Agenda 09/09-10/2008 Item # 8E
N~Ge~~EM
~&
~ "~:.' ,"
'-', ,:...' L,~'
V_. ....,.,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
"J I D.(2 101-
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, 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.
1--
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. On April 22, 2008, the BCC approved a Small-
Scale GMP amendment (CPSS-06-01), which incorporated a 7.3-acre parcel at the extreme
southeastern comer of the property, designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, into Activity
Center No. 18. As a result of this amendment, the entire site was converted to Mixed Use
Activity Center No. 18, except for 0.88 acres along the southernmost property boundary, which
still remains part of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict and is the subject of a second
companion item, PUDA-2007-AR-11734, described below.
As described in the companion item to this rezone petition (pUDA-2007-AR-11734, the "Artesa
Pointe PUDA"), the petitioner 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, the 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-l) through the Heavy Commercial (C-5) zoning districts. The proposed
Page 1019
_r---.,-._.:..._~.__
, ....\...;._.\.JJ .."rt:~
' No._ ~ 8:-! -'" ;;
SEP () tI 20;)r;;
Pi}=. f:).. -0+ I .
-~.~
--
CPUD, if approved, would allow for 235,000 square feet of general commercial and retail uses
consistent with these districts.
The petitioner had originally submitted one Master Plan for staff to review (plan A, Exhibit C-1
of the PUD documents attached to the Ordinance). However, in order to address concerns
expressed about the project, now proposes a second option (Plan B, Exhibit C-2 of the PUD
documents). Only one of these options would the developer be allowed to select and pursue. Plan
A would 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, the developer would be required to
maintain a 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 e1ement(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, the applicant is requesting four deviations from
the design standards of the Land Development Code and has provided justification to support
them. 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, for the portion of the site
immediately north of Tract A on both Master Plan A and B. According to the petitioner, the
purpose of this deviation is to permit a travel aisle in this location to facilitate the circulation
of traffic on the site. Because the applicant has committed to providing more than enough
plant material to compensate for this lost buffer within the enhanced landscaping buffers
committed to along Collier Boulevard and the Tamiami Trail (to screen the site from these
roadways, as depicted in Exhibit G of the Ordinance), staff recommends approval of this
deviation.
Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.C.l, 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 penuit 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 1,000-foot separation between the two signs. The provision further
states that, "[i]n no case shall the number of pole or ground signs exceed two per street
frontage."
Page 2 019
,..
AGE~ -:-,~'---,
No. . ~IL.l.j ,
SEP ().j
Pg 3 i:l+ I D
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
feet apart (see the monument signs' locations on the Conceptual Master Plans) instead ofthe
1,000 feet required, 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 pennitted by the LDC.
Deviation 3 seeks relief from Subsection 5.05.08E.jor Master PlanA only. This subsection
permits no more than 50 percent of the required parking for interior lots to be located
between the primary fa(:ade of a building and its abutting street. The applicant would like to
permit 100 percent of the required parking between the proposed big-box's primary fa(:ade
and the Collier Boulevard frontage, justifying doing so because of the irregular shape of the
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 resultant expanse of parking by greatly 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. As such, staff supports this
waiver.
FISCAL IMP ACT:
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 GMP's 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 ] 0.02.07(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.
Page 3 of9
'~-----,-->
,\~1_-'_)___" -,
No. ._, ...,1.", -J;
&-
SEP 0 9 2008
Pg~-t JS?
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.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) IMPACT:
Future Land Use Element (FLUE): 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 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-1l734) seeks an
amendment to remove the aforementioned 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 would be constructed on this acreage.
(
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. (The list of factors to consider during review of such a rezone petition have been
analyzed by staff on pages four and five of the original staff report, followed by all other
applicable FLUE policies.)
FLUE Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that the proposed rezone
may be found consistent with the FLUE.
Conservation & Coastal Management Element: As outlined on pages six and seven of the
staff report, this project is consistent with all of the applicable policies and objectives of the
Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP.
Transportation Element: The petitioner is part of a US-41 consortium that has entered into a
Developer Contribution Agreement (DCA) to fund and construct roadway improvements to the
intersection of US-41/CR-951 and a portion of US-4 I east of the intersection. The consortium
has until October 31,2008 to post a bond or amend the agreement. The DCA terms withhold
issuance of the certificates of occupancy until the bond is posted and subsequent milestones are
met. Compliance with the tenns of the DCA satisfies the transportation element of the GMP.
Should the petitioner, as part of the consortium, fail to post the bond or amend the agreement by
October 31,2008, the county would suspend all development orders until roadway concurrency
has been satisfied.
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
Page 4 of 9
.
I N~Gt:;J'jl#~i;~:':~'
Po SE50~r~J
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. As depicted
on the CPUD Master Plans, the applicant has provided the required 3.43 acres of native
vegetation on the site, and has committed to supplying 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 by staff.
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, 8.3. ofthe PUD document, and has
added "as required by South Florida Water Management District," as requested by the Collier
County Planning Commission at their July] 7,2008 hearing.
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION:
The CCPC heard this petition on March 20, 2008, and voted 6-3 to forward it to the 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 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 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
Page Sof9
N~Gl::~~~,:1 ..::' I I
SEP C D ryOfiM !
Pg l.c 0 + I 010
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 I, 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.
However, on June 5, 2008, the applicant requested that the item be continued from its scheduled
BCC hearing in order to make revisions to address concerns; and that the item be re-heard by the
CCPC at their July 17, 2008 hearing.
The applicant's resubmitted proposal incorporated all seven of the CCPC's recommended
changes, as 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. In addition, it included a commitment to
provide early, 19th century Old Florida style architecture, while proposing an alternative
Conceptual Master Plan (plan B, included as Exhibit C-2 of the PUD document), thereby
pennitting two options for development of the site. As shown, Plan B would allocate the square
footage proposed for the large retail building depicted in Tract C in Conceptual Master Plan A
(Exhibit C-l 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 were found for the
site and Plan A was implemented, the developer would be required to maintain a further reduced
zoned building height of29 feet (32 actual feet) along any portion of the building within 200 feet
of the US 41 right-of-way line. The only exception would be for an architectural tower element,
which would be permitted a maximum zoned height of 3 5 feet and 38 actual feet. Signage would
be prohibited on any proposed tower element.
As noted the attached Supplemental Staff Report, the CCPC re-heard the petition at their July 17,
2008 meeting and, this time, unanimously voted (6-0) to forward it to the BCC with a
recommendation of approval, subject to minor revisions to the CPUD document that have been
incorporated into the attached ordinance. Because this item received a unanimous
recommendation of approval and no letters of objection were received from the community, it
has been placed on the BCC's Summary Agenda.
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 the 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 6 of 9
; J;0:::~\:~.lI\ ~ ' ,"\ j
'No. C-<. ,
I SEP 0 S - 20.""' I
pg7 0 ~ ~"1}
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 following questions. The answers assist you in making a determination for
approval or not.
1. Consider: The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development
proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic
and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities.
2. Is there an adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements,
contract, or other instruments or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as
they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation
and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained
at public expense? Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only
after consultation with the County Attorney.
3. Consider: Conformity of the proposed 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 detennination that such modifications
are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal
application of such regulations.
9. WiU 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 7 019
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
11.
NJ-\l;Jt..j\.lU~;~~-:,~ , "-
o. "tl:.. '.. J
SEP 0 i? ?W~
b-J-- IU
an I -
Pg
Would the requested CPUD Rezone result in the possible creation 0
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?
IS.
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 vehicwar traffic, including activity during construction
phases of the development, or otherwise affect public sqfety?
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?
Consider: Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to
an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare.
Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot ("reasonably") be used In
accordance with existing zoning? (a "core" question...)
Is the change suggested out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the
county?
Consider: Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the
proposed use in districts already permitting such use.
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.
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 8 019
'<~.._-
/; N~~=- ~E?"-'
SEP oj, ,I
-"FJL~.9L_~f-~19t.-
~-'.
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-I0875, subject to the minor revisions
to the PUD documents as recommended by the CCPC, which have been incorporated by staff
into the attached ordinance.
PREPARED BY:
John-David Moss, AICP, Principal Planner
Department of Zoning & Land Development Review
Page 9 of 9
0(,:
c/q/q/[8
NAo GENOA ITEM
. () l;" -
SEP 0 fi 20flH
Pg 10 ,f-IOt-
At the petitioner's request, this item is continued from the July 22, 2008 BCe meeting and is
further continued to the September 9, 2008 BCC meeting. This item must be heard AFTER PUDA-
2007-AR-11734 and requires that all participants be sworn in and ex parte disclosure be provided
by Commission members. Petition: PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Q 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).
Prepared By:
Depariment Date
County Attorney 8/26120082:56:15 PM
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
Zoning and Land
Development Approved 9/2/2008 10:03 AM
Review
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
Transportation Approved 9/2/2008 10:39 AM
Planning
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
County Attorney Approved 9/2/2008 4:25 PM
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
County Attorney Approved 9/2/2008 4:25 PM
Approved By:
Department Approval Date
CDES Approved 9/2/20084:32 PM
Approved By:
Department Approval
Office of
Management Approved
and Budget
Approved By:
Department Approval
County Attorney Approved
Approved By:
Department Approval
CDES Approved
Approved By:
Department Approval
Office of
Management Approved
and Budget
Approved By:
Department Approval
County Approved
Manager's Office
Date
9/31200811:14 AM
Date
9/2/2008 4:25 PM
Date
9/2/2008 4:32 PM
Date
9/3/2008 11 '14 AM
Date
9/3/200812:59 PM
ATTACHMENT&:.
Name"
Description
Cl Einal
I;X[;.c_UTIVE SJ"JMMA8Y 19-2-
08l-doc
D EU_QZ-2006-AR-1087Q..
Tamiami Crossina CPUD,odf
D t<1lm9.QILQ.Q1
D$J,!Q.Q.J;1.Qf
Cl e[1y~taff rw-29f
D tis,odf
CI tam ord.odf
Executive Summary
Original Staff Report
Application
Supplemental Staff Report
EAC Staff Report
TIS
Ordinance
Type"
Executive Summary
Staff Report
Application
Staff Report
Backup Material
BaCkup Material
Ordinance
Pg:
b+ I (:)
Co~r County
s~
A ~EfE;"~
SEP ~ E:: "I'i'
~ ",. T.'..:.I
Pg f~ 0+' ID
STAFF REPORT
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
DIVISION
HEAlUNG DATE: MARCH 20, 2008
SUBJECT:
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, TAMIAMI CROSSING COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
COMPANION ITEMS: PUDA-2007-AR-1l734 AND CPSS-06-0l
APPLICANT:
John A. Kite and Alvin E. Kite, Jr.
KRG951 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
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REOUESTED ACTION:
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-4I) 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-2006-AR-10875. Tamiami Crossing
I:~
NAGEN[)f\ ii 1::1\;
0::_ ~t= Ii
i:lU' n.~ :.;:.
J3 4l~/Pl-
.. i
Il.
<(
~
C)
Z
Z
o
N
,
O~
~a
.
on
....
'"
o
~
19t -'YS
DI/V~n.ou YJrrm
,
0:
<:
,
'"
o
o
N
,
N
C
a.
..
Z
o
!::
I-
W
a.
Il.
<(
~
tiz
W2
"">t(
00
g:g
"IIi
.
z
o
I-
4:
()
o
-'
%
-~""""
~'"'
.1 I l
!i' ,
.
.
I
.
l
,
.
O ZU>Z
: ~~-
:! 5~@
gu) ~:J~
f-~ o"'tO
tnUJ ~~g:
tritn 00
=>0: I-:::!:D:::
VJ5 1-::>0
~f3 id~ffi
0" ;a~z
:i:~ ~<~
ii!~ \1:iii!
:J:::E <(>w
~ffi UJ~lf.I
ZQ. !;iD:...J
~t :!~~
<i!ffi ~~U)d
~~ g:o..z9
tho ~~Q~
uJ- ~o.\il-
8~ ~~~~
(/)z t3~~:;
;Q Gw ~
5~ ~~~~
o..u; UUl~~
.. ~ g ~ ~ Z 0
~ t-~ ~~~~
Z .-'
oJ
zw
OU>
1="
"'0
~~
il!~
,,~
:8'"
ciU
WZ
IO
~ffi
00
offi
i"I
Uw
"I
I'r-
U>Z
15"
Ut:
W~
"'0
~W
~~
IU
U>O
U>~
~~ti
0"'''
5~~
"'r-O
o~"l
zO",
M
J'I'I"'-~..'-'" '..,
l\ll . .~,_.,..-~
III
Ih"
'L ,11.
il
h
i
i
,
;,!
21
11
'1
; I
.,
11.1"' '.
/1 .
; (
;, I
, !
