockaded Woodpecker 100 X 20 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel 100 X 20 224 Burrowing Owl 95 X 20 260 NONE -- 20 411 Beautiful Pawpaw 100 X 20 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel 100 X 20 Eastern Indigo Snake 100 X 20 Fakahatchee Burmannia 100 X 20 Florida Black Bear 100 X 20 Florida Coontie 100 X 20 Florida Panther 100 X 20 Gopher Frog 100 X 20 Gopher Tortoise 100 X 20 Red - Cockaded Woodpecker 100 X 20 Satin leaf 100 X 20 Southeastern American Kestrel 100 X 20 Twisted Air Plant 100 X 20 422 NONE 75 20 424 NONE 80 -- 20 500 American Alligator 95 X 20 Page 6 of 7 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 138 of 181 Page 7 of 7 Everglades Mink 95 X 20 Lim kin 95 X 20 Little Blue Heron 95 X 20 Reddish Egret 95 X 20 Roseate S oonbdl 95 X 20 Snowy Egret 95 X 20 Tricolored Heron 95 X 20 630 American Alligator 90 X 20 Florida Black Bear 90 X 20 Florida Panther 90 X 20 Lim kin 90 X 20 Little Blue Heron 90 X 20 Reddish E >ret 90 X 1 20 Snowy Egret 90 X 20 Tricolored Heron 90 X 20 Twisted Air Plant 90 X 20 Wood Stork 90 X 20 740 Burrowing Owl 95 X 20 Gopher Tortoise 100 X 20 743 1 Gopher Tortoise 100 X 20 814 1 NONE -- -- 20 Page 7 of 7 \0 a\< %a %(0m (3 )<0IV Lo \ aU /add q f to ` as / k% § k \(o k § % /k,q \�omee °I@ \/2f CL m C$ U) I. a%§Gg%2 ) 2 § ) R \ Pz ) �\ �& O � I 0 3 f Z � % / ] 3 � Q 3 / § � ! � !!§ §k2�\ R e .. r •\ R\ is Nan k y` a. \A fey Tr '�+ 1y If VII t }} J r� t r 1, X. 9 Jk' ,�� i :✓ ,.r�?� -� X7'75. �'aL I�'� '. k r 'o i� A-7, W L�t Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 141 of 181 Tamiami Crossing Management Plan Watiand &Wildlifa Sur ya;�F omnaatoi Pennitting, 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida, 33966 Phone: (239) 418 -0671 Fax: (239) 418 -0672 May 3, 2007 August 29, 2007 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 142 of 181 Florida Butterfly Orchid (Encyclia tampensis) This threatened Florida native bromeliad is the most common of all wild orchids in Florida. This orchid can become rather large with leaves extending up to 18 inches long. The fragrant one inch flower is a green to yellow bloom with a red and whlte overlay containing a purplish blotch. This bromeliad blooms from June to July and sporadically throughout the year. Butterfly orchids can be found within swamps, hammocks and moist hardwood forests. Although locally abundant (Brown, 2002), the Florida butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) is designated as Commercially Exploited by the FDA. A plant that is designated as "Commercially Exploited" is considered to be threatened by commercial use. Butterfly orchids are not allowed to be collected, injured or destroyed on public lands and strict limits for collection are permitted on private lands (with permission from the land owner). Wild Pine (Tillandsia sp.) Several species of wild pines have been found on the Tamiami Crossing site. All of these species are abundant throughout southern Florida. It is found in hammocks, cypress swamps, and pinelands. T. flexuosa is less common, but still frequent in coastal habitats. Threats to these plants include illegal collecting, habitat destruction and the Mexican bromeliad weevil (Save, 2003). Listed plants that may be impacted due to exotic removal or development will be relocated into the preserve area, where practically feasible. Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 143 of 181 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Section 62345.400, F.A.C.) SRefProject Name Application Number AssessmentArea Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetiand =la FLUCCs code Further classifrcation(opfional) Impact or w0gation Sae? AssessmantArea Size 624 Forested Wetlands limpact 5.82 BaslnWatershad Nameft4umbar Affected Waterbody(Class) Special Classification it..oPw,AP, ouwbrsVeavneew xzgn.uon akrpuw,m) Rookery Bay/✓ Collier Basin lsolated Wetland None Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connemon with wellands, other surface water, uplands Isolated wetland Assessment area description This wetland is located in the central portion of the site. It is located adjacent to a major roadway (US 41). The area contains disturbed hydric pine flahvoods with intermitted cypress, cabbage palm. The understory contains areas of transitional species, and sonic areas swamp fem is present in the gnmind cover. Exotics resent are 10 -25 %. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.) No significant environmental features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous pennillother historic use Food chain support, small mammal utilization. Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Usted Specles (Ust species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSG), type of use, and Intensity of use of the be found assessment area) Potential Fox Squirrel(FWC -T), potential nesting and Salamanders, frogs, skinks, snakes owls, woodpeckers, opossum, foraging habitat, not likely due to location and surrounding rats, racoons, ducks, wading birds landscape. Observed Evidence of WIdlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, ate.): gray squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, Downy woodpecker Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): KAS ] 0 -25 -2005 Form 62- 345.900(1), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04 -2004] Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 144 of 181 PART 11 - quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62. 345.500 and .600 F.A.C.) SdefProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tam iami Crossing I Wetland Is Impact or Mitigation Assessment mMucted by. Assessment date: Impact 11A S 10 -25 -05 M uidance g of each sed on what able for the d or surface sessed .5D0(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support o pres or C .500(6)(6) Water Envimnmsm (n1a for uplands) J pres or unent with 75 F- .500 (6) (c) Community structure 1. Vegetation and/or 2. nenthlc Community i pres or unent wiIh Optimal 10 Moderate (7) Minimal 4 Not Present 0 Condition Is less than Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition Is Insufficient to supports wedant9surfam maintain most wedand/surface water providewelland/sudace water functions wotlandlsurface functions water functions waterfmcdons score = sum of aeove scoresrao (,f If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplands, dlf,� by tot current Reservation adjustment factor = FL = delta x acres 0.54 = or 54 r1 with h Adjusted mitigation delta= 0.54 x 5.82 = 3.14 If mitt atinn For mNgaOOn assessment auras Della= (wiihcunent] 'rime (It-factor) 0.54 Risk factor= RFG = delta/(t- factor x risk) _ Farm 62- 345.900(2), FA.C. [effective date 02-04 -20041 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 145 of 181 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Sectlon 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) SiteJProled Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetland Ill FLIIOCs code Further classfication(optional) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Site 625 Forested Wetlands Im act 1.31 Bes'vWJaterstwd NemeMumber Affected Waterbody (Class) Spec! Classification ae.orv+, nv, euK.bwrrnwed+iamp�mnaerowui.») Rookery Bay/W Collier Basin Isolated Wetland None Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Isolated wetland Assessment area description This wetland is located in the south central portion of the site. This wetland has also been severed from the adjacent property and a portion of the contiguous wetland. This hydric pine flatwoods area has very little anderstory with scattered herbaceous roundcover. Exotics are less than 10 %. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considenng the relative rarity In relation to the regional landscape.) No significant environmental features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous permll/other historic use Food chain support, small manurial utilization. Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of spades Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably e)g)ecfed to dasstaption IF T, SSG), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found assessment area) Potential Fox SquirrelCFWC -T), potential nesting and Salamanders, frogs, skinks, snakes owls, woodpeckers, opossum, foraging habitat, not likely due to location and surrounding rats, racoons, ducks, wading birds landscape, Observed Evidence of Widiffe Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): gray squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, Downy woodpecker Addifional relevant factors: Assessrent conducted by: Assessment date(s): KAS 10 -25 -2005 Forrn 52. 