"'
~
+,
~
:;\
N
"
i
>-
~
~
"
"'
w w
r- r-
"' "'
'"
8r-
iitll
"'~
~~
"a
""'
"'
~ ~
u: "
VI ~ ~ ~ ~
z ~ <( z U)
g ~ ~ ~ ~
..... m w ;t w
;; ~
w
o
81i'!l6&
Pg
V
x< "
WO ,
~ ~ ~i
~ u ~
'" 5
e:: U "'
~"
<1~
I. ."
111// ~
I . i./ ~!'
,! .'.;' vi I
.,/.:"." i"l
," g !
~il! I
011' 'I
~ii!.III
z'I" !
~ll
~i: I'
~. ~g;
o
. 8 .
.. i:l ~ ; ~
. 0,
.--- ,"
" - !i1 .. ~ ~ \..
. :!P.l
<> a ~ ~ ~
@~
,.
Hi
--I
~
i
~
e
PURPOSEffiESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
I N~~EN..6~'\ .
. SEP (1.~ "fir, 'J
__!"II !<)i:lf-/b
-
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-06-0I) 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
propelty boundary, which would remain palt of the Henderson Creek Mixed Use
Subdistrict and which is the subject of a second companion item, PUDA-2007-AR-II734,
described below.
PUDA-2007-AR-II734 (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 mal'ks 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 Altesa Pointe POD 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 sW'face 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-I)
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-I0875, Tamiami Crossing
2
NAGENDA rrEM
D. OF f
"SEt ~ ';JIO~
structures, with actual height, including appurtenances, permitted a maximum height of 67 eeL ,"",
The project is bordered by US 41 to the north and CR 951 to the west. The Mastel' Plan
indicates that the project would have two access points from Collier Boulevard and three from
US 41.
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING:
West:
US 41, then a CVS Pharmacy, undeveloped land and commercial uses; zoned
Conunercial Convenience (C-2), General Conunercial (C-4) and Heavy Commercial
(C-5)
State-owned conservation land; zoned Rural Agricultural (A)
Wal-Mart and Habitat for Humanity single-family residences; zoned Artesa Pointe
PUD
Shell gas station and Circle-K, then CR-951 and commercial uses; zoned C-4,
Residential Single Family (RSF-3) (an Embarq telecommunications station) and Eagle
Creek PUD
North:
East:
South:
GMP CONSISTENCY:
As previously stated, the subject prope:ty 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 1018.15 acres of A, C-2, and C-4 zoned properties. A petition for 107.3 acres,
cUlTentIy zoned A and designated Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict, has been submitted to the
Comprehensive Planning Depa:tment 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 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.
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 conunercial development and to create focal points
within the commw1ity.
Factors to consider during review of a rezone petition are as follows:
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Tamiami Crossil1g
3
AGE~i~
,~~310 :jPn;.J
"Rezones within Mixed Use Activity Centers are encouraged to be in tlte form of a Planned
Unit Development. Tltere sltall be no minimum acreage limitation for suclt Planned Unit
Developments except requests for rezoning must meet tire requirements for rezoning in the
Land Development Code." The project was submitted as a Commercial Planned Unit
Development.
"Tire amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed
commercial uses, witltin 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 propeliy is zoned C-2, C-4 and A, and is compatible
with the sUl'I'ounding 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 tlte proposed commercial land uses to be used as a
guide to explore tlte 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. FUliher,
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 witltin 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 tile proposed development witll, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining
properties." Compatibility is required by FLUE Policy 5.4. Comprehensive Planning staff
defers a compatibility detennination to the Depaliment 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 tile Land Development Code." This criterion is reviewed by
Zoning and Land Development Review staff in the "Zoning Review" pOliion of this repOli.
"Conformance witlt Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers
contained in tlte Land Development Code. " Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the
PUDZ-2006-AR-J0875. Tamiaml Crossing
4
'~I"'~
''10 ... vUA ~-:-:::-~.
'~~il'.;'
'Ln.D~
SfP1ln ; I
Pg- I~' :jl~
petition for compliance with access requirements, and necessary provisions have been included -=
in Exhibit F ofthe 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 extemal vehicular Ilnd pedestrian
interconnections." A Traffic Impact Analysis was conducted, and the petition has undergone a
detailed traffic review by the Transportation Plalming Depaltment.
"Interconnection(s) for pedestrian, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future
adjacent projects." The project proposes two vehicular and pedestrian interconnects to the
Altesa Pointe PUD located along the project's southwestern and southeastern boundaries.
"Conformance with architectural design standards as identified in tlie Land Development
Code." Specific architectural design provisions of the LDC shall apply, However, staff leaves
the detelmination to the Zoning alId Land Development Review Depaltment 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 palt 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
neal'by 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 propcrty 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-inlright-outs and one full access (the southernmost); and along CR 951, a minor mterial
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 Bouleval'd.
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Tamiami Crossing
5
Ii N/'~cNG01-~I'
O. ~ _ I
I pgl~it I~l-f
-.'. .!
\
,
\
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 01' plat. (To address this issue, a developer commitment has
been included in Exhibit F, 2.F.7., requiring two vehicular and pedestrian intercOlmections 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 Iypes 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
asselts, "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 pennanent conservation mechanism to prohibit
fUlther development. Selection of preserves are consistent with the criteria listed in
Policy 6.1.1.
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Tamlami Crossing
6
N~~\ i7EF-
E;-W
t) '-e.
pg_Sf: '?f-lL_
. 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 petmitting 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 sUPPOlting 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:
Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition and the LDC criteria
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Tamlami C/'Ossing
7
I
,I .Ill +-j"-1 Q
,_1'\1 .~_ ~
~~---.._.-."...~-~._-~
AGENW\ ITEM-
No. <6b
SEP c');- ,/\1;)'-,:;
upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Sections 10.02.13.B.5. and
1O.03.05.H, which establish factual bases to suppott 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 staffreport as Exhibits A and B. In addition to Ihese 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 Ihan 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 repOlt, below.
TransTJortation Review: Transportation Depaltment staff has reviewed the petition and the
applicant has incorporated Transportation staffs revisions within the CPUD document. The US
41 consottium 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, TranspOltation Planning staff is recommending
approval of the petition, subject to the transpOltation-related commitments contained in the
CPUD document, and will withhold all Certificates of Occupancy until the necessary bond is
posted.
Utilitv 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
l6-inch water main and al6-inch force main along the Tamiami Trail.
Emerzencv Manazement: 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.
Zoninf! 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/stol1TIWater management area on the other. As a result of this design approach,
compatibility with surrounding parcels is achieved since the proposed commercial uses al'e
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
A.1tesa 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-J0875, Tamiaml Crossing
8
r
AGEN(!JI ITEM
- I
b+:J~2-'
_c.___,,;;,;,,~:::...,_,:
SEP
~,&>vR~
conservation land to the east would be adequately separated from the CPUD by a ten-foot wide
Type A buffer. AID-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 A1iesa Pointe's
commercial uses; and a Type A at the project's interface with A1.tesa Pointe's nature
preserve/water management area. The buffer would also be Type A along the subject propeliy'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 propeliy
would be separated from other commercial uses along CR 951 by a I O-foot wide Type A buffer.
However, because the aforementioned Embarq station is actually located on a parcel zoned
RSF-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 repOli, below.
The CPUD's development standards are contained in Exhibit B, Table 1. of the CPUD
document. As the uses proposed for the Tamiami Crossing CPUD are consistent with those
permitted in the C-l 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 ofLDC
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Tamiaml Crossing
75 feet
75 feet
25 feet
25 feet
15 feet
25 feet
25 feet
50% of building height; but ;:25 feet
"
50% of building height; but;:15 feet
50% of building height; but ;:25 feet
"
10 feet
15 feet
10 feet
25 feet
The greater of 10 feet or
the sum of building
hei hts
Zoned 60 feet; actual 65
feet
1,000 sq. ft. per
subdivided lot
235,000 sq. ft.
none
"
"
25 reet
none
50 feet
700 sq. ft. (ground floor)
none
9
I N~GEN~~i,:';'
... SCp".. 'inrl" J-
IUC .' .
'I" d~ o+/IJ
! ----5L..,~~~,~':~~~=:~"..:.:..=.:..._... ,'~
abutting roadways and uses. (It should be noted that although setbacks from Artesa Pointe are
proposed to be only 15 feet, Enviromnental Services staff has verified that tbat 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 commilment (in
Exhibit F, section 0.2.) stating that the Type D buffer shown would be supplemented to the
extent depicted in Exhibit 0, entitled "Enhanced Landscape Buffer." The purpose of tllis
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 trees 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, 01' 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 aforemenlioned 3.43-acre preserve.
As illustrated in the following table, accessory structures would require front Ylll'ds to be a
minimum of zero feet. Staff does not support this setback since "accessory snuctures" per the
LDC include parking structmes, 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
10 feet
10 feet
10 feet
parking structures
35 feet;
utility buildings 10
feet;
all others: S.P.s.
10 feet
if parking structure,
1 foot pel' every foot
of building height;
all others: ] 0 feet
none
10 feet
25 feet
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875, Tamiami Crossing
10
I____
-
NAGEND(1L"";;-- -
o. __~ .l;:rVj
SEe () G, . '/flfl-:;j
Yg~ t.f -~-!l(j
--.;;:::~'.......... - ,
~
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
overdeveloped 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 ft:om 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 fUlther exacerbated by the
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875. Tamiami Crossing
11
. ~::p~~T:~,~
'!l..l"9 .J~:~~{~.
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 S.06.04.C.1, which permits a maximum of two 80-
square foot on-premises pole 01' 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 cwnulative 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 S.06.04.C. states that shopping centers having frontage of ISO feet 01' more on a
public street shall be pernutted 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 ruther states that, "[i]n no case shall
the number of pole or growld 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 feet apalt
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 maximwn signage area
permitted by the LDC.
Deviation 3 seeks relief fi'om Section S.OS.08.E., which pelmits no more than SO percent of the
required parking for interior lots to be located between the primary fayade of a building and its
abutting street. The applicant would like to permit 100 percent of the required parking between
its primary fayade and the Collier Boulevard frontage, juslifying doing so because ofthe ilTegular
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 paltitioning 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 S.03.02.E, which requires a masonry wall between
commercial and residential propelties. Because the RSF-3 site is actually occupied by an
Embarq station that is sW'rounded by other conunercial uses; and the residential uses of Altesa
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-J0875, Tamiami Crossing
12
NAGENDA iTEM
o. ~~ I
pgJ!~ SJ'i;'DJ-
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC):
This petition was heard by the EAC on March 5, 2008, and received a unanimous vote(8-0)
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.
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIMl:
(Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator)
The applicant duly noticed and held the NIM for Tamiami Crossing, Artesa Pointe (P0DA-
2007-AR-1I734), 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, PIatming Commissioner Bob Murray,
the applicant and his agents.
Most of the questions posed by attendees focused on traffic impacts and the County's
Transportation Divisions' plans for area road improvements. The applicant told the audience
that a signal on 0S-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 Altesa
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 Tat'get 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 Y ovanovich, 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-Matt in Artesa Pointe had been
approved without adequate notification of the public hearing date. Mr. Y ovanovich 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. TranspOltation Planning Director Nick
Casalanguida said he and the applicant's team would remain after the meeting to discuss
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875. Tamiami Crossing
13
I.. ,:GE~~,,-
. "Ep \ :'i!;- I
d~~ci.+ -'/-L~
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 (CCPC) forward Petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875 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 Attesa 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 predevelopmenlloading 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 NOVO or above.
Staff also recommends approval of the applicant's requested deviations exceptfor Deviation #1,
which requests a waiver of the LDC's requirement for Type A buffers between separately platted
tracts without any mitigation for its impacts. However, should the Board choose to recommend
approval of Deviation # I, staff recollU11ends that Deviation #3 be denied, which staff SUppOlts
only subject to the denial of Deviation #1.
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Tamiami Crossing
14
PREPARED BY:
NAGENDA ITE/Vi
. o~EP B ~,:) I
!. Pg RR ';)+ li/l~
_2::':_~::~.:.::::.:. "_~
~
J -DAVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
....
;L/J..-F'j 0 g
/ DATE
REVIEWED BY:
O1I~M^-' 001 [1/7-,",'-&1/):; -;2t{,~~
MARJO M. STUDENT-STIRLING U
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
~/ ~'-!6(j
, DATE
~ 3h~r
V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER ' , DATE
NT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~lrn.~
AUSAN M. ISTENES, AICP, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
v,!? /O~
DATE
APPROVED BY:
310 /v~
PH K. SCH ITT ADMIN STRATOR I / DATE
MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
Tentatively scheduled for the March 20, 2008 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION:
MeAL. P ~
\ -
MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN
3- 2.O'o~
DATE
Exhibits: A. Rezone Findings
B. PUD Findings
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875, Tamlami Crassing
14
EXHIBIT A
I AGENDI)J+EM J
No. '5
., SF ~ 20fJi
I l'li - ")(I:9..Qr_L D
~~:~:~;.;;.:.;...~-
"
REZONE FINDINGS
PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-I0875
Tamiami Crossing CPUD
Chapter IO.03.05,G 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:
1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, & policies
of the Future Land Use Map and the clements 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 #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 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 #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 0.88 acres, which would remain under the
Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict designation.
2. The existing land use pattern;
Findimrs: 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-I 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 sUl1'0unded 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 dislrict boundaries are not illogically drawn.
Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A
N~~~'
SEP 0 S ?nr(!
Pg 3jC, , 6 F-{t:J
make the passage of the propuslm=>-~"
s.
Whether changed or changing conditions
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 10 residential uses
in the Artesa Pointe PUD. Furthermore, Ihe proposed use for the propelty would be
similar to that already approved for the Artesa Pointe PUD.
7. Whether the proposed change will create 01' excessively increase traffic congestion
or cl'eate types of traffic deemed incompatible with snrrounding 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 TranspOltation 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 OMP have regulations in place to enstU'e review for
adequate drainage on the proposed Tamiami Crossing CPUD.
9. Whethel' 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 propelties.
10. 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 mayor 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 stU'rounding developments.
Page 2 of4
EXHIBIT A
l N~GEr :EM --.
I SEP" :;11:,'
:, Pg.. Qj_J?~ U~
--_~..______.___.......;::-..:=;;...,~.r'
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 propelties,
12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special ptOivilege 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 OMP 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;
Findin~s: 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 OMP
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 OMP and the LDC, as was the Attesa Pointe PUDA proposed in
conjunction with this petition_
16. The physical characteristics of the pt'operty 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 of4
EXHIBIT A
1 NAGENDA~i,
_PgJ:2JIJ
--....._~-,}
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 ofthe GMP.
Page 4 of 4
EXHIBIT B
,i---,
/. N{;'...~E~\ ITEM
",~" E'
I ,)f-:' 'I' ~OOB
j- . J L . ,
!?~ It-:~+- L6,.1i
-~-'
FINDINGS FOR PUD
PETITION PUDA-2006-AR-I0875
Tamiami Crossing CPUD
Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Deveiopment 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, sewel", water, and other utilities.
Findings: 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 otber instl'uments, 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 arc 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 GI'owth Management Plan (GMP).
Findings: The project as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
which designates the subject propeliy 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 repmi.
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 repmi, the subject parcel is located in
Page I of2
r_I.~~
EXHIBIT B .. SEP O. 0 100~. I
. .. .. .~~-,L
both the Mixed Use ActlVlty Center Subdlstnct 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 relieffrom the requirement ofLDC Section 4.06.02, which requires
a landscape buffer between platted commercial building lols. Staff is strongly opposed to any
such a deviation, as it amounts to an unconditional waiver of the LDC's landscape
requirements without any SOlt 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
developmeut.
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-ofwhich 15 percent would be held in a
3.43-acre preserve.
6. The timing 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 known 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 celtification 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 buffers and deviations recommended by staff will
ensure compatibility with the adjacent propelties.
Page 2 of2
"
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 HIE
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 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY.
FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 24.45:t ACRES; AND BY
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, KRG 951 and 41. LLC, represented by Wayne Arnold, 01 Q. Grady
Minor & Associates, petidoned (he 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, tbat:
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 Painte 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. auached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps,
as described in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of
State.
Page 1 of 2
I' /IGENDA jTl::I':
0, n 'S~ i
.. .:;,F:- () 9 200
Pg.3S: 0 f {07
.:;'
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority yote of the Board of County
N~GEN~~\;-L
SfP' ,
Pg '3 b () +-- (fJ
--~ "0
~'- -~-....:::...
Commissioners of Comer County, Florida, this __ day of
.2008,
ATTEST
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
, Deputy Clerk
By:
TOM HENNING. CHAIRMAN
By:
Approve.d as to form
and legal sufficiency:
I
~
;1i\ 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 Commitments
Page 2 of 2
COLLlER COUNTY GOVERNMENT
DEPT. OF ZONING & LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
WWW.COLLlERGOV.NET
(i)
! AGENDA .,.-~-
Ii NO~/--.~J'
(-P ,~C
'J,\ ~,), 7nm1
':c, 31 b+ 6
2800 NORTH HORSE:.iIIUE~
NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104
(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 CI'UD
Project: 200S060079
Datc: 10131107 DUE,12I4107
NAME OF APPLICANT (S) KRG 951 AND 41. LLC
ADDRESS 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN STREET. SUITE 1100 CITY INDIANAPOLIS STATE ill ZIP 46204-3565
TELEPHONE # 317-809-6960 CELL # FAX # 317-577-5605
E-MAIL ADDRESS;ESTRICKLAND@KITEREALTY.COM
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@GRADYMINOR.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 # FAX # 239-435-1218
E.MAIL ADDRESS: RYOVANOVICH@GCJLAW,COM
BE AWARE THAT COLLIER COUNTY HAS LOBBYIST REGULATIONS. GUIDE YOURSELF
ACCORDINGLY AND ENSURE THAT YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.
KITE951 PLN CPUD Rezone Petition.doc
N~GENDA ITEM -
S~EP ii' ",
, '., 'In. Q
'... '-' I ij'.l
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
KlTE951PLN CPUD Rezone Petition.doc
AGEN~; 'P'-
No, ,'€,\
SF-P \." 2nn:1
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
30 South Meridian Street. Suite 1100
Indianapolis, IN 46204-3565
100%
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
KlTE951 PLN crUD Rezone Petition.doc
Name and Address
If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a
Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers
below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partne . AGENDA iT~';-
No. (5 1::/\,
Percentage of Ownershi S.EP O~ 2.00B I
PYF iT) *{ o_t1-
e.
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 ~ 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2007 leased 0 'f.erm ef
~8aS8 _yrs}mes.
If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following:
Date of option:
Date option terminates:
Anticipated closing date:
, or
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 lellal description of the propertv covered bv 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 1" 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.
KlTE9S I PLN CPUD Rezone Petition.doc
NAGEND/\ !TEfl.: >~
o 1>E'
, ~y Sq 1".,~[Ii'~..
Section/Township/Range S3/T51S/R26E
Lot: Block: Subdivision:
Plat Book Page #: Property to. #: 00726240005. 00726080003, 00726160004, ,
00726120002,00726320006. 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 "0.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 "0.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"55'57" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 196.99 FEET TO THE NORTHERL YMOSTWESTERL Y CORNER OF SAID TRACT "C";
THENCE RUN SOUTH 02'30'29" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "C", FOR A DISTANCE OF
1 00.09 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 propertv: ft. X ft. = Total Sq. Ft. Acres 25.45:1:
Address/aenerallocation of subiect propertv: No site address, propertv is located on the south side of U.S.
41 approximatelv 300 feet east of Collier Boulevard.
PUD District (LOC 2.03.06):
o Residential 0 Community Facilities
~ Commercial 0 Industrial
':'i;~o,~;;~,j;~?'~~5~-;",~~ti~3;~~;1~t;~:;~\~i~~v.l1iIi&t,,~~14lN~;'~~P;~~t!l~\il;~~.;;~;);;''.t;~;;:ki$\~~~t~g~~i~lI!!~f~
Zoning
Land use
N C-2/ST, C-3/ST. CA, C-5, A
S PUD
EA
W PUD, C-4. RSF-3
Commercial. CVS Pharmacv and undeveloped land
Commercial and Residential. Artesa Pointe PUD
Undeveloped State owned land
Residential - EaDie Creek PUD, Countv Utilities, Convenience Store
KlTE95 I PLN crUD Rezone Petitioll.doc
Does the owner of the subject property own property contiguous to the subjec
give complete legal description of entire contiguous property. (If space Is i
on separate page). NO
p~GENDA ITE
de~&, t!tyI~aR
g~,10,c~ f- I~
-.,...,--._~
Section/Township/Range
Lot: Block:
Plat Book_ Page #:
Metes & Bounds Description:
_/ /
Subdivision:
Property 1.0, #:
!~~'jr1~~~~4ri'l~~~r~~f.i~l1Al~~~~~wlt~]r;I~;~~~::":.~iti~liil[~~~~i~~t~~j~~}i~.I~.~~$~~~~~_tl~t~jl~~
This application is requesting a rezone from the A. Rural Aqriculture. 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 Tamiaml 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 aiso 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.
KITE95 I PLN CPUD Rezone Petition.doc
The subject property is located in the Mixed Use Activity Center Sub Distr t k1.!ft~8rI~Ji.Mivit~ ~
Center #18) as identified on the Future Land Use Map, which permits land us s such as commercial. ~t
The site Is presently undeveloped, and all contiguous properties are being de . 10~!t~rrwoo-cla
and residential land uses. p 3 i> fIb
II" ~""";c.,_ .~
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.
KITE951PLN CPUD Re:tollc Petitioll.doc
8.
Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such e~~i~~Pf~ t
particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified s m~'b'Wblic ~
purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulati ns. Ll. U 200R
-Pg=-.-l u-t- (0
The proposed CPUD includes development standards and conditions which are con'sis1enrwllil"7;ffi'ilr~
similar types of commercial planned developments. The CPUD document and master plan includa
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? 0 Yes I:8J 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 supply
necessary information to continue processinq or otherwise actively pursue the rezoninq for a period
of six (6) months. An application deemed "ciosed" 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
.- a determination of "sufficiency". Further review of the project will be subject to the then current code.
., (LDC Section 10.03.05.0.)
KITE95 JPLN CPUD Rezono Petitioll.doc
r
THIS COMPLETED CHECKLIST IS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION PACKET IN THE EXACT ORDER LISTED BELOW
W/COVER SHEETS ATTACHED TO EACH SECTION.
NOTE: INCOMPLETE SUMBITTALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.
#OF
REQUIREMENTS COPIES
REQUIRED
NOT
REQUIRED
1 Additional set If located in the Bayshore/Gateway
Triangle
Redevelopment Area)
Co ies of detailed descrl tion of wh amendment Is necessar 24
Completed Application (download from webslte for current 24
form)
Pre-a licatlon meetin notes 24
PUD Document & Conceptual Site Plan 24" x 36" and One 8 )1," 24
x 11" co
Revised Conce tual Site Plan 24" x 36"and One 8 W x 11" co 24
Original PUD document and Master Plan 24" x 36" - ONLY IF 24
AMENDING THE PUD
Revised PUD document with chan es crossed thru & underlined 24
Revised PUD document w/amended Title page w/ord #'s, LDC 24
10.02.13.A.2
x
x
X
x
X
X
X
x
X
!'jfrc~;"ji;\:';lJf1;i;ifrnl[;\iiJ'litti7"","",~~""~~7~~~ ~". ,- .--- -- '"'P3l
,~ ,~' '- LeA -_ _ ..cc= _,-,,'1;jj',. h~'.;O",-' zo..!- ___ _ cO' ~ ,
Deeds/Legal's & Survey (if boundary of original PUD is
amended)
List identifying Owner & all parties of corporation
Owner/Affidavit signed & notarized
Covenant of Unified Control
Completed Addressing checklist
2
X
2
2
2
2
X
X
X
X
v-,,,~' . '.' ,.~="","~~,'='_P'_._~-- ,--.,"" "_-'\'j
,.;! ~1111'" li"),mF,#;b!~,','llll!h' '. c" ,
_ . 1 ~ _ __
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and digital/electronic
co of EIS or exem tion 'ustification 4
Historical Surveyor waiver request 4
Utility Provisions Statement w/sketches 4
Architectural rendering of proposed structures 4
Survey, signed & sealed 4
Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) or waiver 7
Recent Aerial Photograph (with habitat areas defined) min
scaled 1 "=400' 5
Electronic copy of all documents in Word format and plans
(CDRom or Diskette)
If located In RFMU (Rural Frinqe Mixed Use) Receivinq Land Areas
Applicant must contact Mr. Gerry J. Lacavera, State of Florida
Division of ForestrY~239-690-3 00 for infor~tion regarding
"Wildfire. Mitigation Rj;tion:1 ", LDCSe . ion 2.03.08.A.2.a.(b)i.c.
~--~D----- -------- '"_______E,.~~ _Jtl\ ~6l rf'7
Applicant/Ag Signature Date .
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
KJTE951 PLN crUD Rezone Petitioll.doc
co1N:r County
__ ~i ..A
NAGE~-;:--;
0._ c/v,
..Jf<,n~{:J
----=..- ,
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-I0875, TAMIAMI CROSSING COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
APPLICANT:
KRG951&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
Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire
Goodlette, Coleman and Johnson, P.A.
4001 Tamiami Trail, Suite 300
Naples, FL 34103
REQUESTED ACTION:
To have the Collier County PlalUling Conunission (CCPC) consider additional mitigation and an
alternate Master Plan for an application to rezone the subject propeliy from the Rural Agricultural
(A), Commercial Convenience (C-2), General Commercial (C-4) and Altesa 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-I0875
Page 1 of 4
AGEW -.