345.900(1), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04 -20041 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 146 of 181 PART II - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62.345.500 and .600 F.A.C.) Sind Guidance b.)7 c.)2 d.)2 e.)2 )1 optimal 10 Moderate 7 Minimal 4 Not Present 0 The scoring of each Condition is less than w/o pres or c.)7 Indicator is based on what .)7 Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to would be suitable for the supports wetiandfsurfam maintain most welland/surfacewater providewellanitsurface type ofwctiand or surface water functions wedandlsudece functions water functions water assessed current wiN water functions .500(6)(x) Location and Landscape Support w10 pres or current with .50o(6)(b) Water Environment b.)7 c.)2 d.)2 e.)2 )1 (rua for uplands) a.)7 .)6 w/o pres or c.)7 current with .)7 6.75 .500 (6) (c) Community structure a.)7 1. Vegetation and/or )7 2. Bemhic Communty c.)7 )6 w/o pres or f.)7 current wiN soam a sum of above acorasr30, Of If preservation as mifigadcm. For impact assessment areas aplards, &M. by 20) current Preservation adjustment factor = orwlo res with FL =dell.31=3. x acres Adjusted mitigation deHa = 0.54 x L31 = 3.71 0.54 M FOf mitigation a5.ea5ment areas Oeita = [with- mrrentJ tor) 0.54 tiFG= detta/(1- factor x risk) _ Form 62- 345.900(2), FA. C. (effective date 62 -04 -2004] Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 147 of 181 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Section 652- 345.400, F.A.C.) SfierProject Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetland 2a FL1CCs code Further dassification(optional) Impact cr Mitigation Sae? ssment Area Size 624 Forested Wetlands Ica act 6.38 BasiNWalershed Name/Number Affected Waterbody(Claw) Special classification 0.a. ow.: nP.am bmromwr ideas av,men.nn Rookery Bay /W Collier Basin isolated Wetland :::�]None Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Isolated wetland Assessment area description 'Ibis wetland is located along the west portion of the site. It is located adjacent to a major roadway (Collier Boulevard- CR 951). The area contains disturbed hydric pine flatwoods with intermitted cypress, cabbage palm. The under story is generally open. Exotics present are 10-25% with Brazilian pepper along the perimeter of the site, and scattered melaleuca within. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity In relation to the regional landscape.) No significant environmental features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous pe"It/other historic use Food chain support, small manurial utilization. Hydrology may not completely support wading bid feeding. Anticipated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review(tist of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Spades (Ust species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to dasstfication (I, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessrrrent area) Potential Fox Squirrel(FWC -7), potential nesting and Salamanders, frogs, skinks, snakes owls, woodpeckers, opossum, foraging habitat, not likely due to location and surrounding rats, racoons, ducks, wading birds (audsca e. Observed Evidence of Wild6Fe Utilization (Ust species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): gray squhrels, raccoons, rabbits, Downy woodpecker Addittonal relevant factors: Assessment conducted try: Assessment date(s): KAS 10 -25 -2005 Form 62- 346.WO(4, F.A.C. (effective date n2- 04-2Dn41 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 148 of 181 PART II - quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62- 345.500 and .600 F.A.C.) Sde/Project Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetland 2a Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date; Impact KAS 10 -25 -05 Scoring Guidance The scoring of each Indicator Is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface water assessed optimal (101 Moderate tr Minimal 4 Not Present 0 Condition is less than a.)6 Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but suttidem to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to supports welland/sudace maintain most wellandlsudace water provide weilandJsurtace water functions wattand/surface functions waterfunetions 1. Vegetation and/or water hmctions 2. BenthicCommunfty, c.)5 .500(6)(x) Location and Landscape Support wlo pres or current with .% .500(6)(b) Water Environment )4 b.)7 c.)2 d-)2 )2 q -) i (n1a for uplands) a.)6 ')6 vdo pres or c.)5 current with f. }5 5.5 .500 (6) (c) Community structure 7 1. Vegetation and/or b.)7 2. BenthicCommunfty, c.)5 .)6 W/o pres or ' 7 current with M-1 S.= sum of above smreW30(if If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas uplarMs, dr 1. by 20) current Preservation adjustment factor= o reS FL = delta x awes = orw / With Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.48 x 6.38 = 3.06 0.48 mN ation For mitigation assessment areas Delta = [with- cunenl] lime lag (1- factor) _ 10.48 =1 Risk factor = RFG = deftaf(t- factor x risk) _ Form 62-345.900(2), F.A.O. [effective dale 02 -04 -2004] Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 149 of 181 PART 1- Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) SitelPruject Name Application Number Asses rnent Area Namaor Number Tamiami Crossing I Wetland 2b FLUCCs code Further Gassbiratlon (optional) Impact or Miagation Sae? Assessment Are a Sire 830H Herbaceous/Disturbed Wetlands Impact .18 BasiMNatushed NameMumber Affected Waterbody(Class) Special Classification pa.orw, av, ouvvmumiertmaai xxv�on vrmrvea�l Rookery Bay/W Collier Basin Isolated Wetland one Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection With wetlands, other surface water, uplands Isolated wetland Assessrnem area descripbon This wetland is located in the northwest portion of the site. It includes a cleated and maintained utility easement and trail access. Hydrology and wetlands herbaceous s ecies are present. Signtficarnrearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional Iandsmpe.) No significant environmental features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous pe" Vother historic use Fond chain support, small mammal utilization. Anticipated VVilCtlfe Utilization Based on Laerature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by listed Species (List spades, their legal that am representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Salamanders, frogs, skinks, snakes owls, opossum, rats, racoons, Listed Wading birds ducks, wading birds Observed Evidence of Wildlife Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tract¢, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): raccoons Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by Assessment date(s): KAS 10 -25 -2005 Form 62- 345.900(1), EA.C. [affective date 02-04 -20041 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 150 of 181 PART 11 - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62345.500 and .600 F.A.C.) SrWProjad Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Ciossing Wetland 2b Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by: Assessment date: Impact iCAS 10 -25 -05 Scoring Guidance The awring of each indicator Is based on what would be suitable for the type of wetland or surface waterasserssed .500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support o pres or iment with 7 t .500(6)(b) Water Environment (rda for uplands) o pres or 'xUa�nt ' (I'' with .500 (6) (e) Community structure 1. Vegetation andfor 2. Benmle Community o pres or nu rent witit Optimal 10 1 1 —fliodersta171 I Minimal fin I Nat Present 1111 Condition is less than Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is Insufficient to supports wellandlsurface maintain most wetlandlsurtaee water provide welland(surface wafer functions wetland surface functions water functions walerfunmons Sore= sum er ebovi by ZOa scorasl30 (a uplands, rf ) current or w/o res with 0.41 Della = [with- aoren[J 0.41 Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. [aRecti, If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas Preservation adjustment factor = FIL = delta x acres = Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.41 x 0.18 = 0.07 R mi6oation For mitigation assessment areas Time lag (Valor) _ Risk factor= RFG = dellaf(t -factor z risk = va dale 02-04-20D41 Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 151 of 181 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) SM1e/ProJect Name AppGcafion Number Assessmen[Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetland 3a FLUOCs code Further classification (op6onal) Impact a Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 10.31 625 Forested Wetlands Impact BashM&Ietshad NamelNumber Affected Walarbody(Can) Special Classification a<. orvr, nn, one..,drnciwm:w xnn .abvum,m> Rookery Ba /W Collier Basin Isolated Wetland None Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface Water, uplands Isolated wetland Assessment area description This wetland is located in the southwest comer of the site. This wetland has also been severed from the adjacent property and a portion of the contiguous wetland. This hydric pine flatwoods area has very little understory with scattered herbaceous groundcover. Exotics are less than 10 %. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity In relation to the regional landscape -) No significant environmental features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous pen-nit/other historic use Food chain support, small mammal utilization. Anticipated Wildlife UUfization Based on Literature Review (List of spades Anedpated Utilizatim by Listed Species (List species, their Legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably eypeeted to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Potential Fox Squin-el(FWC -T), potential nesting and Salamanders, frogs, skinks, snakes owls, woodpeckers, opossum, foraging habitat, not likely due to location and surrounding rats, racoons, ducks, wading birds landscape. observed Evidence of WIdlife lJfilizatien (list species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, eta): graysquirrels, raccoons, rabbits, Downy woodpecker Additional relevantiectois: Assessrent conducted by Assessment date(s): KAS 10 -25 -2005 Form 62- 345 - 900(1), F.A.C. [affective, date 02-04 -20041 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 152 of 181 PART If - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62. 