Nc iE".:EI> ~
EP Li:c ~O[j;
:_: ~ Ie:)
'" I
a..
<t:
~
C)
Z
Z
o
N
!
~
~i
~
.
o~
iq
'"
,.
'"
o
I~& -'I(S
OW,u]~ IliI'T1O:l
a:
'"
<0
o
o
N
,
N
o
:>
<L
..
Z
, 0
>::
I-
UJ
<L
:nmQllC~ /
z-
,
a..
<t:
~
,
z
o
I-
<t:
()
o
-I
.
,
<nlV^,,\(lW~TIO:I
,
,
'" ~83~ zilJ
0 F"o E=>
Z <3~~ :5:il
;; ~~ ..... 1~U:;
0 gJ:l> ~" Ct:l UVlJ-
~<ri 0""::0 w~ tI) ~o( <t ~
~~ OM'" ,,~ ,-- <::l gp-~ .I
~~.. QW " 5 ~;i~ t
0015 ~lfI ..... W;:?w e
~~ dO
~e;; => ~ "0
"'=> ~~@ wij !'-.; ~~
",0 ~~ ~ i5...J ~
;;i:! @~~ i:i u
Z<, ~<1:[jj 00 ~>'
<z C1;l1r oilj i ~
lfIE ~6w ~:t:
~~ ",m g'l! I
I",,-~ ~~ l
z~ ~~ "'z !i
3::13 g~(I)u 5~
"Z il'~z9 ~'" !--
<w ,;
,,~ a.2iow j~
fili" <( ~F
" ~~ti~ ~g
zw
o=> <"'" "'"
,,0 m:S~UJ ~wt3
~ij Cl~w~ ~i3rz
~~ ~"~ijl ~UJt;;
~~ u~~o ffiF~
",5 <,.. "
::If-lLO o~=>
In ~~ zo",
5 0<(<(0<
~ oJ '" l
z
.
i
e!
,--
~~
"s
as
,--
~;
'"
w
'"
Q
~
'" ~
N
"
~ i
'" ;!
9
w CJ
u: :i
iQ 15 " ffj
I Z
'" W ;! " " .
z ~ ~ ~
0 ~ " ,
~ " u; ~ >
'" .
::>
'" ~ e
w w e If!> @ @
,.. ~ CJ
;;; '"
~ af3~ zw
ow
0 -"'0 ~=>
Z 5~~ ~c
" Ow :i
gelS ~~~ n.x
~::i
...... 0"'" ,,~ h
OIm ~~n. "w
00", w U
~~ i[j'"
=>~ ~~o 0" ..
w5 I-~o wZ :s
wCJ ~ZUl rO
~w ~ .~
-w iil~~ '"
c'" Zw
:1:g ~~tu 00 , <l~
o~a:: OZ I ,
~g ww /,'
~~~ ~r
U "w i
~~:1 =>r l
~~
<;1; ::H" WZ :1
xl-:Ld z-
~m o5lno 8E ,--
O::~Z-l wOO ,I
~~ R:n:::ow mo
O:(O~~ .oW
wO ~~
,,~ ~l5ttiE ""
zw ~g ~~i! I
o=> w~"
"C t1}C5~lU [gIllG ~Wl!
~5 w "
~5 (,')UI~Z ~~ii: !i'i'll
~~-(5 ~wti
5w!;:(n:: alFg :;lI,
n.u: .q;i=zg 61' I
wi5
ffi ~~ jf--l.I..U o~=> ,
<<0< zOw ~ i I
" "I'
N " ~ d I
Z ~
~
:1
~w
""
E'
s'
,
Ii
@(
"
.. ~..
:tlh~!f~l
j1:-lI:,!.,'f
~..'C
.i," "
"vi !th
?i~ ~i'"
!
~~ '#. l6
!l8.w~ H
CI) Cf)cn>1JJ
~ ~~ffi~
~ ~~ffl~
~ ~~g:(!:j
~ ~~t3~
N ....."" 0 <i
11 111\::>11 ul
~ '"
u "
<; '"
o 01-
~ ~lli
5 (/lL1.
S CIl~
>- ;;t wr! ~ 2)
~ -O:5w ~a
~ ~C:~>::ill)
~ w",~'" ",_"
~ :Ez~~..::~
w ~W~Ul ~v)
~ ~ 8~ ff ~~
[Sh~
w
i3~
~'"
,,0
"
w
'" ;
w ~
~ 0
u: :1
w w " '"
'" " ~ w
'" w ~ u
z u. z
0 u. " w
=>
~ m 00 n. u.
"' 8 Ii'!> @ @
0
N~GEN~M J
SEP 0 S 2008
Board ?f COU?t,Y Commissioners (BCC) with a recommendation of approval, su 0fii 10 the_.t;Q . Qt-- OL
followll1g 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 stlUcture;
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 01' above; and
7. To provide an analysis demonstrating that post-development pollutant loading will be
less than 01' 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
I, 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-I0875
Page 2 of 4
AGENDJ\ ITEr,l
No 8t? ~
SEP 0 G 2008
Alternatively, if a big-b~x retailer were found :01: the s~te and Plan A was imp eliVnte.c1 tile ~1;U f 4
developer would mamtam a reduced zoned bUlldmg hmght of 29 feet (32 actual eet along ..
any portion of the building within 200 feel of the US 41 right-of-way line, exclusive of any
architectural towel' element(s) which would be permitted a maximum zoned height of 35 feet
(38 actual feet). Additionally, signage would be prohibited on the proposed towel' element(s).
(Additional information about the site can be found in the original staff report submitted for
the March 20, 2008 cepe hearing.) In staffs opinion, this reduction in height of 31 feet
(zoned), coupled with the architectural requirements of LDe 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 reclangular shape, flat roof, size and massing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the cepe forward petition PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875 to the Bee with a
recommendation of approval, subject to the following condition:
1. If Conceptual Mastel' Plan B is selected, then Deviations A and e shall not apply
and the developer shall comply with the applicable buffering requirements of
LDe Section 4.06.02 and the applicable parking lot design standards of Section
5.05.08.
Supplemental Report
Tamiami Crossing. PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875
Page 3 of 4
PREPARED BY:
10 -DAVID MOSS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
REVIEWED BY:
11&f~fu- 00). -;Jw.d o"d: -~
MARJ EM. STUDENT-STIRLING
ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OWS, ZONING MANAGER
DEP TMENT OF ZONING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
~yd~
SUSA M. IStENES, AICI1 lRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPROVED BY:
10 EPH K. SCHMITT
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR
AGEt~~t ITEM-
No. C I
Pg S~: ~fn)p=l
c!sz~ of
DA
1~ 3-08
DATE
b- 7.-3'0g-
DATE
-6 -.30-s8'
DATE
7/J-t~!
I ATE
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-I0875
Page 4 of4
NAGENDI\ ITE,\oi'
o. - ;;)C J
n i' ,.....,~,'
, pgjg ~Z- '1'6 '
.~"'- .,~c- - .:::::~'__ -=-.~___ ~
Item vr.A.
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
MEETING OF MARCH 5 & 6, 2008
I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT:
Petition No,:
Petition Name:
PUDZ-2006-AR-I0875
T AMIAMI CROSSING COMMERCIAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD)
KRG 951 and 41, LLC
Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.
Boylan Environmcntal Consultants, Inc.
Applicant/Developer:
Engineering Consnltant:
Environmental Consultant:
II. LOCATION:
Thc subject property is located in the southeastern quadrant of the Tamiami Trail
(US-4I) and Collier Boulevard (CR-951) intersection, in Section 3, Township 51
South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida
III. DESCRIPTION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES:
ZONING
DESCRIPTION
N - Commercial Convenience (C-2), General
Commercial (C-4), Heavy Commercial
(C-5) and Falling Waters PUD
US 41, CVS Pharmacy,
undeveloped land, and
commercial uses
S - Artesa Pointe PUD
Wal-Mart and single-family
residences
E - Rural Agricultural (A)
Undeveloped State-owned
land
W - C-4, Rcsidential Single Family (RSF-3)
and Eagle Creek PUD
Shell gas station and
Circle-K, Ihen CR-951 and
commercial uses
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
N~GE~~fvr
"'. ~~ St 1~~J
. --:~.;;;;.~=--,~ j\
EAC Meeting
Page 2 of 12
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
Departmcnt for a Small Scale GMP Amendment (CPSS-06-01) to incorporate a
7.3-acre A-zoned parcel, designated Urban Coastal Fringc Subdislrict, into
Activity Center #18. If approved, the entire site would be designated Mixed Use
Aclivity 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-l1734 (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 arca would be used to meet parking
requirements for the CPUD.
Pm-suant 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 (C-I) 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, 10 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, Agricultm-al, C-2 and C-4
zoning. A pelition 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 Plmming Department for a Small Scale Growth Management Plan
Amendment to incorporate the 7.3:!: acre parcel into Activity Center #18, making a
total of 25,45:!: acres for a Planned Unit Development, to be known as Tamiami
Crossings CPUD. This CPUD rezone is therefore contingent upon approval of that
PClge 3 of 12
AGENDA. iTi::..-"'J
No. 3~
L
SEP "I ".-"^
';J C ;~\Ir;~
: p ~,,f-- ( 0 .
g~-~,= ...~
RAC Meeting
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
Tamiami 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,
10 .avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to creale
focal points within the commtll1ity.
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 Activi(y Center and within two road miles of
Mixed Use 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 sUlTounding 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.
"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, the site is presently zoned C-2 and C-4 and
A. Further, the PUD document proposes retail, office, professional and business
service llses 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
NA~ift lTEI\,J' .
o. c' J
~Jto~lr!~tJ-
Page 4 of 12
"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 inji-astructure capacity, particularly roads." The project proposes
access to US 41 and Collier Boulevard (CR 951). TranspOltation 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 cliterion is to be
reviewed by Zoning and Land Development Review staff as part of their review of
this petition in its entirety.
"Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity
Centers contained in the Land Development Code. " Access provisions are included
in the PUD Document. Additionally, Transpoltation Plmming 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 TranspOltation Planning Depmtment.
"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 m-e otherwise applicable.
AGE~"'C
No. C~" I
pgj5_~~~OtDI4--
EAC Meeling
Poge 5 of 12
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 enconrage 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
nOlih, 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 conceptuai 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 01' other
developments regardless of land use type. The conceptual PUD Masler Plan allows
for two (2) potential vehicular and pedestrian interconnects between the proposed
Tamiami Crossings CPUD and Artesia Poinle 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 wallmble 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.
AGENDA lTE..lV 1 ~.
No. ~~
SEP) :':,
~~..".~5'~-Q>;
EAC Meeting
Page 6 of 12
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 thc Conscrvation and Coastal Managcmcnt Elcment of thc
Growth Management Plan statcs "All canals, rivers, and flow ways discharging
into estuaries shall meet all applicabie federal, state, or local water quality
standards.
To accomplish that, policy 2.2.2 states "In order to limit the spccific and
cumulative impacts of stormwater runoff, stonnwater systcms should be designed
in such a way that discharged watcr does not degrade receiving waters and an
attempt is made to enhance the timing, qnantity, 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 flow attenuation during storm evcnts.
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 & Coaslal Managcment 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 protectcd by a permanent
conservation mechanism to prohibit further development. Selection of preserves,
are consistcnt 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 dcfined 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.
AGE~EM ...
No. &J
SEP 0 L~ 2r.'.rn
pg_5iJ:.f:F2 .
EAC Meeting
Page 7 of 12
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 (ElS). Wildlife habitat management plans
for listed species are required at the time of Site Development Plan/Construction
Plan submittal.
VI. MAJOR ISSUES:
Stormwater Munu!?: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 amollnl 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 Henderson Creek.
EAC Mcclillg
N~GENft ITEM c__
cW
SEP O. S ?[J[li!
I~!,g bD i>f (
---.~,:~~--
Page 8 of 12
The petitioner estimales the dry season water lable al 2.1 ft. NGVD. The on-site
wetlands have been incorporated into the runoff treatment chain. Once runoffhas
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 Flalwoods,
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. FoUl' 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 Pine Flatwoods
(FLUCFCS Code 625) and a Hydric Utility Easement (FLUCFCS Code 830H).
The total percentage of proposed wetland impacts on site is 87 percent, fOl' 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 pennitted 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 stOl'mwater 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.
HAC Meeting
AGE~EM '
No. W
P 0 9 2008
'JJg..,~J'PJ:;Lt"
Page 9 of 12
Pl'eservation ReQuirements:
Approximately 23.53 acres of native vegetation occur on the project site. A
portion of tbe cxisting native vegctation on site (0.87 acres) bas already becn
accounted for in the adjacent Aliesa Pointe PUD and therefore is excluded from
the native vegetation requirement calculations for the project site. In accordance
with the requircments of the LDC and GMP, 15 percent (3.4 acres) of the native
vegetation will bc 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 Febmary 13, 20, 22
and 23, 2007.
During the surveys, particular attention was placed on locating potential fox
squirrel nests, red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) cavity Irees, and bald eagle nests
within the forested portions of Ihe 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 bntterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis). Listed plants
thai may be impacted because of exotic vegetation removal or development will
be relocated into the preserve, where feasible.
EAC Meeting
N~GEN~,..,.~ ITEM. -~. .
SEP 0 S 2008
. pg..!el:p+ tQ
" - --~
Page 10 of 12
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of Commercial Planned Unit Development No.
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875 "Tamiami Crossing CPUD" with the following
conditions:
Stormwater Manal!:ement:
1. The treatment system must be designed to treat the first inch and a half of
!'lInoff 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 of3.43 acres of native vegetation shall be retained or provided
in accordance with the LDC."
2. Add an "EnvirolUnental" subsection to the "Development Commitments"
section of tl1e 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 planJconstruction plan approval."
EAC Meeting
NAGENDA ..!IJ;M
o. '3;; J
St.p. n." S 2DO.i1
'_.Pll_ to!> ~-f- I~
--, F _-~"'---'-
----....,-..,,-=.-w._ !
Page II of 12
PREPARED BY:
7~
/
,~""k:J
STAN CHRZANOW;'~ KI, P.E.
ENGINEERING REVIEW MANAGER
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
~ p"'Sa. ))';,
:7 LC) L ()
DATE
_/~~
STEPHE. LENB RGER
SENIOR ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
;2/6;JwJ"
DATE
r j iJJ) ......-)
~'C7YJv.- - , ,\ /n...--
JOrnV-DA VID MOSS, AICP
PRINCIPAL PLANNER
DEPARTMENT OF ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DAT;/k / ~(J
EAC Meeting
AGEiA ITEM J
No. C
l (i'~ ^'n['G
v \) "./ t!)l!)
pg_~L~tj ti..
Page 120f12
REVIEWED BY:
\ C.....2 .,'
.\, /)",.7 ___....
_,.,.. 11--.... /" ~..
-B,ARB-A,MS,-Bl::JRGE-S0N ::?J.sh (11 '''.J
FRINCipAL ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
2-k.og-
DATE
J:k!:~~ 0<-0'-08
W1LL1AM D. LORE ,Jr., .E., DIRECTOR, DATE
ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
.2(-:r-!tJ?
DATE
JEFF -. RI HT
ASSIS NT COUNTY ATTORNEY
OFFIC OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED BY:
~ iCJ~5-
EPH K. SCHMITT, ADM ISTRA TOR, ATE
MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
N~GEND~"C'..E i"j"
o b 7008
Vanas ij_ k~~ 10
Daylor Ill> Id--
.".."..,"'11
11. ~~Ut;iiiiiiu;
<,.W .,~)'"
ZONING TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT
TAMIAMI CROSSING
July 20, 2006 - Revised March 29, 2007
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & US 41
Collier County, Florida
Prepared For:
Kite Development
30 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Prepared By:
Vanasse & Daylor, LLP
lob # 60Gl".04
PUDZ-2006-AR-10875 REV: 2
Project: 2005060079
Date: 5/14/07 DUE: 6/11107
12730 New Britlany Boulevard, luile 600. fort Myers. florida m07 1 239.437.460i f 239.m.4636 w vanday.com
N~GEN A IT 'M
SEP. l 8 2 Oil:!
pg1a.k_ c'f:~l ~
~
STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION
1 certify that this TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT has beefl prepared by me or (mder
my Immediate superl'lsioll altd that I have experience alld trailliltg 111 the field of
T/'Uffic ami Tl'allwortation Engineerlllg.
Emest R. Sp/,{ldliltg P.E.
Florida Registrat/on #61235
Vlwasse & Daylor, LLP
1.2730 New BrlttallY Boulevard, Suite 600
Fort Myers, Florida 33907
(.239) 437-4601
Co/iabol'otmw
Reed K. Jarvi P.E.
Jo"" T. Voges
Swal'llp MUk"mjee
T amlaml Crossing
Statement of Certification
N~GE~~ -
SEP iJ r~ ;;11[1" I
Pg ~ 1- -oJ- leI}-
~,..-
80874..04ZTIS_OI)2~Exhlbi\$.xls + Exhlblt1 Loe Map
U541
N
W()E
S
Not to Scale
Cl\ 951
2S00'
PM rrips on Extemal RoMVlar by TIPS
e!1.fu!;
Eottr ~2ili
6114 344 J40
EagleC(tltkDriv
PrO\losedW'/lI-M~rt
Manatee Road
SR9S1
Vanasse - UlblnPtlU1Dt l"lfiltngl~rtIC I'/I;lI'llIUJI'Gl<; IIt"fl1U'>
had~I9IArdlilt<Mf fnljH'llflltrlll1ltjl'l~ Kf(o Devefopment ramiaml Crossing
CffiI["fiMtri~ Il)H 3(lS.MlJl/dJ~IlSml
Daylar ~1I'fXllis.IN4f2IU
I)UOI/III a.;1I~1kulmr4.\ulrllle Location Map
1~1 IflllIJe.., II mOl M,rcll2(1()l
,?)UJI.UOl fut,W,,"I~ Exhibit 1
t. ~ W T1Mt,~."
NAGE~A iTE.w-
o. eJ
~~ ~ 9 200B
. !gJ~ (0
". -=._=~
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ...................,......................................................... ............................................. I
INTRODUCTION ...........................,........................................................................................................... ............. I
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................1
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................................................................3
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE .............,....................................................,.........................................3
AREA CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................................................,,,......... 3
STUDY AREA .............................................................................................................................. ........................... 3
EXISTING GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS ............................................,.................................................................3
PLANNED ROADW A Y IMPROVEMENTS .........................................................................................................4
SITE-GENERATED TRIPS ......................,. ...............................................,................................................................. 5
TRIP GENERATION ................................................... ............................................................................................ 5
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT .................................................................................,......................5
SIGNIFICANCE TEST ANALYSES ...............................................................,............... ....................................... 6
PROJECTED BACKGROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES..................................................................S
ANALYSES ............................. ................................................................................................................................... 10
LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALySES............................................................................................................ 10
SITE ACCESS ANALYSES ..............................................................................,................................................... 13
IMPROVEMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................ ........................................... IS
List of Tables
Table 1 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 COnCUl1'Cncy Segments
Table 7 Growth Based on Growth Rates
Table 8 SYNCHRO Analysis
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 PMPeak Hour Background Traffic
Exhibit 7 PM Peak Hour Total Traffic
Appendix
Tamiaml CrossIng
Page i
Table of Contents
AGENfit ITEM --
No. E ~ I
~ pgX{~}njIW
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) coll/ains additional information in response to comments
receivedfrom Collier County on December 27. 2006. 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 951) & Tamiami Trail
(US 41) intersection in Collier Counly (Sec Exhibit 1). The Project proposed land use will
consist of approximalely 213,000 square fcet (sf) of Frec-Standing Discount Superstore, 10,000
sf General Office, 6,000 sf Qualily Restaurant and 6,000 sf High Turn Restaurant. Accesses will
be via US 41, SR 951 and the adjacent Wal-Mart shopping cenlcr.
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 (SF...,.,) 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"wx. US 41 from Collier
Boulevard to Greenway Road is projected to operated in excess of SF..."x under Total Traffic
conditions because ne widening was considered in this analysis.
The following intersection improvements were identified as being needed in order to
aecommodale projected total traffic:
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Wal-Mart South Access:
Tamiaml Crossing
BOB74_ZTIS-003.doc
N~GEtE?EMJ
Pg ~~.~~lb! _
. Full-movement signalized intersection
. BOO-foot southbound dual left turn lane
. 450-foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
. 300-foot westbound dual left turn lane.
C01lierBoulevard (SR 951) & North Access:
. Right In/Right Out unsignallzed Intersection
. 400.foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
. I OO-foot westbound right turn lane
US 41 & West Access:
. Right In/Right Out unsignalized inter'section
. 400-foot eastbound right turn lane
. 50-foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
US 41 & East Access;
. Furl~movement signal1zed intersection
. 400.foot eastbound right turn lane
. 575-foot westbound left turn lane
. I 25-foot northbound exclusive left turn lane
The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fees as building
pelmits 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 ofSR 951 and the SR 951/US 41 intersection.
la-mIami CroSSifig
2
80874_ZTIS-003.doc
AGENDA I . · J
No.
S.EP j Looe.
_!,ll 1-: 1_ -of-- {O_
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
EXISTING AND PROPOSED LAND USE
The projecl site is in the southeasl quadranl of the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Tamiami Trail
(US 41) intersection in Collier County (See Exhibit I). The Project proposed land use will
consist of approximately 213,000 square feet (sf) of Free,Standing Discount Superstore, 10,000
sf General Office, 6,000 sf Quality Restaurant and 6,000 sf High Turnover Reslaurant. Accesses
will be via US 41, SR 951 and the adjacent Wal-Mart shopping center.
AREA CONDITIONS
The descriplion of the cxisting environment of thc site, the sUlTounding study area, and the
committed improvements, provide a basis for Iho analysis of the site generated traffic impacts on
Ihe proposed roadway system.
STUDY AREA
The stndy area contains the following intersections:
. SR951 &US41;
. SR 951 & Manatee Road;
. 5R 951 & Championship Drive;
. SR 951 & Mainsail Drive: and
. US 41 & Triangle Boulevard
Exhibit 1 shows the project location as related to the studied roadway system.
EXISTING GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS
Existing roadway geometrics were assumed.
Collier Boulevard (SR 951/CR 951)
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 4] is a four-lane divided arterial roadway under county jurisdiction. The roadway
Tamiami CrosiOing
3
80874_ZTIS-003.doc
AGE~ ITEM
No. ~ I
pg~~~~f.l2i--
alignment is fairly level and tangent. The speed limit is posted al 45 miles per hoUl' (mph) north
of Eagle Creek and 55 mph soulh of Eagle Creek.
Tamiami Trail East (US 41)
Tamiam! Trail East (US 41) in the study area is a IUral artcriall'Oadway 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
sludy area, the limit speed of US 41 decreases from 60 10 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 orienled 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 of35 mph.
PLANNED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS
The only roadway improvements in the study area that are either planned or underway is the six-
lane expansion of CR 951 from Davis Boulevard to US 4 I scheduled to stali in late 2006 learly
2007.
There is a Development Contribution Agreement (DCA) to design and construct the widening of
SR 951 approximately Yo 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 Connty staff on a DCA that
will address intersection improvements at US 41 & SR 951 as well as US 41 east ofSR 951.
Tamiami Crossing
4
80874_ZTIS.OOJ.doc
I NAGENOA 11-'-.'.. -
o. to" I
LPgJ;c~;r"~4
---"
SITE-GENERATED TRIPS
TRIP GENERATION
Site-generated trips were estimated using Trip Generation, Internal Captl1l'e and Pass-By
software (TiPS) developed by FDOT (see Appendix A). This program incorporates trip
generation rates and deduction procedures consistent with the Institute of Transpoliation
Engineers (ITE) :TJilL.Generation Manu!!! (7lh Edition) and the ITE Trip Generalion Handbook
(2nd Edition) in accordance with Collier County policy in effecl when the report was published
and as agreed with Collier County staff. Table 1 shows Ihe summary of the net new external
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 Collter
COUltty staff and the analyst. The TIPS computations resulted in an overall 4% internal capture
deduction lor the sile.
TABLE I
BUILPOUT SITE-GENERATED TRIP ESTIMATES
TAMIAMI CROSSING NET NEW EXTERNAL
SITE.GENERATED TRIP ESTIMATES (TIPS)
PM Peak
Imal W.er Nt
684 344 340
TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND ASSIGNMENT
The site-generated lrip dislributions 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 Hour 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 ol Collier Boulevard between US
41 and Rattlesnake Hammock Road due to numerous access points between these intersections
that provide attenuation opportunities.
Tamiaml Crossing
5
80874JTIS-003.doc
N~:E~M -
SEP I) G 2nw,
-pgJ.j,"c~::LL ()
~ - e
'"-
Exhibit 2 shows a graphical representation of the traffic distribution percenlages. Exhibit 3
shows the estimated AM Primary Traffic Assignments. Pass-By estimales are shown in Exhibit
4. PM Site-related Net Traffic Assignmenls are shown in Exhibit 5.
TABLE 2
DISTRIBUTION
l::lAt:lli
W.l1
IQ
DISTRIBUTION
Collier Boulevard
Rattlesnake Hammock Road US 41
US 41 Manatee Road
Manatee Road Championship Drive
Triangle Boulevard Collier Boulevard
Collier Boulevard San Marco Drive
16%
13%
25%
30%
12%
SR 951
T amiami Trail East
SIGNIFICANCE TEST ANALYSES
According to Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) Section 6.02.02
HM. Significance Test: Impact for the Impact lraffic 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 cr
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 stendard
service volume; or
3. For all other adjacent segments where the project traffic is greater than 5% of the adopted LOS
stendard 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 impaot 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 projecl will utilize 3
percent or more of the maximum peak hour selvice volume at the adopted level of service
standard for the adjacent and next to adjacent link,S 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 determine whelher projected operation would be within Counly standards. The data
Tamiaml Cros.slng
6
80874_ZTIS.003.doc
NAGENDA ITEM t
0, ~C
.SEP-......',....'..;"I."