346.500 and .600 F.A.C.) Sre/Proect Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetland 3a Impactor Mitigation Assessment conducted by. Assessment date: Impact KAS 10 -25 -05 M uidance g of each sed on what able for the d or surface sessed Optimal (101 Moderate fl?) Minlmid(41 Not Present 0 Condition is less than a.)3 w/o pres or Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal tevel ofsuppon of Condition is insufficient to supports we0and/surfam maintain most I wellandlsurface water pmvideweiland/surface water funcifons welland/surface functions water TUnCGOns 2. Benthic Community walerfunellons d.)6 .500(6)(a) London and Landscape Support w10 pres or curtest we 7 .500(6)(b) Water Environment b,)7 c.)2 d.)2 e.)2 f.) I g-)1 (rda for uplands) a.)3 w/o pres or .)4 current with f.)6 4.3 ,500 (6) (c) Community structure 1. Vegetation and /or )7 2. Benthic Community C.)5 d.)6 w/o pres or f.)7 current with iG score= sem of above =<orovao Gf If preservation as mitigation, For impactassessment areas uplands, diAde try 20) Preservation adjustment factor = current 10 r LFL delta zacros/o res Adjusted mitigation delta = x 0.31 = 0.13 0.44 If mitt stion For mitigation assessment areas Delta = jwOkfam3ntj Time lag (t- factor) _ 0.44 Risk factor= RFG = defta/(t-factorx risk) _ Form 62- 345.901)(2), FA.a [effecWe date 02 -04 -20041 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 153 of 181 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) Sitepf*ct Name Ap plication Number AssessmenlArea Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetland 4a FLUCCs code Further classifiication(optionel) Impact or Mitigation Site? Assessment Area Size 624 Forested Wetlands Mitigation 11.72 BasirMatershed NameMumber Afferled Waterbody(Clam) Special Classlfication(< o. ociv, nr, om >w®v mmx��rexays :momxpom,�> Rookery Ba /W Collier Basin Isolated Wetland None Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Isolated wetland Assessment area desoriptlon The preserve will have development on three sides. Enhancement of wetland, including exotic removal. Signiticant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the Waive mrity in relation to the regional landscape.) No significant eavironmenW features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous perrniVother historic use Food chain support, small manurial utilization. Anticipated VMdllfe Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably e)grected to classification (E, T, SSC), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Potential Fox Squirrel(FWC -T), potential nesting and Salamanders, frogs, skinks, snakes owls, woodpeckers, opossum, foraging habitat, not likely due to location and surrounding rats, racoons, ducks, wading birds landscape. Observed Evidence of Mullis Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): gray squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, Downy woodpecker Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by: Assessment date(s): KAS 10 -25 -2005 Form 62- 349.900(1), FA.C. tetfective date o2-04-2004) Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 154 of 181 PART II - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62. 345.500 and .600 F.A.C.) SilelProject Name ApplIcation Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetland 4a Impact or MQigation Assessment conducted by Assessment date: Mitigation ICAS 10 -25 -05 M uidance ng of each sed on what table for the d or surface sessed optimal (101 Moderate Minimal 4 Not Present e Condition Is less than ')8 wlo pros or Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sulgctent to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to supports-wetland / surface maintain most weflancifsurface water providewetland/surface water functions wellandlsurface, functions water functions 2. Benthic Community water functions c.)8 .500(60) Location and Landscape Support w/o pres or current with .7 1.66 .500(6)(b) Water Environment ) 3 C.) )t e.)3 )I g. )l (n1a for uplands) ')8 wlo pros or C.)8 anent with f.)7 6.75 7.66 .500 (6) (c) Community structure a.)10 1. vegetation and/or 2. Benthic Community c.)8 d.)6 w/o presor C)7 current with 6.8 8.2 Smra= sum of auove scaeJ30 fe If preservation as mitigation, For impact assessment areas upleMs, divide hY 20) Wrfent Preservation adjustment factor= orwlo res with FL =delta xacres= Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.54 0.58 If Mitigation Delta = [wile - email] Time lag (t- factor) = 1. 07 For mldgation assessment areas 0.04 iak faa «= 125 P.FG= deltaf(t- lactorx risk}= 0.04 / 0.33) = 0.03 Form 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. effective date 02-04 -20D41 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 155 of 181 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) SileMrojea Name Application Number Assessment Area Name of Number Tamiami Crossing U ]and 4a FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impact or Mitigafion Situ Assessment Area Size 11.58 411 Forested Uplands Mitigation Bastr tershed Name.Mumber Affected Walerbody(Class) Special Classification pc.orw,na, eaw wravxarexeae,ei aa.y„ao„ aihnpar6+ ) Rookery Bay /W Collier Basin None Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with v,eaands, other surface water, uplands Adjacent to wetland preserve, does not include 25' buffer to wetland. Assessment area description The preserve will have development on three sides. Enhancement of wetland, including exotic removal. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative rarity in relation to the regional landscape.) No significant environmental features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous penmd7olher historic use Food chain support, small mammal utilization. Antlapated Wildlife Utilization Based on Literature Review (List of species that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal classification (I_ T, SSG), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found) assessment area) Potential Fox Squirrel(rWC -T), potential nesting and foraging habitat, not likely due to location and surrounding snakes, owls, woodpeckers, opossum, rats, racoons, landscape. Observed Evidence of VOldlife Mrzation (List species directly observed, or other signs such as backs, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): laysquirrels, raccoons, rabbits, Downy woodpecker Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by. Assessment date(s): ]SAS 110-25-2005 Form 62-345.900(1), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04 -2004] Agenda Item No. 8B July 22. 2008 Page 156 of 181 PART 11 - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62- 345.500 and .600 F.A.C.) Site/Projecl Name Application Number Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Upland 4a Impact or Mitigation Assessment conducted by- Assessment date: Mitigation KAS )0 -25 -05 m uidance of each sed on what able for the d or surface essed Optimal /0 Moderate 7 Minimal 4 Not Present 0 Condition is less than current with Condition is optimal and fully optimal, but sufficient to Minimal level of support of Condition is insufficient to supports welland/surface maintain most wetiendfsurface water providawelland/surface water functions weaand/surface functions water functions e)7 water functions 6.8 8.2 - 500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support wlo pres or current with .7 1.66 .500(6)(b) Water Environment a.)3 C.) I d.) I e.)3 f.)1 a.)i (rua for uplands) w/o pres or current with .500 (6) (c) Community structure a.) 10 I- vegetation and /or b.)10 2. Benthic Community c.)8 d.)6 w/o pres or e)7 current with 6.8 8.2 Score =sum of above scoms/30 (if If preservafion as mNgation, For Impact assessment areas uplands, aMeeby20) Preservation adjustment factor= current Preservation = delta x aces = or wfo Adjusted mitigation delta = 0.47 0.49 9 11 m1boation Far mation assessment areas Delta = With-currant] Time lag (t- factor) _ ] Ng07 Risk factor RFG = deitel(t- fador x risk) _ 0.02 1.25 0.02 x (1.33) = 0.02 Form 62- 345900(2), F.A.C. [effective date 02-04 -2004] Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 157 of 181 PART I - Qualitative Description (See Section 62- 345.400, F.A.C.) Silejpwject Name Application Number I Assessment Area Name or Number Tamiami Crossing Wetlaud 4a FLUCCs code Further classification (optional) Impactor Mitigation Sile9 meni Area Sloe b25 Forested Wetlands [m act 0.08 BasinANalershed Name/Number ARaded Waterbody(Class) Special classification a 0M. ar..w acauxaWoe a "gaawo cemwa,+-et Rookery Bay/W Collier Basin isolated Wetland None Geographic relationship to and hydrologic connection with wetlands, other surface water, uplands Isolated wetland Assessment area description This wetland is located in the southwest comer of the site. This wetland has also been severed from the adjacent property and a portion of the contiguous wetland This hydric pine flatwoods area has very little mtderstory with scattered herbaceous groundcover. Exotics are less than 10 %. Significant