" ./ /.h..'
(pg.3si." p_-t)~ .
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 pcrceptual proportion on each approach of
turning movement tranic counts. Exhibit 7 shows the Buildout PM Peak Hour Total Traffic.
The significance test analyses for Ihe adjacent roadway network (see Table 3) indicate that SR
951 from the north access to Fiddlers Creek Drive and US 41 from Triangle 10 Collier Boulevard
and from West Access to Naples Reserve Boulevard are projected to have site-generated primary
trips that arc greater than 3 percent of the AUJR Performance Standard Maximum Service
Flowrate (SF",.x). SR 951 nOlth of US 41 and south of FiddJers Creek Drive and US 41 west of
Triangle Boulevard and east of Naples Preserve Boulevard are nol projected 10 be significantly
impacted.
TABLE 3
PM PEAK HOUR SIGNIFICANCE TEST
Site as
STD Dir Site %of
Link From In ~MAX Ii:ipA LOS Std
Collier Blvd (CR95 i) Davis Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3.270 NB 17 0.5%
Collier Blvd (CR95I) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) 3,330 NB 54 1,6%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Proiect 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 951) Wal Mart South Access Manatee Rd 2,370 NB 120 5.1%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Manatee Rd Fiddlers Creek Pkwy 2,590 NB 86 3.3%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Fiddlers Creek Pkwy Mainsail DrIve 2,590 NB 69 2.7%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Mainsail Drive isle of Capri Blvd 2,590 NB 51 2.0%
Collier Blvd (SR 9S I) MaInsail Drive Capri Blvd (CR 952) 2.S90 NB J4 1.3%
Collier Blvd (SR 951) Capri Blvd (CR 9S2) Marco Island 2.S90 NB 34 1.3%
Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Broward Street 3.S00 EB 41 1.2%
Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Broward Street Barefoot Williams Rd 3.S00 EB 58 1.7%
Tamiaml Trail East (US 41) Barefoot Williams Rd Triangle Blvd 3.500 EB 76 2.2%
Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Triangle Blvd Collier Blvd (SR 9 S I) 3,200 EB 103 3..2%
T amlaml Trail East (US 41 ) Collier Blvd (SR 95 I) Prolect Access 1,07S EB 114 10,6%
Tamiami Trail East (US 41) Project Access Naples Reserve Blvd 1.075 EB 41 3.8%
Tamlaml Trail East (US 41) Naples Reserve Blvd Greenway Rd 1.075 EB 25 2.3%
Tamlam! Crossing
7
80B74_ZTIS-003.doc
N~GEN ITEM-
Sf;p 8 7nn~ J'
_Pg_~ b:f'io
--.""".~.._.,.._. .--
_..i'
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 BACI(GROUND AND TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Background traffic volumes were devcloped 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-Concunency Segment Tables dated June 30,
2006). This is the methodology that is cUl1'ently in use by Collier County for tracking the
availability of reselve capacity on specific roadway links as palt of their concurrency
management efforts. Table 4 presents the link-specific background Iraffic data used in the Link
Level of Service analyses discussed elsewhere.
TABLE 4
BACKGROUNO TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS. (CONCURRENCY SEGMENT TABLE)
ConcSegments 06.30.2006
III DPK
FROM TO CAPA.W LOS TRIP REM
NAME Z HR TOTVOL
CITY :I STD VOL BANK CAP
Collier Blvd Davis BI...d Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3.270 6 E 1,850 555 2,405 865
Collier Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd U541 3,330 6 E 1,730 795 2,525 805
5R951 U541 Manatee Rd 2.370 4 D 1,850 352 2,202 168
SR 951 Manatee Rd Mainsail Dr 2,590 4 D 1,510 286 1,796 794
Tamlami Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Rd T dangle Blvd 3,500 6 E 1,820 453 2,273 1.227
Tamlaml Trail East Triangle Blvd Collier Blvd 3,200 6 E 1,470 591 2,061 1.139
Tamlil.mi Trail East Colliel' Blvd San Mateo 0,' 1.075 2 C 640 613 1,253 .178
Note: Tile capacity far tlte segment of SR 95 I from US 4/to Manatee Rd Is shown as 2,370 Instead of 1,970 due to
a devefopme1lf agreement to widell tltis segment [rom 4 10 6 lanes Gnd is shown in Collier County's AUlR,
Tamlami Crossing
8
80874_ZTlS.00l.doc
AGENu!1 iTEiIi~1"
No. ~~
. SEP (1:: ;;nn"'
1 pg:L"t rf::J ..~.
,.~-.-.".,._ ~._.. ._~_~._r
Growth projections were computed using the 2005 Average Daily Traffic Counts, Collier
County. Table 5 contains the projected background traffic. The projccted background traffic
volumes from the directional peak hour volume were assigned to Ihe roadway links. Background
Traffic volumes were derived from turning movement and directional connts extracted from the
Wal-Mat.t report and/or collected by FTE.
TABLE 5
BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH PROJECTIONS. FIVE YEAR (2011)
DPK
Growth HR TOTVOL
NAME FROM TO 2001 2004 2005 2011
Rate VOL.
2005
Collier Blvd Oavh Blvd Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 26.583 34,013 6.4% 1,850 2.678
Collier Blvd Rattlesnal<e Hammock Rd US41 21.077 23,061 2.3% 1,730 1.980
SR951 US41 Manatee Rd 33.412 35.S56 1.1% 1.850 1,094
SR 9S 1 Manatee Rd Mainsail Dr 33.421 35,556 2.1% 1,510 1.709
Tamiami Trail East Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Triangle Blvd 36,311 40.948 3.0% 1.810 1.179
TamlamJ Trail EastTrlangle Blvd Collier Blvd 16,082 27,758 1.1% 1,470 1.66S
Tamlami TraIl East Collier Blvd San Marco Dr 12.551 15.010 4.6% 640 837
The roadway capacities were derived from the Concun'ency Segment Table, AUIR tables or
from the FDOT QLOS table if a link was not on the ConcUl1'ency Segment Table. Copies of
Ihese data are in Appendix of this report.
The inlersection tU1'l1ing 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 Direc/or. According to Ihese data, the dominant direction on SR 951 is northbound in
the PM peak. Exhibit 6 shows the proj ected PM Peak Hour Background Traffic that will be used
for the intersection capacity analyses described elsewhere in this repolt.
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 Ihe site.
The primary sile-generated trips were added to the Projectcd Background traffic volumes to
estimate the Buildout Year Tolal Traffic projections (See Exhibit 7). These projected turning
movement volumes were used in the Intersection Capacity and Turn Lane analyses.
Tamlaml Crossing
9
808743.TIS.Q03.doc
AGE~~i\T
No. t, J
SEP 0 S lori'i
Pg~ ~jQ,
ANAL YSES
LINK LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSES
The Performance Standard maximum Service Flowratcs (SF",,,,,) for SR 951 were provided by
Collier County Transportalion Planning Departmenl 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 ConculTency Segment Table and growth rate
methodology respectively.
Tables 6 and 7 present the LOS analyses using the cun'ent 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",,," for those links. The
same segments are projected to be within the SF",,,, using 5-year hislorieal 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 oonlinue operating below SF",,,., under Total Traffic conditions.
TABLE 6
PM PEAK HOUR LOS LINK ANALYSIS Based on ConcSegments 06.30.2006
f.l];g<L ~ I2loL STD 'ii1L 'ii1L
1ink E.i:om II> ImIIk IriIIA ImIIk >E_ M :it<L
Collier Blvd (SR 95 I) Tamiami Tran East (US 41) Project Acc.ess 2.202 139 2.341 2,370 Y Y
Collier Blvd (SR <JS I) Project Access Eagle Creek Dr 2,202 139 2.341 2,370 Y Y
Collier Blvd (5R 951) Eagle CrCQk Dr Manatee Rd 2.202 65 2.267 2,370 Y Y
Colli~r Blvd (S~ 951) ManateeRd Fiddll!rs Creck Pkw)' 1,796 11.0 1,916 2~90 Y Y
Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Tl'langle Blvd Collfer Blvd (Sf\ 9S I) 2.061 103 2.164 3,1.00 Y Y
Tamlami Trail E3St (US 41) Collier Blvd (SR 951) Project Access 1.1.53 114 1,361 1.075 N N
Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Project Accen Naples Reserve Blvd 1.253 41 1,294 1,075 N N
Tamlami Trail East (US 41) Naples Reserve Blvd Greenway Rd 1.253 25 1.278 1,075 N N
Tamiami Crossing
10
80874_ZTIS.003.doc
I AGE~1 EM .
No. ._
. St-.'.V....) 'J. '.I.i.l.n'.! I
iYY~.7j.~J I~i-
'.=-....__n~_._r
TABLE 7
2011 PM PEAl<. HOUR LOS L1NI<. ANALYSIS Based on Growth Rate
~<L ~ ISiJJ!l l,TD WII WII
pok Er2m il IWlk llJRI lliflk $EhUX SJs1.. >i<i
Collier Blvd (SR 95 I) TamlamiTraU East (US 41) PI'OjcctAcCeS5 2,094 139 2,233 2,370 Y Y
Collier Blvd (SR 95 I) Pl'ojectAccess Eagle Creek Dr 2,094 139 2.233 2.370 Y Y
Collier Blyd (SR 95 I) Eagle Creek Dr MafiateeM 2,094 65 2.\59 2,370 Y Y
Colliel' Blvd (SR 95 I) Manatee Rd FIddlers Creek Pkwy 1,709 120 1,829 2,590 Y Y
Tamlaml Trail East (US 4-1) Triaogle Blvd Collier Blvd (SR 9S I) 1,665 103 1.768 3.200 Y Y
Tamlami Trail East (US 4-1) Collier Blvd (SR 951) PreJactAccess 837 114 951 1.075 Y y
T~mlami Tl'all East (US 41) PI'olect Access Naples Reserve Blvd 837 41 87. 1,075 Y Y
Tamiaml Tran East (US 41) Naples Res.erve Blvd Greenway Rd 837 25 862 1,075 Y Y
INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSES
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for the studicd interseclions 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
ofthe analyses.
The existing unsignalized side street approaches on SR 951 & Eagle Creek Drive inlcrsection is
projected to exhibit high computed delays. This is not unexpected, given the projected traffic
volumes on SR 951 traversing the interseclion. The only feasible miligalive measure would
require signalizing the intersection,
Tamiami Crossing
II
80874_ZTIS.003.doc
,AGEiAlTEM t '
0.. E '
Pg s>[ ~ o. ~ ~}f!'16 7l---
TABLE 8
Total Traffic (6
Background Tramc Total Traffic Lane Divided on SR
951/CR 9S I)
Intersection Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay
LOS
sedV'ch. sedveh. ~eclveh.
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) & C+ 29.7
C 33.2 D 35.7
Tamlaml T...il East (US 41)
Collier Boulevard (5R 951) & F#* 99.7 D#* 26.2
N/A
North Access
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & D* D* A#* nla
27.8 33.9
Eagle Creek Drive
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & 37 24.6
C 21 D C+
Wal~Mart (South Access)
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) &
C 22.5 C 26.6 c+ 26.6
Manatee Road
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & 73.6 E 73.6
E 64.5 E
Fiddlers Creek Parkway
Tamiami Trail East (US 41) &
D 35.3 D 38.2 D+ 38.2
T"langle Boulevard
T amlami. T rali East (US 41) & C* C* 16.2
N/A 16.2
West Access
Tamiaml T...II East (US 41) & F*
E* 21.3 198.7 B 14.9
East Acce"
* Denotes unsignali:z:ed inuml!!.ction.
+ Six Lane Divided
# Denotes: right In/rIght out
The totallraffic conditions analytical results included six-Ianing 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-Iurning
traffic volumes at the US 41 & East Access intersection were projected to exhibit poor service
levels (LOS F) under total traffic conditions. This is typical for unsignalized side-slreet STOP-
controlled intersections having relatively high main street through volumes and side-slreet left
turning volumes.
Tamiami Crossing
12
a0874_ZTI5.003.doc
AGEN~ ITEM
No. L
SEP () S 2\108
.J:1l.:. ~,L,: ~_'.~
levels (LOS F) under total traffic conditions. This is typical for unsignalizcd sidc-street STOP-
controlled intersections having relatively high mRin street through volumes and sidc-slreet left
turning volumes.
Under total traffic condition westbound left turning traffic volume is high cnough (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 Easl Access. Signalizing this
intersection, should it meel 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 scc/vch) 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 characleristics and needs of the site accesses, and to
recommend access point locations.
It was recognized during Ihe study process the need for, and length of needed turn lanes and how
those lengths would inleract with neighboring intersections and improvements and their affect on
recommended intersection configurations. Four parameters were used in order to reach the
recommcndations: current land uses in the area, traffic volumes, the capacity analysis rcsults, and
the t1ll11 lanc length of need analysis results.
According to the Collier County Right-of Way Ordinance #2003-37, left and right tum lanes
must be provided at accesses on multilane highways. The FDOT Standard Index 301 and Figurc
3-15 of the Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards were used for conceptual geomettic design
(see Appendix).
FDOT uses the roadway posted speed as the turn lane entry speed. According to FDOT Index
301, Ihe 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-
fool minimum storage length for left lurn lanes. The tuIU lanes on Collier Boulevard (SR 951)
north of' Eagle Creek and on US 41 should therefore be furnished with 350-foot deceleration
TarYllami Crossing
13
80874_ZTIS-003.doc
AGENDA ITEM
No. ~~
t
SEP 0;; 2POR
g'~ 'l> -f- {
Pg_---"". ...,,-.-_
lanes in addition to the applicable storage lanes. Deceleration lane lengths of need on SR 951
south of Eagle Creek shonld be 460 feel long.
Long left turn lanes should be used cautiously because of the potential to increase left-turn and
rear-cnd conflicts. Every vehicle which joins the qneue 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 safely.
According to the Plans Preparation Manllal (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 patt of the project, the
output of these programs should be considered in determining storage length." SYNCHRO'" was
used to analyze the operational characteristics of the signalized intersection. The PPM does not
specify SYNCHRO@ 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 slorage 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 cenlerline.
Southbound Left Turn Analysis
This projecl 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 tum lane will be warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and Wal-Mart
(South Access) intersection. The computed 95'h-percentile queue length was 277 feet. If the PPM
queue computalion was used, the turn lane of need would be 433 feet long. This dual tum lane
should be 800 feet long (450 foot storage + 350 fool deceleration lane with taper). Sufficient
Tamiami Cross.lng
14
808743TIS.003.doc
AGENt ITEM t
No. E-
SE-P ,\ '-' "/['f,"
.' "v.' ),J ,
I pgjj uj',j (:)
-..,..-,......"...-_.- -.-,,~~..-.~--~
longitudinal space should be available for the southbound left turn lane in order to avoid
restricted length.
Northbound !lJght Turn Analysis
This project is eSlimated to generate 0 northbound righllurning movements during the PM peak
hour. The total northbound right turn movements are 348 vph. Based on this information, a
northbound right turn lane will be warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & Eagle Creek
Drive Access. The computed 95th.pereenlile queue length was 90 feel. 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 tumlanes are generally made more efficiently than left
turn lanes.
A northbound righl tum lane is therefore warranted at the Collier Boulevard (SR 951) and Wal-
Mart South Access intersection. This proposed righl 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 nortllbound right lu!'l1 lane.
Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Westbound Approach)
This project is estimated to generate 198 westbound left turning movements during the PM peak
hour. Thc total westbound left lum movements are 525 vph. The computed 95th-percentile queue
length was 284 feet. The westbound access lane configuration consists of an exclusive dual
westbonnd left turn lane, exclusive right turn lane. At least 300 feet of storage should be
provided before Ihe first side street access opening, in ordcr to avoid queue blockage.
SR 95\ & North Access
~:&.Point Location
The access should be located on Collier Boulevard (SR 951), approximately 910 feet south of
Collier Boulevard (CR 951) & US 41 intersection cenlerline. The north access is proposed to be
an unsignalized Right In/Right Out (Rl/RO) access.
Tamlami Crossing
IS
80874_ZTIS-003.doc
AGE~AL;:ft~-
No,
_ sg . G 20UD
Pg ?~
Northbound Rjght Turn An!!'!y'sis
This project is estimated to generate 108 northbound right tuming 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 95th-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 Janes.
A northbound right turn lane is Iherefore warranted at SR 951 and NOlth Access. This turn lane
should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper). Sufficient
longiludinal space is available for the nOlthbound 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 95th-percentile queue length was 78 feet. The westbound access Jane
configuration consists of an exclusive righl 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 east of Collier Bonlevard (SR
951) & US 41 intersection centerline. The west access is proposed to be an unsignalized Righi
In/Right Out (RI/RO) access.
Eastbound Right Turn Analysis
This project is eSlimated to generate 139 eastbound right tuming movements during the PM peak
hour. This exceeds the 40 vph threshold value. Based on this infonnation, a nOlthbound right
turn lane will be watTanted at the US 41 & Wesl Access. The computed 95th-percentile queue
lenglh was 0 fool. If the PPM queue computation was used, the tum lane of need would be 232
feet long. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right Illrn lanes are
getlerally made more efficiently than left tllm lanes.
Tamlaml Crossing
16
80874..,ZllS.003.doc
! NO~-E~'~'~' '20;::
1 Pgj5to c+ I b
- ~ -'--~--- ""
An eastbound right tUI'll lane is therefore warranted al US 41 and West Access. This turn lanc
should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage + 350 foot deceleration lane with taper).
Access Drive Lane Configuration Analysis (Nol-thbound Approach)
This project i~ estimated to generate 53 nOlthbound right turning movemenls during the PM peak
hour. The computed 95'h_percenlile queue length was \3 feet. The norlhbound access lane
configuration consists of an exclusive right turn lane. AI 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 iocated on US 41 approximately 3,310 feet easl of Collier Boulevard (SR
951) & US 41 intersection centerline. The cast access is proposed to be a signalized full-
movement access intersection.
Westbound Left Turn Analysis
This project is estimated to generale 86 westbound left turning movements during the PM peak
hour. The lotal westbound left turn movements are 129 vph. Based on this information, a
westbound left turn lane win be warranted at Ihe US 41 & East Access. The computed 95'1._
percentile queue length was 160 feet. The PPM formula results in 215.foot queue length
compulation. This turn lane should be 575 feel long (225 foot slorage + 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 Crcek.
Eastbound Right Turn Analvsis
This project is estimated to generale 12 eastbound right turning movements during the PM peak
hour. The total eastbound right turn movements are 32 vph. Based 011 this information, an
eastbound right turn lanc will be warranted at the US 41 & East Access. The computed 951h.
percentile queue length was 15 feet. If the PPM queue computation was used, the turn lane of
need would be 53 feel long. Consideration of allowing storage reduction is merited because right
lurn lanes are generally made more efficiently than left turn lanes.
Tamiaml Crossing
17
BOB74_ZTIS-003.doc
NAGEI'{RA ITEM
o. .~
~
SEP 0 v 20iJil
P9_6-J .,j--IQ
An eastbound right turn lane is therefore warranted at the US 41 and West Access intel'seclio/!.
This turn lanc should be 400 feet long (50 foot storage -I- 350 foot deceleration lane with taper).
I AGI=N.d). IT"'''
Access Drive Lane Confj~uration Analysis (Northbound Approach)
This project is estimated to generate 62 northbound left turning movements dnring the PM peak
houl'. The computed 95th-percentile queue length was 10S 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 Traffic Control Devices
(MUTeD) 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 wan'ant 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 nall'ative.
As shown in Table 5, the link level of service analyses indicate that US 4 J from Collier
Boulevard (SR 951) to San Marco Road is projected to operate in excess of the perfonnance
standard maximum service f10wrates (SF",",) under Background Traffic conditions. The only
feasible mitigation stl'ategy consists of widening US 41 east of Collier Boulevard (SR 951) to a
four lane facility.
SR 951 from US 41 to the Wa1-Mart South Access intersection was analyzed as a six-lane
facility under Total Traffic conditions. This roadway segment is projected to operate within
SF",.x as a six-lane facility. US 41 from Collier Boulevard (CR 951) to Greenway Road is
projected to operate in exeess of SF","x under background and total traffic conditions, because no
widening was considered in this analystS.
Tamlami Crossing
18
aOB74_ZTIS,003.doc
N~GENt1~
SEP I) c; 7~qo. 4
' '-' '- !!l.'
. P }38 "f- to
li~- _.~.... ~
-~~~ ^.,_.,,~~--. ..-"~.'
The following intersection improvemcnts were identified as being needed in order to
accommodate projected total traffic:
eollier Boulevard (SR 951) & Wal-Mart South Access:
. Full-movement signalized intersection
. BOO-foot southbound dual left turn lane
. 450-foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
. 300-foot westbound dual left turn lane.
Collier Boulevard (SR 951) & North Access:
. Right In/Right Out unsignalized intersection
. 400-foot northbound exclusive right turn lane
. I OO-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
. 57S-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.
Tamiaml Crossing
19
80874.ZTIS.003.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 08-_
AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, f'LORIDA,
AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41. AS
AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE
COMPREHENSIVE ZONJNG 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 DESCRIEED 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;t 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 C-4 (General Commercial) and
Artesa Painte pun Zoning Districts to a Commercial Planned Unit Development
(CPUD) ZOlling 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. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps.
as described in Ordinance Number 2004.41, as amended, the Collier County Land
Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly.
SECTION TWO:
This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of
State.
Page 1 of2
AGE~~EM
No SEf,; ,,200H I
~-D-~1~1-
==--=~-"
PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of Counly
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida. this ___ day of
,2008.
A TIEST
Dwight E. Brock, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA
By:
By:
TOM HENNING, CHAIRMAN
, Deputy Clerk
Approved as to form
and legal sufficiency:
" Matjorie M. Student-Stirling
As!\istant Connty 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 Commitments
Exhibit G - Landscape Buffer
Page 20f2
AGEND~ 1;rEM
No. .'L
SEP i) \) {nOr
'Pgq~ o*- (0
NAGENDA? .,.-.
o. g J
SE.t'...U......!~ . "1..'.r.1r....i
pg~~+jb
~,~-------"<
EXIITBIT A
FOR
TAMIAMI CROSSING CrUD
PERMITTED USES
1. PERMITTED USES
The 25.45"= acre commercial project shall not be developed with more than a maximlUll 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:
1. 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 truck 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: Gronps 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).
postCCPC d,artPUD (4) ~
Pagelof12
AR-I0875 I KlTE951PLN
14.
Food Stores: Groups 5411, 5421,5431 (except roadside sales)
NAGE~ ITEM -
o. ~L
::;~EP. (, '.....'JIi.rjC
',~ '-, i ,..' ,.)
_ ~~~?!. gd~+ 'r
~~-.- ,-~-",-,;'-...r~~~.
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, Fwnishings 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 8412.
29. Personal Services: Group 7212 (dry-cleaning and 1allildry 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.
pOSlCCPCd"ftPUD(4) I11m~p-
Page 2 of12
AR-10875 I KlrE951PLN
AGENDA ITEMU.
No 8-
. €:.
nly a vJAJiliJ[iJf!
pg_~~~f:JL
35.
Veterinarian's Office: Group 0742 (for household pets
overnight boarding or outdoor kelmels).
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/Structnres:
Accessory uses and structm'es 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 permitted 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),
n. PROHIBITED USES
The following uses shall be prohibited:
Tattooing establishments (Group 7299).
m. PRESERVE TRACT USES
No building or structure or p3lt 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. Any other conservation and related open space activity or use that is
comparable in nature with the forego.ing uses and which the Board of Zoning
Appeals, or designee, determines to be compatible in the Preserve Tracts.
postCCPCdran PUD (4) 'l'tI'lY\D~
Page 3 of 12
AR.IOS75 I KJTE95tPLN
N~GEND~~-
SEP .L!.' 1[.lf'" I
. c. i'1.
pg~~ ,+ 'ID1l-
.~~- ,.....-...---'---.--..-=::.~~
EXHIBIT B
FOR
TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
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 ofthe site development plan (SDP)
or subdivision plat.
TABLE I
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
PRINCIPAL USES ACCESSORY USES
MINIMUM LOT AREA 10,000 Sa. Ft. N/A
MINIMUMLOT WIDTH 75 Ft. N/A
MINIMUM YARDS (External) .
. From Tamiarni Trail (U.S. 41) Not less than 25 feet. SPS
From Collier Blvd. Not less than 25 feet. SPS
From Pasedo Dr 25 Ft. SPS
From Artesa Pointe CPUD Boundary 15 Ft. SPS
From Western Proiect Boundarv 25 Ft. SPS
From Eastern Pro; ect Boundarv 25 Ft. SPS
MINIMUM YARDS (Internal)
Internal Drives/ROW 10Ft. SPS
Rear 15 Ft. SPS
Side 10Ft. SPS
Preserve 25 Ft. SPS
MIN. DISTANCE BETWEEN 10 Ft. or th the sum of the 10 Ft.