nearby features Uniqueness (considering the relative raft in relation to the regional landscape.) No significant environmental features are nearby. Low Functions Mitigation for previous pe"Mother historic use Food chain support, small mammal utilization. Anticipated Wildlife Ut lizafion Based on Literature Review (List of species Anticipated Utilization by Listed Species (List species, their legal that are representative of the assessment area and reasonably expected to dassifiralion (E, T. SSG), type of use, and intensity of use of the be found assessment area) Potential Fox Squirrel(FWC -T), potential nesting and Salamanders, frogs, skinks, snakes owls, woodpeckers, opossum, foraging habitat, not likely due to location and surrounding rats, racoons, ducks, wading birds landscape. Observed Evidence orWIdllfe Utilization (List species directly observed, or other signs such as tracks, droppings, casings, nests, etc.): gray squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, Downy woodpecker Additional relevant factors: Assessment conducted by Assessment dste(s): KAS 10 -25 -2005 Form 62- 345.900(1), FA.C. [effective date 02-04 -2004] Agenda Item No, 8B July 22, 2008 Page 158 of 181 PART II - Quantification of Assessment Area (impact or mitigation) (See Sections 62- 345.500 and .600 F.A.C.) Scoring Guidance Optimal 10 Moderate Minimal d Not Present 0 The amdng of each Condition is less than indicator is based on what Condition Is optimal and fully optimal, but suffictenl to Minimal level of support of Condition is imufficent to would be SUbble for the supports vre0and /surface maintain most we0endfsurface water provide walland/surface type ofwesand or surface water functions wetland/surface functions water functions water assessed walerfunciions .500(6)(a) Location and Landscape Support w/o pres or mmenf with .7 .500(6)(b) Water Environment . � b.)7 c.)2 d.)2 )2 f.) I (Na for uplands) ')3 w/o pres or .)4 current with f.)6 4.3 .500 (6) (c) Community structure a.)6 1. Vegetation and /or )7 2. Bmthic Communlry c.)5 d.)6 W/o pros or f)7 current with S. = sum of aDOVe emes� (il aptarxls rfiv by 20) current or w/o res with 0.44 Delta = (wdhtxmenl] 0.44 If preservation as mfligation, Presentation adjustment factor = Adjusted mitigation delta = IfmiT alion Time lag (t- factor) _ Risk factor = Faint 62- 345.900(2), F.A.C. (effective date 02 -04 -2004] For impact assessment areas FL = delta x acres = 0.44 x 08 = 0.03 For mitigation assessment areas RFG = deta/(t -factor x dsk) = Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 159 of 181 r ZONING TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT TAMIAMI CROSSING July 20, 2006 - Revised March 29, 2007 Collier Boulevard (SR 95 1) & US 41 Collier County, Florida Prepared For: Kite Development 30 S. Meridian Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Prepared By: Vanasse & Daylor, LLP PUDZ - 2006 -AR -10875 REV: 2 Project: 2005060079 JeLH &J@I4.01 Date: 5/14/07 DUE: 6/I1/07 12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 600, Fort flyers, Florida 33907 1 239.437.4601 r 239A37A636 w vanday.com Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 160 of 181 STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION I certify that this TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT has been prepared by rue or under my humediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Ernest R. Spradling P.E. Florida Registration #61235 Vanasse & Daylor, LLP 12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 600 Fort Myers, Florida 33907 (239) 437 -4601 Collaborators Reed K. JarvI AE. John T. Veges Swamp Mukherjer, Tamlami Crossing Sutement of Certification 00074 04ZTIS 002 EXNb%XIS 4 Exhibitl WE Map US 41 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 161 of 181 VtanasSe U diw,mry n16 lagU."m Innppr pnNUaurc EmT"15, to&Mq WI Ir4m rn¢ It 366 D;tvlor lap Mn 6 NMxt ko hoe l. H yn 11p" 7 j,'y155At wtl�,'.1�a1 r739A31.U3{ SR 951 Kilo aavo /apmsai 30S.M /MOShoe( Wamo,a IN law Marla 107 Tamiami Crossing Location Map Exhibit 1 -E K41 Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 162 of 181 Table of Contents INTRODUCTIONAND SUMMARY ........................................................................................... ............................... I INTRODUCTION............................................................... ....................................:................. ............................... I SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ............ ................................ I PROPOSEDDEVELOPMENI ........................... ............................................................................ ..............................3 EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE .............................................................................. ..............................3 AREACONDITIONS ..................................................................................................................... ..............................3 STUDYAREA ........................................................................................................................... ..............................3 EXISTING GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS ................................................................................ ..............................3 PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................... ..............................4 SITE - GENERATED TRIPS ........................................................................................................... ..............................5 TRIPGENERATION ................................................................................................................. ..............................5 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT .......................................................................... ..............................5 SIGNIFICANCETEST ANALYSES ........................................................................................ ..............................6 PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES_ ...................._............ ..............................8 ANALYSES................................................................................................................................... .............................10 LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES ............................................................................. ............................... 10 SITEACCESS ANALYSES ................................................................................................... ............................... 13 IMPROVEMENTANALYSIS ...................................................................................................... .............................18 List of Tables Table I PM Peak Net External Project Traffic Table 2 Peak Hour Project Traffic Distribution Table 3 Significance Test Analyses Table 4 Link specific Background Traffic Table 5 Background Traffic Projections Table 6 Growth Based on Collier County Concun-cncy Segments Table 7 Growth Based on Growth Rates Table SYNC'HR0Analysis List of Exhibits Exhibit 1 Location Map Exhibit 2 'Trip Distribution Exhibit 3 PM Peak Hour Site- Generated Trip Assignments Exhibit 4 PM Peak Hour Pass -By Trip Exhibit 5 PM Peak Hour Net Site - Generated Trip Assignments Exhibit 6 PM Peak Hour Background Traffic Exhibit 7 I'M Peak Hour Total Traffic Appendix Tanniatnl Crossing Page I Table of Contents Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 163 of 181 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY INTRODUCTION This Traffic Impact Statement (TIE) contains additional information in response to comments received from Collier County on December 27, 1006. Changes germane to the comments on this report are shown in italics. The project site is in the southeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard (SR 95 1) & Tamiami Trail (US 41) intersection in Collier County (See Exhibit 1). The Project proposed land use will consist of approximately 213,000 square feet (sf) of Free- Standing Discount Superstore, 10,000 sf General Off toe, 6,000 sf Quality Restaurant and 6,000 sf High Turn Restaurant. Accesses will be via US 41, SR 951 and the adjacent Wal -Mart shopping center. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As shown in Tables 6 & 7, the link level of service analyses indicate that SR 951 from US 41 to Manatee Road and US 41 from Collier Boulevard to San Marco Road are projected to operate in excess of the performance standard maximum service flowrates (SR „ 2<) under Background Traffic conditions. The only feasible mitigation strategy consists of widening SR 951 north of Manatee Road into a six -lane facility, and widening US 41 east of Collier Boulevard into a four- lane facility. SR 951 from US 41 to Manatee Road was analyzed as a six -lane facility under Total Traffic conditions. This roadway segment is projected to operate within SF,,,,,x. US 41 from Collier Boulevard to Greenway Road is projected to operated in excess of Sr ,,,,,x under Total Traffic conditions because no widening was considered in this analysis. The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed in order to accommodate projected total traffic: Collier Boulevard (SR 95 1) & Wal -Mart South Access: Tamlami Crossing I 80874_ZTIS- 003.doc Agenda Item No, 8B July 22, 2008 Page 164 of 181 • Full- movement signalized intersection • 800 -foot southbound dual left turn lane • 450 -foot northbound exclusive right turn lane • 300 -foot westbound dual left turn lane. Collier Boulevard (SR 95 1) & North Access: • Right In /Right Out unsignalized intersection • 400 -foot northbound exclusive right turn lane • 100 -foot westbound right turn lane US 41 & West Access: • Right In /Right Out unsignalized intersection • 400 -foot eastbound right turn lane • 50 -foot northbound exclusive right turn lane US 41 & East Access: • Full - movement signalized intersection • 400 -foot eastbound right turn lane • 575 -foot westbound left turn lane • 125 -foot northbound exclusive left turn lane The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fees as building permits are issued for the proposed project. In addition, the developer is a member of the US 41 developer consortium which is working on a Development Contribution Agreement (DCA) to improve operation on US 41 East of3R 951 and the SR 951 /US 41 intersection. Tamiami Crossing 2 80874 ZTIS.003.doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 165 of 181 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE The project site is in the southeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Tamiami Trail (US 41) intersection in Collier County (See Exhibit 1). The Project proposed land use will consist of approximately 213,000 square feet (sf) of Free- Standing Discount Superstore, 10,000 sf General Of oe, 6,000 sf Quality Restaurant and 6,000 sf High Turnover Restaurant. Accesses will be via US 41, SR 951 and the adjacent Wal -Mart shopping center. AREA CONDITIONS The description of the existing environment of the site, the surrounding study area, and the committed improvements, provide a basis for the analysis of the site generated traffic impacts on the proposed roadway system. STUDY AREA The study area contains the following intersections; • SR 951 & US41; • SR 951 & Manatee Road; • SR 951 & Championship Drive; • SR 951 & Malnsall Drive; and • US 41 & Triangle Boulevard Exhibit 1 shows the project location as related to the studied roadway system, EXISTING GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS Existing roadway geometries were assumed. Collier Boulevard (SR 951 /CR 95 1) Collier Boulevard (SR 951) in the study area is a north -south four -lane divided roadway. SR 951 is functionally classified as an arterial roadway under state jurisdiction south of US 41. CR 951 north of US 41 is a four -lane divided arterial roadway under county jurisdiction. The roadway Tamiami Crossing 3 80874_ZTIS- 003-doc Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 166 of 181 alignment is fairly level and tangent. The speed limit is posted at 45 tulles per hour (mph) north of Eagle Creek and 55 mph south of Eagle Creek. Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Tamiami Trail East (US 41) in the study area is a rural arterial roadway under state jurisdiction. It is a six -lane divided roadway through the SR 951 intersection, and reduces to a two -lane undivided roadway east of SR 951. Alignment of the roadway is fairly level and tangent. In the study area, the limit speed of US 41 decreases from 60 to 50 mph. Therefore, the assumed posted speed limit is 50 mph. US 41 is signed as a north -south highway throughout the state of Florida. It has a northwest- southwest alignment through the study area. For purposes of discussion throughout this document, US 41 will be described as an east -west highway, with Miami oriented toward the east and Naples toward the west. The study area was determined to be US 41, east of SR -951 in the vicinity of the project. Manatee Road Manatee Road is a two -lane undivided collector street. It is under county jurisdiction, and has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The only roadway improvements in the study area that are either planted or underway is the six - lane expansion of CR 951 from Davis Boulevard to US 41 scheduled to start in late 2006 /early 2007. There is a Development Contribution Agreement (DCA) to design and construct the widening of SR 951 approximately %2 mile south of US 41north through the intersection from four lanes to six lanes. This is scheduled to be completed in October 2006. In addition, the US 41 developer consortium is working with Collier County staff on a DCA that will address intersection improvements at US 41 & SR 951 as well as US 41 east of SR 951, Tamiami Crossing 4 80874_ZTIS- 003.doc Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 167 of 181 SITE- GENERATED TRIPS TRIP GENERATION Site - generated trips were estimated using Trip Generation, Internal Capture and Pass -lay software (TIPS) developed by FDOT (see Appendix A). This program incorporates trip generation rates and deduction procedures consistent with the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual (7°i Edition) and the ITE Trip Generation IIandbook (2nd Edition) in accordance with Collier County policy in effect when the report was published and as agreed with Collier County staff. Table l shows the summary of the net new extemal site - generated trip estimates. These trips include the reduction of pass -by trips. The TIPS software does not provide pass -by rates for Quality Restaurants and Free - standing Discount Stores. These values were manually inserted into the TIPS program as agreed between Collier County staff and the analyst. The TIPS computations resulted in an overall 4% internal capture deduction for the site. TABLE I BUILDOUT SITE - GENERATED TRIP ESTIMATES PM Peak TAMIAMI CROSSING NET NEW EXTERNAL Tsral Ester Exit SITE - GENERATED TRIP ESTIMATES (TIPS) 684 344 340 TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT The site- generated trip distributions used in this study correspond to the originally approved Wal -Mart report prepared by Kimley -Horn dated June 2004. The distributions were applied to the site - generated traffic volumes to determine the site - generated vehicle trip assignments. The PM Peak ]-sour traffic was used because retail commercial land uses have higher volumes in the PM Peak Hour. The Peak Hour project traffic distribution is shown in Table 2. All trip distribution percentages add up to 100% except for the portion of Collier Boulevard between US 41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road clue to numerous access points between these intersections that provide attenuation opportunities. Tamiaml Crossing 5 80874_ZTI$- 003.doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 168 of 181 Exhibit 2 shows a graphical representation of the traffic distribution percentages. Exhibit 3 shows the estimated AM Primary Traffic Assignments. Pass -By estimates are shown in Exhibit 4. PM Site - related Not Traffic Assignments are shown in Exhibit 5. TABLE 2 DISTRIBUTION NAME FROM TO DISTRIBUTIO I� Collier Boulevard Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41 16% US 41 Manatee Road 13% SR 951 Manatee Road Championship Drive 25% Triangle Boulevard Collier Boulevard 30% Tamiami Trail East Collier Boulevard San Marco Drive 12% SIGNIFICANCE TEST ANALYSES According to Collier County Land Development Code (LAC) Section 6.02.02 "M. Significance Test: Impact for the impact traffic analysis purposes for a proposed development project will be considered significant: 1. On those roadway segments directly accessed by the project where project traffic Is equal to or greater than 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; 2. For those roadway segments immediately adjacent to segments which are directly accessed by the project where project traffic is greater than or equal to 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; or 3. For all other adjacent segments where the project traffic is greater than 5% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segments using the above standards, the development's impact Is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments" In other words, a project will have a significant and adverse impact on a state or regionally significant roadway only if both of the following criteria are met: (1) the project will utilize 3 percent or more of the maximum peak hour service volume at the adopted level of service standard for the adjacent and next to adjacent link, 5 percent for the other links; and (2) the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted level of service standard. Significance was estimated according to Collier County's 3/3/5 rule, and the links were evaluated to detennine whether projected operation would be within County standards. The data Tamiami Crossing E 80874_ZT&003.doc Agenda Item No. 815 July 22, 2008 Page 169 of 181 resources used for this analysis are shown in Appendix. Exhibit. 6 shows the PM Peak Hour Projected Background Traffic as a result of using the perceptual proportion on each approach of turning movement traffic counts. Exhibit 7 shows the Buildout PM Peak Hour Total Traffic. The significance test analyses for the adjacent roadway network (see Table 3) indicate that SR 951 from the north access to Fiddlers Creek Drive and US 41 from Triangle to Collier Boulevard and from West Access to Naples Reserve Boulevard are projected to have site - generated primary trips that are greater than 3 percent of the AUIR Performance Standard Maximum Service Flowrate (Srmax), SR 951 north of US 41 and south of Fiddlers Creek Drive and US 41 west of Triangle Boulevard and east of Naples Preserve Boulevard are not projected to be significantly impacted. TABLE3 PM PEAK HOUR SIGNIFICANCE TEST Site as STD Dlr Site % of Link From TQ EMAX IdpS O� S Std Collier Blvd (CR951) Davis Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3,270 NB 17 0.5% Collier Blvd (CR951) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Tamiami Trail East (US 41) 3,330 NB 54 1.6% Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Project Access 2,370 NB 139 5.9% Collier Blvd (SR 951) Project Access Wal Mart South Access 2,370 NB 65 2.7% Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Wal Mart South Access Manatee Rd 2,370 NB 120 5.1% Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Manatee Rd Fiddlers Creek Pkwy 2,590 NB 86 3.3% Collier Blvd (SR 951) Fiddlers Creek Pkwy Mainsall Drive 2,590 NB 69 2.7% Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Mainsail Drive isle of Capri Blvd 2,590 NB 51 2.07 Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Mainsail Drive Capri Blvd (CR 952) 2,590 NB 34 1.3% Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Capri Blvd (CR 952) Marco Island 2,590 NB 34 1.3% Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Broward Street 3,500 ES 41 1.20/ Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Broward Street Barefoot Williams Rd 3,500 EB 58 1.7% Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Barefoot Williams Rd Triangle Blvd 3,500 EB 76 2.2% Tamiami Trail East (US 41)Triangle Blvd Collier Blvd (SR 951) 3,200 EB 103 3.2% Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Project Access 1,075 EB 111 10.6% Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Project Access Naples Reserve Blvd 1,075 EB 41 318% Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Naples Reserve Blvd Greenway Rd 1,075 EB 25 2.3% Tamlaml Crossing 7 80874_ZTIS- 003,doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22. 2008 Page 170 of 181 Link LOS analyses will be conducted on the significantly impacted links. The intersections to be given further analyses include US 41 & SR 951, US 41 & Triangle Boulevard, US 41 & Naples Reserve Boulevard, SR 951 & Manatee Road, SR 951 & Fiddlers Creek Parkway, SR 951 & Mainsail Drive and all proposed site accesses. PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES Background traffic volumes were developed using multiple sources. Specific Link volume data for SR 951, US 41 and CR 951 were provided by the Collier County Transportation Department. In order to calculate the Background traffic volumes, the projecting volumes based on recorded 2005 directional Peak Hour volumes and "banked" trips that were assigned to the links for previously approved developments (see Appendix- Concurrency Segment Tables dated June 30, 2006). This is the methodology that is currently in use by Collier County for tracking the availability of reserve capacity on specific roadway links as part of their concurrency management efforts. Table 4 presents the link - specific background traffic data used in the Link Level of Service analyses discussed elsewhere. TABLE 4 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS • (CONCURRENCY SEGMENT TABLE) ConcSegments 06.30.2006 NAME FROM Collier Blvd Davis Blvd Collier Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd SR 951 US 41 SR 951 Manatee Rd Tamlami Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Tamlami Trall East Triangle Blvd Tamlami Trail East Collier Blvd Note: 7'6e capacity for the segment of SR 951 fi-oin US 41 to A4anatee Rd is shown as 2,370 instead of 1,970 due to a developinent agreement to widen [iris segment from 4 to 6lanes rind is shown in Collier County's AU7R. Tamlami Crossing B 80874_ZrIS- 003.doc CAPA. Z LOS HR TRIP REM TO TOTVOL CITY 5 STD BANK CAP VOL Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3,270 6 E 1,850 555 2,405 865 US 41 3,330 6 E 1,730 795 2,525 805 Manatee Rd 2.370 4 D 1,850 352 2,202 168 Mainsail Dr 2,590 4 D 1,510 286 1,796 794 Triangle Blvd 3,500 6 E 1,820 453 2,273 1,227 Collier Blvd 3,200 6 E 1,470 591 2,061 1,139 San Marco Dr 1,075 2 C 640 613 1,253 .178 Note: 7'6e capacity for the segment of SR 951 fi-oin US 41 to A4anatee Rd is shown as 2,370 instead of 1,970 due to a developinent agreement to widen [iris segment from 4 to 6lanes rind is shown in Collier County's AU7R. Tamlami Crossing B 80874_ZrIS- 003.doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 171 of 181 Growth projections were computed using the 2005 Average Daily Traffic Counts, Collier County. Table 5 contains the projected background traffic. The projected background traffic volumes from the directional peak hour volume were assigned to the roadway links. Background Traffic volumes were derived from turning movement and directional counts extracted from the Wal-Mart report and/or collected by FTE. TABLES BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS - FIVE YEAR (2011) The roadway capacities were derived from the Concurrency Segment Table, AUIR tables or from the FDOT QLOS table if a link was not on the Concunency Segment Table. Copies of these data are in Appendix of this report. The intersection turning movement data were used to distribute the approach link volumes and to determine the dominant direction of travel as directed by the Collier County Transportation Planning Director. According to these data, the dominant direction on SR 951 is northbound in the PM peak. Exhibit 6 shows the projected PM Peak Hour Background Traffic that will be used for the intersection capacity analyses described elsewhere in this report. Note that, in addition to the primary site- generated trips, pass -by trips were also subtracted from the through traffic stream and assigned to the turning movements entering and exiting the site. The primary site- generated trips were added to the Projected Background traffic volumes to estimate the Buiidout Year Total Traffic projections (See Exhibit 7). These projected turning movement volumes were used in the Intersection Capacity and Turn Lane analyses. Tamlami Crossing 9 80874_ZTIS.003.doc DPK Growth HR TOTVOL NAME FROM 70 2001 2004 2005 Rate VOL 2011 200S Collier Blvd Davis Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 26,583 - 34,013 6.4% 1,850 2,678 Collier Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd US 41 21,077 - 23,061 2.3% 1,730 1,980 SR 951 US 41 Manatee Rd 33,422 35,556 - 2.1% 1,850 2,094 SR 951 Manatee Rd Mainsail Or 33,422 35,556 - 2.1% 1,510 1,709 Tamlami Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Triangle Blvd 36,312 - 40,948 3.0% 1,820 2,179 Tamiaml Trail East Triangle Blvd Collier Blvd 26,082 27,758 - 11% 1,470 1,665 Tamlami Trail East Collier Blvd San Marco Dr 12.552 15.010 4.6% 640 837 The roadway capacities were derived from the Concurrency Segment Table, AUIR tables or from the FDOT QLOS table if a link was not on the Concunency Segment Table. Copies of these data are in Appendix of this report. The intersection turning movement data were used to distribute the approach link volumes and to determine the dominant direction of travel as directed by the Collier County Transportation Planning Director. According to these data, the dominant direction on SR 951 is northbound in the PM peak. Exhibit 6 shows the projected PM Peak Hour Background Traffic that will be used for the intersection capacity analyses described elsewhere in this report. Note that, in addition to the primary site- generated trips, pass -by trips were also subtracted from the through traffic stream and assigned to the turning movements entering and exiting the site. The primary site- generated trips were added to the Projected Background traffic volumes to estimate the Buiidout Year Total Traffic projections (See Exhibit 7). These projected turning movement volumes were used in the Intersection Capacity and Turn Lane analyses. Tamlami Crossing 9 80874_ZTIS.003.doc Agenda Item No, 813 July 22, 2008 Page 172 of 181 ANALYSES LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES The performance Standard maximum Service Flowratcs (Wmax) for SR 951 were provided by Collier County Transportation Planning Department along with the Concurrency Segment and AUIR data, Tables 4 and 5 present the background traffic data and the projected Peak Hour Link Volumes, based on volumes from the current Concurrency Segment Table and growth rate methodology respectively. Tables 6 and 7 present the LOS analyses using the current Concurrency Segment Table and growth rate methodologies. The link level of services analyses using the Concurrency Segment Table projected Background Traffic volumes indicate that background traffic volumes on US 41 from Collier Boulevard to San Marco Road are projected to exceed the SF,,, „x for those links, The same segments are projected to be within the SF.,,,rrx using 5 -year historical projections. The only feasible mitigation strategy consists of the widening of US 41 east of Collier Boulevard to four - lane facility, SR 951 from US 41 to the south Wal -Mart access was analyzed with total traffic in the six lane condition per DCA. This roadway segment is projected to operate within SF,,,., Since no widening is planed for US 41 from Collier Boulevard to Greenway Road before project buildout, this link is projected