STRUCTURES building heights *
MAXIMUM HEIGHT
Retail Bui1dings*** Zoned 35Ft. 25 Ft.
Actual 40 Ft.
Office Buildings Zoned 35Ft. 25 Ft.
Actual 40 Ft.
MINIMUM FLOOR AREA 1,000 Sa. Ft. ** N/A
MAX. GROSS LEASABLE AREA 235,000 Sq, 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 fonnat retailer building,
post cepe d",ft PUD (4) '7i\?'np,>-
Page 1\ of 12
AR-IO&75/IUTE9"51PLN
0:
o
"
"
o
>-Ii
\3z
~~
""
"'5
",0
-",
0"
~l!!
llig
~~
Zo.
Z>-
-I)
;liD
=>D
1;:<
~12
zw
o=>
00
!a5
:z~
~g
~
b) !ao
Ul F~
b
z '"
~~z
~~fil
_",0
!:!::~>
8..;:2
"",o.
000:
1'-::;0
l3~o
wz"'
~:iZ
~~~
a~O::
:liEiu.l
",,,'"
>-o.~
~~~
g~UlU
g:n:z9
~f5S~
!:!:!2'i~""
<,WCli=
",u.",~
wO>w
ow "
;;j::;"'~
c::i=2:~
UuJ~O:
<jEZO
-11-11.8
<1:4:00<(
"
~i
;;~
h
N~GENDA ITE~l~
z"'
g'"
>-"
2~
5~
<"'
<nil!
dU
WZ
",0
~ffi
Do
film
13'"
,,'l'
:;:>-
"'z
BI
w
~fil
~~
"'0
"'~ .
~~b
~~~
~r.:O
Ou.~
"0,,,
~
I
3"
J
i~
.
~ < fi
b 5; I
" . '< .
'" -.1;; ~
t;j ~~n: a
Cf:Ir-":!;;
~ !!!2~~-
~ ~~~ i~
:;.! lbb{
~ u~
~ 1i~
~ U 1Il~
t;~
0,
,.;
,
l
!
I
'-i
,..
I!
~ " r"
!' . i 8~~;
U ---
i ~.-. ....... i~~~~~
:;g~ ~
, .....MUJ.... .\~ '~~r'
" '" OOW>0 . ~
w ' . ---
~ UlUJi:!::w j;jh1 --- ,~ ;f~
J O::O::;UJCl:
ii ~~~~ ~ .
~ 0:
~;!lll.~ o'ii
i\l ~~f3~ "'O!
" 11 II g Il ~ BO
'"
r! ~ 0'
" is
@ j
0: St:;
5 ~w '" ~
~ :il :z::; ~ 0 ~
~w" lE~ '" u: ~
~~~~ W D
::; DO 0: ~ '"
'" it z
=> w5;;!ffi :>'" z ;< w
'" =>Q 0
"' ~mh ::;Q 0 => 0 0: Z
~ ~ '"
l: ~~ '" ;; .. w
'" '" DO. 0: U.
00 .. ::;l'l iii .
0 8 ED @ e ,
~
e
15 0%"'%
% ,,::!-
!l ll"ia
~f1 ii:~g
~ffi g..;~
~:> :>l';~
mw g~D:::
~~ 1-::10
tIlg u:::ea
;;" ~~~
Z(!l ~::E<
~ g ~ ~.~
~:> ;t1i"'
;1'" I'!",m
~ '(Q..:1
~~ ~~<
~ffi ~~i};u
i=~ ~l:l..z9
lbe <~oUJ
~~ ~~~~
uCl u.">
UlZ 810111;>-
-0 " >~
~5 ~~W3
a.u: uw~a
. ~8- <~z~
~:J: ::i 0
b 1-::E <!;(~~
% ~
oJ
~l
..,
Ii
,
~
'/ -i
" .
'/ I
, '
, '
~.
..~
,..
2~
%w
0'"
~"
"'0
i(w
wll
I'i~
",w
~~
d"
~5
~iQ
Zw
00
0%
~'i!
"w
n:i"
1;;"
%-
o~
~;;
mo
~w
~~
.~
19w"=
~~~
~w~
~~fg
o~m
zo~
N~GENOA ITEM
. ~b'
r I' ..
i ,'- <..' j\ ;~; i~
I' P #l Jr. .
~ ri_J..lLV/)l Jc,
~.<~-
~l / .
5:': /
II /
'... "
'"
"
.'
/
t5 III ti
~ 3 ~
~ ~.
'" N~ ,I
~ G~ A
'" "'
~ ~'"
~ ~::!: ~
U ~" .,
,. ~.
" ~
'" 5
"' u l
@,
".
/
(
..;
,
I
I
;!
Ii
l:!' --
a ..
_ .. .. --'-r-/L
'#.;#.. .-..
lflo ~ .1H
r.n ~[f)UJ:!:. H
~ woo>(/)
.c::~O:::w
~ uumtt:
oW <c(~!i
~ (!;1M(ti1
, lOa:) (f)
~ ~t-:tZ~
II II II g II ;;t;
~ ~
o 15
~ glii
:5 IJ...W
~ @ ~~
:i <i!~c::~!;l
~ Li.C::E~ (!):::I
rJ ffi5;~c:::::eg
Ul ill ::Ezzw S2
t:: 1- ~~~~ i23
UJ rn 00 iE ~fj
I:lJ tn
';-"'8"~'\'
:;=::.
.~ffi~.r~J
,.!lie Fi
.~ ~!~
~
:\Ll
~
~'&.:t1
~li!:'"
51;!
"I"
,,0
<<
w
"'
~
"' ~
~ >
iQ :'.: ~
~ w ~ Z (/J
o It ;! '2 w
~ i6 ~ ~ ffi
Gj ~
o
;
~
>
.
e
8@@@
EXHIBIT D
FOR
TAl\flAMI CROSSING CPUD
NAGENDA ITEM
oSEP~ ~ 2iJfJ3
p 9~ c-\- rD
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The subject property being 25.45:1:: 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 BEJNG MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGJN AT THE NORTHEAST COlUffiR OF TRACT "0.S.-3" OF TRAIL RIDGE,
ACCORDJNG TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 44 AT PAGES 7I
THROUGH 77 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89055'57" WEST, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT
"0.S.-3", FOR A DISTANCE OF 683.32 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST COlUffiR OF LANDS
DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 3620 AT PAGES 2872 THROUGH 2876 OF
THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORJI:iA; THENCE RUN SOUTH
00004'03" WEST, ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LANDS, FOR A DISTANCE OF
200.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT t'C" OF SAID TRAIL RIDGE;
THENCE RUN NORTH 89055'57" WEST, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, FOR A DISTANCE
OF 196.99 FEET TO THE NORTHERLYMOSTWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT "C";
THENCE RUN SOUTH 02030'29" WEST, ALONG THE WESTBRL Y LINE OF SAID TRACT
"dt, FOR A DISTANCE OF 100.09 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 90000'00" 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 02030'29" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF -WAY
LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 140.20 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 04012'04" EAST,
ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 640,85 FEET;
THENCE RUN SOUTH 89042'14" EAST FOR A DISTANCE OF 264.66 FEET; THENCE
RUN NORTH 15042'49" WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 320.41 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH
35039'44" 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 54020t16" EAST, ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE, FOR A DISTANCE OF 1,927.32 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 35039'44"
WEST FOR A DISTANCE OF 400,00 FEET TO A POJNT 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 54020'16" 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, CONTAlNING 25.451 ACRES, MORE
OR LESS,
post CCPc dean PUD (4) 1'>\"" 1"(1-
Page7of12
AR-I0875 / KITE951PLN
EXHIBIT E
FOR
TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD
NAGENDA IT!;M
0, 3-E:
Pg S~~ c.l:;~
-,.
DEVIATIONS
A, Landscape buffer(s),
The developer requests a deviation from Subsection 4,06.02, Table 2.4 (footnote 3) ofthe
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,
B. Project signage.
The developer requests a deviation fl'om 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 oftlrree on-premises
pole or monument signs along the projects V.S, 41 frontage, The maximum sign area for
the three signs shall not exceed 160 square feet, and no single sign shall exceed 80 square
feet.
C. Parking distribution.
The developer requests a deviation from Subsection 5.05,08.E of the LDC which pennits
no more than 50% of the required parking area for intelior lots to be located between the
primary far,:ade and the abutting street, to permit 100% of the required parking area to be
permitted between the primary far,:ade and the Collier Boulevard and Tamiarni Trail road
frontage ill'eSpective of which Conceptual Master Plan option is pursued. 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 desclibed in
Exhibit F, Item 2.E. L The developer shall provide a covered pedestrian walkway as
desclibed in Subsection 2.E.2. of Exhibit F of this Ordinance,
D, 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.
pos' eepe draft PUD -./}1~
Page 8 of 12
AR.I0875I KlTE951PLN
EXHIBIT F
FOR
TAMIAMI CROSSING CPUD
N~GENfS ~
SEP lJ - '/,,'1":'
''''~" .. ~: i, 1
_!9_.!i9"1i:".lD
LIST OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS
1, Regnlations for development of the Tamiami 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 regnlations 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. PUD MASTER PLANS
1. Exhibit "C-1" and Exhibit "C-2" depict the conceptual master plans for
two proposed development options.
2. Exhibit "C-1 ", "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 2S 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 buffers along US 41 and Collier Boulevard
shall be increased with tree and shrub matelial as depicted on Exhibit
HG".
d, Conceptual Plan "C-1" shall adhere to the applicable architectural
commitments in Exhibit F, Item 2. G.
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 proj eel.
vostCCPCd..ftPUD(4) rNmP-tJ.
Page 9 of12
AR, 10875 I IUTE951 PLN
1.
N~~_E.N~~. L.TEM-.l'
~l:I) t,. e'I'"
I pg__LC20?fJJ
A copy of the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMDT-
surface water permit application shall be sent to Collier County
Development Services Staff with the final plat or SDP submittal.
B.
WATER MANAGEMENT
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
NGYD or above, as required or as approved by the South Florida Water
Management District.
C. UTILITIES
1. 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
regnlations.
2. Except on an interim basis for structures such as sales/construction trailers
and models, the proj ect 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 intercoru1ections with the adjacent property to the south,
The developer shall assure that these intercoru1ections accommodate the
perpetual use of such access by incorporating the appropriate language into
the applicable development covenants, and SDP or plat.
E. PLANNJNG
1. Enhanced Landscape Buffer along the Collier Boulevard and Tamiami
Trail frontages. 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.
The enhanced landscape buffers are as depicted on Exhibit G.
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) ruru1ing from the parking area of the project to
the main entrance of the building on Tract C. The walkway shall be a
post eepe draft PUD 7h7nP. ()-
Page 10 of 12
AR-IOB75 / KlTE951PLN
minimum of eight feet ill width with the covering to be a
twelve feet at its peak, The covered walkway may be in th
pergola or arbor covered with shade-producing vegetation,
'n!M~~pA ITEM
fo~~ ~ 9 ZOO~
rl !~j offO_
F,
ENVlRONMENT AL
1, An analysis demonstrating that post-development pollutant loading will be
less than or equal to predevelopment loading in general aceordance with
the Harvey Harper methodology shall be completed and submitted for
review and approval at the time of site development plan review.
G. ARCIDTECTURE
1. The theme for all buildings in the center for Conceptual Master Plans "A"
and "B" shown in Exhibit C-l 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 e1ement(s) shall be a maximum
zoned height of35 feet, with a maximum actual height of38 feet.
1. Buildings or portions of buildings beyond ZOO feet from the US 41
right-of-way shall not 'exceed the maximum heights listed ill
Exhibit B, Table 1.
2, Signage shall not be permitted on any tower el=ent on the large
format retailer building,
po,t eepe draft pun (4) 7l1?'l1R-~
Page 11 of 12
AR.I0875I Kll'E95\PLN
No.
'"
N
SEP ( '''. '. I
~J..,.t:j ~~;
. P9_~0_~~ !iul
~i. i g
<~"'., ,g
<l.!l !,
,diH!
~~. q ~
;... ~Ii! <::i.
~W! (E
D~ I
.. I ~
<Yo 1 C'"
A ~ ~
~
u .~ '" ]
~~
'" N ro
p... l>< ~
';;l ';;l
.g "" g
0
~~ ~ 0) ~
o 0~ '" N H
....
~P=l."" ~
~E-<~ k
~~~~. ~ '" P:l
N
" <:>
Ou .~ iQ <:>
~lZlf;l;1~ p N
u~ .... ";l
"
(!; u
....
IH ~
D t-<
N
'"
N
E-<
"d
" ~
~ ~
bOo
t bOp::
l'l " 0
"'00 '" t:
~ ""d .-< II\ ~~
" .-< " I-il
~ .g~
0 ~ ~I
"" Q
g. '" ~
:a ~ 0",
u
'"
N
CJ
i5
'"
'"
0
eJ ~
I ~~
.
~ ~
83
l'l
~ ~