to continue operating below SF,,,,, under Total Traffic conditions. TABLE 6 PM PEAK HOUR LOS LINK ANALYSIS Link Erin Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Project Access Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Eagle Crook Dr Collier Blvd (SR 951) Manatee Rd Tamiami Trail East (US 4 Triangle Blvd Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Collier Blvd (SR 9S 1) Tern !am! Tnli East (US 41) Project Access Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Naples Reserve Blvd Based an ConcSogments 06.30.2006 Wil Lkg2 2le- TOW Is Iraflk 10A Rat& Project Access 2,202 139 2,341 Cagle Creek or 2,202 139 2,341 Manatee Rd 2,202 65 2,267 Fiddlers Creek Pkwy 1,796 120 1,916 Collier Blvd (SR 9S 1) 2,061 103 2,164 Project Access 1,253 114 1,367 Naples Reserve Blvd 1.253 41 1,294 Greenway Rd 1,253 25 1,278 SIL? Wil wit Sfraax 2t 5 2,370 Y Y 2,370 Y Y 2,370 Y Y 2.590 Y Y 3,200 Y Y 1,075 N N 1,075 N N 1,075 N N Tamiami Crossing 10 BDa74_ZTIS- 003.doc TABLE 7 2011 PM PEAK HOUR LOS LINK ANALYSIS Lbk From Is Collier Blvd (51195 1) Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Project Access Collier Blvd (SR 950 Project Access Eagle Creek Dr Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Eagle Creek Dr Manatee Rd Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Manatee Rd Fiddlers G eek Pkwy Tamlaml Trail East (US 41)Triangle Blvd Collier Blvd (SR 95 1) Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Collier Blvd (SR 9S 1) Prolott Access Tamiaml Trail East (US 41) Project Access Naples Reserve Blvd Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Naples Reserve Blvd Greenway Rd INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 173 of 181 Based on Growth Rate Akp2 Si e I919L STD WIL r r Tips lr—.& SE. SUL 2sL 2,094 139 2,233 2,370 Y Y 2,094 139 2,233 2,370 Y Y 2,094 65 2,159 2,370 Y Y 1,709 120 1,829 2,590 Y Y 1,665 103 1,768 3,200 Y Y 837 114 951 11075 Y Y 837 41 878 1,075 Y Y 637 25 862 1,075 Y Y Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the studied intersections using SYNCHRO' 6,0 capacity analysis software. Signal timings and approach speeds consistent with Collier County standards were used. Analyses were completed for PM Peak Hour, both with and without the project. Table 8 summarizes the analytical results and Appendix contains printouts of the analyses. The existing unsignalized side street approaches on SR 951 & Nagle Creek Drive intersection is projected to exhibit high computed delays. This is not unexpected, given the projected traffic volumes on SR 951 traversing the intersection, The only feasible mitigative measure would require signalizing the intersection. Tarnlami Crossing I I 80874_ZTIS.003.doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22.. 2008 Page 174 of 181 TABLE 8 Total Traffic (6 Background Traffic Total Traffic Lane Divided on SR 9511CR 95 1) Delay Delay Delay Intersection OS OS OS sedveh serJveh, sedveh. Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) & C 33.2 D 35.7 C + 29.7 Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & NIA F # * 99.7 D#* 26.2 North Access Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & D * 27.8 D * 33.9 A#* n/a Eagle Creek Drive Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & C 21 D 37 C + 24.6 Wal-Mart (South Access) Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & C 22,5 C 26.6 C + 26,6 Manatee Road Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & E 64.5 E 73,6 E 73.6 Fiddlers Creek Parkway Tamiami Trail East (US 41) & D 35.3 D 38.2 D + 38.2 Triangle Boulevard Tamiami, Trail East (US 41) & N/A C * 16.2 C * 16.2 West Access Tamiami Trail East (US 41) & E * 21,3 F * 198.7 6 14.4 East Access * Denotes unsignalized Intersection. + Six Lane Divided # Denotes right Wright out The total traffic conditions analytical results included six - laning on SR 951 from US 41 to the Wal-Mart South Access, This widening would increase not only the road capacity from 1,970 to 2,370 vph, but would also improve the intersection capacity, thereby reducing the congestion and delay. Closer examination of the intersection capacity analyses found that the northbound left- turning traffic volumes at the US 41 & East Access intersection were projected to exhibit poor service levels (LAS F) under total traffic conditions. This is typical for unsignalized side- street STOP - controlled intersections having relatively high main street through volumes and side - street left turning volumes. Tamiami Crossing 12 80074_ZTIS- 003,doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 175 of 181 levels (LOS F) under total traffic conditions. This is typical for unsignalized side - street STOP - controlled intersections having relatively high main street through volumes and side- street left turning volumes. Under total traffic condition westbound left turning traffic volume is high enough (129 vph during PM) to warrant a westbound exclusive left turn lane on US 41. The northbound left turning traffic volume is also high (75 vph during PM) on the Fast Access, Signalizing this intersection, should it meet applicable warrants, is recommended, Signalization could decrease the computed delays at this intersection to allow operational efficiency to increase from LOS F to LOS B (14 sec /veh) for the PM peak hour. SITE ACCESS ANALYSES Site Access analyses were completed utilizing SYNCHRO® software and applied to Build -out year total traffic. The appendix contains the SYNCHRO° computer printouts, The purpose of these analyses is to evaluate the operational characteristics and needs of the site accesses, and to recommend access point locations. It was recognized during the study process the need for, and length of needed turn lanes and how those lengths would interact with neighboring intersections and improvements and their affect on recommended intersection configurations. Four parameters were used in order to reach the recommendations: current land uses in the area, traffic volumes, the capacity analysis results, and the turn lane length of need analysis results. According to the Collier County Right -of Way Ordinance 42003 -37, left and right turn lanes must be provided at accesses on multilane highways. The FDOT Standard Index 301 and Figure 3 -15 of the Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards were used for conceptual geometric design (see Appendix). FDOT uses the roadway posted speed as the turn lane entry speed. According to FDOT Index 301, the deceleration lane length for a 45 mph posted speed is 350 feet, which is consistent with a 55 mph design speed. The FDOT Manual on Uniform Minimum Standards recommends a 50- foot minimum storage length for left turn lanes. The turn lanes on Collier Boulevard (SR 95 1) north of Eagle Creek and on US 41 should therefore be furnished with 350 -foot deceleration Tamlami Crossing 13 80674_ZTIS- 003.doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 176 of 181 lanes in addition to the applicable storage lanes. Deceleration lane lengths of need on SR 951 south of Eagle Creek should be 460 feet long. Long left turn lanes should be used cautiously because of the potential to increase left -turn and rear -end conflicts. Every vehicle which joins the queue is exposed to a higher rear -end conflict than in a through lane because long left turn lanes encourage high approach speeds impacting of intersection safety. According to the Plans Preparation Manual (PPM), "computer programs, such as TRANSYT- 7F, are used to develop signal phasing and timing. One of the outputs of these programs is the queue length. For projects where traffic signal timing is included as a part of the project, the output of these programs should be considered in determining storage length." SYNCHRO40 was used to analyze the operational characteristics of the signalized intersection. The PPM does not specify S'YNCHROO because that program was not in general use when this PPM note was written; however, it has since been accepted by FDOT for operational and coordinated timing analyses. Since this program generally computes queue lengths that are consistent with those resulting from current Highway Capacity Manual procedures, its queue storage output computations should be considered during the storage length determination process. SR 951 & Wal -Mart: (South Access) Access Point Location The access should be located on Collier Boulevard (SR 951), approximately 2,500 feet south of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) & US 41 intersection centerline. Southbound Left Turn Analysis This project is estimated to generate 148 southbound left turning movements during the PM peak hour. The total southbound left turn movements are 520 vph. Based on this information, a dual southbound left turn lane will be warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and Wal -Mart (South Access) intersection. The computed 95Th- percentile queue length was 277 feet. If the PPM queue computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 433 feet long. This dual tuns lane should be 800 feet long (450 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper). Sufficient Tamiaml Crossing 14 80874_ZTI5,003.doc Agenda Item No. 86 July 22, 2008 Page 177 of 181 longitudinal space should be available for the southbound left turn lane in order to avoid restricted length. Northboun 1 ight Turn Analysis This project is estimated to generate 0 northbound right turning movements during the PM peak hour, The total northbound right turn movements are 348 vph. Based on this information, a northbound right tun lane will be warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Eagle Creek Drive Access. The computed 95 °i- percentile queue length was 90 feet. if the PPM queue computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 580 feet long. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right turn lanes are generally made more efficiently than left turn lanes. A northbound right tutu lane is therefore warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and Wal- Mart South Access intersection. This proposed right turn lane should be 450 feet long (100 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with 50 -foot taper). Sufficient longitudinal space is available for the northbound right turn lane. Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Westbound Approach) This project is estimated to generate 198 westbound left turning movements during the PM peak hour, The total westbound left turn movements are 525 vph, The computed 95'h- percentile queue length was 284 feet. The westbound access lane configuration consists of an exclusive dual westbound left turn lane, exclusive right turn lane. At least 300 feet of storage should be provided before the first side street access opening, in order to avoid queue blockage. SR 951 & North Access Access Point Location The access should be located on Collier Boulevard (SR 951), approximately 910 feet south of Collier Boulevard (CR 95 1) & US 41 intersection ccnterline. The north access is proposed to be an unsignalized Right h>/Right Out (Rl /RO) access. Tamlaml Crossing Is 80874 ZTIS- 003.doc Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 178 of 181 Northbound Right Turn Ana�sjs This project is estimated to generate 108 northbound right turning movements during the PM peak hour. Based on this information, a northbound right turn lane will be warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & North Access. The computed 95`h- percentile queue length was 0 foot. If the PPM queue computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 180 feet long. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right turn lanes are generally made more efficiently than left turn lanes. A northbound right turn lane is therefore warranted at SR 951 and North Access, This turn lane should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper). Sufficient longitudinal space is available for the northbound right turn lane. Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Westbound Approach) This project is estimated to generate 182 westbound right turning movements during the PM peak hour. The computed 95 "i- percentile queue length was 78 feet, The westbound access lane configuration consists of an exclusive right turn lane. At least 100 feet of storage should be provided before the first side street access opening, in order to prevent queue blockage. US 41 & West Access Access Point Location The access should be located on US 41 approximately 1,480 feet cast of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & US 41 intersection centerline, The west access is proposed to be an unsignalized Right In/Right Out (RI /RO) access. Eastbound Right Turn Ana sis This project is estimated to generate 139 eastbound right turning movements during the PM peak hour. This exceeds the 40 vph threshold value. Based on this information, a northbound right turn lane will be warranted at the US 41 & West Access. The computed 95th- percentile queue length was 0 foot. If the PPM queue computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 232 feet Iong. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right turn lanes are generally made more efficiently than left turn lanes. Tamlami Crossing 16 80874 ZTIS- 003,doc Agenda Item No. 8B July 22, 2008 Page 179 of 181 An eastbound right turn lane is therefore warranted at US 41 and West Access. This turn lane should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage 4- 350 foot deceleration lane with taper), Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis {Northbound Approachl This project is estimated to generate 53 northbound right turning movements during the PM peak hour. The computed 95 °i- percentile queue length was 13 feet. The northbound access lane configuration consists of an exclusive right turn lane. At least 50 feet of storage should be provided before the first side street access opening, in order to prevent queue blockage. US 41 & East Access Access Point Location The access should be located on US 41 approximately 3,310 feet east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & US 41 intersection centerline. The east access is proposed to be a signalized full- movement access intersection. Westbound Left Turn Analysis This project is estimated to generate 86 westbound left turning movements during the PM peak hour. The total westbound left turn movements are 129 vph. Based on this information, a westbound left turn lane will be warranted at the US 41 & East Access. The computed 95ri'- percentile queue length was 160 feet. The PPM formula results in 215 -foot queue length computation. This turn lane should be 575 feet long (225 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper). Sufficient longitudinal space should be available for the westbound left turn lane in order not to affect the bridge at Henderson Creek, Eastbound Right Turn Analysis This project is estimated to generate 12 eastbound right turning movements during the PM peak hour, The total eastbound right turn movements are 32 vph. Based on this information, an eastbound right turn lane will be warranted at the US 41 & East Access. The computed 95u'- percentile queue length was 15 feet. If the PPM queue computation was used, the turn lane of need would be 53 feet long. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right _ turn lanes are generally made more efficiently than left turn lanes. Tamiaml Crossing 17 s0874_Zns- 003.doc Agenda Item No. 88 July 22, 2008 Page 180 of 181 An eastbound right turn lane is therefore warranted at the US 41 and West Access intersection, This turn lane should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper). Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Northbound Approach) This project is estimated to generate 62 northbound left turning movements during the PM peak hour. The computed 95'h- percentile queue length was 105 feet. The northbound access lane configuration consists of exclusive northbound left and right turn lanes, At least 125 feet of storage should be provided before the first side street access opening, in order to prevent queue blockage. PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSES Preliminary traffic signal warrant analyses were conducted on the US 41 & East Access intersection. Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volume) of the Manual on Uniform Tra,Tic Control Devices (MUTCD) was used for this evaluation. The preliminary warrant analyses suggest that the intersection may meet traffic signal warrants during the PM peak hour. Comprehensive projected traffic signal warrant analyses should be performed at the SDP stage. IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS Because many of the analyses were addressed in previous sections, this improvement analysis section will be limited to a conclusive narrative. As shown in Table 5, the link level of service analyses indicate that US 41 from Collier Boulevard (SR 951) to San Marco Road is projected to operate in excess of the performance standard maximum service flowrates (SF,,,,,x) under Background Traffic conditions. The only feasible mitigation strategy consists of widening US 41 east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) to a four lane facility. SR 951 from US 41 to the Wal -Mart South Access intersection was analyzed as a six -lane facility under Total Traffic conditions. This roadway segment is projected to operate within as a six -lane facility. US 41 from Collier Boulevard (CR 951) to Gmenway Road is projected to operate in excess of SF,,, , under background and total traffic conditions, because no widening was considered in this analysis. Tamiaml Crossing I8 80874_ZTIS -003.doc Agenda Item No. 813 July 22, 2008 Page 181 of 181 The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed in order to accommodate projected total traffic: Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Wal -Mart South Access: • Full - movement signalized intersection • 800 -foot southbound dual left turn lane • 450 -foot northbound exclusive right turn lane • 300 -foot westbound dual left turn lane. Collier Boulevard (SR 95 1) & North Access: • Right In /Right Out unsignalized intersection • 400 -foot northbound exclusive right turn lane • 100 -foot westbound right turn lane US 41 & West Access: • Right In /Right Out unsignalized intersection • 400•foot eastbound right turn lane • 50 -foot northbound exclusive right turn lane US 41 & Bast Access: • Full- movement signalized intersection • 400 -foot eastbound right turn lane • 575 -foot westbound left turn lane • 125 -foot northbound exclusive left turn lane The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fees as building permits are issued for the proposed project. Tamiam! Crossing 19 80874_ZTI5•001doc