The URL can be used to link to this page

CCPC Agenda 09/05/2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 8/21/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission AGENDA Board of County Commission Chambers Collier County Government Center 3299 Tamiami Trail East, 3rd Floor Naples, FL 34112 September 5, 2019 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selec ted to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. September 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 8/21/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PL20180002804: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to amend the Urban Mixed Use Activity Center #7 to allow up to 265 multi-family residential rental dwelling units in the Hammock Park Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development in addition to commercial development and providing for transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 19 acres and located at the northeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] 2. PL20180002668: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay, to allow a base density of .2 dwelling units per acre plus density bonuses for native vegetation and transfer of development rights for a total maximum density of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, for property within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District-Receiving Lands, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 37.62± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] September 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 8/21/2019 B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 09/05/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes Meeting Date: 09/05/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 08/12/2019 4:11 PM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 08/12/2019 4:11 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 08/12/2019 4:11 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/05/2019 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 August 1, 2019 Page 1 of 63 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 1, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner James Sabo, Principal Planner Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 2 of 63 P R O C E E D I N G S VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Could you please take your seats, please. And welcome to the meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission August 1st, 2019. Could you all please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Commissioner -- Chairman Strain will be a few minutes late. He'll be here within the half hour, and Mr. Schmitt has an excused absence. So with that, could we have roll call, please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, ma'am. Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain is absent. Vice Chair Homiak? VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. Okay. Addendum to the agenda. MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have a request for the first two items -- and I think we would like to -- Mr. Jeff Wright to explain his request for a continuance. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners. Madam Chair, I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin Law Firm. We're here on Items 1 and 2. And as I've explained to staff and to the chair in advance of the meeting, also to the members of the public who are present here, we're going to need some extra time to get some of the details in relation to our petition ironed out, and for that reason we're requesting a continuance on Items 1 and 2. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. And our next meeting on August 15th, our meeting date we have nothing, and we're not having a meeting. MR. BELLOWS: At the present time there are no items scheduled, and I believe there was an email canceling the meeting, so the next meeting would be September 5th. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Will that work? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, it will. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, what do we have? I guess I should pose this to Ray. What do we have on that first meeting in September already? MR. BELLOWS: I'll have to pull it up on the computer. It's not many items, though. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Not many? Okay. MR. BELLOWS: I can get you the list, but right now -- I was having computer problems this morning. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Mike knows. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. The September 5th meeting already has two full-scale Growth Management Plan amendments 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 3 of 63 and a small-scale amendment. So I think that you'll have five -- or four individual Growth Management Plan amendment requests, small scale and large scale. So it's going to be a very busy September 5th meeting. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I think in fairness to us, we should take a serious look at when -- the proper time to schedule. I don't object to the continuance concept, but -- VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: There's also advertising. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yep. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: We'd have to be -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Excuse me. MR. KLATZKOW: They're going to have to readvertise. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Why can't we have it at the next meeting? You know, even though -- it seems like if the next meeting is canceled because there's no agenda, why don't we just put it on that meeting and send a notice out. Is it not enough time or what? MR. BELLOWS: Well, the idea is we would continue time certain to that meeting, so it should be -- MR. BOSI: Yeah. If this body -- if the Planning Commission continued this item to the August 15th meeting, then the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, it would satisfy the advertising requirements, and you also would have the Golden Gate Area Master Plan consent item that could be held at that specific time. MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff, how much time do you need to work this out with the community? MR. WRIGHT: I would say we probably need three or four days to work out the details. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Does that give you enough time to get it to the staff in time for an August meeting; is that the -- MR. KLATZKOW: We're okay. I mean, he's the one asking for the continuance. I didn't know how much time he needed. MR. WRIGHT: We're okay with the August 15th meeting. We're available. I understood it was canceled, so I didn't want to go for that date, but we're happy to show up on the 15th. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Yeah. If you would rather do -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I'd move that we allow the continuance but to the second meeting in August. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: All those in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (No verbal response.) VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Well, I guess that's it then. That will work for you then? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, ma'am. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. So Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting will be on August 7th at 5:05. Will everybody be here then or -- No. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Ms. Commissioner, I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to make that next Wednesday meeting or not. I'll have to get back. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. We'll still have a quorum. Mr. Strain will be here, I guess. And August 15th, will everyone make it then? Are you going to be here? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 4 of 63 VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Yeah, okay. We have no minutes to approve and no BCC recaps. There's no meeting, right. No chairman's report. No consent agenda. And the first two items -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Ms. Chairman, I have one thing, if we could. It's been brought to my attention that Mike Bosi, this may well be his last CCPC meeting after 17 years, so I think we should take a moment and recognize him and thank him for his 17 years here working with the county and wish him the best. Is that true, Mike? Is this your last meeting? (Applause.) COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: He'll be missed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: He certainly will. MR. KLATZKOW: Mike has done outstanding work for us, and I know my office has greatly appreciated the time and effort that he's spent on this. He's a true public servant. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I just want to know where he could possibly go that's not (sic) nicer than Collier County. MR. BOSI: Other places need help. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Add my personal note of thanks to Mike for all you've done, sir. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Thank you. ***Okay. So that brings us to Items 9A3 and 9A4, which are companion items, so I assume we would hear them together. So the first one is PL20170004419, and the companion item for Allura PUD is PUDR-PL20170004385. All those wishing to speak on these items, would you please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: And did you have any contact with anybody? MR. EASTMAN: No disclosures other than the documents in the public record including the email correspondence. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: A short conversation with Rich Yovanovich and the same, what he said. COMMISSIONER FRY: Public record, this packet just on our desk today, conversation with Rich Yovanovich, and conversation with the president of Barrington Cove Association. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have received the materials from staff and also had a communication with one member of the community. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. And I spoke to Mr. Yovanovich before the last meeting was canceled, and I have emails. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Just email correspondence and staff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. My disclosure was with respect to the most recent period of time. I didn't cover things that I'd already disclosed. Thank you. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. Thank you. Okay. First we'll hear from the petitioner, then have the staff report, and then we'll have the speakers. MR. MULHERE: Thank you. For the record, my name is Bob Mulhere with Hole Montes here this morning on behalf of the applicant. Also with me this morning, Rich Yovanovich, who is our land-use attorney; Ted Treesh, the transportation consultant; Chris Mitchell, who is our civil engineer; Cat Cardoza, who is a manager of apartment facilities, has experience doing that. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 5 of 63 Our client is expected -- he's on his way. Expected within five minutes. So Keith Gelder, and he may be with Chris Johnson, but they're on their way. So we will proceed. Just a little reminder that the BCC transmittal had -- before transmittal there were two hearings, January 17th, February 7th. There was a 4-2 recommendation to transmit this petition with a density of 304 units in three- and four-story buildings. The BCC transmittal was, I believe, in March. And there was also a recommendation from the BCC to transmit, but at that time the BCC limited the building height to no more than three stories. I know all of you know where the property is located, but I'll just go through it briefly in case anyone is here that hasn't seen this or is watching on TV. So the property is located along Livingston and Veterans Memorial. It is in the southeast corner. The surrounding -- the property includes both ag-zoned parcels -- a little over 20 acres of ag-zoned parcels, and the 15-and-change acre De La Rosa PUD. And surrounding land uses are PUD residential development to the east and the south. There's actually an ag piece also to the south. To the north is Veterans Memorial, which is a 200-foot-wide right-of-way at that location, and then Mediterra. And to the west is also -- across Livingston Road is ag-zoned parcels. All of the property in this area falls within the urban residential subdistrict, and the property is not within the coastal high hazard area. The GMP is 35.57 acres. The PUD is 35.92 acres. That differential was a couple of slivers of land that we did not have clear title to at the time we went through the transmittal. We are not including that in the GMP amendment, as was directed by the County Attorney's Office; however, we are including it in the PUD. It's right long the edge of Livingston Road and would be in the landscape buffer. So the density is based on 35.57, and that is -- at 304 dwelling units, that's 8.5 DUs per acre. I already discussed the transmittal recommendations. But just to reiterate at transmittal, staff recommendation to transmit, Planning Commission recommendation to transmit, and BCC recommendation to transmit. With respect to the De La Rosa PUD, which was approved in 2007, 15.38 acres allowing 107 multifamily dwelling units with a zoned building height of 50 feet and an actual building height of 69 feet. You may recall this exhibit. It shows in red our proposed plan. We do have a minimum principal structure setback from the east property line of 125 feet. The De La Rosa PUD had submitted an SDP which had buildings located within 20 feet of the property line, and that's circled and shown on this exhibit. It's probably a little hard to read, but that is the transmittal language which you also have in your packet. This is the proposed master concept plan. Today, of course, you're looking at not only the Comprehensive Plan but also the PUD, which we had the same version available to you when we came before you for transmittal, but this is a hearing for your recommendation with respect to the zoning as well. The only thing that really changed was the reduction directed by the BCC down to three stories. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Madam Chairman, I request -- I guess it's a point of personal privilege. I must correct my previous disclosure. I also spoke with Mr. Yovanovich, and I was confused because we didn't make disclosures when this was continued on July 18th. VICE CHAIR HOMIAK: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So I apologize, Mr. Mulhere, for interrupting. MR. MULHERE: Sure. No problem. This is just an example of our site -- or a depiction of our site plan overlaid on an aerial. Again, just to point out the 125-foot setback from the eastern perimeter boundary and the maximum building height as directed by the BCC at transmittal, three stories, zoned height of 40 feet, and actual height of 50 feet. Just want to go over this again briefly. These -- this exhibit shows our perimeter boundary 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 6 of 63 landscape buffers by type. I have more detail in the subsequent slides. So if you look on the right-hand side, you can see where this particular Type B buffer elevation applies. We have a stormwater lake on the east side right here. So you have that buffer here, on the south adjacent to an ag parcel, and here adjacent to the -- this is a commercial C1 parcel right here. And this elevation is a Type A buffer, which is adjacent to the ag-zoned piece, which is a five-acre piece right here. This is probably the most significant, or I should say, important buffer. This is an enhanced Type B buffer that we discussed at our previous meeting as well, and this buffer would be located right here adjacent to Barrington Cove. And, finally, this is the Type D buffer along the right-of-way, the Livingston Road right-of-way right here. There was discussion on line of sight. MR. PRITT: We can't see that. Whatever you're pointing to, we can't see that outline. MR. MULHERE: The pink outline right here is that buffer. MR. PRITT: Okay. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: There was some discussion, and we had provided you with a line-of-sight exhibit at our transmittal hearing. But this line-of-sight exhibit shows the line-of-sight with the reduced height from four stories down to three stories. And it was a little hard to see. There was a dashed line, so I inserted a brighter red line so you could see that line-of-sight exhibit. This is an individual standing right here. This is the berm, landscape buffer, on Barrington Cove, for example. I'm sorry, Mediterra, yes, looking straight. That's both ways right here too. I'm sorry, that is Mediterra, A. You're right. And then looking across the right-of-way, travel lane. This is just a large open-space area. It could be widened right-of-way, but it's a large open-space area. And then you can see that the line-of-sight runs just over the roof line of a three-story building. And I'm sorry, B is looking from Barrington Cove. Again, you have an individual right here. You have their landscape buffer, our landscape buffer. You have our one-story parking structures which forces the line-of-sight upward. And, again, this line-of-sight actually goes above the roof line. And the last two are C and D also generally looking sort of directly at the project from Barrington Cove, and then looking at an angle into the project at Barrington Cove. And you have the same scenario there with this reduced height. Again, the reduced height is a maximum zoned height of 40 feet and a maximum actual height of 50 feet. We did look at other multifamily apartments. (Chairman Strain is now present in the boardroom.) MR. MULHERE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, Bob. Thank you. MR. MULHERE: And you'll see this list in front of you includes approved, some developed, and one project that is in the -- in the process of going through zoning. But we wanted to give you an idea of the size and the number of units and the density of these projects. So Pine Ridge Commons, these are net densities, has 375 units on 11.9 acres for a density of 31.51; Briarwood, which I did work on, is 320 units on just under 16, for a density of 20.04; Aster Resort has a density of 17.31; Legacy, 16.01; Courthouse Shadows, 15.96; Addison Place, 15.6; Inspira, 15.12; Milano Lakes, 12.52; Orchid Run, 12.23; Springs at Sabal Bay, 9.54; and, finally, Allura, which has a density of 8.46 if you look at the entire PUD acreage. If you look at just the smaller acreage, the lesser acreage on the GMP, the density is 8.5. So that's why you see 8.55, because the density is based on the GMP amendment. There was some discussion about the ITE trip generation manual and whether or not it accurately captured trip generation for this use. Ted can speak more specifically to this issue if you so desire but, in general, we looked at -- I think Ted looked at five or six different multifamily projects, did a traffic count 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 7 of 63 in season for those. And the outcome of that is that the ITE trip generation manual is generally very consistent with the actual trip generation for those projects. And, again, he can speak to the issues. But we did do that because of the discussion about that matter. In terms of market analysis, we know there's strong demand for apartments, and that demand does exceed supply. Occupancy is close to 95 percent right now, and the estimated demand for market-rate rental units by the end of 2022 is over 5,300 units. These are -- and we went over these at the transmittal hearing as well, but these are typical demographics and management elements of this project. It is assumed that it will be -- the project will be occupied by working professionals and potentially also empty nesters. There is a strong demand for empty nesters for rental -- luxury rental apartments. The average household income would be from 80- to 135,000. And we know that there is a market for those empty nesters based on our experience at other projects. There will be professional on-site management by Greystar. And, again, Cat Cardoza is here, and she can speak to those issues. You had some questions the last time. You may have some more questions this time. We do require full background checks for all tenants. There is a seven-day eviction process for any criminal activity. We do not allow subleasing. Airbnb and similar types of transient rental businesses are prohibited. Renters insurance is required. All vehicles are required to be registered. And there are strict restrictions on breeds of pets, including photos and proof of vaccination. The standard lease is 12-month minimum lease term. We had talked about seven months. I think there was some discussion about whether or not that would -- that would continue or whether there would be a 12-month minimum. But at this point, 12 months is the standard lease, and a seven-month is available for people who may want to come for just the seasonal rental. I don't want to -- I know you have a -- well, you don't have as busy of an agenda as you did previously, but I did share these pictures with you, so I'll go over them briefly. These are photos of Inspira at Lely Resort, and that is a -- I believe a four-story building, so keep in mind, this is a little taller. But it does give you a sense of what the site will look like. These are pictures of the amenities at that facility, and this will be very similar in terms of the amenitization. Pool area, interiors, very high quality, common areas, other common areas. Again, the pool area. So that concludes my presentation. I know you have a lot of questions. We do have experts here to respond directly to some of your questions, but I wanted to at least give you an oversight and overview of the project, and from there we'll take your questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. First of all, thank you. I apologize for being late. But I want to make my disclosures. Since the last meeting, I have not had any others conversations, I believe, with the applicant. I don't think I even met with staff since the last meeting on this item, so I have no other disclosure to offer. So with that -- pardon me? MR. YOVANOVICH: Actually, Mr. Strain, you and I had a conversation on the phone. You may be confused -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Was it before last time or before this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was before this time, Mr. Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks for letting me know. I didn't even -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Thanks, Mark. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It was very impactful. I didn't remember it. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate that. MR. PRITT: And me, too. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right, Mr. Pritt. Boy. Coming in late, I didn't have enough 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 8 of 63 coffee this morning, so thank you both for correcting me. With that I'll turn it to members of the Planning Commission for questions. Anybody have any questions? We'll go with Karl first and then Ned. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Chairman Strain. Just a few questions. The first question is, what effect on the site plan occurred as a result of the Board of County Commissions' decision to reduce from four-story to three-story buildings? How does that impact the footprint and the layout of your site plan? MR. YOVANOVICH: For the record, Rich Yovanovich. Mr. Fry, what essentially happened by reducing the height from four stories to three stories, the way we accounted for that is we -- I think this is a correct word -- we elongated some of the buildings to accommodate for that. We didn't lose -- obviously, we brought the density down to 304 at the Planning Commission's request. But going down to three stories did not impact the number of units that we could achieve on the property, nor did it really change the location of the buildings that we previously showed you in relation to Barrington Cove and other properties. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Regarding the sight lines, you showed sight lines from various angles. What would the sight lines be like through the enhanced buffers that you described? How much -- to what extent would the neighbors and residents be able to see the buildings through the landscaping buffer? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm showing you the enhanced buffer to Barrington Cove. I'm assuming that's the focus of your question; is that correct? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Basically, what you see there is what you'll see of our project. As you -- if you'll recall, the one-story apartment, the garages, are immediately adjacent to Barrington Cove. So with the enhanced buffer that's there, you're basically not going to see the one-story garages, and with the sight line that we showed you, you're not even going to be able to see into the units, and neither will the people in the units be able to see into people's backyards. I know that was a concern that was previously raised. But we believe the sight line works both ways. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of your slides was the density of various apartment complexes, and Inspira being one, which had a much higher density, the same number of units, 304, on a much smaller footprint. How do you -- what makes up the difference in the much lower density on this project? Is it simply open space and water management, the large water management? MR. YOVANOVICH: Preserves. The difference in this site and some of the other sites is this is a stand-alone PUD, and we have to accommodate on our site our water management, our preserve, which adds to, you know, the lower density that we can achieve on the acreage because we have to accommodate those things. Really, the purpose of this slide was to show you that the market for apartments is in the 300-unit range for apartments to provide the level of amenities that Collier County's demanding and the rents are demanding and the community wants to see with these types of luxury apartment complexes. You have to have enough units to be able to support the amenities we're offering. And I'm telling you because, fortunately, I'm representing a few different clients who are coming through the process -- already been through the process for the apartments and are coming through the process for the apartments, it's a competition. Who can provide the better amenities? Because they can command high rents, and they want to attract those people. So as you saw the amenities that we're proposing here and the amenities that are already at Inspira, they're first-class luxury amenities. And to support those amenities, you have to have the number of units to support being able to provide those amenities. That was really the purpose of this slide, to show you what the unit sizes of these apartments are. And I'm embarrassed; I should have added to this slide Baumgarten which just was approved by the Board of County Commissioners and also came through the Planning Commission. I think that was 400 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 9 of 63 apartments at the corner of Collier Boulevard and Immokalee Road. Coincidentally, also adjacent to a single-family community. So there's -- you could see that the numbers that are required for these types of communities to provide the amenities gets you in the 300-unit range. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the showing of the buffers from the various angles, I don't remember, I might have missed it, was there a buffer along Livingston Road shown? MR. YOVANOVICH: There is. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask, just focus on the setbacks and the buffering on Livingston. Okay. The pink? MR. YOVANOVICH: There's the pink. I'm assuming you're talking about the pink, not the yellow, because that's not really adjacent to Livingston. COMMISSIONER FRY: The pink, yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Is that it, Bob? No, that was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You just went past it twice. Keep going to your Type D buffer. MR. YOVANOVICH: Where this is? MR. MULHERE: It's probably not in yellow, but it's a Type D. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, it is in pink. There it is right there. MR. YOVANOVICH: What threw me off, as you can see where the pink is is up at Veterans Memorial, I was looking for the pink also labeled. That's the buffer you'll see from Livingston Road as you're driving past the project. COMMISSIONER FRY: And what is the setback on that? MR. YOVANOVICH: The setback is 50 feet for principal structures from Livingston Road. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fifty feet. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's the current PUD. COMMISSIONER FRY: I know some of the concerns expressed by residents were driving up Livingston and seeing this, you know, four-story apartment complex. The County Commission reduced that to three. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: I think partly to alleviate that stark contrast in building heights. Are you willing to enhance that buffer -- I guess any kind of buffering along Livingston, I believe, would also be important. Is there a reason why that could not be an enhanced -- you know, enhanced buffer with the buildings set back a little father so they're not hanging right -- 50 feet is about 17 steps. MR. YOVANOVICH: So -- COMMISSIONER FRY: So from the road to a building, a three-story building, 17 steps, is there -- what can we -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me make sure I don't get anybody dizzy by going the right way or wrong way. MR. MULHERE: Want to go to the aerial. MR. YOVANOVICH: Bob, I'm looking for the regular B. Okay. Here's a regular B buffer which obviously is more enhanced than the A. We could put that along Livingston Road. And we've started to, obviously, lay out the site just like we had done in Baumgarten. So we could accommodate a setback along Livingston Road for principal structures of 80 feet instead of the 50 feet. So with the enhanced buffer and the greater setback for principal structures, I think that would go a long way towards addressing -- Right, okay. But thank you, Bob. We do the same B plantings but within the Type D buffer width. So you're still going to get the same blockage you'll get from the plantings. It affects the site plan if I have to go a little bit wider for the landscape buffer but with the increased setback of the principal structures. So you'll get the same level of 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 10 of 63 plantings. COMMISSIONER FRY: So more density of plantings in the same width is what you're saying? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: That would skew the view more, and then setting the buildings back -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Another 30 feet, principal structures, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: And so how close would the garages be or parking spaces? What was the layout on that side in terms of garages and parking spaces? MR. YOVANOVICH: We have the garages just like we do on the east side, and that is how many feet? I think it was 20 feet. MR. MULHERE: Twenty. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think the garages would be 20 feet. COMMISSIONER FRY: Starting at 20 feet. Okay. MR. MULHERE: Right, at the edge of the landscape. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It would be at the edge of the buffer hidden by the trees. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. I guess, you know, in the public comments last time you had showed De La Rosa, the PUD that was approved, which presumably gives the developer the right to build the De La Rosa PUD even if this were not passed. What -- I got the impression from some of the residents that they didn't believe that the De La Rosa would be built. If it was going to be built, it would have been built by now. What would the developer do if this PUD and GMP amendment was not passed? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, the difference between -- and I hate going backwards, but to remind everybody; there may be some new people in the audience. Stock has acquired De La Rosa, so they own it. They have not yet acquired the other 20 acres. So since they own De La Rosa, they have two options: Build it or not build it. So they're going to build it, and the only thing that's authorized to be built on that property right now is multifamily. Single-family is not an option. We had this discussion last time. So it was bought with multifamily on it with the development standards for De La Rosa in place and, in fact, Barrington Cove came after De La Rosa. And Barrington Cove -- so Barrington Cove knew that De La Rosa had been zoned ahead of it at the exact same standards that are in there today and, in fact, we're bringing those standards down and pulling the buildings further back. So if we're denied, we have two choices, you know; submit another PUD request under the current comp plan to achieve probably a higher density than we're asking for under the comprehensive plan today -- amendment we're asking for today, or simply go forward -- if that's unsuccessful, then we would build De La Rosa as it currently exists. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Rich. Mr. Chairman, just a clarification. This came to us before for transmittal. It was passed 4-2. It went to the County Commission. They approved it with the reduction of building height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was 4-1 there. COMMISSIONER FRY: 4-1 there. Okay. What is our latitude today in terms of this coming back through us for transmittal without significant changes? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you want. There's no restriction. If you want to vote differently, if you want to request changes be made, that's what this is for. The transmittal is just to get the feel of it. The adoption is where the -- I guess the rubber meets the road. This is the final blink we have at this, with this and the PUD both, so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Stan, then Ned. Is that okay, Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: You said there were two options. There's a third option. Stock is not going to hold onto a park. For the benefit of people around it, they'll probably -- if they can't 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 11 of 63 build what they want, they'll sell it. And to my way of thinking, Stock is a developer I would rather have building on this parcel than somebody they might sell it to. So it's just a thought. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I don't like to -- you're right, that is another option, but I believe Stock intends to build on De La Rosa if we're turned down. But you're right, they could decide that this isn't the Stock quality project that they want on their name, and they'll sell it to someone else to build De La Rosa. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have several questions and comments. First of all, at the BCC transmittal, Chairman McDaniel asked the developer and the agents to go back to the neighbors and see if further concessions could be made including with respect to more buffering. And we've heard some things already about additional buffering. My question is, is have you gone back and met again with the neighbors? And what was the outcome of that all in? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I had discussions with their representative, and what was relayed to me is you can have four units an acre. And I said, well, then there's really nothing to discuss. COMMISSIONER FRYER: This was their legal counsel or the president of their HOA? MR. YOVANOVICH: I can't talk to their HOA president, so it was through their legal counsel. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then my questions are what, if any, additional steps have been taken to mitigate further the automobile traffic that will result from the project in addition -- if anything, in addition to the points that have already been made. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I will -- the difference has been the analysis has been done on 304 units versus the prior iteration with the higher density. We still -- and Ted can get into the details. I'll give you the summary. We still do not trip a failure on any links in the road -- in the TCMA. So we're not utilizing the 85 percent "area is doing fine" analysis, which would not trip any of the transportation demand techniques that you would have to do under the normal rezone process and Comprehensive Plan process for a project of this density. We agreed to provide two of the four TDMs as additional transportation mitigation for this project even though we would not be required to do that under the TCMA. It's an MA, right? So what we have in our PUD is, obviously, there's two we can do right away, which is interconnecting with the commercial. And I'm blanking on the second one. What was the other one we were going to do? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Bus stops, but that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That wasn't counted, though. There's three that we can do. Interconnection with the commercial -- I'll look at it in a second. And we threw -- the bus stop -- we also agreed, if the county wants a bus stop, whenever they want the bus stop, we will provide them with that bus stop. And when we -- it was discussed at the last meeting, people said, well, Rich, you basically offered us nothing. And I said, well, you guys are -- you're not thinking about the future, because we had just approved the transit, the park-and-ride at the corner of Livingston Road and Immokalee Road. Right down the street you've just approved a CAT transit stop. It's not a difficult thing to imagine in the future that the county's going to want to have a bus line going up and down Livingston Road to the north. So we provide that opportunity. I guess you'll have to explain one, Bob, because I didn't understand it. So the CAT bus stop, although it may not be needed today, I don't think it's much of a stretch that it would be a benefit to the community in the future. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would it be fair to say that when you're marketing to empty nesters 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 12 of 63 with product that would be described -- I think you've described it as luxury product -- even a rental basis, that in all likelihood the occupants would be less inclined to use bus transportation and more inclined to use auto transportation? MR. YOVANOVICH: To be honest with you, I don't know the answer to that question. If it was convenient and I had a bus line that can get me, for instance, to the beach so I don't have to fight for beach parking, I might take the bus to the beach. It would depend. I think it's fair to say that most of us are probably still users of our cars right now and maybe not believers in the CAT system. But, as time goes along, who knows how things can change. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you have or does your traffic engineer have an estimate as to how many additional automobiles would be generated by the 304 dwelling units? MR. YOVANOVICH: Versus what number? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Versus where we are now. MR. YOVANOVICH: Ted, do you? MR. TREESH: Good morning. Ted Treesh with TR Transportation. Yeah, we'll look at just the p.m. peak, because it is the highest. And for the 304 units, it's a total of a hundred -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: My question was additional automobiles. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: In the unit, in the complex. MR. YOVANOVICH: Compared to the existing zoning, Ted. MR. TREESH: I don't think we did that -- I don't think we've completed that part of the analysis. We just looked at what the project will generate at buildout of the 304. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think some of the residents have estimated upwards of 500 additional automobiles as a result of the project. Would you have any basis for taking exception to that? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I took a look at some of the numbers. The average household of that size is 1.97 cars. So if you take 1.97 cars times the additional increase over what you would have been entitled to on De La Rosa and the 20 acres you're adding, that would be 189 minus 304, so you're at 115 more at almost two units -- that would be 230 additional cars over and above what I think the zoning would probably allow if you were to go forward with just straight -- with just the zoning that was there, I think. That's the best I can tell you. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, again, I get the number of cars, but the important issue is the county measures the impact of traffic on the peak hour, and during the peak-hour analysis is which we're required to do. We do not trigger any failures on any links on the Collier County transportation system. And that's one of the reasons. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: Can I finish? COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- developer must comply with the standards that are outlined and to meet the tests that are built into the various legal documents, but I don't think it's quite fair to say that that's the only thing that can be looked at. I think 100 percent of the residents are looking at what the actual conditions are going to be and are less concerned about whether certain trip wires have been tripped. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, we have standards that we go through that are reviewed, and the transportation analysis standard is a level-of-service analysis standard, and it's based upon the peak-hour/peak-direction analysis for determining transportation-related issues. And that's the analysis we did. And under that analysis, we do not trigger any failures based upon a transportation review. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That certainly would answer staff's concerns, but I don't believe it answers the neighbors, and it doesn't answer mine either. But moving along, would you commit to a minimum lease duration of 12 months? MR. YOVANOVICH: Can we -- do you have any others while they're talking amongst 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 13 of 63 themselves? COMMISSIONER FRYER: You can hold that thought. We'll get back to it. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, thank you. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you describe in greater detail the kind of tenant vetting you do. There are various ways of accomplishing that. Probably the most thorough would be a LexisNexis or West Law search to identify prior criminal record. Could you give us an idea of what you typically do, what you do at Inspira. MS. CARDOZA: Good morning. For the record, Catherine Cardoza. So we run a full criminal screening through RealPage, which is an international software program that does property management from start to finish. So we do not allow any base -- the laws change all the time, but anything that's a violent misdemeanor or any type of felony is not permitted. It's an automatic decline. I've had them decline -- it's a very sensitive system where they look at things very, you know, detailed through all different states because, obviously, we're a transient area. So I've had them flagged even for, like, toll violations. So those things we can get, you know, disputed, but -- and overturned traffic violations. But outside of that, any violent misdemeanor or any felony whatsoever isn't approved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. I think your standards are right on target. My question is, is what background information do you rely upon against which to measure your standards? And I submit that West Law and LexisNexis are -- and I'm not familiar with the one you mentioned, but unless that service is a subscriber to one of those two, you're not going to get the stuff that you get from the level of detail. And, frankly, the cost that is associated with LexisNexis and West Law -- the reason they charge so much is because they have developed incredible detail. So do you know what your service uses and relies on? MS. CARDOZA: RealPage is actually the leader in the multifamily housing screening industry currently, and it is very, very expensive, even with Greystar's, you know, national discounts. I mean, we don't see on site the actual background that is, you know, done through corporate, but it's done on a scoring module that's extremely sensitive, and we have to verify date of birth, ID -- you know, photo ID, your driver's license number, Social Security number all has to tie in together as well as proof-of-income standards that are pretty stern. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The -- your comment about no subleasing, of course -- MS. CARDOZA: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- I would expect that, and I'm glad that's the case. That, though, triggers the question, though, how do you enforce that? And you mentioned automobile registration, which is good. Can you elaborate on what else you would do? In other words, I'm trying to identify if there's anything more than simply reactive actions that you would take in order to spot a violation of the anti-subleasing provision. MS. CARDOZA: To spot it? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MS. CARDOZA: Absolutely. We have to do unit inspections on a regular basis. We have to do regular cleanings. This kind of clientele demands a very high-level product and a very clean environment at all times. So myself and my staff, we know everybody. We know their pets. We know the ins and outs. We get to know their habits. And we're on site every single day. We are screened through, you know, risk management procedures to be trained on how to recognize those things and transient activity. The restricted access gates help with that, the fobs. You know, all of those different devices that we have in place currently and at previous communities -- current community and previous community that that really make it difficult for outsiders that are not registered to a resident to take it into one of our communities. You know, we watch for suitcases. We watch for, you know, real estate style door locks that are, you know, in place of ours. It's very easily recognized, especially when you're starting from the ground 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 14 of 63 up at a community, to know who's supposed to be there and who's not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Those are all the questions I have for this witness, unless someone else does. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Why don't you ask all the questions of the applicant presentation. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I will do that. That's fine. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got some? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Just one. I saw you say you can evict a person in seven days and yet I've heard a lot of horror stories about how it takes months to evict people. Is it really that easy to evict someone in seven days? MS. CARDOZA: So for criminal activity, if I may, real quick. Our lease agreement is full of all kinds of fun. It's worse than a mortgage. It's well over 43 pages that cover all of it. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: I know what you may have written, but I've heard -- I see this -- instances of people actually moving into places they don't even own -- MS. CARDOZA: Oh, certainly. So -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: -- and you can't get them evicted for months. And a simple piece of paper like that -- MS. CARDOZA: Yes. So it's called the crime and drug free housing addenda is one of the key factors in our lease agreement that every single resident signs to. They are responsible not for only themselves but any guests they may allow to, you know, step site -- on the site. And that -- any criminal activity whatsoever is an immediate seven day to terminate. So yes, the -- I can serve them with that and, by law, they -- if I have documented proof of any criminal activity happening, they have to vacate the community. Now, if they want to fight that, well, certainly they can in a court of law, but we would go through all of the steps. It can be a little bit longer, but if somebody has a criminal incident on site, it's very easily taken care of. It's not something that is -- is handled lightly, I guess. So if I know of a crime, and I have a police report, that's really all it takes. I've been successful in doing so at all past communities. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. I was just wondering if somebody squat -- if I ever go on vacation and somebody squats in my house, I just come back and tell them to get out, and it's that the easy? MS. CARDOZA: Well, no. Single-family law and multifamily law are very, very different. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's all I have for the lady. Thank you, ma'am. MS. CARDOZA: All right. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What -- looking at the discretionary density bonus of three, and if we start at four dwelling units per acre, the first tranche, if you will, of additional dwelling units per acre that you would want would have to be based upon a case to be made that they are justified and that they will be somehow in the public good, I believe. MR. YOVANOVICH: I don't think that's one of the criteria. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, it is. MR. YOVANOVICH: I appreciate the coaching from the audience, but it's not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not allowed to speak from the audience without being recognized, so please don't. Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, I believe that the factors in question -- and I'm aware of them -- could be summarized in that fashion. I don't think it's a matter of absolute right on the part of the developer to have those. It's discretionary. And I'm having difficulty identifying what public good would be served. And if you say that that's not a criterion and, therefore, you're not going to answer it, I'll take that as an answer. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 15 of 63 MR. YOVANOVICH: No. Of course, I'm going to answer it, but the -- first of all, my question to you is, which criteria are we talking about? Are we talking about if we were to look at this as within the TCMA? That's the -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That would be the only one that you could possible qualify for. MR. YOVANOVICH: Under today's application. But remember -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I know. Affordable. MR. YOVANOVICH: That one, and there's also -- you're asking me -- first of all, I'm not in here today to ask for the TCMA three-unit bonus. I'm here asking for my own subdistrict to allow me to build 8.55 units per acre on that property. But if I were to go -- if we want to do the hypothetical of what could I do under today's Growth Management Plan and what criteria I would need to meet, I'm happy to address that question with the following response: The TCMA was designed and intended to focus density in the urban area, and by doing so, it gives you the ability to request three units per acre as a bonus to the base density of four. There are criteria to get those bonus units, and it's the same rezone criteria you would go through to rezone any piece of property, which would include an analysis of transportation-related impacts under the transportation rules. You would have -- one of the criteria is you would look at compatibility with your neighbors. Your professional planning staff says we've met the compatibility standards based upon our setbacks and our height, et cetera. Those are the criteria that you would go through to get the bonus units of three. Now, let's assume I'm going under the existing Comprehensive Plan. I then am in what's called a quasi-judicial hearing process. And I know you know that, but I don't know that everybody in the audience knows that. So under a quasi-judicial hearing process, it's very different than a legislative process, which means there are rules of the game. And if I meet the rules of the game by competent substantial evidence, I get approved. And I would submit to you that we have -- we will meet the rules of the game and have met the rules of the game under the quasi-judicial standard and would be entitled to an approval. One of the rules of the game is not, have I made my neighbors happy? The Comp Plan says, we want you to infill the urban area because we don't want people moving out east and creating longer drives into town and clogging up our roads for the longer drives. That's why you have these incentivizes to develop in the urban area. You also have another incentive for smaller infill parcels that are 20 acres or less. You can get another three units per acre. So let's go through that. Same analysis: Four units per acre, three for TCMA, three for residential infill. That's 10 under the current Comprehensive Plan. I could go in and break this into two projects. I could do it under the current rules, and I'd be eligible for 10 on 20 acres, 10 on the remaining 15, but if we're going to talk hypotheticals, I could do that. You've asked me what I could do under the current rules of the game, and those would all be under the quasi-judicial criteria and not a legislative process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: The three additional units, which I understood from your materials was based upon the TCMA. MR. YOVANOVICH: No, it's not. It's not at all. Staff put that in there for a background analysis to understand what you can do under the existing Growth Management Plan. I've then asked to add some of the TCMA transportation demand methods, or whatever they're called, as additional support for the Growth Management Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. So let's look at the benefit, if any, that accrues to Collier County -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Happy to do it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- by allowing for the greater density that you're asking for, which is in excess of even seven. It seems to me -- and one of the points of analysis that I would employ would be the TCMA, because that is a thoughtful -- even if, as you say, that's more a creature of the staff's work 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 16 of 63 product for this project than yours, it helped me understand, for instance, that those additional three units under the TCMA would be to, for instance, remove some traffic from the public roads by means of interconnectivity, by means of mixed use with commercial uses included in the subject property. And, of course, this is all residential. And you, Mr. Yovanovich, and your colleagues who are before us on other projects frequently tout the benefit achieved from mixed-use projects in that it would tend to keep more people on the farm rather than going into Paris, so to speak. And that I understand, if it works. And interconnectivity is also important. But when you put 100 percent residential in, density for its own sake doesn't seem to me to be justified. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me answer that question. And I don't want to rehash what we talked about the last time, but I will. There is no question that there is a need for more apartment rental housing in Collier County. Your staff does -- we have not reached the saturation point yet to meet the demand. In order to have apartment complexes, you need density. You need apartment complexes to serve a lot of different types of people, including teachers, firefighters, nurses, sheriff's deputies. So where would there be a better location to put multifamily housing apartments than this location? And we talked about this the last time. It's on a major arterial road easy to get into Collier County. You have two schools right now within walking distance of this property. You have Veterans Memorial Elementary School, you have the middle school, and you have a soon-to-be-built high school. Ideal location to provide housing for teachers to serve and live in their community. I would submit to you that's a public benefit to have your teachers living in the same community that they're teaching. Arthrex recently appeared in front of the Board of County Commissioners and said, you've got to provide housing opportunities for our workers. This provides housing opportunities for their workers when they're locating here. It will be nice enough for them to stay many, many years, or they may just elect to stay for 12 months while they look for another housing opportunity. So I submit to you the benefit of this project is we're providing housing to demographics of people who need it. And that is a public benefit, and it is meeting a need that is not -- is uncontroverted that you need this type of housing. And you can't get this type of housing at four units per acre. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I want to move to my main concern now, and I'd ask that you would put back on the visualizer the image that you have of density comparability, the other projects. MR. YOVANOVICH: Density comparability? I don't know that I had an exhibit. Oh, you mean the similar apartments? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: By density. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. Bob, am I close? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. MR. YOVANOVICH: Here I am. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. Now, in the material that was submitted to us by staff in preparation for the July 18 meeting, there were a number of quote-unquote surrounding PUD projects with approved acreage that the numbers for which were revealed to us in detail. True, as you and I, Mr. Yovanovich, had discussed, there was an allusion to this situation by the expert that had been employed by the residents, but the only mention at that time -- and this goes back to January -- was of Mediterra. At the time the other proximate developments, Brandon, Sandalwood, RMC Enclave, Royal Palm, Marsilee Villas, those were not mentioned, they were not called out by name, and neither were the dwelling units per acre, the density specified, and as it turns out -- and I went back and looked at both the minutes and the agenda packet to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 17 of 63 confirm this -- I did electronic word searches -- and I found no mention of the words Brandon, Sandalwood, RMC Enclave, Royal Palm Marsilee. And so I concluded from that that information had not been put in front of us even though the densities -- and if you include Mediterra, it's .56 dwelling units per acre; Brandon is 3.99; Sandalwood is 3.1; RMC Enclave is 4.02; Royal Palm is 3.37; and Merislee, 2.63. So it was -- I believe it has been represented to us by staff that these are the proximate developments. These are the ones that are close. And the list that you provide with greater density, could you identify for me the ones that are as close to your project, to Allura, as the ones that I just mentioned? MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not sure I understand the question. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are any of these as close? MR. YOVANOVICH: To what? COMMISSIONER FRYER: To the ones that I just named off. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. I didn't think so. MR. YOVANOVICH: But there's -- do you want me to go through all the different zoning through Collier County where you have multifamily adjacent to single-family so we can talk about -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You guys have got to wait for one of you to finish talking. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought it was my turn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. It was. I'm just saying, please one of you wait. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Do you want to go ahead? MR. YOVANOVICH: If you're looking for a comparison of another project that's in this vicinity, obviously the answer is no. But I could show you, if you want me to, many other projects that are similarly situated to this type of project to residential. If you'd like me to do that, Bob's prepared to do that, and I can show you in my own community, which is the Pine Ridge community, where you have RMF-16, which is the most intense, the highest high, the most intense 16-unit-per-acre zoning district immediately adjacent or abutting -- we can use both of those words in this case -- to RSF-1 which is the least intense residential zoning district, and that has been deemed compatible with each other where you could have a 75-foot-tall multifamily building at 16 units per acre right next to a 35-foot-tall building at one unit per acre, which I would submit to you is not the situation we have here. We have a much less restrictive or -- restrictive adjacency of 16 units per acre to one unit per acre. COMMISSIONER FRY: What are you referring to, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: What do you mean? COMMISSIONER FRY: In Pine Ridge. MR. YOVANOVICH: Pine Ridge. If you remember, on the northwest corner of Pine Ridge you have the commercial that fronts U.S. 41, and immediately behind that you have condominiums. Those are all RMF-16, and we have a slide that Bob can bring up, RMF-16. And immediately adjacent to those condominiums is RSF-1. So you have that scenario right there. Baumgarten, you just approved 400 multifamily units immediately adjacent to a single-family community. There are all kinds of scenarios. Briarwood, you have approved 320 units within a single-family PUD community. I can go on Pine Ridge -- Pine Ridge Commons, which is the redevelopment of a grocery-anchored shopping center adjacent to -- or across from residential. You have all kinds of scenarios where you have apartments adjacent to residential, and they are compatible and do fine. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think we're permitted to look at each of these cases individually rather than look around the county for precedent. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not asking for precedent. I'm just showing you that if you -- your question was, do I have another apartment complex in this area, and the answer's no, and I don't think that that's the complete answer to the question, and I think that there are other areas where, similarly situated, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 18 of 63 where the answer's yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: And you feel like you've had a full opportunity to present your answer? MR. YOVANOVICH: I could be here for all day, but I don't want to be. I'm going to let Mr. Mulhere add something. MR. MULHERE: Thanks. For the record, Bob Mulhere. I do want to -- I just want to add an observation or a statement as a professional planner for many years in Southwest Florida. We can't start out at a premise that multifamily is incompatible with single-family. COMMISSIONER FRYER: You're the only ones who are saying that. MR. MULHERE: No. We're not saying that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not. MR. MULHERE: So you -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm talking about density issues right now. MR. MULHERE: Okay. But my point is, if you start out with the premise that multifamily is not necessarily incompatible with single-family, how do you address what concerns are raised? COMMISSIONER FRYER: May I grant you that so that we can move on? I grant you that it's not always incompatible. MR. MULHERE: And the compatibility issue is addressed by other standards: Setbacks, buffering, reduced building heights, those types of things. So, you know, we believe that we've established a project that addresses the compatibility issues. We have a recommendation of approval from staff -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And I'm not in any respect being critical of the developer or the developer's agents. I think, as always, you guys are doing a terrific job for your clients. But I'm trying to look at this situation that is before us now, and these adjoining properties, these adjoining -- then the densities of the adjoining or the nearby properties are an average of less than half of what you're asking for. And so under the state statute, 163.3177, it seems to me that looking at the area in question rather than the entire county or other situations that have been allowed to happen in the entire county, but looking at this particular situation is a valid exercise on our part. And I come more and more to the conclusion that -- I wasn't so sure at first, but I'm getting to the point where I do believe that this could be spot zoning on the basis of dwelling units -- MR. KLATZKOW: It's not spot zoning. This is a Comp Plan amendment. Not spot zoning. Comp Plan amendment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, should we let it -- on the issue, then, of compatibility -- MR. KLATZKOW: No, no, no. If you don't think this is a good idea -- comp planning is legislative -- you can say no. But don't call it spot zoning, because that's the whole thing of small-scale amendments is, well, legalized spot zoning. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I'll withdraw that comment then. But it seems to me that the most important inquiry is the area in question, which is the Allura property and the surrounding properties. And I think that the Allura is so out of keeping with what would surround it that you've got a serious compatibility issue. And if I were a neighbor, I would be very concerned about that. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I appreciate that. And you're certainly entitled to that opinion. And I don't want to spend the next two hours trying to persuade you differently, because I don't think I'll be successful. But let's just put it on the record that I disagree. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let's move on with the rest of Mr. Fryer's questions. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 19 of 63 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to reserve the rest of my questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. What, for today? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No, for after the public comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions just regarding the -- just curious. I actually took a tour of Inspira at Lely Resort and during this thing over the last couple months with Allura coming back and forth before this commission. And I had a couple questions regarding the percentage of how many places are currently rented right now at Inspira, since they're a relatively newer project, and the average rental per month for that project. Just curious. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they're at 65 percent rented up right now. I don't know what -- MS. CARDOZA: Sixty-seven as of yesterday. MR. YOVANOVICH: We had a 2 percent gain since yesterday. We're at 67 percent leased up. And you want to know the average rental rate? But do you want it by -- Mr. Dearborn, do you want one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Overall average for the project. MR. YOVANOVICH: We're absorbing 18 units a month. And now I'm waiting for the money number. The average overall rent is $1,750 to $1,800 a month. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. In touring Inspira at Lely -- and I saw the amenities and I saw the layout, is it safe to assume, based on you-all showing us pictures today in the presentation by Bob, that this project's going to look very similar as far as aesthetics, elevations, the buildings, the design, the deco -- all that stuff? The level of amenity is going to be very similar? MR. YOVANOVICH: It will be equal to or better. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: As I said, because, you know, the bar keeps getting raised for every apartment complex that comes in -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Sure. MR. YOVANOVICH: -- by the time this is finished, it will probably be better from an amenities standpoint. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I toured -- I wasn't very familiar with those type, and I was -- I've got to be honest, I was very impressed with the level of -- being a realtor here in Naples, I was impressed with the amenities and the layout and how beautiful the facilities meant (sic). And I think with a lower -- the three-story thing, I think you guys are trying to accommodate. So that's the only question I have right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, then I have a few. If we start with the GMP document first, there is one correction not necessary for Richard to comment on. Under the CCPC recommendation on Page 3 of the transmittal, it says the declining votes were Chairman Strain and Commissioner Fryer. I believe it was Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's my understanding as well -- or recollection. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't know why that wasn't correctly done, but we need to get it corrected. In the comprehensive -- I'll wait. I've got Comprehensive Planning questions, but I think I'll wait till I get staff up here. On your traffic study, your TIS, you're restricted to 249 units, I think it is. I think staff recommended COs. Can you explain what that's about? Do you under -- I mean, that was a Comprehensive Planning request. Do you guys -- MR. MULHERE: Yes. Mr. Chairman, it is that we must physically construct the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 20 of 63 interconnection. We have no control over when the commercial may be built next to us. It has nothing to do with when that gets built. It was -- it is that we must physically construct both the pedestrian and vehicular interconnection as part of our project prior to going beyond 249 units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then how would you make those locations without knowing what the property owner would be willing -- MR. MULHERE: First in. First in, we make the location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So that property owner would be bound by what you do on this PUD? I just didn't know how legal that would be. Usually we can't bind off-site properties by one other property's commitments. MR. MULHERE: It happens often that there is an interconnection constructed and, you know, the staff will, when someone comes in for a Site Development Plan, make them make an interconnection at that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you can pick anywhere to put it, and that's where the other owner's going to have to agree to it? MR. MULHERE: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Even if it's in the side of a building? MR. MULHERE: Well, it won't be in the side of a building because he hasn't planned his project yet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I know, but he could be planning it in a manner that won't match up to yours. That's what I was trying to figure out. Okay. Comp Planning seemed to have a -- well, I'll have to wait for them to get up here since it's going to be -- I'll wait for staff then on that one. Hang on a second. Let me get to the next. By the way, I did recognize another person in the audience. You know, when you get me off my normal routine that I've been doing for 18 years and have me do disclosures in the middle of a walk-in, I didn't get everybody's correctly. Dr. Grekos from Barrington met with me and some of the other people from Barrington earlier this week. And so that's -- the same thing as we're talking about today will (sic) be talked then. Moving down to the Development Standards Table. And I mentioned to you, Bob or Rich, whatever -- at one point I brought up the distance that the setbacks were. You have agreed to 125-foot eastern perimeter boundary setback, but your accessory structures can be 15 feet. And I know you showed a little picture here with a garage next to the berm and buffer, but that garage can go up to 35 feet, which is really three stories. So are you restricting your accessory structures that are going to utilize that reduced setback from 125 to 15 feet to single-stories only? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. The answer's yes, and that was always the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, it just doesn't say that in the document. MR. YOVANOVICH: We thought it did, but if it doesn't, we'll -- we thought the footnote took care of that, but if it doesn't, Commissioner Strain, that was clearly the intent. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, actually -- so the footnote says, the maximum actual height of the parking structures is limited to 35 feet. So if you've got a flat-deck parking structure, you could have three 10-foot stories, including your keystone joists or whatever else you'd use for your structural components, and then you could put a four-foot stem wall on top to keep traffic safety. You'd still be at 35 feet, but you've got three stories of parking garages, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: I was referring to Footnote 3, which says -- there's a footnote that says for one-story parking structures, garages, carports, trash compactors, enclosures which do not exceed 15 feet zoned and 20 feet actual. The setback from Livingston Road and from Veterans Memorial shall be 20 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: We need to make that consistent on the east side as well, I think, is what 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 21 of 63 your point is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just don't want a three-story parking garage to be next to the homes. I don't think that would be helpful. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand, and that's -- we never are -- obviously, we showed you a picture of a one-story garage, and that's what we intend. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you put that picture back up. MR. YOVANOVICH: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The one that showed the three-story garage. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I said we never intended to do that. I showed you a one-story. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, no. I'm sorry. The one that showed the single-story garage that I started the questioning of this from. Just -- there's a buffer there that I want to look at the detail. That's it. See where it says under alternate -- Type B alternate enhanced buffer, and your 15-foot buffer goes from the property line back. And then notice on the -- next to the building you say -- you have a six-foot fence, but it's outside the buffer. And the reason I'm asking is I was looking to see if you were providing walls anywhere, and I needed to ask that question. I didn't see any. Is the fence going to be part of the buffer? What was -- so you're putting no -- MR. YOVANOVICH: The fence and the landscaping is between the garages. MR. MULHERE: That's what the fence is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Is the fence part of the buffer then? So you're including a fence as part of the buffer? MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm correct, then, in I didn't find any walls in any of your buffers? You're not providing any walls? MR. YOVANOVICH: No, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. There's a slight discrepancy between the maximum density that's in the Comprehensive Planning staff consistency memorandum and what zoning staff is saying. Do you know why that occurs, or is that something staff will have to answer when I get to them? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, I think the difference was the slivers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that sliver along Livingston Road? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I assume, but I just wanted to make sure. There is a comment in the Comprehensive Planning staff report that in order to -- Policy 7.4 requires that there be a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities, and a range of housing prices and types. And I know you've got the range of housing prices. But it says a single standard dwelling unit size as proposed 650 square foot minimum floor area for all apartment configurations. No other submittal documents appear to propose or require some combination of these different apartment styles and floor areas to be provided. And I was -- since you're not going to have all 650 (sic) units, that might be cured by providing a breakdown or some minimum breakdown of what your ranges will be. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And when we go on break, if you want to have time to come up with that before the end of discussion, that's something we can deal with. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Strain, I think you have a note -- I'll be answering -- able to answer that on the break as far as how we intend to break down the ones, twos, and threes. But I'm just going to ask you -- because this is a standard Comp Plan provision, and in every PUD we only include the minimum square footage of a unit. We've never, as far as I know, ever said I'll have X number at 650, Y number at 750. I'm happy to address the comment. I'm just saying we've just never done it before. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I don't think the comment was -- I don't recall seeing the comment before from Comprehensive Planning staff. So the fact that they have it here, I was just following up to 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 22 of 63 see if there was a way to address it. And if there isn't, that's -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You can say yes or no. I just need an answer. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Then the TIS, there's a couple questions of your traffic gentleman, if I could get an answer for. In your analysis of the traffic in that area, we have this thing -- we used to have it. I don't know how effective it is anymore -- called checkbook concurrency. And I'm just wondering from the perspective of projects like Seed to Table and the new high school, have you included those calculations of what the traffic generations during peak hour will be from those two facilities on the same intersections and areas you're dealing with? MR. TREESH: In our traffic analysis, we utilize the AUIR volumes. So if those values -- as the basis of our analysis, then we add our project trips to those volumes. So if those uses are not included in the AUIR, then, no, we have not. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the reason I ask is because I thought you were going to say that, and I looked, and you used the AUIR from 2017. We're in 2019, and the new AUIR will be coming out in a month or two. But at least we'd have the 2018 to compare to. But it doesn't look like you've utilized that, then. And I'll probably have to ask staff why we're still sticking with the old numbers when we are here two years later and also had the -- does the new -- or the 2018 AUIR -- what its impact on the remaining balance that the 2017 shows that it may not show in the 2018, so... MR. TREESH: We've been working on this a long time, and I'll check on that during the break with the 2019 volumes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. TREESH: But I suspect it hasn't changed significantly from what's in our report. In terms of the available capacity, it's still -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: There's a significant difference for that one road segment. I think -- MR. TREESH: Which one? COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- it goes from 305 to 193 with a deficiency projected for 2022. MR. TREESH: Which segment? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I think it's 42.1. MR. TREESH: Which is? COMMISSIONER FRYER: And this is comparing 2017 to 2018, and that was going to be one of my followup questions as well, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Too late. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Good for you. Also, though, I would note that staff kind of fell into the same trap mentioning 2017 a number of times in the staff materials. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'll ask staff to address that. I'm just curious how they have or have not included those other substantial projects in the configuration of the traffic for that area, because it will have an impact. MR. TREESH: 42.1 is Immokalee Road, correct? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I believe that's right. MR. TREESH: To the west of Livingston is a deficiency segment. It has been and was in our initial analysis, and it currently still is. But we don't significantly impact that segment. And, Commissioner Fryer, just to go back to your previous comment about we did -- I did look at the numbers between the 111 units on the Comp Plan that are currently in De La Rosa versus what we're asking for in the 304. And, again, as Rich said, we look at peak-hour trip generation in terms of the level-of-service analysis. For the p.m. peak hour based on what's currently approved would be 49 peak-hour trips. So that's in and out. So, again, looking at the peak direction, that's 30 trips that that project would generate in the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 23 of 63 peak hour peak direction that we would add to the road network. With the 304 units that we're proposing, that peak direction would go to 79. So it's a little over twice the number of peak-hour trips from 30 to 79 in the peak direction. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I acknowledge that you're still within the 193, but it's a significant observation to make that between 2017 and 2018 the remaining capacity dropped from 305 to 193. I mean, that's a big drop. And also the projected year of deficiency dropped from 2023 to 2022. MR. TREESH: One of the other things we do look at as well, we don't look at just the 2017. We increased the volumes based on the growth rates. So are accounting for additional traffic in the background at the buildout analysis. You know, it may not be specifically a high school or a shopping center to our south, but we are accounting for an increase in traffic that will occur on the roadway network, and our 2023 analysis is what we looked at. But, again, I'll verify that during the break. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sorry to interrupt. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. It's not problem. Okay. That's all the traffic I had. I had just a couple comments to make on things I heard stated. The Baumgarten PUD was used as an example a couple different times, but the difference there is that's in an activity center. That activity center has an allowance of 16-units-per-acre activity bands. This is not an activity center, so that really isn't a justifiable comparable. And also, I believe Arthrex came before the Board of County Commissioners -- and, Ray, I need to ask you this question. They expressed a concern about a type of unit -- rental unit, I think, they were asking about or even housing unit to meet their needs, that they didn't think the county was doing a good enough job to do that. Do you know what they were asking for? I didn't see it, so... MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Arthrex developer has indicated some need for housing, but I don't recall specifics of what type. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I know I've heard mentioned a couple times that the Arthrex folks could possibly go here, but I don't know if they need affordable housing or they need luxury housing or high-end housing, because this is not affordable, that I could tell. I also heard the idea that firefighters and nurses and people like that would rent here possibly. But I would -- I mean, that's still -- the numbers that they're talking about are the higher end, and I'm not sure from affordability we look at those service workers being in this value -- this value range. But if staff hasn't got any comment on it, I understand. Thank you. Did you have something you wanted to add? MR. TREESH: Yeah. I just want clarification. We did update our analysis in April of 2019, and did use the most recent AUIR report in that document. So we did use the most recent AUIR numbers t hat are available to us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In which document is that? MR. TREESH: It's a revised traffic study for the GMP dated April 30th, 2019. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the -- okay. Hang on a second, because I -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: I, too, found references to 2017 in the material that was sent to us by staff. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's what -- I mean, I remember 2'17, because I circled it wondering what the latest was. So, I mean, I'm not disputing the fact you may have provided it. I'm not sure that -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- we've -- I'll look at it during break and try to figure that out. MR. YOVANOVICH: Since we're on the topic of Arthrex and others, can I bring Cat back up real quick before the break to address that specific comment? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I wanted to ask a question of the traffic engineer, if I may. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So did I. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 24 of 63 MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought you were done with him. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Let me finish with him first. In your traffic analysis, you're still at, during weekday p.m. peak hour, 79 in and 50 out, 129 total. You have 304 units which, theoretically, at the rate these are leased, if you do -- I think the lady last time said they get about average of two parties per -- two people per unit. That's 608 drivers. The census that I pulled up, the average household is 1.97 cars per household, which is 599 cars. So out of that 599 cars, we're dealing with mostly young professionals, I would think, at the price range you're talking about. That means they would be looking at peak-hour travel. And only, what -- 129 is maybe a sixth, maybe a little over a sixth of the people are going to be leaving and coming at that peak hour, when most of them would likely have jobs that pay a value high enough for them to live there. They wouldn't be laborers in the field. They wouldn't be getting up at sunrise. Did you -- did any of that come into factors when you looked at your TIS, your Traffic Impact Statement, or did you just take straight ITE manual numbers which sometimes are tailored -- include Florida, sometimes they don't? How did you look at any -- did you look at any of these parameters, these other parameters for your traffic? MR. TREESH: What we did since our last meeting before you is conducted a site-specific trip generation study of similar communities here in Collier County. And as Rich indicated, that study was done and completed and submitted to staff, and it showed very consistent numbers in terms of trip generation during the peak hours from this type of residential product in this area. You know, that's what we have to look at. You can look at all kinds of different charts and come up with different calculations trying to figure out, but what we look at in terms of transportation planning is the data that is collected at existing facilities. And right now that's all summarized in the ITE trip generation book. If something turns into a disagreement that we don't believe that data is accurate, then we can go do independent studies, which is what we did at five studies for this project. And I believe Mr. Trebilcock also did some in the Baumgarten PUD and added onto that. And all those studies show that the trip generation during the peak hours was fairly consistent to the ITE trip generation manual that we use. And I can go into -- there's many different explanations why someone leaves their home at a certain time of day. I mean, you have a large demographic that lives in these types of communities, and depending on when they go to work, do they have to take their kids to daycare, do they -- you know, many things factor into when that person decides to leave their home to go to work and when they come home and those trips that they make throughout the day. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your peak hour is what time? MR. TREESH: Generally, the peak hour in Collier County area occurs during a 60-minute (sic) period between 4 and 6 p.m. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's -- I just wanted to make sure. That's the same number I came up with, too. Okay. Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: A couple of things. First of all, am I correct that the tenth edition of the ITE has combined the statistics for rental units along with luxury condo units? They're all treated as the same -- MR. TREESH: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: -- is that correct? MR. TREESH: Determined -- ITE determined that the datasets between the two different ones was not substantially different, so they combined those land uses together. Then what they did was separate those land uses by building height. There's a land-use code for multifamily with one to two stories, which is your typical townhome type product, and then there's another category for units that are between three and 10 habitable floors, and then there's a high-rise component which is above 11 floors 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 25 of 63 and higher. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. My next question -- I think it's my last one on traffic -- has to do with this. When you worked your computations, you estimated that 30 percent of the trips going south on Livingston -- 30 percent would turn west on Immokalee. How did you arrive at that number? MR. TREESH: That's basically just a general estimation based on our experience and the travel patterns in the area. We look at traffic counts that we've conducted, how do those turns occur at those intersections, where the locations of peak employment are, where the major transportation corridors are, the influence of I-75. For instance, this property's very close to the I-75 corridor. So there's a number of different factors that go into estimating the trip distribution. And then we also consult with the staff in terms of if they have any comments on the trip distribution as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So it's essentially anecdotal, would you say? MR. TREESH: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you also say that if I were to argue that 40 percent make that turn, you wouldn't be able to prove me wrong, would you? MR. TREESH: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We're going to take a break for the court reporter. We'll come back at 10:50 and resume the meeting. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. We need to resume the meeting. We've got a little change in agenda here for just a moment. Mr. Pritt and I, when we did speak, he mentioned he had to be on the road by 11 o'clock today, and I told him after the break he could make his discussion -- put his discussion on the record. Mr. Pritt, if you want to use one of the microphones, it's all yours. MR. PRITT: Thank you. Good morning, and thank you very much for taking me out of order. I do need to get on the road over to Broward County. For the record, my name is Robert Pritt, and I'm here on behalf Mediterra Community Association Inc. That's the master association for Mediterra. I'm not here on behalf of Barrington Cove. They -- as far as I know, they do not have an attorney that's representing them, but I think they're representing themselves pretty well. Mediterra has engaged Dr. David Depew, AICP, lead AP, to review the proposal, and he has submitted a planning analysis and, like me, he testified here earlier at the -- in preparation of the transmittal hearing on the GMP. But as I understand, we're here on both of those matters this morning for this hearing, and he's here and available and will be testifying. Mediterra is a mixed-use residential PUD. I think that's been said already. I think most of you have actually done a lot of homework, by the way, and know a lot about it and the other developments in the area. It's about 1,168-plus acres. It's right next or across the street on two parts from the proposed development. And its density is a little less, I think -- Mr. Fryer, I think it was you that -- somebody had taken a look and seen that the density is less than a half -- is somewhere around -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: .56. MR. PRITT: .56, yeah. I had .64, but I think your number is probably closer to correct. It is primarily single-family homes with some attached coach homes. We had testified earlier in the transmittal hearing that the proposed development and inconsistent with your Growth Management Plan. The County Commission approved for transmittal the ordinance amending the GMP to create a subdistrict to allow for this particular apartment rental development with a maximum density of 304 units and a three-story maximum height, and I think that's been alluded to here today. The RPUD rezone ordinance reflects the same provisions as the GMP provisions. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 26 of 63 We continue to have several issues. It should be no surprise, but first and maybe foremost, but certainly first, is density. In plain language, this proposal is still too dense at 304. It's too much development on too little buildable ground for a good quality of life. And just before the break I heard some things -- some talk about 650 square feet and so on. Part of this is a function of it being too dense and trying to get too many units in. The densities in the area range -- once again, I think Mr. Fryer had looked at these. A .56, there was a 3.89, 4.02, 3.37, 2.63. In other words, right at four development units per acre. So in this case even if you give credit -- I'm not saying you should, because they're asking for something new. But if you give credit for the De La Rosa -- existing De La Rosa PUD, my calculations would be that the density would be somewhere around 189. If it were on a clean sheet at four, it would be somewhere around 140, 150. So they're already getting a benefit of De La Rosa at 189, and that's not enough for them. They make a -- what I think is a very weak argument concerning a density of up to seven. And I think that under very good questioning by this board, members of this board, it became very clear that they just want -- the seven units, they just want them because, and that's not a good reason. And all this -- I will say that all this stuff about, well, in a quasi-judicial proceeding it's different. No, they have to follow -- you have to follow the law, they have to follow the law, we all have to follow the law no matter what. So I'm not buying that argument. But anyhow, getting to -- even at seven, that yields 269 units, and that's -- that's at -- that's taking this so-called TCMA stuff, which they admit that they don't qualify under, and anything else into account that I don't think you have to take into account. So that gets the seven units per acre. That's 249 units. And then they're making -- and I can't call it anything else other than "I'm a good guy" argument for another 52 units to get them up to 8.5. There's just no justification whatsoever for that to get all the way up to 304 units. Remember, the GMP has, as amended, puts an upper limit on the proposed development at 304. The County Commission did not commit to a rezoning at 304 but let -- left that up to the further hearings, and here we are at the further hearings. When you're looking at -- and I know you're sitting at the dais. And I've been at the dais for most of my career in one function or another. But you're always getting told by somebody how you should be doing something and how you're doing it wrong. That's not the issue. Part of the reason, I think, is for the record we need to be able to make our record. But the first thing I would say is when you're looking at planning and zoning matters, rezones and things like this, is you always look at what, not who. In the law of planning and zoning, it's improper to consider who the developer is; rather, the only consideration should be what the proposed development is. I bring this up only because I heard testimony and even comments from the dais at a Board of County Commissioners hearing concerning, well, Stock's a good developer, and -- we're not arguing that. That's not relevant to your decision-making. It's not one of the criteria. Good developers and bad developers both come in with bad development proposals and vice versa. And it's up to this commission and the Board of County Commissioners to vet or screen the development plans in accordance with the goals and the objectives of the county plan and the limitations set out in the county's regulations and not to consider political favor or just favor. Now, I'd like to comment on what I think is a game, and this is a game that is very, very common, and it's just not right, in my opinion; that is, you start way too high. We start -- the first time you heard this it was 420 units; 420 units. And then they graciously reduced it. And I say "graciously" in quotes to still way too high at 350, and then they "graciously," again in quotes, reduced it to 304, which is where we are now. Has anybody considered the fact that 304, as I said earlier, is still way, way, way too high? And so I don't think you should buy that argument. It's kind of like it was on sale, it's really on sale, and this is a better sale, but -- before it started. It was way too high in the first place, and still is. Just comparing a couple of other areas in Sanibel. And I know that there are a lot of differences. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 27 of 63 But in Sanibel there has not been a single increase in density since at least 1985. I believe that is a correct statement, unless something happened within the last week. And what happens is -- what happened is that the developers would come in and they would try everything; even try litigation. Whatever they could do, the city would not budge. I say, the only increase in density has been for affordable housing. They do allow that for affordable housing. But nothing. And the answer is no. There's -- we have a Comp Plan, you know what the Comp Plan says, and you build in accordance with the Comp Plan. After a while, when they saw they couldn't do that, then they stopped trying to do that, and they still make more money probably than if they were able to enter into this negotiation stage at the -- as we see here in Collier County. On the other hand, take a look at Lee County. They're set up quite a bit the way you are. But we have development all over the place and negotiated development and things like that. And I don't think that you really want Collier County to wind up in the same boat as Lee County. That's up to you. But that's just my observation on a couple of the local communities. So the answer no in a quasi-judicial matter is a lawful answer. If they haven't made the case for the increase in density or for the type of development they have, then you are allowed to say no. And all this talk about, well, what they might do -- and that's the other thing I hear all the time. Well, it will be worse if you don't do this. It will be -- oh, are you ever going to be sorry. We'll do this, we'll do that. What's in front of you, at least in the rezone, is a quasi-judicial matter, is do they meet the criteria, and in keeping in mind here, they're actually asking to change the standards. So it's up to you to determine whether or not the standards ought to be changed. Now, I did talk about -- in the first hearing about incompatibility. We think that the type of the development, the apartment buildings, is incompatible with the existing neighborhood development patterns and the prevailing single-family or low-density coach homes in this area. Simply put, this is in the wrong location. And I heard something here a few minutes ago about spot zoning, and this is not spot zoning. I call it spot planning in order to enable spot zoning. The result is the same. And what I would ask, whatever you -- even without using these legal terms, what I would ask you to consider is this: The Commission and the Board of County Commissioners should be very, very weary about creating subdistricts. You've already created 19 or 20 of them or something like that over the years, but what is a subdistrict? What are you really doing? Well, I think that many knowledgeable and diligent citizens, board members, public members, competent staff members in the county, maybe some of you in this room over the years carefully analyzed the Growth Management Plan in creating districts. Subdistricts such as this are for no other reason than to accomplish a single private developer's proposal to overdevelop a particular parcel of land in that developer's own image. That's not how planning and zoning is supposed to work. It's supposed to work opposite. Once there is a well-thought-out plan, developers should purchase and develop property in conformance with that plan. You should ask yourselves, why do we even have subdistricts? What good reason other than appeasing a particular development -- developer such, in this case, Stock, is there for creating a subdistrict? So what we have here is a developer trying to make the regulations to suit its desires. If that's allowed, then it does open the flood gates to any well-connected developer to impose its individualized desires upon the community. You know, this country, the United States, is the envy of the rest of the world, which is why a lot of -- everybody would like to be here. In the same manner, Collier County is the envy of the rest of the United States, which is why people are clamoring to come here. If any of you heard Bloomberg, the discussion on the Bloomberg channel a couple of weeks ago, they were talking about why are all the New Yorkers leaving New York 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 28 of 63 City and leaving the east Coast and coming down to Florida? And -- they want to be here. We already have the very best incentive to come down here, and it's called the weather. And so we don't need to be doing a lot of things to -- I'll use the word that's been used before -- to slouch, to not be what Collier County is -- has been, is, and could still be by allowing overdevelopment just because somebody wants it. The more you do that, the more you'll be like other cities and other counties, and it's just not going to be the uniqueness of Collier County. As I've previously indicated in legal parlance, this is planning in order to accomplish spot zoning. Spot zoning is illegal. I get it. I understand the difference in what your County Attorney's indicated, but I think I see that it's the same result. You wind up with what a developer wants rather than following the city or the county's requirements. In your case the county. Whether your codes are considered Euclidian -- and remember I -- I don't know if anybody remembers, but I did say something about the Village of Euclid case, the original zoning case, in which zoning was found to be constitutional, and the Court gave reasons for it. But whether your codes are considered a Euclidian zoning type of code, a form-based code, performance impact codes or any other codes, the one recurring and overarching theme and principle is compatibility. Compatibility of uses and compatibility of structures. That includes the internal compatibility, that is within the zoning district such as a PUD, for which the county does a great job; but also external compatibility, compatibility with existing neighborhood uses and structures. This hearing room would be a lot less full -- it's not too full today because it's summertime, but the hearing room would be a lot less full if there was more attention paid to the effect on the neighborhood outside of the PUD. The PUD is a great way to get a mix of uses -- of residential uses, other uses, single-family, multifamily, and so on, but it also must pay attention -- strict attention to the neighborhood in which it is located. I also heard a staff member once comment -- and Mr. Yovanovich, I think, commented -- that it's the fault of the people who move into the neighborhood next to a property that may have permits for differing uses, more density, bulkier and higher structures, et cetera. But I also recently heard in the transmittal hearing a county commissioner lament that this problem ought to be addressed and ought to be corrected. And there is a fix, at least for this proposed development. It's right here and right now. Since a PUD is a zoning district, just like ag, commercial, residential, et cetera, the county can put, essentially, whatever restrictions on it that it wishes. Right now you have the opportunity to address and fix use of the property, density of the property, height of the property, location and bulkiness of the structures, and anything else so long as it is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. And, by the way, the Growth Management Plan still requires that the development be compatible and even complementary to the surrounding neighborhood, and also increases in density must be in the public interest, which has not so far been demonstrated here. I won't get back into the U.S. Supreme Court case, because I did quote from that. I will say that I recall that after I quoted from that Mr. Yovanovich indicated that it didn't say what the direct quote says. Instead, I'll stick with the direct quotes of the Court on that, and that is, essentially -- I'll just say that, essentially, as to multifamily housing, it can be -- it could be compatible if it's in the right place, but it can be very nearly a nuisance if it's in the wrong place. I think that's a fair shorter rendition of what the Court said. So what we'd ask -- it's almost a century later. That was 1926, I think, but nothing's really changed. Compatibility of uses, compatibility of structures, and looking out -- using your police power, which is your zoning power, to look out for the health, safety, and welfare of people that live both inside and outside of the area. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: So in conclusion -- yeah. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 29 of 63 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm glad you said "in conclusion." When we talked about you speaking out of turn, you said you needed seven minutes. MR. PRITT: Am I going too slow? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: In 20 seconds or so it will be 20 minutes. MR. PRITT: Oh, okay. Well -- so, in conclusion, let me just ask you, ask yourselves, what is the proposal, not who is the applicant. Why must the county change its regulations to accommodate a single owner/developer rather than the owner/developer developing in accordance with existing regulations? And is the proposed development consistent with the compatibility and complementary requirements of the Growth Management Plan? As proposed, we do not think so. So thank you for accommodating me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Are there any questions of Mr. Pritt? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Okay. Mr. Yovanovich, if you want to -- I can't remember where we left off. MR. YOVANOVICH: I think we're still in my presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think we are. Yup. MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm not going to do rebuttal. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We didn't go to staff yet, let's put it that way. Is there anybody else that has questions of the applicant? MR. YOVANOVICH: I do want to address a few things through my consultants, if you will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: One of the questions that was raised, or there was a discussion about Arthrex and police officers and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, I raised the question. MR. YOVANOVICH: You raised that, so I'm going to ask Cat to come back up and explain to you how, in fact, Inspira and other communities do, in fact, address those concerns. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It wasn't that relationship. I was wondering how our Housing Department would have looked at it in relation to the values that they -- when they look for affordable housing, how those categories fit into the affordability range. I don't know if your people can provide that. I was looking -- I mean, that was just a -- I didn't know Ray -- if Ray had that information or anybody else did, but -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, they -- that's fine, but I do think it's important for the Planning Commission to understand how we do provide housing for, I guess, that unfortunate sheriff's deputy who makes too much money to not qualify -- to qualify -- to not qualify for affordable housing but not have a nice safe place to live in Collier County because the rest of the housing is too expensive. And that's one of the things that we're providing through this is that -- we used to call it gap. Remember that we had gap where there wasn't a program to address people who made too much money but not really enough to really afford Collier County prices. So I'd like to get that into the record, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. I just wanted to explain to you it's different than what I asked. MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, you also asked Arthrex, so she's going -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you can't answer me about Arthrex unless you were at the meeting. Did you hear what they said? I mean -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. They want reasonably priced housing so they can attract people to come here and work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So they used the words "reasonably priced housing"? MR. YOVANOVICH: They did not use the affordable housing category in the term that -- the bonus type affordability. MR. KLATZKOW: This is market-rate housing. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 30 of 63 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Pardon me? I know it is. That's what I'm trying to understand. MR. KLATZKOW: It could be 1,800 a month, 2,000 a month, 3,000 a month. It's whatever the market bears at the time. So this conversation where we're providing housing for a certain type of people, it's not relevant. It's market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I was just trying to clear up a -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: Arthrex is -- Arthrex needs housing for some of their employees. This doesn't necessarily provide it. It's market rate. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Those employees that can afford market rate housing can afford to live in Collier County. I guess what we're really saying for Arthrex is we need below market rate housing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I was wondering if that's what they said. That's what I was trying to get at. But okay. Miss, go ahead. MS. CARDOZA: In regard to the Arthrex situation, we do identify certain preferred employers: All first responders, educators, government employees, and Arthrex is a big one, all the NCH, Physicians Regional. So we provide certain amounts of discounts for those particular preferred employers because those are the type of people we want to draw to our community is -- MR. KLATZKOW: Are you willing to put the discounts in the zoning documents? MR. YOVANOVICH: Absolutely. We're happy to talk about providing discounts to certain -- we used to call them essential service personnel, and I think that's the proper category. We're absolutely willing to talk about those things. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that disparate impact against protected groups? MR. YOVANOVICH: It hasn't been in the past. MR. KLATZKOW: No. We've done this in the past where we've reserved a percentage of the housing for essential government workers. MR. YOVANOVICH: We've absolutely done this. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before the meeting's over and discussions are heard, we'll need to address it in some substantive format, so... MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm just curious, from Inspira, the percentage of those types of essential workers that rent from you currently. MS. CARDOZA: To get you an exactly -- I can say police officers, right offhand, I have eight of them, Collier County Sheriff's Department, I have probation officers, I have at least two professors from the university across the street, and then I also have -- for Collier County Public Schools, I want to say I have three teachers, without drilling into the exact numbers, but I can certainly provide more accurate data if given the time to do so. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Or did you finish what you wanted to say then, Miss? MS. CARDOZA: Oh, yeah. Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, thank you. Go back to Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: And obviously we'll respond to any public comment. I do enjoy having Mr. Fryer on the Planning Commission as an attorney, but I do want to make sure we clarify one comment he made on the record regarding the 40 percent on the transportation. The right answer to that question is, if you were to say 40 percent, I don't believe that would be a credible number. We'd have to talk to another transportation consultant, figure out how he came up with 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 31 of 63 the 40 percent, and we might or might not be in agreement with his number. We had that conversation with Collier County staff, and Collier County staff did agree with the 30 percent allocation of trips based upon their professional experience, and that's what professionals are hired to do is give you their professional opinion. And you have Mr. Treesh's professional opinion, not a number pulled out of the air where he was not given an opportunity to understand and digest that number. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is that the end of your presentation, Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further questions of the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, we'll go to the staff report. James? MR. SABO: For the record, James Sabo, certified planner for the county. Do you want to hear the GMP report? I know we're doing them together. Do you want to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Whatever you've got to say on both reports. Just start with one and finish with the other. MR. SABO: All right. Well, if the GMPA amendment is approved -- never mind. David Weeks is coming up. MR. WEEKS: Good morning, Commissioners. David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning staff. Keep it short and sweet, just as was the case at transmittal. Staff is of the opinion that the applicant has demonstrated that there is a need for the proposed use and density and that it is a high-level view that we take at the Comprehensive Planning level of reviewing a Comprehensive Plan amendment petition, not a zoning petition. We find it to be generally compatible with the surrounding area, and we continue to recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of David? David, I do. Were there any recommendations in your GMP on document, staff recommendations? MR. WEEKS: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I concur. I looked; I didn't see any. But if you turn to Page 8 of the PUD document, under conclusions there are two stipulations that I would suggest if you want those, shouldn't they be recommendations? I mean, they're under your section. It says the PUD ordinance needs to be provided for the effective date consistent with effective date of the companion GMP amendment petition. Then the word "stipulations," Nos. 1 and 2. And I just wanted to make sure that those are incorporated since they weren't in your recommendations section of your GMP. MR. WEEKS: Those are both, if I could put it this way, internal. On the one hand, it's something for you to be aware of, but you don't, nor does the Board of County Commissioners, control the ordinance itself. So one of these is -- those stipulations or recommendations is that the zoning document contain language that the ordinances -- the effective date of the zoning ordinance must be linked to the effective date of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, because the PUD must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan amendment has to go through a process at the state level before it goes into effect. Ordinarily a zoning petition would go into effect as soon as recorded by the Secretary of State. This is a different scenario. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back to my question. Do they need -- do they -- do those stipulations need to be incorporated as part of the recommendations? Just yes or no. MR. WEEKS: I'm going to say no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. As long as you're covered. I just wanted to make sure all the T's are crossed and I's are dotted. MR. WEEKS: Well, there's nothing for the applicant to do; there's nothing to change in the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 32 of 63 application. It's really on the county side. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Something that happens internally by staff should they get approved. MR. WEEKS: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. So -- oh, and the issue on the square footage, the staff report talking about a blend of densities. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I haven't -- I don't recall seeing that discussion before. In this point it's being pointed out as something that should be considered. How necessary do you see that? I mean, since it's not been pointed out before, what brought it to rise this particular occasion? MR. WEEKS: I'm not certain. I could tell you -- two things about that. First of all, it's a policy that encourages a certain type of action. It encourages a certain type of development. So if you push it to the extreme and if the petitioner does not demonstrate that they are -- are doing what that policy says, it is not a basis, at least at the staff level -- our opinion, it is not a basis for finding the petition not consistent with Comprehensive Plan, because it is encouraging something as opposed to requiring something. So it's not mandatory language. It's a "shall" encourage. But, secondly, I know that Comprehensive Planning staff routinely comments on that policy and those before it when we're reviewing a petition. I don't know if we've commented specifically like this one before where we talk about the number of units, the type of unit, and that they did not provide for a variety of housing prices and types. We usually do make some kind of comment acknowledging that the petition allows for a variety of unit types, or in this case it doesn't. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But it would. I mean, if a minimum is 650, it allows for anything above 650. That's why I was trying to understand why this is differentiated, because in this one it's bolded and underlined. And that's what -- the underlining is kind of like an enhancement like, whoa, we better pay attention to this. And so I thought I'd ask the question to clarify it. MR. WEEKS: Let me say, in hindsight I think we probably should not have emphasized it that way. We simply should have pointed it out. Secondly, I know there was some discussion earlier about the applicant committing to or asking the applicant if they would commit to some minimum or maximums -- you know, some way to ensure this policy's fulfilled. And my suggestion would be, if that's going to occur, is keep it as narrow as possible. What I mean by that is perhaps identify a -- the one-bedroom unit and, say, commit to providing a minimum number of one-bedroom units and then a maximum number, and then, by default, the other units will have to be two bedroom or greater. That will ensure some mix that occurs, rather than X percent of one-bedroom, X percent of two-bedroom, et cetera. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But this is not a requirement? MR. WEEKS: Correct, not a requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then I'd rather not get into it. If the applicant wants to volunteer something just for the heck of it, that's fine. But if it's not a requirement and we've not used it before with anybody, I don't want to be inconsistent with this application, and that's kind of why I was getting into it to begin with, so... MR. WEEKS: And just to say, one thing different about this: This is not unique. We've had other petitions that are a plan amendment that's asking for a single type of use, in this case multifamily, not single-family, not the whole gamut of unit types. It's strictly multifamily, and it's strictly rental. Most of the time -- as I think you know, most of the time when you see a residential PUD, you see a gamut of unit types. So there is that allowance for that variety of unit types and prices. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you very much. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have a couple of questions or comments that relate to the GMPA part. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 33 of 63 First of all, on Page 418 of the materials that staff sent us in preparation for when this was set for July 18, it says, in accordance with Chapter 163.18 -- excuse me -- 3184 pertaining to the expedited state review, blah, blah, blah, and other reviewing agencies on December 20, 2017. I think that date is wrong. I just suggest that you get that cleaned up when it goes to the County Commission. MR. WEEKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Because it might have been December 20, 2018. And then my other question has to do with what came back from Tallahassee. There was -- having to do with traffic. They disclaimed a responsibility, I guess, for oversight of this, but then they went on to offer what they called a technical assistance recommendation. This is on Page 418. How often does that happen in your experience? Does the FDOT come back and make technical assistance recommendations like this? MR. WEEKS: It's pretty common. It depends on the nature of the project, the scope. The state agencies, including FDOT, are limited in reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments for impact upon important state resources, which in the case of FDOT translates into state roadways. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. What -- there are three specific technical assistance recommendations that are cited again on Page 418. My question is, is what will become of those recommendations, or another way of saying it, are you satisfied that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed those concerns? MR. WEEKS: Staff is satisfied. I would note that for the most part those comments are beyond the applicant's control. For example, looking at speed limits on the adjacent roadways; Livingston Road, I think it calls out specifically, as well as Veterans Memorial east. It also talks about, I think, bike/pedestrians facilities off site. Those are beyond the applicant's control. That really comes back to us as the county government to take those -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: And that's really what my question was. I wasn't suggesting that the applicant has a responsibility to address all of these. So what will become of the recommendations that are within the county's control, like speed limit? MR. WEEKS: And for that I will defer to Trinity from the Transportation Planning staff. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's the only other question I had. MS. SCOTT: For the record, Trinity Scott, Transportation Planning manager. With regard to the speed limit, that will be up to our Traffic Operations Department. They are the folks who set speed limits for the county. There is a technical basis that we go between to -- based on the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and engineering studies on how we set speed limits. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is there an internal process for getting this comment, this official state comment, on the proper desk of a person in county government so that they can become aware that this recommendation has been made? MS. SCOTT: Yes. This has been transmitted to our Traffic Operations staff as well as our Public Transit and Neighborhood Enhancement staff because they are the ones that make a determination of whether or not they would expand transit service in the future. And we coordinate with them throughout the planning process as well. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Will they report back to someone with respect to these recommendations? MS. SCOTT: No. They will just take them under consideration as they're moving forward with their update of plans, et cetera. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Trinity, before you leave. MS. SCOTT: I figured I'd be up here a while. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we need a couple different discussions. TCMA. The TDM strategies I learned a week or two ago through Mike Sawyer's assistance that the TDM strategies require an evaluation pursuant to the GMP language that should have been 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 34 of 63 implemented by the LDC. That was never done. So when we do use these TDM strategies, we don't now monitor them, and we don't now know that if they haven't been successful at some percentage, that we don't even -- we haven't even established yet, that we can then require other strategies to be implemented to get to that percentage. And I understand that the TDM strategies here are being voluntarily applied? MS. SCOTT: Correct. They are not -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Required. MS. SCOTT: They are not required because the applicant is not seeking to be exempt from link-by-link concurrency. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. And we'll get into that in another minute. But since they are being voluntarily required, how effective -- or how do you measure their effectiveness, if any, ability to -- based on what we learned with the project a couple of weeks ago, there is no measurement standard. There is no criteria for effectiveness. So even if the -- they were supposedly having no impact, we have nowhere to say, well, because it's having no exact, you've got to give us a new one because we have nothing that says that. Is someone working on that to fix it? I know we can't do anything today. I'm just curious because -- MS. SCOTT: Yes, it is something I'm working on. Since we have discovered that the language from the GMP is not in the Land Development Code, we are working to get that in there. But as part of that, we are seeking assistance from the Center for Urban Transportation Research, which is connected with the University of South Florida. They work with many different communities not only in the state of Florida but around the country, but many within the state of Florida with regard to TDM strategies. And so I'm asking that they look at our TDM strategies, because they were put into the Growth Management Plan back in the early 2000s, and, you know, we're 20 years later, and things change. And so I want them to look at best practices around and see if there are different TDM strategies that we may want to look at including and what the future will hold as far as them as well. In looking at the TDM strategies that we have in place, what are other areas seeing as far as the measures of effectiveness that we will be able to utilize? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the TDM strategies came about because of the creation of the TCME or -- MS. SCOTT: MA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- or MA in this case. That came about because we're starting to pile up constrained roadways, and we needed an effective way in each segment of the county where these were occurring to alleviate the pressure to not allow any more activity on those constrained roadways when someone came in with an application. And I'm just kind of paraphrasing the thought process here, because I remember in the prior days we used to have a deduct on the base density of four by one for a congested area. And there was certain criteria for congested areas, and we even, I think, have maps. And I've asked David for a copy of that, but he hasn't been able to find it yet. But at one point when I get that map -- you had responded to me that David did have a map. And I can't remember from the old days where those were, but I was wondering if this one had been a constrained roadway. If it would have required -- would have then qualified for a deduct from four to three on the base densities in that area. Because the reason for that is -- it's kind of strange, we went from having a deduct of one for a base density -- from the base density to an add-on of three, if you're in a congested area, from the straight base, which is four. So all of a sudden we went and said, this is bad to put more traffic here; therefore, we're going to deduct one if you're in that area, but it's okay now; we're going to add -- give you three to please put more traffic in the area. How does that make any sense? MS. SCOTT: Well, from a traffic standpoint -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: David's got something to say. I got him to jump up. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 35 of 63 David, I had emailed you right after Trinity emailed me about constrained roadways and asking you for a map, and that's probably why you -- when you looked puzzled, that's what had occurred. MR. WEEKS: I was puzzled because I thought I did respond. So I'll make sure I do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't see it. I'm sorry. Maybe you did. MR. WEEKS: I'll make sure I do. What I know is that the traffic congestion boundary was west of this location. It would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I needed to understand. MR. WEEKS: It ran up Airport Road -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So this wouldn't have qualified for that anyway? MR. WEEKS: It would not have been subject to that one-unit-per-acre reduction. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's what I haven't been able to find since I didn't get -- I didn't see the email you may have responded to. Well, then, Trinity, the next followup question on this is, in the TCMA, what percentage do you have to have for the collective area now before it's considered as -- is it "failed" is the right word for it? MS. SCOTT: Deficient. Eighty-five percent of the lane miles, if it goes below 85 percent, that is when the -- everyone within the area would have to do TCMA requirements. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So Immokalee Road between Airport and Livingston Road is at 93.8 percent. So it's already within that category. But because it's averaged out with the rest of the TCMA -- this is from the 2018 AUIR. The link on Immokalee Road between I-75 and Logan is at 84.9 percent. So one-tenth of a percent away. And the link between Immokalee Road and Logan -- Logan to Collier Boulevard is 94.1 percent. So you've got two links nearby that are already exceeding the 85 percent capacity that the overall TCMA has to hit before they're considered deficient, but because they're lumped and averaged together, it's not considered deficient even though it's above 85 percent; is that -- MS. SCOTT: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just don't know how -- I'm just -- MS. SCOTT: And -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It's puzzling. MS. SCOTT: -- we also -- can we go back to the staff report and the conversation that we had had earlier with regard to the 2017 and the 2018 AUIR -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. MS. SCOTT: -- because we were incorrect in the staff report. We should have updated those numbers, and I do -- I did put them together really quick, and I want to have brief explanation about what we put in there. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SCOTT: So -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Before I forget, please address the question I asked earlier about the high school being included and Seed to Table. MS. SCOTT: I will do that as well. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MS. SCOTT: Okay. So in our staff report, I have updated what is our typical table that we put in the staff report to be reflective of the 2018 remaining capacity. The applicant did update their TIS to the 2018 AUIR; however, when we put our information into the staff report, we were remiss and looked at the 2017 AUIR. So this is the new 2018 information. And the reason I have the Livingston Road corridor highlighted is our Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element Section 5.1, when we review a petition, you look at the first link that the petition goes on, that the traffic impacts are on. If they are equal or exceed 2 percent of those service volumes, then you proceed to the next link. If they do not, we stop our analysis at that first link. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 36 of 63 So when this petition originally came in with a higher density, we were beyond the first link, but as it has been reduced down in units, from a staff perspective we are analyzing that top link. So when we revised our staff report -- or when we put our staff report in for this adoption hearing, the bottom two links should have come off of that, because we are not analyzing those links, because based on our rules they are less than a 2 percent impact and so, therefore, we would not go to that adjacent link. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That piece I understand. MS. SCOTT: Okay. I just wanted to clarify that, but -- so this has been updated now with the 2018 numbers. And for the Livingston Road, Imperial to Immokalee, there's still sufficient capacity for this specific petition. With regard to your checkbook concurrency -- so for checkbook concurrency, we utilize the background traffic number which you see in your AUIR, plus the trip bank. And so when a new project comes in, they become part of the trip bank. Once they CO and they start operations -- and certificate of occupancy. I know I'm talking a lot of acronyms. Once they obtain their certificate of occupancy, we go on an annual basis and clear out that trip bank. So because those trips, no longer in the trip bank, they've become background traffic. What we do not do is if a business goes out of business, go back and put those trips into the trip bank. They're vested from an impact fee standpoint, but we do not. So the Seed to Table, because it has not been operational for quite some time, is not included in that background traffic. When we are looking at the projected deficiencies, we look at the background traffic and the trip bank plus we apply a growth factor. The growth factor is the higher amount of either 2 percent or whatever the average growth rate for that specific link has been. We grow that traffic out. And so for the AUIR, for a planning purpose, that's how we come up with the projections of when the roadway is anticipated to be deficient. If the roadway doesn't grow as fast, that number could continue to be pushed out. If the roadway grows faster, then it might come in. But we use that as just a gauge for us to know when we need to start looking at planning studies for projects. With regard to the high school, the high school is not -- we just actually received some traffic analysis in the past few weeks with regard to the high school, and we will be working with the school on that with regard to our Veterans Memorial project and any other intersection improvements that will be necessary based on the high school. Now, remember, the high school, their p.m. peak, most likely going to be a southbound direction. So it's opposite of what our p.m. peak is for that roadway, which is northbound. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And the high school, is the high school a substantial traffic generator? MS. SCOTT: I believe it was around 210'ish p.m. peak trips. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By the time the high school's open, that link on Livingston/Memorial will get out to Old 41, but Old 41 will still be somewhat in the condition it's in today? MS. SCOTT: Old 41 northbound, remember. The high school will be more southbound trips because most likely it's going to be the people going back to their homes. If they're within that school area, they're within Collier County, unless they're staff, who live in Lee County. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Just curiosity, have you gone far enough to know if you're putting a light at Livingston and Old 41? MS. SCOTT: We do not yet. We are working -- the Florida Department of Transportation is doing a project development environmental study at -- for Old 41, and so we're coordinating with them of what type of intersection treatment that will be. The other thing that I would tell you with regard to the Veterans Memorial, in our current adopted AUIR, we anticipate that roadway to begin in Fiscal Year '22 for construction; however, in coordination with the school, we need to start that a little sooner. So we're anticipating -- it's in our budget that's being developed for the Board. And in the draft AUIR that will be presented to you later in the fall, we're 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 37 of 63 anticipating that construction to begin in Fiscal Year '21 to be able to accommodate the school. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all I've got. Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Hi. COMMISSIONER FRY: So talking not so much about the numbers. As the numbers play out as of now, it appears that the project does not kick the road segments into a -- what was the word, not failure but -- MS. SCOTT: Deficient; deficiency, yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Status. But let's talk about what people are experiencing today. And I think in public comments last time, I'm about 150 percent sure you'll hear more similar concerns today about traffic. And I know that there's several, probably, Planning Commissioners, I assume, where traffic is one of our main concerns. So as I understand it, even when 75 is flowing, in the afternoon heading north, traffic will back up starting at the Bonita Beach Road light back southward on Livingston, past Veterans Memorial and sometimes to the fire station, which is south of Veterans Memorial, and that people that are in the Mediterra community are not able -- because they don't have a light, not able to actually get out from the east side side of Mediterra to get out and turn south to even get on Livingston because they're blocked by northbound traffic crossing their intersection. We have a large high school with thousands of students, and you said adding a couple hundred peak hour trips coming up with that interconnection between Livingston and Old 41 off Veterans Memorial Boulevard; however, my opinion, I guess, unless you can counter this, is that the bulk of traffic that is the issue now, which will still be the issue for the residents, is the north/south traffic which won't necessarily be mitigated by that Veterans Memorial Boulevard east/west corridor. So my question is, what help is on the way? These people will tell you that it's bad now, and if you add all these trips, it will get worse. What help is there for anybody to look forward to? MS. SCOTT: What I think that everyone needs to understand is that during season, yes, there is a backup in that area. It occurs, and particularly when the interstate is congested. We do not plan our roads for peak season congestion. You can go out there today, you can go out there for eight months out of the year, nine months out of the year, and that road is flowing fine. After our public hearing last time, I had -- our traffic operations folks have the opportunity -- they can see all of our traffic signals from one room. I asked them to monitor that. So after our hearing, until after the Board of County Commissioners hearing -- because I had them here to provide testimony at the Board if necessary -- we did not find that the roadway was backing up that far. So this is by our own visual of us watching it. Now, if there is an incident on the interstate, absolutely, it backs up. Every roadway that backs up -- north/south roadway backs up. U.S. 41, we get more congestion because people are diverting over. Or if there's something that occurs on Immokalee Road between Livingston and the interstate or that -- something happens on Immokalee Road, people divert. So I look back at during peak season, yes, we all experience additional congestion on the roadways, but we don't build our roadways to accommodate peak season. We don't plan our roadways to accommodate peak season. So the remainder of the time, which is what we're doing our analysis based on, that road is functioning at an acceptable level of service. COMMISSIONER FRY: Notwithstanding what you said, there are projects that come before us that the timeline of development is based on an assumption or plan for widening of roads or extensions of roads and that type of a thing. I'm told in this case that one of the large causal factors of the backup northbound is the light at Bonita Beach Road, which is -- the road narrows from three lanes each way on Livingston. Around Mediterra, north of that, it's down to two lanes each way. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 38 of 63 Are there any possible expansion probabilities for the light at Bonita Beach Road to be three lanes each way north and south or widening of the road north of Mediterra up to the Bonita Beach Road? MS. SCOTT: That would be based on what the City of Bonita Springs in Lee County would agree to. But I can tell you after our initial transmittal hearing I did reach out to Lee County. Bonita Beach Road is a Lee County roadway, and they operate the traffic signal, and I asked them to look at the traffic signal, study it. My perception of it as a driver, because I would divert once in a while to Livingston, is that the east/west was getting a lot of the green time. They have studied it. They've adjusted signal timing but, you know, we need to continue with them, because if their phone starts ringing the other way, you know, they might adjust the other way. So we need to keep on the City of Bonita Springs in Lee County to maintain that traffic signal operating as good as possible. We can ask Lee County if they have any plans to make any additional improvements. I understand that there may be some in the works, but they're still coordinating with Bonita Springs on that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sounds similar to Immokalee Road where they -- Collier County traffic engineers prioritize east/west traffic because that's the greatest source of congestion and traffic flow. All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, Trinity. MS. SCOTT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I guess that wraps up the staff report for the GMP. And, James, do you have one for the Planned Unit Development? MR. SABO: I do. For the record, James Sabo, principal planner. Zoning Division -- if the GMPA's approved, Zoning Division recommends the CCPC forward this petition, 4385, to the Board for a recommendation of approval subject to relocating Developer Commitment 3C, which I won't read the whole thing, but moving 3C to 1B so that it's more visible in the document, and also change to Footnote 3 which was discussed here earlier in the Development Standards Table. That's our recommendation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. We'll turn to public speakers. I wanted to make sure, if the lady with the child was here -- UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: She left. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I thought I saw her leaving. Because I was going to let her speak first. Because if I was a baby in this room as cold as it is, I'd be screaming too. Maybe that's a discouragement for young people to come here. Yes, if she wants to speak, and she's more than -- to start out, that will hopefully relieve her for today. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark, I think a lot of these people came in after Terri swore people in. You may want to get them to -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. STARKMAN: Sorry. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's okay. Do the best you can. We're trying to get you accommodated so -- I know you might want to be on your -- MS. STARKMAN: Which one? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Either one. The kids can speak at one, and you can speak at the other. Are they twins? MS. STARKMAN: They are. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 39 of 63 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, fantastic. MS. STARKMAN: They're identical. And just to let you know, it's random. It doesn't run in families. So watch out if you're planning on having kids. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you identify yourself for the record, please. MS. STARKMAN: I'm Brittany Starkman. I live in Barrington Cove. We actually moved down to Florida in 2016. We moved to Orchid Run. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Were you sworn in, by the way? I was reminded to do that, and I forgot right off the bat. MS. STARKMAN: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So could you -- our court reporter will swear you in. I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: There might be a lot of people in there that weren't sworn in. They might want to stand up and all do it at once. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Since I wasn't here the beginning, I'm not aware of who did or didn't. So if you haven't been sworn in and you're going to speak, please stand up and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Now you can go ahead. Thank you. MS. STARKMAN: Okay. Anyways. So we moved here 2016, my husband and I. We lived at Orchid Run for our first year, you know, with basically the intent to buy down here and, of course, a lot of people who are moving down here it's basically because their parents are down here because they were snowbirds at one point, like my parents who live on Marco. And we were looking for a nice family community. And Barrington Cove actually has many children there. And we were not about to stay at an apartment. Basically, even though it's really nice, it's still not a place that I would raise my kids at. There definitely was some drug usage at that place that I saw. There were parties. They say no smoking -- I don't know. I don't know what they mean. So, anyways, I just don't want that around my kids. So it's a nice facade, very nice, but you never know what you're going to get. Yeah. And -- oh, sorry, you know, we are those young professionals that, you know, you're referring to. My husband is a PharmD. He's getting his MBA, too, right now. But, yeah, just want to keep it safe. Want them to be able to walk to school, cross that road no problem, which is, even right now, sort of a big road to cross. But with even more traffic, it will be insane. And school is during the season, so just a heads-up. All right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I wanted to ask her -- could I ask you one question, please? What type of interaction would you expect? There is no interconnection and driveways, at least, or roads between Barrington Cove and the projected apartment complex. So what interaction would you expect between your neighborhood and the people that live in the apartments? MS. STARKMAN: Well, you guys are talking about putting in a busing system probably, as well, to help with that. So I would imagine the bus would be out on the street, and that's where the kids would be as well, since we do have two schools right there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you're thinking Livingston Road where your kids are walking to school -- MS. STARKMAN: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- congregating with the people that are from the apartment complex? MS. STARKMAN: I wouldn't want them to, really, but if they're out on the street, they might run into those people. You know, it's like any bus stop. If you're walking down, you know, the road, the bus stop is right there, you walk past people, and they might interact. You never know. COMMISSIONER FRY: The reason I ask, because I wasn't sure if you were expecting people from the apartment complex coming through across the buffer through the borders and entering your 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 40 of 63 neighborhood. MS. STARKMAN: Oh, no. But, I mean, still, we have that long -- Veterans Memorial has that really nice area -- sidewalk there -- sorry, tired. And a lot of people use that to run, you know, exercise. You know, there's a lot of young families there. Obviously, they're not here today because they're probably at work. I get to be a stay-at-home mom so I'm lucky enough to be here. But, yeah, so, you know, there could be interaction there. You know, that's a really good place to go ride, you know, your, you know, bike eventually. Just saying. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, thank you. You have very good reason to be tired. Just we all -- MS. STARKMAN: Sorry. I was trying to keep them quiet, so -- trying my hardest. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. And then we'll go to -- first we'll go to registered public speakers, and then we'll go to anybody that hasn't addressed us yet. And if there's somebody that's registered to speak who has to be out of here by noon, we'll try to accommodate you first, but we are going to continue this till after lunch. So we're going to take a break in about 10 minutes to lunch. But if someone can't come back after lunch and you're registered to speak, if you could just raise your hand. I'd like to address you first to try to help out the accommodation. Ma'am, if you don't mind, come up and state your name for the record and -- MS. WREDE: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- then we'll take the lady behind you, and that should take -- all we'll be able to do before lunch. MS. WREDE: Thank you so much. My name is Katy Wrede, W-r-e-d-e. I live in The Strand. This is my third trip down here. And I pulled up online the public service ethics statement that you're bound to. As a Planning Commissioner you wield considerable power over how your community grows and develops. With this power comes the expectation that you will hold yourself to the highest ethical standards. Part of being ethical means exercising your power in the public's interest as opposed to personal self-interest or other narrow private interests. Frankly, the fact we're here today when this wasn't stopped the first time around points to a disregards for the Collier County management plan and zoning laws that are in place and a disregard for the general good of the homeowners and residents of Collier County and instead appears to be acting for the benefit of an individual land developer. The current zoning laws under the Growth Management Plan of Collier County can only be disregarded, it is my understanding, if there's a public benefit. I just shake my head to believe that any of us truly, any of you truly think that Allura's for public benefit. We already know it is not affordable housing but rather luxury apartments. We've heard many statements here this morning about Arthrex and firemen and teachers -- I was a teacher for 40 years. If I had to pay 1,700 a month in rent, I'd rather have a mortgage, which I could afford, for 1,700 a month. My understanding recently from the articles in the newspaper regarding Arthrex employees is this would not be affordable for them. And many of the -- if we truly care about Collier County, then we would require our developers to come in and build condos, whatever you want to call them, townhouses, homes that could be bought by the employers (sic) of the businesses we hope to accommodate and attract to this area. Most of the people that have considered coming here I've had heard their employees do not want this area because they have not -- have no desire to sit in traffic on I-75, Immokalee, Bonita Beach Road, or Livingston. If anyone watches WINK News in the morning, four out of four mornings a week, because there is a wreck on I-75, it is diverted to Livingston or Imperial or Three Oaks or whatever you call it, and it impacts us all the way down. Everyone has heard for the past many hearings, here and in front of the Collier County 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 41 of 63 Commissioners, the false traffic data. It at least points to some of the errors. And I so appreciate Mr. Fry and Mr. Fryer's, Mr. Strain's questions today with clarity and highlighting some of these traffic area things. But the 5,000 to 8,000 residents who live in this small quadrant between -- on I-75, Immokalee, Bonita Beach Road and contribute 75 percent of the revenues for Collier County realize this is not true. Even now, just two weeks ago when I was supposed -- when we -- I came down here and it was continued, the day before it rained, I was coming west on Bonita Beach Road in the deluge of rain, Bonita Beach Road was flooding, because we have taken up all the wetlands as well, as this will do with more cement, and was backed up. I sat through three lights to try to turn on Livingston. Livingston was backed up all the way to Veterans because they couldn't turn onto Bonita Beach Road because it was flooded. We all know that Collier County, despite collecting mitigation fees that Stock is only happy to pay to get what they want, is not able to use that money fast enough to keep up with the multitude of problems that continue to (sic) overdevelopment along this corridor or are currently experiencing and will only be exacerbated. The schools are at capacity. And, by the way, there are three. There's little Royal Palm Academy there too. The schools are at capacity. The sewage is at capacity. During Hurricane Irma, the county was unable to pump the sewage stations there. Bonita Beach Road was flooded for weeks, and this was all before we add more concrete from Allura, before we add the traffic from Oaks Farm and the high school and more developments along this corridor are being built. This seems to be purely a matter of self-serving commissioners. Not you guys, but the commissioners, and you work at their behest, because I think they appoint you, who are embedded with Stock in doing their bidding. So my question today is, who is running Collier County, the commissioners or the developers? Because it seems to me, from all the times I've been here -- every time I see Mr. Yovanovich get up and ask for rezoning, he gets it. Stock comes in, they bought this valuable land, and they knew how it was zoned. So why are we allowing them to come in and over-zone -- rezone -- ask for rezoning and overdevelopment for only one reason? Theirs. Their greed. Please just give us one good reason why you should -- why you should grant this request. This is red. And I heard when Mr. Pritt was speaking, he made a comment about the people, and there were less people, and I heard something from this group say nobody's here because they don't care. That simply isn't true. When we met County Commissioners, there were 500 people overflow, upstairs, out in the halls, and in here, everybody wearing a sea of red because red stands for stop. We urge you to stop this today. Please stop and stand up for the residents that you're ethically bound to support. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Our final speaker before lunch. Ma'am? MS. BELLONE: I'm Ronnie Bellone, and I live in Camden Lakes, which is just south of the firehouse on Livingston Road on the west side of the road. So I am here to tell you that in season traffic comes south below the firehouse. There are times when I cannot get out -- there's a light, but I cannot get out and turn north because, oh, by the way, the lanes go from three to two, and those two are controlled by the light at Bonita Beach Road, which I know we don't have any control of, so -- but I'm just telling you that is extends further than had previously been stated. I think the additional traffic, as has been noted with the Seed to Table and with the new school, while that has not really been accounted for officially yet, I think that's going to be additional. While it may not be during the peak time of 4:00 to 6:00 or 4:00 to 6:30, some people may be like me, retired, or those stay-at-home folks can do it during the day. I try and do that. But those folks coming from work are certainly going to do their shopping then, and the school, yeah, some of them go to school early, they 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 42 of 63 stay for sports. So there's additional traffic other than the normal 9:00 to 3:00, or whatever those school hours are. Originally, as I understand it, this was supposed to be for 55 and older folks. Then it was changed. Now it's for firefighters, EMS, teachers, Arthrex folks. And I understand the need for, quote, reasonably priced housing, whatever reasonable is. I used to be at that many years ago. That's why I can appreciate building things for them. But certainly -- Arthrex can certainly afford to build some housing for their employees. Other counties and counties where public -- where well-to-do companies exist, they buy properties as well. So I would just ask you to take a look at the folks who live in that quadrant, that triangle between 75, Livingston, and going north of Immokalee. I think somebody just said 5,000. Please take us into account. I would appreciate it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, ma'am. And with that, we're going to take a break for one hour. We'll come back at 1 o'clock and resume with public speakers. (A luncheon recess was had, and Commissioner Chrzanowski is absent for the remainder of the meeting.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Everyone welcome back from the lunch break. When we left off, we were getting into our public speakers as far as just starting out. So with that, we're going to go to -- back to registered public speakers, and when your name's called, just come up to the microphone, and if you have a difficult last name, please spell it so we get it right. And with that, I'll move to the staff. MR. SABO: The next speaker is Alan Johnson. MR. JOHNSON: Good afternoon. Alan Johnson. I'm the president of the Mediterra Community Association. I'll try to be brief and not be redundant. I'm concerned about the magnitude of the variance we're considering granting here. Four to eight and a half, in our view, is significant. I was glad to see that someone had done some homework, I believe, with regard to development in the area by other developers to point out that all of these developments were done within the guidelines of what the commissioners had established as a goal of four units per acre. I think we're on a very slippery slope here. If we grant this variance, what are you going to say to Argo when they come in -- they own the piece of property right across the street -- for their development and say, well, you granted Stock eight and a half. We'd only like 10; that's not that much more. And then we have the piece of property that's immediately adjacent to the high school that's going to go in. What's going to happen when they come in and want their variance? It's a slippery slope. We get people coming to our office every day of the week looking for variances. Whether they want a landscaping variance, an architectural variance, a paint scheme variance, they want relief for their generator offset, or their pool cage. And I know it's hard to say no, but at times we do have to say no; otherwise, we're going to end up with the dog's breakfast, and that's my concern here. This is just the beginning of what could turn into a mess. The Planning Commissioners over time, I think, have done a really good job in Collier County. That's why people want to live here. And I think -- I don't think it's an onus. I've worked -- met several times with the Stock team. These are good businessman. They're smart people. They're very smart. I don't think it's too big of an onus to go back to them and ask them to develop the property under how the property was meant to be developed. These are smart guys. They can do it. They developed homes in other areas. I don't think it's too big of a challenge. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. SABO: Tim Richards is the next speaker. MR. RICHARDS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Tim Richards, general manager of the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 43 of 63 Mediterra Community Association office. Just here on behalf of the residents. And first off, just want to thank you for taking a really close look at all the details with this plan. You know, it seems like you're intimately involved and very knowledgeable on the topic. You know, as was stated before, our residents are very concerned about the impact that an increase in density in this area would have on traffic. The quality of life that they live -- you know, as you heard earlier, you know, getting in and out of the gates is very difficult when the traffic's backed up over there. I encounter situations with our staff just coming to -- actually more so leaving work. But, you know, coming to Mediterra and leaving Mediterra is very difficult; long trips from time to time. If this plan gets approved, like Mr. Johnson just alluded to, you know, where does it stop with all the other neighboring landowners? There's a lot of land along Livingston Road there and in the future with Veterans expanding. You know, if we're doing the 8.5 now, you know, the next groups that come along are going to ask for that, if not more. So with that being said, we're asking that you not approve anything other than what's already currently approved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next speaker is David Depew. DR. DePEW: David Depew. I am representing Mediterra. I am here today in my guise as an expert planner. I have been a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners since 1983 and a practicing planner in Florida and specifically Southwest Florida since 1980. I have appeared before you before under the same circumstances in terms of being here as an expert. And I have also, as Mr. Pritt mentioned, submitted documents with regard to this particular request and represented Mediterra at your last hearing on this, the transmittal hearing. I've looked at the current application, and I would reiterate that I believe the growth management amendment fails to be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis. It fails to react to that data and analysis in a manner that's appropriate, professionally acceptable, or to the extent necessary as indicated by the data that's already in the record from the county. Specifically there, as an example, is your housing plan. It's not based, I believe, on the proper demographic projections upon which the plan is based, and it will create, I believe, internal inconsistencies in your plan. It fails to support the provisions of the Housing Element for current and anticipated future residents. With the current designation on this property, there would be no indication that this is somehow burdensome to the landowner or that the property itself is not economically viable given its current designation. There are development options for the subject property shown by the market studies that were provided as well as by the existing development patterns that are in the area. There's no compelling necessity to provide for such a significant increase in the development density for this particular property, and there has been no data and analysis that would suggest some sort of compelling reason for waiving the requirement of providing affordable workforce housing as an incentive for added density. And this is the crux of the real data-and-analysis problem. Right now you've got a plan that allows bonus density for affordable and workforce housing. That's not what this request is for you -- before you right now. What it's a request for is market-rate rental housing. This is far, far and away from what your Collier County Community Housing Plan from October of 2017 is calling for. That client indicates that the county is expected to add 58,000 households over the next 23 years. If the local issue of cost burden 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 44 of 63 is not addressed then, at a minimum, 11,000 more households will experience severe cost burden above 50 percent than do households today. It goes on to state that there's a job housing imbalance in Collier County resulting in at least 17.4 percent of the workforce, which is approximately 40,000 people, commuting daily from outside of Collier County. As of the date of the report in September of 2017, the Community Housing Plan estimates that housing demand for extremely low, very low, and low-income housing would be 1,618 dwelling units per year. The applicants haven't provided any basis for a waiver of the elimination of this existing policy which provides for bonus density for this type of housing, and without that data and analysis to support a modification of the currently applicable future land-use designation, I believe that that is the essence of the problem with the data and analysis and the internal inconsistencies that will be created in the Growth Management Plan. Based upon the existing Growth Management Plan, as I indicated, I believe that it fails to demonstrate any kind of deficiency which this is intended to address. And I believe that you really have two options in order to address this in an attempt to be consistent with what you've got so far. The first being to simply deny this proposed GMP amendment. The second being, as part of the GMP amendment, restrict the density. Restrict the density to four units per acre, and that would require you to also modify the PUD ordinance, which is the crux of the PUD rezoning to restrict it to four units per acre. The applicant's been very good in terms of modifying setbacks, adding increased setbacks. They've been very good in terms of adding additional vegetation to buffers. They have been restricted on their height as part of the Board of County Commissioners' hearing. But it still doesn't address the Comp Plan problem, and that is the additional density that is being provided, as Mr. Pritt described it, because they're good guys. Whatever the reason, if you're going to waive the requirement for this low, very low, and moderate cost housing that the plan calls for, you need data and analysis, and that doesn't exist as part of this application. And so I would suggest to you that, first off, you deny it. If you don't, restrict it to a maximum of four units to the acre, which is their base density, because they're not applying the existing plan policies that would apply to everyone else in this area. I'll be happy to answer any questions if you have them. I see Mr. Yovanovich up there, so I'm certain he has some. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He won't get his turn until the public speakers finish. So go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Dr. Depew, I just would like to clarify just what your position is specifically. You seem to be suggesting that some additional density would be justified if it was affordable housing; however, from the other public speakers from the neighborhoods, that is the last thing that they would want. They are balking at the idea of $1,750 a month average rent market-rate units. So I guess I'd just like you to kind of clarify where you stand. If by chance they were to say, okay, we'll do affordable housing, is that something that, in your mind, would justify the additional density? DR. DePEW: Again, I'm basing this on what is in your plan. So according to what's in your plan, yes, that would, for the plan amendment, justify additional density. Now, you've got a second set of considerations that you'd have to take a look at for purposes of the PUD zoning, and that goes back to compatibility. As one of the prior speakers mentioned here, compatibility is very unique, and it's a -- very much a situation in which you look at the neighborhood in which the project is developed. Now, I personally think that seven is not compatible because of the -- just the amount of traffic 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 45 of 63 and utilization of services and the discrepancies between the surrounding residential patterns. As one of the prior residents also mentioned, you've got densities that are in the range of half a unit up to a maximum of about four. So four's really about as much as you can justify. But the plan, again, provides density bonuses. And based on an analysis from the plan, yes, you could get these additional units but, again, you have to go through the compatibility analysis that's part of the rezoning. So I didn't try and address that in my remarks because I think everybody else has already tried to address that. But in terms of the plan amendment, I think you've got a significant problem with the way this was presented, because there's no basis for waiving this requirement that gives you these extra units. It's supposed to be an incentive to do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of the wildcards here that I personally am trying to weigh into its impact and importance in this decision is the existing De La Rosa PUD which is four-story buildings, 20 feet from the road, density of seven units per acre. What is your take on the relevance of that, you know, in the context of your argument? Because that's already an existing approved PUD. DR. DePEW: Right. And that PUD actually went through the Water Management District permitting process and, ultimately, was denied by the District when it went through. So that's going to take a considerable redesign. So, I mean, you saw as part of the presentation a site plan that put these buildings all through wetlands that's actually a preserve on the current site plan. And I think that's going to be a significant problem. So they're going to have to come back in here with a redesigned plan on De La Rosa as well that's going to provide these units closer up to the roads and further away from the development that's located to the east of the subject property and with less wetland impacts, I suspect, when it ultimately gets designed, if, indeed, they try and do that. I don't know that that's going to happen, but I can't react to what the next step is going to be. I can only react to what they've proposed right now. And right now the De La Rosa project -- it may have been approved in some fashion by the county, but it's not approved by any of the other agencies. So they may be coming back before you if, indeed, they try and do that with a completely redesigned development. And at that point, then we can address what the concerns are with that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any other member of the Planning Commission have any question of Mr. DePew? And, sir, before you sit down, I think Mr. Yovanovich -- he may have wanted to cross-examine. If he can, he's welcome. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I didn't mean to rebut. I'll go after Mr. Fryer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Dr. Depew, I'm looking at your website, and I see that your firm includes traffic engineering as part of your expertise. DR. DePEW: It does, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would that apply to you personally? DR. DePEW: I am a certified traffic planner, not a traffic engineer. I have had a variety of courses training in that area. I will tell you that I pretty much don't do that stuff anymore because I find it to be, shall we say, tactfully, boring. It tends not to be the most exciting stuff. Not that Mr. Treesh is a boring person. I use him on a number of projects. But I did look at the traffic study. I believe that it does comply with the county's requirements. I did not look at the amended traffic study because I didn't realize there was an amended traffic study. I'm not sure whether it was posted on the portal or not, but I did not get to see the most recent version of the traffic study. I will tell you that the comments made by the Board here today were on point. You've got a 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 46 of 63 problem that's going to occur in this area that is going to exacerbate the traffic. I will also tell you that most of the national studies that I've looked at have said that increase in lanage gives you limited relief for a short period of time. And when I say "short," most of the studies I've seen tell you about 24 months is all you get. You've still got, as I think another speaker said, some empty property out there. The problems that you've got on Livingston are going to manifest themselves again even if you add reliever routes with east/west connections over to Old 41 or additional capacity at the intersections to either the north or the south of this property. You're going to have additional problems because you cannot build your way out of congestion permanently. You always evolve traffic into actually more than what the capacity is. That's what all of the studies have shown. COMMISSIONER FRYER: With respect to testimony this morning of the traffic engineer, I asked a question about how one estimates the directions of travel, what percentage from one road would turn or go straight. And maybe this is outside your area of expertise. If it is, just say so. But I'd like to know a little more from another professional, if you have these qualifications. How -- what would a sensible, reasonable, thoughtful way of quantifying how traffic turns be other than just what I call anecdotal information? DR. DePEW: Typically, they look at the directional volumes on the roadway into which the traffic is turning. So if you've got, say, 60 percent going south and 40 percent going north, they will anticipate that traffic entering -- at a certain peak hour. They will anticipate traffic entering that traffic stream will go 60 percent south and 40 percent north. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So that would require an actual observation of moving traffic at peak time? DR. DePEW: Typically that's what happens, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay, Rich. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want to -- Mr. -- or Dr. Depew I just want to make sure I'm clear. You're not providing any expert testimony on transportation-related issues with regard to either petition, are you? DR. DePEW: Only insofar as I answered the question of the Planning Commission. MR. YOVANOVICH: But you have not done any independent transportation analysis for either petition? DR. DePEW: I have not done an independent transportation analysis. MR. YOVANOVICH: And I believe you said you reviewed Mr. Treesh's analysis and you agreed with how he did his analysis, correct? DR. DePEW: I agreed that it met the requirements of the Collier County codes. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, Growth Management Plans can be amended, correct? DR. DePEW: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: I would venture to say you've probably participated in amending Growth Management Plans, correct? DR. DePEW: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that was to address deficiency in the existing Comprehensive Plan, correct? DR. DePEW: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. Now, have you done any independent market study as to the need in Collier County for market-rate apartment housing? DR. DePEW: No, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any evidence to support a conclusion that there is not a need for market-rate apartment housing in Collier County? DR. DePEW: I do not. Your studies that were part of the application seem to demonstrate that 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 47 of 63 there is a need for market-rate housing. MR. YOVANOVICH: And you're not contradicting the testimony of David Weeks with regard to the Comprehensive Planning department's review and analysis of that data and analysis to support this amendment, are you? DR. DePEW: I'm not. MR. YOVANOVICH: Now, you're not providing any testimony with regard to the zoning petition; is that correct? DR. DePEW: I am in the sense that I indicated that the zoning petition should be restricted to four units to the acre at this point. MR. YOVANOVICH: At this point. And have you done -- and is that including downzoning the existing De La Rosa PUD? DR. DePEW: No, sir. I'm not addressing the De La Rosa PUD in any fashion. I'm addressing the issues that are before the Planning Commission right now. MR. YOVANOVICH: So it's your suggestion that the entirety of the property be approved at a density of four units per acre and take away the three units per acre that De La Rosa has been -- it's at seven. You want the overall PUD density to be reduced down to four; is that correct? DR. DePEW: I am not talking about the De La Rosa PUD. I'm talking about the Allura request that is before the Planning Commission today. And what I'm suggesting is that as far as the plan amendment and the rezoning should be considered a maximum of four units to the acre is the most that I could find from a professional standpoint appropriate. MR. YOVANOVICH: Have you ever done any apartment housing rezones or Growth Management Plan amendments? DR. DePEW: Well, that's two questions. I think -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: I'll break it down. Have you ever done any apartment -- apartment -- any Growth Management Plans amendments to authorize apartment -- market-rate apartments in any jurisdictions? DR. DePEW: I don't recall any off the top of my head. MR. YOVANOVICH: Have you ever done any rezone petitions to authorize the development of apartment-style housing on property? DR. DePEW: Yes, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you recall what the average number of units were in those apartment complexes? DR. DePEW: I don't off the top of my head, no, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: Do you have any testimony that the slide we presented showing that apartment developers are seeking approximately 300 units for apartment developments is an incorrect market determiner for the size of apartment complexes? DR. DePEW: No, sir. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's all I have. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. DR. DePEW: Thank you, all. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the next speaker, James. MR. SABO: Next speaker is Bill Arndt. MR. ARNT: Good afternoon. My name is Bill Arndt. I'm the president of Barrington Cove HOA. I really appreciate the consideration you guys are giving this. You're doing a great job for our 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 48 of 63 community, and I really appreciate you very, very much. One of the things that came up today, my word of the day was specious; it's having a false look of truth or genuineness. I can submit that what we're looking at here is a specious type request. The reason being is -- the first point is that the requirements to reach the seven or eight and a half, whatever it would be, are not being met clearly, at least in my estimation. The second point is is that this -- when we were talking about getting to eight and a half, Mr. Yovanovich said that he meets all the requirements of the game and that the game allows him to do this. We didn't realize we were working in a game, because when we bought our properties we didn't think this was a game. We thought this was life. So the people that are being affected by this are not playing a game. And the second thing he said was that it's not a requirement of the game to make the neighbors happy. The neighbors are not looking to be happy. We're just looking for the quality of life that we're used to. We're looking for the right for our kids to walk down the street unobstructed by traffic that will be coming. Our kids walk down Veterans Boulevard every day to go to the schools, to the elementary schools. They walk down -- they have to cross Livingston Road to go to the elementary schools. The one exit for the property, Allura, is on Veterans Boulevard. It's going to increase the traffic flow 120 feet from the light, and that's where kids are going to be going in the morning and in the afternoon every day that they go to school. When they start going to high school, it's going to be even more affected. So all we're asking for is simply to take consideration, first of all, the fact that we already own our property, so we're property owners. They own 15 acres, but they don't own the other 20. That's proposed. They're not property owners of the other 20 yet. We do -- all the residents in Barrington Cove, 134 of us, do own our own properties. One last point: Mr. Yovanovich said he had been barred from speaking to the HOAs. I don't know where that came from. I don't have any agreement with Mr. Fryer -- Mr. Bob Pritt barring Mr. Yovanovich or any of his people to talk to me. I know that Kady Wrede, who was here previously, she's from The Strand. She doesn't have anything barring them. I know that Camden Lakes doesn't have anything barring them. I don't know why we haven't been talked to. I don't know why we haven't been spoken to. I know that was made in detail with the commissioners. They were supposed to come back to us. They didn't, and I'm really disappointed in that. So I'm just asking you in your wisdom, you're the voice of us, the people. You're the voice that allows this community to grow the way it's supposed to grow. Please understand that the community, the people in close proximity are asking you, please, please, please allow the density of four to go through but no more. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, please. MR. SABO: Anne-Marie Cadwallader is the next speaker. MS. CADWALLADER: Hello. I'm from Barrington Cove also. Much of what I was going to say has been said already, but I think we're left with three questions: What is the need for this, what is the impact, and what is the precedent? As far as the need and why here, why apartments here at a luxury market rate. Included in the Allura packet is a list of apartments mostly just in Collier County that are new and existing. Over 10,000 units available, and that doesn't include new apartments, some on Bonita Beach Road, and Baumgarten up Immokalee. So the need for luxury apartments is just not -- has not been proven, and allowing such a destructive planning change with an exception to the original plan will set a very bad precedent for any and all community development. How, then, is anyplace immune to changes in their neighborhoods that will diminish the quality 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 49 of 63 of life, create the crowded conditions and traffic that people were trying to avoid by buying in primarily residential neighborhoods? Has there ever been a reputable study that proves home values go up when three-story apartment buildings are built in the backyards of single-family homes? It's just -- it's a bad idea for our community. It sets a bad precedent. It's incompatible. So I would hope that you as Planning Commissioners would vote to remain at the original density of four. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Nancy Huntt. MS. HUNTT: My name is Nancy Huntt, H-u-n-t-t. Thank you, Commissioners, for taking the time to listen to us today. I am a board member of the HOA of Barrington Cove. Recently have moved here from Dallas, Texas, and took on the role of transitioning ourselves out of our developer into our homeowners. I can't agree more with our neighbors and those in the know, and I agree with all of their suggestions, and I ask you to take those into consideration. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Arnold Saslavsky. MS. SASLAVSKY: Good afternoon. It's Arnold Saslavsky, S-a-s-l-a-v-s-k-y. I'm a resident in The Strand. And ever since this property change came to -- came into my knowledge, I started checking online at apartments.com. And I checked this morning. There were 1,562 apartments listed available and, as was pointed out earlier, about a third of Inspira's inventory is available. So where's the need for apartments in this area? We've got 264 units going up right now on Bonita Beach Road by I-95 -- I-75, sorry, and with the convenience of being able to walk to a Starbucks. We have a proposed 325 apartments at Pine Ridge Commons at the corner of Goodlette and Pine Ridge, also walk to a Starbucks. These apartments, nobody's going to want to walk to Starbucks from there, so... And the Arthrex employees, I'm not sure about -- I'm not sure about that. I don't know how they get to be -- what was it -- oh, they get some kind of privilege, that firemen and policemen discount. I don't see how Arthrex employees qualify for that. They should be paid enough money to afford apartments. So I'm asking you to, as well as the other folks -- and I'd like to hear the answer to Mr. Fryer's question about one-year lease commitments from the folks at Stock Development. And I'd like you to consider either denying or minimizing this project. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Zannos Grekos. MR. GREKOS: Good afternoon, Z-a-n-n-o-s, G-r-e-k-o-s. Thank you all for your time on the Board. I know you're volunteers, except for Mr. Strain, and I know how much effort that actually takes. Just me having come to several of these meetings, the first Planning Commission, the Board meeting, the reschedule last week and so on and so forth, it takes a lot out of you. And, you know, people that were here this morning with children and so on had to go home. So I appreciate you being here. I think I'm going to -- what I'd like to do is bring up a couple points that stuck out in my mind. First was the fact that we're talking about the traffic, and I saw the amended traffic evaluation that Trinity had put up, and the remaining capacity for Immokalee Road between Airport and Livingston is 193 -- I think that's correct that I'm quoting -- and that is going to exceed or be deficient by the year 2023, I believe? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 50 of 63 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Two. MR. GREKOS: Twenty-two. Again, this is not -- those aren't peak hours, but if you guys have ever been on Immokalee during any kind of peak hour, you know that it's backed up past Airport from Livingston. And if we've got a high school that's going in with close to 400 seniors that all drive and another 400 juniors where half of them drive, that's a lot of cars, and that's not even the staff of that high school. If a small percentage of them are going anywhere on Immokalee, that's already going to overwhelm. And I think we're going to reach that deficiency much sooner than 2022. I also believe that anything going northbound on Livingston -- we're talking about -- Trinity mentioned that we don't build our roads for peak, but peak is getting longer and longer in Collier County, and it's lasting from before Thanksgiving till after Easter. And as high schools and more density, which is already in the Growth Management Plan for that area, goes into place, that Livingston Road is going to become much more overwhelmed and it's going to add fuel to the fire if we're increasing density without a good reason. So the second question then -- the second question is, what is the good reason that we want to add 150 extra units to this corner? Well, the ability for teachers and first responders and Arthrex employees to have a place to live transiently has been brought up, but what I would counter with that is in Barrington Cove, we are the neighborhood that they move to. So just Brittany here with her twins lived in Orchid Run for a little while and then moved into a neighborhood, we are that neighborhood. And that's what we believed that the planners for Collier County initially saw this corridor between Immokalee and Bonita Beach Road off Livingston as a neighborhood corridor where people could have families. I've got an eight-year-old at home. Their kids could ride bikes. And that is the flavor of this corridor. Those 5,000 family homes or attached villas in that area are neighborhoods. We need neighbors in Collier County, and I think we're being a little bit shortsighted in thinking that we need to build apartments now, because those people that build apartments that want to move into our area need to go somewhere. So where are they going to go? It's going to bottleneck, and then you're going to have people like the Stock developers here asking now for more neighborhood-type areas which we were shortsighted enough and did not provide at this point in time. So what I'm saying -- what I'm asking is, please don't give us another apartment building. Please let us keep and give us a neighborhood, which is what we need right now. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, James. MR. SABO: Next is Rob Conforth. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: He had to leave. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Next speaker. MR. SABO: Next is Ed Gorelick. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't look like he's here either, so let's go to the next one. MR. SABO: I know this fellow is not here; Michael Dalby. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Nope. And who's left? Anybody? MR. SABO: That's it. That's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any member of the public who has not spoken and would like to speak? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we'll turn to the applicant for any rebuttal that they'd like to make. MR. YOVANOVICH: Normally I don't respond directly to public comment, but I think I need to respond to Mr. Arndt. I met with Mr. Arndt twice regarding this project. He told us, Keith Gelder, me, and Bob Mulhere, that he could not deliver a majority vote out of his community one way or the other on 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 51 of 63 this project, and I said I wouldn't put him in that position to have to be the decision-maker for the community. Mr. Arndt and I think it's his wife Anne-Marie have made it very clear they weren't budging from four units per acre. This is after they asked us at the meeting would we agree to three stories and basically redoing Inspira on this property. And where are we? Three stories and redoing Inspira on this property, and we're still not satisfying their comments. I don't think it was appropriate for him to characterize our team and in particular Stock Development as specious. I think Brian has proven to this community he is a reputable person personally as well as his company and have been dealing with Mediterra and Mr. Arndt and Briarwood -- I'm sorry -- Barrington very professionally and very courteously. And we agree, we agree to disagree. That happens. There's nothing wrong with that. But to use terms like specious is, I don't think, fair, and I just wanted to clarify that on the record. There's no slippery slope. Each petition is evaluated on its own. And we hear this argument all the time about setting a precedent. You look at each petition on its own. There's no precedent being set by approving the Comp Plan amendment and approving the rezone for the property. I will -- I'm shocked at the attack against the project being we're not providing affordable housing. I think Mr. Fry is 100 percent on the number. If we came in with an affordable housing project under the current rules of the Growth Management Plan, I could tell you we'll be way higher than eight-and-a-half units per acre in the request, and we'll go through the process, and then we can have the discussion about is providing housing for people who need affordable housing in the public interest or not. And I will tell you I've been doing it long enough that whenever I have brought -- and I have brought a few affordable housing projects through the process. There isn't a neighborhood next to it that supports it. So you have a Comp Plan that allows us to, I believe, get to 16 units per acre if we went through the affordable density housing program. And I'm going to tell you, people will go -- they'll be upset if we were to elect to come in with an affordable housing project on this piece of property or someone else were to do this on the piece of property, although the existing Comprehensive Plan allows for that, to ask for it. So we did discuss how do we assure that first responders, teachers, nurses -- essential service personnel has been the term we've used for other projects -- are given an opportunity to move to Collier County, live in good, safe apartments until they decide whether they want to own a home or stay in that apartment. They may decide to stay in that apartment. And there have been some who have implied that people who live in apartments aren't quite the type of people that they would like to have their children associate with or run into. I've heard it in NIMs. I think we heard a little bit of that today. So there is no question that there is a need for market-rate apartments. We've proven that. Your staff agrees. The community is allowed to say we don't think you have proven it, but we have proven it, and they don't have any studies to contradict that we need this type of housing. So back to how do I make sure Arthrex, the school board, Collier County, and other essential service personnel have the ability to live in this community? And we said we would make a proposal after lunch, and we're going to. Our proposal is that we -- and we've done this on other projects for essential service personnel, and we have a definition we can read into the record but it's essentially, you know, medical professionals, nurses, schoolteachers, government employees. That's the category of people I'm talking about. In other projects we've agreed to set aside a portion of those units to where we market to them first. And if they want to come live in our community, great. If they don't, then we can go to people outside of this ESP, essential service personnel group. People like me as a lawyer, I don't qualify as essential service personnel, so I would have to wait for a teacher or a nurse or firefighter or a police officer to say, no, I don't want that unit before I can go 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 52 of 63 into these restricted units. So we would propose to restrict 55 of the units to be marketed first to essential service personnel. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Rich, before you leave subject -- and I don't want to interrupt you, but I want to make sure the question that was raised, the young lady that spoke said that you guys provide discounts to essential service personnels, and I think we're looking to -- MR. YOVANOVICH: That's where I'm going to go next. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That was -- I wanted to make sure you had it there. MR. YOVANOVICH: First I want to let you know that we were going to make sure that 55 of the units would be set aside to be marketed initially to them, and if we couldn't fill those 55 units with them, other nonessential service personnel can live in those units, and then when those units come available again, they would again be marketed to essential service personnel. So we would always try to hit that 55. Of those 55, we would agree to restrict 28 of those 55 to people making between 80 and 100 percent of the median income of Collier County which is -- if you look at your moderate income, it ranges from 80 to 120 in your affordable housing density bonus matrix. We would be at half of that. We put 80 to the 100. So we would agree, again, subject to finding people who want to live there in those income categories, which would mean we have to bring the rents down to meet those income thresholds. So that will take care of your schoolteacher who may have a roommate that wants to have a nice place to live. They'll be in that income category, plus they'll be essential service personnel, so you'll get them twice. So we believe between the need for more apartments, which is uncontroverted even by their own expert who says he's got no reason to believe that David Weeks isn't right in reviewing our data and analysis, that the further limitations that have already gone through the process, which was to r educe the height to three stories, reduce the density to 304, to further limit those 304 to targeting essential service personnel both from the 55 units but also income restricting 28 of those 55 to the 80 to 100 percent income category. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You mean 80 to 120 or 80 to 100? MR. YOVANOVICH: Eighty to 100. Not 120. We're not trying to get all the way to the top. We're going to the midpoint of that range. We'll provide additional benefit to those who are trying to relocate to Collier County to work either at Arthrex or the school system or any of the hospitals or for any of the doctors that are in this community. And in that category we've even talked about construction workers fit the definition of essential service personnel when we've done this before. So we would propose that modification to address, and that's how we would be dealing with the reduction in price, if you will, for Arthrex and other employees, through restricting those income categories for 28 of the units. We are -- frankly, we're proud of the project. You've seen it. You've seen Inspira. And if anybody says that that's not a luxury apartment complex that anybody would be proud to live next to, I don't know why people would say that. It's in Lely Resort, which is a top-notch community in Collier County. With that, we request that you follow your staff's recommendation on the Growth Management Plan and recommend to the Board that they adopt it, and we request that you follow your staff's recommendation with regard to the PUD and recommend that it be approved as well. And with that, we'll be happy to answer any more questions you may have or clarify anything I just said on the essential service personnel and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any questions? COMMISSIONER FRY: One quick one. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: How are you going to incent Arthrex employees? Could you just 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 53 of 63 repeat that section. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we said is they would fit the category of -- as I understand Arthrex, because I've done some work for them, I would think they would fit the category of medical. So they would be in the essential service personnel category, so they would fit within the 55 as well as the income restricted if they have some employees that needed the income-restricted unit. COMMISSIONER FRY: Are you prepared to make formal offers in terms of the buffering and setbacks along Livingston Road also? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. We talked about the 80-foot setback. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. YOVANOVICH: And the enhanced buffer, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I made all those notes. Anybody else have any questions? Go ahead, Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: What is the rental times for -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: The rental times, the length. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, they have -- 12 months is the normal rent, but they do have a shorter-term lease for people who relocate, and seven months for people who relocate. If they're building a house or something and they don't need a full year, that's -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: They still go through the same screening. And, frankly, they pay -- I think they pay a little bit extra for only having seven months of an obligation while they're looking either for a house or they're building a house. So it's seven months is the minimum lease. COMMISSIONER FRY: Could we have the representative from Greystar confirm that in terms of -- that was a concern of the neighbors and some people requesting the 12-month leases only. So is there a premium, in fact, for a seven-month lease? MS. CARDOZA: Yes. Anything that is shorter than a 12-month lease gets an added premium. So I have 200 additional per month for a seven-month lease and then 150 -- for a seven to eight, add 200. Nine to 11, add 150. COMMISSIONER FRY: Per month? MS. CARDOZA: Correct. May I ask her one more question in terms of the makeup of Inspira? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ask all the questions you want, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: So what is the mix at Inspira of one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom? Is there such a thing as a studio apartment? MS. CARDOZA: We have ones, twos, and threes, and I think we're 45, 45, 10, right in there, for percentages, 45 one -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Forty, 45, 10? MS. CARDOZA: Yep, 45 percent ones, 45 percent twos, and 10 percent threes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead, Tom. MS. CARDOZA: Correct, no studios. MR. EASTMAN: Rich, I had a question with regard to the ESP units and offering those to that type of renter first. What type of period are you talking about? I mean, is it 24 hours or three months or -- MR. YOVANOVICH: What we've done in the past, Mr. Eastman -- good question -- was the initial lease-up we've required at least 60 days during the lease-up period to try to fill the building with someone who meets essentially service personnel. And then when a unit -- if it's a unit that doesn't -- say we only get 54 people, when that 55th unit comes available, we have a minimum period of 30 days that we have to try to find someone who meets the ESP parameters before we could then market it to someone who didn't. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 54 of 63 MR. KLATZKOW: At the same rental? Is it still market rate? MR. YOVANOVICH: Well, it depends which unit we're talking about, Jeff, because some of them -- MR. KLATZKOW: Let's just break it down, because saying you're going to reserve market rate for essential services doesn't do anything. Let's just talk about the number of units you're willing to reserve at a discount. MR. YOVANOVICH: Twenty-eight. MR. KLATZKOW: Twenty-eight units. MR. YOVANOVICH: And that will be the same thing. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. So that will be -- you'll have -- you're offering 28 units at a discount rent. And how is that discount rent calculated? MR. YOVANOVICH: The county has a formula that they use. You look at the income, and then you have to subtract out an amount for utilities. We would use the county's formula to determine what the allowed rent would be based upon their income. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. So that would be the formula? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, the county's formula. They have one. I wish I could tell you exactly what it is. MR. KLATZKOW: I'm just looking to get some clarity as to what the offer is. MR. YOVANOVICH: We would use the county's exact formula for qualification. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. KLATZKOW: You're offering 28 units at a discounted rental for essential personnel? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. MR. SABO: Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject. The median income in Collier County is about 66,500. So if they're talking about 80 percent to 100 percent, 120 percent of median income -- MR. YOVANOVICH: No, no. A hundred, James. It's a 100 percent. MR. SABO: A hundred percent. MR. YOVANOVICH: Eighty to 100. Not 80 to 120. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's the offer. MR. SABO: Yeah, correct, but that starts at $53,000. MR. YOVANOVICH: For a family of four. MR. SABO: On the lower end, correct. MR. YOVANOVICH: Family of four. You've got to remember there are single individuals that that number's somewhere in the forties, if I remember correctly. Am I close, Keith? Yeah. MR. SABO: Fifty-three thousand to 66. MR. YOVANOVICH: For a family of four. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did you have something else you wanted to add, James or Rich? MR. YOVANOVICH: No. I just wanted to make sure -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody have any other further questions of applicant or anybody at this time? MR. YOVANOVICH: If I just can say, if it's a single person at the 80 percent, that's a $42,000 income just so you have that frame of reference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, before we close the public hearing and go into discussion, I have some lists of things that we've brought up. First of all, the staff recommendations would be accepted. Do you have any problem with that? MR. YOVANOVICH: It was so long ago, I don't think so. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. The setback along Livingston Road will be at 80 feet with an enhanced buffer, meaning it will be the Type D width but the Type B buffer plantings. MR. YOVANOVICH: Principal structures would be the 80 feet. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 55 of 63 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. I just want to make sure we were clear on that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Correct. You're going to correct the reference to the accessory setback on the eastern side from Barrington Cove so it matches up. You're going to be providing for essential service personnel first a period of 60 days on a unit and then -- for 55 of the units. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And then each time they come up they'll, again, have the 60 days to -- for first refusal. And then 28 of those units would be for 80 to 100 percent affordable income range personnel. MR. YOVANOVICH: Let me correct one thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. MR. YOVANOVICH: The 60 days is at the initial rental. The re-rental would be 30 days for finding a replacement in the essential service personnel unit. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because I didn't hear you say that. MR. YOVANOVICH: I thought I did. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You might have. I just didn't get it. MR. YOVANOVICH: That's why I was correcting it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the minimum lease period will be seven months. MR. YOVANOVICH: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Those are the notes I made. Does anybody have any other notes that we -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: We'd put forth a question of whether they would be willing to go to 12 months. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Are you asking that question? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm asking the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. YOVANOVICH: It's -- right now -- can I have a moment? Honestly, I'm not ready to answer that question right now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. We'll take a pause for five minutes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, can I say one thing? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Ask one question? The question is, would they be willing to go to just 12-month rentals only? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Minimum. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: With the belief of -- that we're going to -- my question is, so I come down here on a short -- I know, for example, lots of companies do short-term contracts. So we're going to penalize those people that want to come here for Arthrex or -- I know there's also mobile nursing that travel here that are on short-term. There's a variety of different things that would come here on six-, seven-, eight-month categories. And I'm not playing into yet the decision one way or the other. I'm just saying to you, I don't see an issue of being -- requiring a 12-month minimum. Why penalize someone that can only come here on a work deal for seven or eight or nine months? MR. KLATZKOW: So what's the public purpose for a 12-month limitation? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yeah. I don't get it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, anecdotally, again, I think that people take better care of property the longer that they stay there. And the shorter term, I just think, tends to bring about less regard for the premises they're occupying than a longer term. COMMISSIONER FRY: If the applicant wants to stick to your guns on the seven-months minimum, I'd like it stipulated that there is the premium for the seven-month. You know, as you stated, 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 56 of 63 I'd actually like that written in, because I believe, in my mind, that addresses a concern of a lesser quality of people on a shorter-term lease, which I think is the overall concern. If you're paying $1,950 average per month versus 17,50 because you're renting for seven months, to me that further excludes the income levels that can afford that and would seem to serve the purpose of a high-quality of resident. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, this is the last time you get to speak to us, so let's hear it. MR. BOSI: Mike Bosi, Planning and Zoning director. I'd just like to remind the commission that currently we have a six-month regulation for tenureship within a leasing period by our LDC. For all other geographic or all other residentially zoned properties in the county, we have a current regulation that requires six months. Seven months would be actually greater or more restrictive than what the LDC would require. Twelve months, obviously, would double that. And I just wanted to provide that in terms of perspective in terms of what this ask is in relationship to the other residentially zoning districts within the county. MR. YOVANOVICH: And, Mr. Fry, the concept -- COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Thanks, Mike. MR. YOVANOVICH: Oh, I'm sorry, Mike. That will be the last time I get to interrupt you. We certainly have -- the concept is not a problem for us having a minimum of seven and that there be a premium paid for that seven-month lease versus the 12-month lease. I just don't want to put a dollar threshold in the PUD. So I don't have a problem saying that there has to be a premium payment for the seven -month to the 12th-month option. Does that work for you? COMMISSIONER FRY: You say you would -- MR. YOVANOVICH: We would charge a premium. If you rented from -- (Simultaneous crosstalk.) COMMISSIONER FRY: -- language you would charge a premium for a seven-month -- for leases shorter that 12 months? (Simultaneous crosstalk.) MR. YOVANOVICH: It would never be less than seven, and anything less than 12, there would be a premium rent charge. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're not comfortable specifying a dollar amount -- MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- or percentage. MR. YOVANOVICH: Right. It's just difficult to do, you know, with the -- MR. KLATZKOW: You know, we have to enforce this as a county. Keep that in mind when you're putting together stuff for the ordinances. I mean, seven-month minimum is one thing. But trying to figure out what the rent discount is is -- I don't know how we're going to do that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Point taken. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It's too much. I'm just wondering -- I'm sure -- I know in our homeowners association our rentals for a home are 90 days three times a year, and another association it's 180 days, once a year. So I'm sure these homeowner associations have their lease agreement in their documents, and it's less than a year. COMMISSIONER FRY: Got it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't mean they can do it. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: One year. Well, not all of them I know. The Strand has a lot of associations, so I doubt they have all one-year leases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But the documents that they have can't supersede our county ordinances. So if we have an ordinance -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Right. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 57 of 63 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- that says they can't lease less than seven months, I don't care if their homeowners say they can lease three months. They've still got to do seven months. Now, how they're doing that, nobody's complaining about it, so it's probably not an issue. They've still got to go by what our local ordinance says. MR. YOVANOVICH: Plus, we're way easier to audit on that commitment because we're one owner and it's an apartment complex. It's not like you're having to deal with 304 different unit owners to verify that that commitment's being met. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any -- so what we'll end up -- well, first of all, where's your question Stan -- Karl? I mean, not Karl, Ned. You had asked a question that started this discussion. You're the Fryer. He's the Fry. So he already fried your fryer, so... COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: You jump up from the fry to the fryer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: What is your -- what do you want to do with your question? He was going to take a break to answer it. I don't know if you've resolved it now or not. COMMISSIONER FRYER: It would not change my vote, so I'm dropping the question. MR. YOVANOVICH: Appreciate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the way that last item will read is a minimum lease period of seven months. So with that, if there's no more questions of the applicant, seeing nobody indicating such, we'll close the public hearing, and we can either start with the discussion or start with a motion, whatever somebody wants to do. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I think we should start with discussion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. Okay. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: I defer to you, sir. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I just read off my stuff as far as suggestions go. I'm -- I don't know what direction this board's going to go. I had addressed some concerns I had originally because of the change to the GMP. I really have seen nothing new that changes my position on that, so my position on that will still remain the same. Tom? MR. EASTMAN: I just had a question regarding essential service personnel. I think that that has been defined in the past to include government workers, police and fire, medical, people employed by the hospitals, et cetera. I don't know that it extended to construction workers and Arthrex. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I can -- yeah, I can pull it up here in a minute. Are you guys getting it? MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah, we have it. Do you want me to read it into the record, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah, that's fine. MR. YOVANOVICH: What we have done in others, it says, in Collier County, essential personnel -- essential services personnel is defined as follows: Those individuals employed in the community as teachers, educators, other school district employees, community college and university employees, police and fire personnel, healthcare personnel, skilled building trades personnel as listed in the U.S. Department of Labor general division -- I'm sorry -- General Decision No. FL150012 dated 3/20/2015 for building construction in Collier County as may be amended or superceded from time to time, and government employees. If we need to be clear, I assumed Arthrex fit the definition of medical because that's what they're -- MR. EASTMAN: I stand corrected, Rich. You're clearly right based upon that definition. MR. YOVANOVICH: I want the record to be clear. If I need to add something to address Arthrex or other companies that provide these types of medical devices, we want to make sure they're in that definition. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 58 of 63 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, in your write-up to this definition, why don't you -- don't reference Arthrex by company -- MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- but reference the kind of personnel they have so that that personnel level is included. MR. YOVANOVICH: I will. I just wanted to make sure when that -- I'm assuming that's -- that clarification is wanted by the CCPC when they see it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think -- well, by simply using it in one of the stipulations, it has to be provided. MR. YOVANOVICH: We'll put something together that meets the spirit and intent of what I just said. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you added the definition, "medical device manufacturer," that would certainly cover Arthrex. MR. YOVANOVICH: Probably get you there. MR. KLATZKOW: So we're going to have a separate category now for Arthrex now as far as the land development regulation. MR. YOVANOVICH: No. MR. KLATZKOW: Let's -- I realize how valuable Arthrex is, but a secretary for Arthrex is not any more valuable than a secretary for any other company in this county. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But if we leave it the same definition we've used in another PUD, we'd be okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FRY: Fair enough. MR. YOVANOVICH: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that other PUD, I think Milano, whatever that one's called over there now by Lord's Way. MR. YOVANOVICH: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the one I believe -- is that the one you just used? MR. MULHERE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's the one I thought. I remember that from the past. Okay. But resurrect that. MR. YOVANOVICH: We will. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. Any other discussion? Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: At the time of transmittal I had some serious misgivings about this project, but I voted to transmit, and I also stated some concerns that I had at that time. I also believe that the developer and the developer's agents have gone a good distance toward accommodating many of the concerns that have been put on the table, and I compliment them for that; however, the main sticking point that I have at this time has to do with compatibility of the developments that surround or abut the Allura project. Mediterra, the DU per A is .56; half an acre roughly. Brandon, 3.99 dwelling units per acre; under 4. Sandalwood, 3.1 dwelling units per acre. RMC Enclave, 4.02 dwelling units per acre. Royal Palm International Academy, 3.37 dwelling units per acre. Marsilee Villas, 2.63. Then Allura, 8.46. Now, I'm not saying that as a matter of judgment on my part per se that single-family and multifamily can't live adjoining one another. That's not my position. But I do think that compatibility is significant. And in this case I think as a criterion, and the compatibility criterion in my judgment has not been met by this project. And so for that reason I'm going to vote no. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Does anybody else have any other comments? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir. In the interest of eliciting viewpoints of other Planning Commissioners, I'd like to share my thoughts. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 59 of 63 I'm conflicted on this issue because I feel like we're between a rock and a hard place here. I believe that -- I do see some justification, and I don't see it as an absolute not to have an apartment complex adjacent to single-family homes. I have that in my neighborhood. My kids ride by it and walk by it on a regular basis on the way to Target. It's a considerably less caliber apartment complex than what you're proposing here. This particular location is on a major -- is on a corner. It's accessible on the main roads, not through any neighborhoods. So in a way it's cut off traffic-wise from the neighborhoods. Those are positive. Also another positive I see, a potential positive, is that you are allowing people that don't have the down payment for a single-family home to buy one, or they're just not ready to buy one, but they have pretty high income. These are not -- you could buy a house with $1,700 a month if you had a down payment. So to have the ability to have ESP units available and rental units which, by nature, is going to apply to some people that single-family homes do not, but to be able to put them inside the TCMA -- and as I understand, the point of a TCMA is to concentrate development somewhat in an area to avoid sprawl out to the east. So I see those as -- this is kind of the rock, and then I got to the hard place. Not a bad idea to have the ability for teachers if they want to rent rather than own a home. The firemen that work there, people from Arthrex. I mean, all the types of things to have a very local and central location to live. To me, those are positives. I've driven by Inspira. I haven't toured it like Commissioner Dearborn. Thought it was beautiful. As a younger person or in a certain circumstance, I could see myself wanting to live there with the gigantic pool and amenities and those types of things. So I don't think the -- I think a very good job has been done by the applicants and by the team for the applicants of demonstrating sensitivity to the site plan: Buffering, setbacks, the quality of the apartment and the kind of people that you will attract at those rents and that type of unit. So the wildcard that I said earlier, to me, like I said, is De La Rosa, which I look at from a standpoint, if I lived in Barrington Cove, how would I feel about the prospect of De La Rosa going in? I believe the sentiment is probably that it won't go in or at least it won't go in according to that site plan that's been presented. But the fact I do see some relevance to is that it's approved at seven units per acre. So whatever they end up doing there, they can build at a density of seven units per acre. And because it was approved a long time ago without -- at least it doesn't seem like it had the resistance that this has had -- you guys have very effectively proposed or presented. You know, you've got less setbacks and higher building heights that are at least possible there which, in my mind, if I'm living in Barrington Cove I'm thinking might be a more intrusive impact on my -- on a certain area of my neighborhood than this thing would overall be in terms of just how much of a sense I have of it being there because it's pretty well hidden. My main concern is traffic. And I think it's -- I'm not alone in that. And I understand we meet the criteria for -- by the numbers. It doesn't trip and triggers where it's over the thresholds to cause the roads to fail; however, just because we don't plan our traffic for peak season doesn't mean that people should necessarily be told they have to live with gridlock for -- predictably, for six months out of the year. I would like -- my hard place is that I think there does not seem to be any kind of an answer for the north/south traffic equation that will make this possibly get better as we add Oakes Farm, as we add the new high school, even the interconnection of Veterans Memorial Boulevard over to Old 41, I'm not sure how much that would alleviate the north/south other than people trying to get over toward the coast. So I'm not sure -- I like the concept of this apartment complex. I like the design of it. But my concern is the density with respect to the traffic that it generates. I wish you could say -- I've asked the question: How many units do you need to be able to create this caliber of apartment complex and -- you know, but reduce the density? Because I -- in the last meeting I voted no, but I proposed that we extend that seven units per acre that's in De La Rosa, but 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 60 of 63 spread it out across this total acreage, have it better buffered, and have it be a less overall impact to the neighborhood but still have the apartments located for all the other benefits that it provides, but I was told that 300 is a sweet spot and that below 300 units you cannot justify that level of amenity. To me, that's the great unfortunate aspect of this, because not much has changed. You made a few more concessions, which I certainly appreciate for the betterment of all but, fundamentally, it's kind of -- it's mostly the same development. And so the traffic conundrum hasn't changed. So I find myself in a similar position -- or like I said, slightly different but similar position to Mr. Strain where I have a hard time voting for it at the density of 8.55. I could vote for it at a density of seven, which I believe is a reasonable way to balance all the interests in this, which is what I think our job is, or at least I look at as my job up here to try to balance the interests of the neighborhood, the county, you know, the potential positive interests of all so we all walk out -- you know, nobody wins, but nobody people -- you know, people walk out not having -- feel like they were trampled on. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else have any comments? Is there a motion from anybody? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Mr. Chairman, I have one more comment, if I can. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: A lot of great points have been brought up about this, and I want to just readdress in my world of real estate. In most of the gated communities I'm familiar with, including those represented here today, there's some great communities there. Rentals in homes in these gated communities is rampant, whether people want to admit it or know about it or not, and a lot of them are off the record, and a lot of HOAs I'm aware of allow rentals, 90-day minimum, minimum three times a year, and I can rattle off a lot of gated communities in North Naples that allow that. To me, as a homeowner in a gated community, like these nice ones that are represented here today, I don't personally like, as a homeowner, having people coming and going in our, call it, our family, our gated community, especially off the record. Kind of hard to -- we've seen some struggles at a county level of how to regulate all that. What I do see here from this project is that by making these nicer, higher-end apartments available, A, we can attract people to this area, professionals, first responders, those that we -- essential to our county greater than we do now; number two, I think it will alleviate a lot of people, investors, buying a property in a gated community for the sole purpose of renting that out off the record, off the county books, et cetera, which is rampant in this county, and you can read the articles that have come out recently about that. And it's a controlled environment where we're going to provide nice amenities and nice areas. The one lady that was here, so sweet with her kids, and I appreciate her time, she even mentioned, she was in Orchid Run, I think, another apartment complex on a pretty busy corner of Airport (sic) and Livingston, and they came down for a year before making the move to buy and become a part of our Collier County community. And I think that, as a community, I understand the challenges with traffic. We could sit here and talk about challenges with traffic on every road in this county. But I think at the end of the day this is a good thing in the long run for the county as a whole, and I think that whether that makes people in those communities happy or not -- and I'm in that North Naples area -- I think that in the long run it helps us out. It cuts down on people trying to rent and turn these homes in these gated communities into rentals which is going on in my world all the time. I just wanted to say that for the record. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, that takes -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I agree with you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That takes us to the -- someone needing to make a motion, and I 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 61 of 63 will -- we'll have to do them separately. We have a GMP amendment first and a PUD second. The GMP amendment is PL20170004419, Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard east residential subdistrict. Does anybody want to make a motion on that item? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To what, approve or deny? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Approve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I figured as much, but I'd like you to say it for the record. Is there a second -- well, before -- is there a second for discussion? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Motion made by Patrick, seconded by Karen. Now, anybody want -- have any discussion on the motion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: From my perspective, as I mentioned earlier, I haven't changed my position because -- basically because of the GMP at this point. I don't think that this could have been expected by anybody doing their due diligence in the neighborhood. The GMP wouldn't have provided for it. Most of the provisions in the GMP don't allude to this kind of density for this kind of use. And so I think from that perspective, I'm real concerned about the fact the GMP -- it could not have been expected from reviewing the GMP. I don't believe it's compatible due to the scale and the massing, which is inconsistent with the local development patterns. It's not just the fact that it's -- we've had examples of where it's consistent with other residential in other parts of the county, but in this location there isn't anything quite like this. The higher density, we know, will produce more traffic. Basically they're going from what was previously allowed at about 189 up to 304. You've got to have more traffic with more units. And right now that area has got a difficult issue with traffic. It creates an isolated district for a higher density within the area. We've seen the evidence by staff that outside of this project the highest density, I think, is 4.02, and this is over double that. It provides a unique advantage to one property owner. This is an occasion where this one property is going to have that higher element. And the change is not needed to develop the property with what would have been allowed without a GMP amendment, which I estimate to be about 189 units. And so for those reasons, I can't support the motion to approve the project. Anybody else have any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Based on the motion to recommend for approval, all those in favor of that motion signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Could you raise your hand just -- how many? Two. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: (Raises hand.) COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: (Raises hand.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I wasn't sure I heard anybody over here. Thank you. All those against the motion, signify same sign. COMMISSIONER FRY: Nay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Okay. So it's 3-2 motion denied. And I don't know if we need to have any kind of -- if there's any other compromise that we might want to consider to send to the Board of County Commissioners. I don't know of one offhand, so I'm letting our vote stand from my perspective. Does anybody else have anything they want to consider? COMMISSIONER FRY: I would vote in favor of the project at seven units per acre, 249 units, under similar design parameters otherwise. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 62 of 63 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Okay. With that, Richard, that's your response: A recommendation of denial's going to go to the Board of County Commissioners. MR. YOVANOVICH: I understand. You still have a PUD you have to vote on. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, that's right. Same -- and I'm going to basically -- thank you for reminding me. The PUD is PL20170004385. Is there a motion for this PUD? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karen. The motion is to approve? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yes. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I would have the same discussion with the exception that under this one I'd add one other caveat that it's inconsistent with the GMP only because I can't find a way to get there through the GMP. So with that, does anybody else have anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All those in favor of the motion to recommend approval, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Those opposed, signify same sign. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. Motions carries 3-2. Thank you very much for your time. MR. YOVANOVICH: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion fails 3-2, I'm sorry. Motion to approve fails 3-2. I'm running behind today. Let's look at new business. Is there any other new business? I don't see any listed. Old business? Mr. Bosi, you are definitely old business. I know -- I understand when I was late this morning that Patrick had brought up that Mike is leaving. I found out a couple weeks ago, I think, or less. I was shocked and dismayed. I've been doing this for 18 years. I think Mike's been doing it at least that long or close to that long. I will miss his guidance. I certainly will miss his professionalism. He cannot -- nobody could have done it better. And, Mike, I'm going to miss you. I want to thank you for all the time you've put into the help with citizens of Collier County, because you have kept us on a path, and we've always had arguments and disagreements with the boards trying to get things to the right side up and whatever, but you've always given us good advice, and I want you to know how much I appreciate it personally, and I'll miss seeing you here, so... MR. BOSI: Thank you, Chair. And I'd just like to say, in closing, it's been 17 years. It's been a great 17 years of professional development, personal development, watching the community grow, watching the evolutions of the planning process and the development and the attention towards sustainability and the absolute painstaking efforts that this county does go to to make sure that we're trying to provide the most sustainable future and the best arrangement from a land-use perspective. And as we've seen in today's hearings, it's not easy. It's hardly ever easy, because there's competing interests and there's things that are demanded upon this place, but there's also certain standards in a way that the population wants to feel. And it's always an evaluation. It's always a balancing 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) August 1, 2019 Page 63 of 63 judgment effort. And I think that leads to good discussions. It leads to positive outcomes. And I will -- will miss those discussions. I will miss the wisdom that the Planning Commission provides to the Board of County Commissioners and, most importantly, will miss the friendships that I was able to develop. So thank you. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: How about a standing ovation, Mr. Chairman, for Mike Bosi. (Applause.) MR. BELLOWS: And I'd also like to say in my 30 years with the county, there hasn't been a better manager -- director. (Applause.) MR. BOSI: Thank you, guys. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Mike, if you miss us too much, turn to Channel 97. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: They don't get that on the East Coast. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you can just say, thank God I'm not there anymore. MR. BOSI: Will do. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thanks, Mike. That takes us to old business. I don't know of any others. Well, I just did old business. Public comment, nobody's left to comment. With that, is there a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made by Ned. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Karl. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:22 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION _____________________________________ MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on ____________, as presented _______ or as corrected _______. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 8-1-2019 CCPC Minutes (9778 : August 1, 2019 CCPC minutes) 09/05/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: PL20180002804: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element to amend the Urban Mixed Use Activity Center #7 to allow up to 265 multi-family residential rental dwelling units in the Hammock Park Mixed -Use Planned Unit Development in addition to commercial development and providing for transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 19 acres and located at the northeast corner of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/05/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 08/19/2019 10:57 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/19/2019 10:57 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 08/19/2019 1:14 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 08/19/2019 2:05 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/20/2019 9:13 AM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 08/20/2019 9:27 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/20/2019 11:36 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/05/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 68 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CYCLE 3 AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARINGS) PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 CCPC: September 5, 2019 BCC: October 22, 2019 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: CCPC Cover (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) TABLE OF CONTENTS 2018 Cycle 3 GMP (Full Scale) Amendment Transmittal Hearings CCPC September 5, 2019 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Reports DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 2) TAB: Resolutions DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit “A” text: PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 3) TAB: Projects/Petitions DOCUMENT: Petitions/Applications PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 4) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisements 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Table of Contents_CCPC (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 9 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: September 5, 2019 RE: PETITION CP-2018-08/PL20180002804, 2018 Cycle 3 LARGE SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDA- PL20180002813) [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Alexis Crespo, AICP Waldrop Engineering 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. #305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Richard Yovanovich, Esq. Coleman Yovanovich Koester 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Owner/Applicant: Wilton Land Company, LLC 206 Dudley Road Wilton, CT 06897 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The ±19.13-acre site is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. (Royal Fakapalm Planning Community). 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 9 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a large-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment (text-based only) to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to amend the Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict #7 to increase residential density in the northeast quadrant, within the Hammock Park Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD), to allow a maximum of 265 multi-family (rental apartment) dwelling units. The request is also to reflect the proposed PUD amendment from CPUD to Mixed Planned Unit Development (MPUD) via a companion petition that will be reviewed at the Adoption hearing for this GMPA petition (assuming it is transmitted). The proposed amended text is as follows (reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A): (Single underline text is added, single strike-through text is deleted). Master Planned Activity Centers [Pg. 59] *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the northeast quadrant may have a total of 68.3 acres and the southeast quadrant may have a total of 49.2 acres, for a total of 197.5 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land area shall be limited to non -commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers. Multi-family (apartment) uses shall also be permitted in the northeast quadrant within the Hammock Park MPUD and shall be limited to a total of up to 265 multi-family (apartment) dwelling units. The addition of the 9.3 acres to the northeast quadrant of the Activity center shall not be the basis for adjacent parcels to be rezoned to commercial pursuant the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict. With respect to the +/- 19 acres in the northeast quadrant of Activity Center #7, said acreage lying adjacent to the east of the Hammock Park Commerce Center MPUD, commercial development (exclusive of the allowed “1/4 mile support medical uses”) shall be limited to a total of 185,000 square feet of the following uses: personal indoor self-storage facilities – this use shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; offices for various contractor/builder construction trade specialists inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and services that typically serve those Proposed Project Site 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 9 construction businesses or otherwise assist in facilitating elements of a building and related infrastructure, including but not limited to architects, engineers, land surveyors and attorneys – these offices of related professional disciplines and services shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction trades occupants; mortgage and land title companies; related businesses including but not limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores, garden supply stores – all as accessory uses only, accessory to offices for various contractor/builder construction trade specialists or accessory to warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction trades occupants; management associations of various types of buildings or provision of services to buildings/properties; and, fitness centers. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of the Growth Management Plan Amendment is to amend the FLUE to increase the allowable residential density in the northeast quadrant of the Mixed Use Activity Center #7, within the Hammock Park Commerce Center CPUD limited to 265 multi-family rental apartments only (13.85 DU/A). Residential use is allowed in the Activity Center but the two easterly two quadrants, including the subject site, are limited to the density allowed in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict – 1.5 DU/A or 2.5 DU/A with use of Transfer of Development Rights credits. The Activity Center boundaries and acreage will remain the same. There is a companion Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) zoning petition (PL201800002813) that is requesting to add residential use to the previously approved mixture of retail, commercial and office uses and to revise the name of the project to Hammock Park Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). SURROUNDING ZONING, FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AND CURRENT LAND USE: Subject Property: The +19.13-acre subject site is currently zoned Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD allowing uses from the Commercial Professional and General Office District (C-1), Commercial Convenience District (C-2), and Commercial Intermediate District (C-3) zoning districts. The Future Land Use designation of the PUD as shown on the FLUM is Urban Designation, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #7 Subdistrict but is also considered within Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. The site is currently undeveloped. Surrounding Properties: North: To the north is zoned the Good Turn MPUD and is designated Urban, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #7 Subdistrict and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict; it is currently undeveloped but approved for a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and/or a variety of skilled nursing care facilities. Further to the north is undeveloped land that is zoned C-4 and has the same FLUM designation. South: Immediately adjacent to the south (across Rattlesnake Hammock Road) is a portion of the 2,262-acre Hacienda Lakes MPUD, a development of regional impact (DRI) approved for a wide variety of residential and commercial uses (with a maximum gross density of 0.78 DU/A). The area directly south is currently under development and is designated Urban, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #7 Subdistrict and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Further to the south is the Collier Regional Medical Center. The Medical Center is zoned Collier Regional Medical Center PUD (approved for hospital and related uses). The most northerly portion of the Collier Regional Medical Center PUD is designated Urban, 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 9 Commercial District, Mixed-Use Activity Center #7 Subdistrict and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, and the southern portion is designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. East: To the east is the McMullen MPUD that is currently undeveloped but is approved for 185,000 square feet of commercial development. It is designated Urban, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #7 Subdistrict and Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Further to the east is a portion of Hacienda Lakes MPUD, currently under development and designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. West: Immediately adjacent to the west (across Collier Boulevard), is the Naples Lakes Country Club PUD. The southeast corner of this PUD is designated Urban, Commercial District, Mixed-Use Activity Center #7 Subdistrict, developed with commercial uses (grocery anchored shopping center) and is approved for a maximum of 110,000 square feet of commercial land uses. Further to the west is the residential and golf course development components of the Naples Lakes Country Club PUD, which are designated Urban, Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The amendment is consistent with other Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), which promote mixed use development and connectivity. The petitioner states, “The Property is within a designated Mixed-Use Activity Center, which is specifically intended to provide for concentrated commercial and mixed-use development with “carefully configured access to the road network”. Activity Center #7 in general encompasses 197.5+/- acres and includes a diverse mix of approved Mixed Use Planned Unit Developments (MPUDs).” The applicant’s justification for the requested amendment is to meet the market demands for multi-family rental housing, while continuing to offer opportunities for commercial development in this Mixed Use Activity Center #7 Subdistrict. The petitioner believes this location will allow for residents to live, shop and work within a convenient travel distance. The petitioner submitted a market study with his application that indicated that there is a demand in Collier County for multi-family rental housing that would be supported at this location. One recent development (Orchid Run located at the southwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road) of new multi- family rental housing at market price has been very well received. Although a number of other market-rate multi-family rental housing developments are in various stages currently, the market study indicated that the occupancy rate for market rate apartments has been hovering just above 95% for the past five years, which is indicative of a very tight under-supplied rental market. The subject site is located in the northeast quadrant at the intersection of two arterial roadways, Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard, as well as easy access to I-75. Hammock Park MPUD’s location is within 1 mile of the high employment center of Collier Regional Medical Center; and within 6 miles of Naples downtown, Collier County schools in Lely, Naples Community Hospital Downtown, Collier County government offices, multiple shopping areas (including Coastland Center), and many other employment locations. With easy access to two arterial roadways and commuting times and distances potentially reduced, this location can be attractive to prospective renters. This location is well situated for a mixed- use development with market-rate multi-family rental housing. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 9 Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent GMPA Criteria in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3177: Section 163.3177(1)(f): All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10 -year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a) 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: (a) The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. (b) The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. (c) The character of undeveloped land. (d) The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. (e) The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. (f) The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. (g) The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s.330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 6 of 9 (h) The discouragement of urban sprawl. (i) The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. (j) The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. STAFF ANALYSIS The Future Land Use Element (FLUE) states, “The Mixed-Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed -use in character. Further, they are generally intended to be developed at a human-scale, to be pedestrian-oriented, and to be interconnected with abutting projects – whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged.” Within the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, the FLUE states, “If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict.” Residential land uses in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict may be allowed at a maximum base density of 1.5 units per gross acre, plus any density bonus that may be achieved up to 1.0 unit per gross acre via the transfer of up to one (1.0) dwelling unit (TDR, transferable development right) per acre from lands located within one mile of the Urban Boundary and designated as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. This provision allows a maximum density of 2.5 DU/acre. The maximum density as described above will only allow for 48 DUs (19.13ac * 2.5DU/a = 47.825 DUs). The applicant is requesting 265 multi-family dwelling units, which is contingent on this Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA). The GMPA is requesting text be added to allow 265 residential units (rental apartments only) within Hammock Park MPUD, yielding a density of 13.85 DU/A (265 DUs /19.13 A = 13.85 DU/A), and without use of TDR credits. If this project was located on the west side of Collier Boulevard within the Mixed-Use Activity Center #7, it would be eligible for a maximum density of 16 DU/A, instead of 2.5 DU/A (using TDR credits). The applicant stated that the approved density of Hacienda Lakes PUD (as you move further east from the urbanized area and Collier Blvd.) serves as the transition from Urban to Agricultural/Rural area (the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is intended as that transition – it is a 1-mile corridor along the east side of Collier Blvd., south of Beck Blvd.). There are a wide range of uses approved in the area surrounding Hammock Park CPUD. The uses range from an MPUD to the north; a PUD/DRI to the east and south with a full gamut of retail and commercial uses; a PUD to the south that consists of a hospital and related uses; and a PUD to the west with residential, golf course and commercial development. The addition of residential use to the northeast quadrant of the Mixed-Use Activity Center within the Hammock Park CPUD is consistent with the concept of a true mixed use development, the FLUE’s intent for a Mixed Use Activity Center, and thus is not out of character with the surrounding area. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed at time of zoning, and may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 7 of 9 Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist reviewed and approved the petition in December 2018. He noted the following: A PUD Ordinance #07-30 was approved. The property was 19.13 acres, 13.64 acres of wetland; 15% preserve was required or 1.63acres; the property has been partially cleared. No EAC (Environmental Advisory Council) review is required; no changes to the Environmental Goals and Policies of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, completed his review and approved this petition (for potable water, sanitary sewer and solid waste) in May 2019. Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition in February 2019. Collier County Public Schools Impacts: At this time there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years for the purposed development at the elementary, middle and high school levels. At the time of site plan or plat the development would be reviewed for concurrency to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas. The petitioner states there are no significant or adverse impacts upon any of the public facilities (potable water, sanitary sewer, arterial and collector roads, drainage, solid waste, parks, schools, fire control and EMS) and staff concurs. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on June 19, 2019, 5:30 p.m. at South Regional Library, 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy., Naples, FL 34113. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this large scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) petition. The applicant’s team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. Approximately 11 members of the public along with approximately 6 members of the applicant’s team and County staff signed in at the NIM. Commissioner Donna Fiala was also in attendance. Agent Alexis Crespo presented the project. The public asked questions about the project details. The consultant explained the PUDA application included reducing commercial square footage and adding a maximum of 265 multi-family market-rate rental dwelling units. There was no opposition expressed at the meeting. There were questions concerning the reduction in commercial equaling the number of residential trips – they will; will the housing be apartments or condominiums – apartments; will there be additional restaurants – probably due to the success on US41 at Collier Blvd. The consultants explained the trips generated from the project would not increase beyond the previously approved total number of trips, the pattern of travel times might be different. The meeting ended at approximately 6:30 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 8 of 9 FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • It was determined there would be a net increase in the number of vehicular trips, but there are no Level of Service concerns. • There are no utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • There are no concerns for impacts upon other public infrastructure. • Adding the residential density of 13.85 DU/A is generally compatible with surrounding development, most of which is commercial. • The proposed changes to the Mixed Use Activity Center #7 are consistent with the purpose of the FLUE’s Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, including mixed use, high density, location at a major intersection, proximity to residential development. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on August 15, 2019. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20180002804/CP- 2018-8 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other agencies required by Statute, subject to replacing the petitioner’s added sentence with Staff’s rewrite: Petitioner’s added sentence: “Multi-family (apartment) uses shall also be permitted in the northeast quadrant within the Hammock Park MPUD and shall be limited to a total of up to 265 multi-family (apartment) dwelling units.” Staff’s rewrite: “The previously established residential density limits in the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict notwithstanding, up to 265 multi-family rental apartments shall be allowed in the northeast quadrant within the Hammock Park MPUD.” 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 9 of 9 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report CP-2018-8 Hammock Park PL20180002804r3 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 APPLICATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 1 APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATOIN NUMBER: ___________________ DATE RECEIVED: ______________________________ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: __________________________________________________ DATE SUFFICIENT: ______________________________________________________________________ This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252- 2400. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 as amended by Resolution 98-18 (both attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive Planning Section at 239-252-2400. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS I.GENERAL INFOMRATION A.Name of Applicant ______________________________________________________________ Company _______________________________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________________________________ City ______________________________ State _____________________ Zip Code __________ Phone Number ______________________ Fax Number ________________________________ B.Name of Agent * _________________________________________________________________ •THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company________________________________________________________________________ Address ___________________________________________________________________ City ___________________________ State ____________________ Zip Code ________ Phone Number ____________________ Fax Number ___________________________ C.Name of Owner (s) of Record ____________________________________________________ Address _________________________________________________________________________ City ___________________________ State ___________________ Zip Code ________ Phone Number _______________________ Fax Number ______________________________ D.Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. II.Disclosure of Interest Information: A.If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, Tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 2 Name and Address Percentage of Ownership __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 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 Stock __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 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 Interest __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 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 __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 3 __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 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 ( ) leased ( ):________Term of lease______yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option:______________ and date option terminates: ______________, or anticipated closing: _______________________. 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. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION ______________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ B. GENERAL LOCATION _____________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ C. PLANNING COMMUNITY D. TAZ _____________________ E. SIZE IN ACRES F. ZONING _________________ G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN________________________________________________ H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S)____________________________________ IV. TYPE OF REQUEST: A. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN ELEMENT (S) TO BE AMENDED: _______ Housing Element _______ Recreation/Open Space _______ Traffic Circulation Sub-Element _______ Mass Transit Sub-Element _______ Aviation Sub-Element _______ Potable Water Sub-Element _______ Sanitary Sewer Sub-Element _______ NGWAR Sub-Element _______ Solid Waste Sub-Element _______ Drainage Sub-Element 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 4 _______ Capital Improvement Element _______ CCME Element _______ Future Land Use Element _______ Golden Gate Master Plan _______ Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) _________________OF THE _______________________________ELEMENT AS FOLLOWS: (Use Strike-through to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM ______________________________ TO _______________________________________________________________________________ D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: ________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ V. REQUIRED INFORMATION: NOTE: ALL AERIALS MUST BE AT A SCALE OF NO SMALLER THAN I”=400’. At least one copy reduced to 8- 1/2 x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and/or maps. A. LAND USE __________ Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI’s, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. __________ Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. __________ Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 300 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE AND DESIGNATION __________ Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL ___________ Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT-FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN “A” ABOVE. ___________ Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Game & Freshwater Fish Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.).Identify historic and/or 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 5 archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference F.A.C. Chapter 163-3177 and Collier County’s Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT “Y” FOR YES OR “N” FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: ___________Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? IF so, identify area located in ACSC. ___________Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? ___________Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. __________ Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district identified (commercial, industrial, etc.) or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district? If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: __________ Potable Water __________ Sanitary Sewer __________ Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ __________ Drainage __________ Solid Waste __________ Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. ________ Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. ________ Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 6 ______ Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). ______ Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) ______ Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable ______ Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable ______ High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION ______ $16,700.00 non-refundable filing fee made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) ______ $9,000.00 non-refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment made payable to the Board of County Commissioners due at time of submittal. (Plus proportionate share of advertising costs) ______ Proof of ownership (copy of deed) ______ Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) ______ 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * If you have held a pre-application meeting and paid the pre-application fee of $250.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre-application fees are included in the total application submittal fee. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1”=400’ or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 LEGAL 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) EXHIBIT III.A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION 14 50 26 S1/2 OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS R/W, AND W80FT OF S1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4, LESS THAT PORTION FOR R/W AS DESC IN OR 4336 PG 3681, AND N30FT OF N1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SEC 23-50-26 LESS R/W 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 AERIAL 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ¯CR 951CR 951R at tl es na k e H am m o c k R d Hammock ParkAerial MapCollier CountyExhibit V.A.-2 Frame Time: 2018 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 ZONING MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ¯CR 951CR 951Rattlesnake Hammock Rd Legend Major Roads Subject Parcel Collier County Parcels A C-4 PUD RSF-1 TTRVC Zoning PUD PUD PUD RPUD CFPUD PUD PUD PUD RPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD RPUD RPUD CPUD Hammock Park Current Zoning Map Collier County 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 FUTURE LAND USE MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Sou rc e: Es ri, Digita lG lobe , G eoE ye, Ea rt hst ar Ge ogr aph ic s, CNES/Airb us DS,USDA, USG S, A ero G RID, I G N, a nd th e GI S User Com m unity ¯CR 951CR 951Ra ttl es na k e Ha m m o ck R d Legend Major Roads Sub ject Parce l Co llie r Coun ty Parcels Collier C ounty Future Land U se Co llie r Blvd Comm unity F acility Subdistr ict Co nserva tion Desig nation Mixed Use Activity Cen ter Subd istrict Re sidentia l De nsity Bands Ur ban Re sidentia l Fring e Subdistr ict Ur ban Re sidentia l Sub district Ham mock Park Fut ure La nd Us e M apExhibit V.B 1 9 +/- A cr e s 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 300-FOOT RADIUS MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park ¯ 0 0.075 0.15 0.225 0.3Miles 300 FOOT RADIUS 500 FOOT RADIUS Collier BlvdRattlesnake Hammock Rd Collier BlvdExisting Land Use and Zoning Within a Radius of 300 FeetExhibit V.A.-3 Hammock Park Legend 500 foot Buffer 300 foot Buffer Subject Property ZONED: MPUDUSE: Vacant Commercial (Good Turn Center MPUD) ZONED: MPUDUSE: Public Right-of-Way (Rattlesnake Hammock Rd.) Vacant Commercial (Hacienda Lakes of Naples MPUD) ZONED: PUDUSE: Public Right-of-Way (CR 951) Multi-Family & Golf Course (Naples Lake Country Club; Sierra Meadows) Commercial (Naples Lakes Village Center)ZONED: MPUDUSE: Vacant Commercial (McMullen MPUD) Subject Propety - 19+/- Acres Existing Zoning: Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUDExisting FLUE: Urban Commercial District Mixed use Activity Center, Urban Residential FringeExisting Use: Vacant Commercial North Zoning: MPUD Use: Vacant Mixed Use (Good Turn Center)South Zoning: MPUD Use: Public Right-of-Way (Rattlesnake Hammock Rd.) Vacant Commercial (Hacienda Lakes of Naples)East Zoning: MPUD Use: Vacant Mixed Use (McMullen)West Zoning: MPUD Use: Public Right-of-Way (CR 951) Multi-Family & Golf Course (Naples Lake Country Club; Sierra Meadows) Commercial (Naples Lakes Village Center) Adjacent Property IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Justification Narrative Page 1 of 6 HAMMOCK PARK GMPA AMENDMENT JUSTIFICATION NARRATIVE Revised January 2019 The Hammock Park subject property (“Property”) comprises 19+/- acres and is generally located at the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The Property is designated within the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #7, and Urban Residential Fringe (URF) future land use designations. The Property is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) pursuant to Ordinance 07-30. The CPUD allows up to 160,000 square feet of commercial uses, including commercial retail and office. The Property is currently undeveloped and partially vegetated. The Applicant is requesting a site-specific text amendment to the Future Land Use Element, Mixed Use Activity Center #7, to allow up to 265 multi-family dwelling units (limited to rental apartments) within the Hammock Park project, along with the permitted commercial uses. The amendment will allow for build-out of this quadrant of an arterial intersection and activity center node with a compact, mixed-use project that provides for market-rate rental housing in close proximity to available public infrastructure, goods, services and employment. The proposed GMPA text amendment applies solely to the Hammock Park property as described in the application materials and will not apply to other properties in Mixed Use Activity Center #7. The companion CPUD rezone application will maintain the ability to develop 160,000 square feet of commercial uses, as well as the option to develop a mixed-use project containing 265 multi-family dwelling units and 100,000 square feet of commercial uses. The proposed mixed-use development program provides a vehicular trip generation cap that ensures the project will not exceed the PM peak hour trip count for the currently approved 160,000 square feet of commercial uses. As outlined in detail below, the proposed text amendment will further the County’s stated goals to: • Provide a diversity of housing options, particularly market-rate workforce housing, to address gaps in the existing local housing supply; 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Justification Narrative Page 2 of 6 • Accommodate higher density and intensity development within designated mixed-use activity centers along arterial roadways to reduce development pressures on rural areas; • Efficiently use the County’s investment in public infrastructure by locating intensive land uses in urban-designated areas of the County where adequate and available public facilities and infrastructure exist; • Integrate residential and non-residential uses within the same master- planned development to encourage multi-modal transportation options and reduce vehicle miles travelled; and • Uphold the intent of the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) future land use category by providing the necessary transition between the urban and rural designated areas of the County. The following is data and analysis that supports approval of the proposed GMP Amendment and identifies the request’s appropriateness in relation to the adopted Goals, Objectives and Policies in the GMP and the requirements set forth in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. PROJECT HISTORY/BACKGROUND In 2007, the Property was rezoned from Planned Unit Development to Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) per Ordinance No. 07-30. The CPUD as currently approved allows for a maximum of 160,000 square feet of commercial retail and office uses. Due to lacking market demand, the site remains undeveloped. Since the 2007 zoning approval, all other surrounding parcels have secured zoning entitlements to allow for similar intensive commercial retail and office development, as well as Assisted Living Facilities (ALF). Additionally, the Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI has been approved, allowing for a master-planned community consisting of 1,760 dwellings units, 327,500 square feet of retail, 70,000 square feet of office, 135 hotel rooms, and 140,000 square feet of business park uses. These approvals and the resulting development pattern along the Collier Blvd. corridor have significantly urbanized this portion of the County and resulted in continued investment in public infrastructure to serve the growth. These investments include, but are not limited to: utilities, roadways, transit, schools, Fire/EMS, library and other facilities outlined in Exhibit IV.E., which includes the Urban Facilities Map. LOCATION & SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT PATTERN The Property is located at the intersection of Collier Boulevard and Rattlensake Hammock Road, both county-maintained arterial roadways. The site represents infill development based upon the existing and approved/planned developments surrounding the project. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Justification Narrative Page 3 of 6 Please refer to Table 1 below, which provides an inventory of the immediately adjacent Future Land Use Categories, zoning districts, and existing land uses. TABLE 1: INVENTORY OF SURROUNDING LANDS DIRECTION FUTURE LAND USE ZONING DISTRICT EXISTING LAND USE North Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, Mixed Use Activity Center MPUD Vacant Commercial (Good Turn Center MPUD) South Urban Residential Fringe MPUD Vacant Commercial (Hacienda Lakes of Naples MPUD) East Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, Mixed Use Activity Center MPUD Vacant Commercial (McMullen MPUD) West Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, Mixed Use Activity Center PUD Multi-Family & Golf Course (Naples Lake Country Club; Sierra Meadows); Commercial The Property is within a designated Mixed-Use Activity Center, which is specifically intended to provide for concentrated commercial and mixed-use development with “carefully configured access to the road network”. Activity Center #7 in general encompasses 197.5+/- acres and includes a diverse mix of approved Mixed Use Planned Unit Developments (MPUDs). The Good Turn Center MPUD immediately to the north of the site is approved for a maximum of 100,000 square feet of commercial land uses and/or a variety of skilled nursing care facility uses with a maximum of 200 units (21 du/acre) per Ordinance 09- 53. The McMullen MPUD to the east of the Property is approved for a maximum of 185,000 square feet of commercial uses pursuant to Ordinance 10-18. Care units are also permitted in this project utilizing a commercial intensity conversion. The commercial tract of the Hacienda Lakes MPUD to the south of Rattlesnake Hammock Road is approved for up to 327,500 square feet of retail land uses and 70,000 square feet of professional and medical office uses. 135 hotel rooms are also allowed on this tract. The surrounding development pattern is indicative of the intent for compact, urban levels of development at the Collier Blvd./Rattlesnake Hammock intersection to accommodate the need for goods and services in southern Collier County. Due to historical limitations in the GMP relating to density in the URF-portion of Activity Center #7, this area is lacking in multi-family housing types that are closely integrated with commercial uses in the form of a mixed-use project. GMP ANALYSIS & CONSISTENCY • TRANSITION OF DENSITY 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Justification Narrative Page 4 of 6 The Property is within the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict per the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). This subdistrict is specifically sited on the Future Land Use Map to provide transitional densities between the Urban-designated area along the coast, and the Agricultural/Rural area generally located 1 mile east of Collier Blvd. The URF was established in 1989 to provide a transition from the urban area which allowed a density of 4 units per acre, to the rural area that allowed a density of 1 unit per 5 acres. Since 1989, the Hacienda Lakes MPUD/DRI has been approved, which fully satisfies the intended transition of land uses and densities from the arterial frontage to the Urban/Rural interface one mile east of the Property. Specifically, Hacienda Lakes’ master plan provides for commercial uses at the arterial intersection, which transitions to residential uses straddling the future Benfield Parkway, and finally designated preserve tracts along the project’s eastern edge. Due to this confirmed development pattern, along with other intervening MPUDs such as McMullen to the east, the GMP’s intent to provide for a logical transition from Urban to Rural in this area of the County is not impacted by this amendment. • ENCOURAGING MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS As stated in the Underlying Concepts section of the GMP, “…commercial development opportunities in the form of Mixed Use Activity Centers are provided to include a mixture of uses which has the potential to lessen the impact on the transportation system.” The proposed text amendment is in direct compliance with the intent of this section. The amendment reduces vehicular trips, provides a bona fide mix of uses in an urban area, and supports diverse housing options. Higher densities are necessary to support commercial uses, multi-modal development patterns, and transit usage, all of which result in reduced vehicle miles traveled. The Property is ideally located in a mixed-use activity center that currently permits density and intensity within other approved mixed-use developments surrounding the property. As detailed in the enclosed Ch. 163 Sprawl Analysis, the amendment directly supports sound planning principles, including the integration of residential and non-residential land uses. The requested amendment directly facilitates live-work opportunities in the Urban- designated area, and locates residents in walking distance to goods, and services and employment. • DIVERSE HOUSING & COMPATIBILITY The property’s location on a key growth corridor in the County makes it an ideal area to accommodate higher density residential uses. The site is not located adjacent to established low-density areas that would result in compatibility concerns with neighboring developments. The amendment will allow for the development of up to 265 apartment units, which directly addresses the identified demand for diversified housing to accommodate the 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Justification Narrative Page 5 of 6 County’s existing residents and projected population growth. The enclosed Market Study further substantiates the need for this amendment to meet both short- and long-term housing needs in the County. The resulting gross project density is approximately 14 du/acres, which is slightly less than the allowance of 16 du/acre within the other Mixed-Use Activity Centers throughout the County. The density proposed is appropriate for the location considering the adjacent densities and intensities as noted above; the existing and available public infrastructure in the immediate area; the lack of environmentally sensitive lands and natural resources on the site; and the demand for higher-density, market -rate workforce housing. ENVIRONMENTAL As outlined in the Environmental Report prepared by Passarella & Associates, the site contains a relatively small amount of wetlands (1.63+/- acres) that are concentrated in the northwestern portion of the site. The proposed site-specific text amendment to Mixed Use Activity Center #7 will have no effect on the requirements of the preserve areas previously approved for the Hammock Park CPUD. The forthcoming PUD application will retain the required on-site preserve area in full compliance with the GMP and LDC. A letter from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, indicates no significant archaeological or historical sites are recorded or likely to be present within the subject property. Based upon this information, the site is suitable for increased densities due to a lack of environmental sensitivity and on-site natural resources. INFRASTRUCTURE The subject property will be accessed from Collier Blvd., a 6-lane arterial roadway through a shared access with the Good Turn MPUD to the north, and through two (2) approved points of ingress/egress along Rattlesnake Hammock Road. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) prepared by Trebilcock Consulting, Inc., all roadways impacted by the project will continue to operate at the County’s adopted minimum Level of Service through project build-out. Potable water and sanitary sewer services for this project will be provided by Collier County Public Utilities (CCPU) through existing infrastructure located along Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Exhibit IV.E. demonstrates the property’s proximity to available public infrastructure including parks, schools, fire, and EMS services. This data reflects that the subject property is an appropriate location for the addition of density, and the compact development pattern will effectively utilize the County’s investment in public infrastructure in this area. CONCLUSION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Justification Narrative Page 6 of 6 In summary, the proposed site-specific text amendment is justified as follows: 1) The proposed amendment furthers the goals of the Mixed-Use Activity Centers by encouraging density in an area where it is appropriate and will reduce impacts on the transportation network; 2) Will further the objectives of the Mixed-Use Activity Centers by providing more intense mixed-use development in a planned urbanized area; 3) Will allow for a compact and contiguous development pattern along a major arterial thoroughfare with available public services and infrastructure surrounded by other mixed used planned developments; and 4) Will be compatible with adjacent existing, planned and approved developments. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests approval of this petition. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 CHAPTER 163 CRITERIA 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Sprawl Analysis Page 1 of 3 Hammock Park GMPA Chapter 163.3177 Sprawl Analysis Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.a, F.S., states that “… any amendment to the future land use element shall discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.” Section 163.3177(6)(a)9.b, F.S., specifies that an amendment shall be determined to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl if it incorporates a development pattern or urban form that achieves four of eight criteria listed in the statute. This Growth Management Plan Amendment provides for a development pattern that achieves the following five indicators: (I) Directs or locates economic growth and associated land development to geographic areas of the community in a manner that does not have an adverse impact on and protects natural resources and ecosystems. Response: The proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) directs growth to an urbanized area of the county where development is encouraged. As a result, less demand is placed on developing closer toward environmentally sensitive lands and wildlife habitats. (II) Promotes the efficient and cost-effective provision or extension of public infrastructure and services. Response: As outlined in Exhibit IV.E, Public Facilities Analysis, adequate and available infrastructure exists to accommodate the proposed increase in residential density. (III) Promotes walkable and connected communities and provides for compact development and a mix of uses at densities and intensities that will support a range of housing choices and a multimodal transportation system, including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit, if available. Response: The project is serviced by an adequate roadway system including Collier Blvd. and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Development authorized through this amendment will demonstrate a high level of connectivity by providing opportunities for multi-modal transportation through the integration of residential and commercial uses in a single project, resulting in walking, bicycling, and less vehicle miles traveled. The amendment proposes to include multi-family (apartment) housing in an area of the county where such demand exists and in proximity to commercial uses. The project will connect to existing sidewalks on both Collier Blvd. and Rattlesnake Hammock Road, and existing public transit facilities. (IV) Promotes conservation of water and energy. Response: The proposed amendment does not alter existing preserve areas within the Hammock Park PUD. The amendment area, located in an urbanized area of the county with existing and available public infrastructure, will not require an expansion of facilities to 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Sprawl Analysis Page 2 of 3 support the development, thereby conserving energy. This site is not environmentally-sensitive, nor contiguous to large tracts intended for long-term conservation purposes, and is therefore appropriate for the proposed mix of uses. (V) Preserves agricultural areas and activities, including silviculture, and dormant, unique, and prime farmlands and soils. Response: The site is not appropriate for agricultural uses due to the levels of existing and planned development in the immediate area. The proposed GMPA is site-specific to an area located within a mixed-use activity center. By allowing a mixed-use project to occur in an area where it is appropriate and compatible to surrounding land uses, the demand to develop in areas that preserve agricultural activities is protected, in direct compliance with this statute. (VI) Preserves open space and natural lands and provides for public open space and recreation needs. Response: By locating the requested development program in a mixed-use activity center surrounded by other mixed-use developments, the project directly complies by preserving existing natural lands. Furthermore, as detailed in the forthcoming companion PUD rezone application, the project provides for a 1.63+/- acre preserve area that connect directly to a preserve area to the north in the Good Turn Center MPUD. The project will provide open space in compliance with the Land Development Code., and will? (VII) Creates a balance of land uses based upon demands of the residential population for the nonresidential needs of an area. Response: In direct compliance with this statute, the proposed amendment provides for the development of a mixed-use project to provide more diverse, in-demand housing options to serve the projected population growth. The project will consist of apartment housing in proximity to goods and services, as well as employment opportunities). As noted in the Market Study, there is a strong demand for apartment housing in this area, especially in those areas proximate to commercial uses. (VIII) Provides uses, densities, and intensities of use and urban form that would remediate an existing or planned development pattern in the vicinity that constitutes sprawl or if it provides for an innovative development pattern such as transit-oriented developments or new towns as defined in s. 163.3164. Response: The proposed GMPA provides a mixed-use development consisting of higher- density residential housing and commercial uses in the form of a planned development. The proposed development is surrounded by existing mixed use planned developments, and therefore contributes to the development pattern in this area where such development is appropriate and anticipated. By clustering higher density residential uses at arterial intersections within the urbanized areas with public infrastructure, the County can 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Sprawl Analysis Page 3 of 3 accommodate projected long-term growth in population while preserving the rural lands in the eastern-portions of the County. In sum, this amendment specifically addresses all aspects of the County’s vision for clustered, compact development in the urban service area, which makes efficient use of the public investment in infrastructure, while ensuring the long-term preservation of large tracts of environmentally sensitive and agriculturally productive lands in the rural area. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 PROPOSED TEXT 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) C. Urban Commercial District This District is intended to accommodate almost all new commercial zoning; a variety of residential uses, including higher densities for properties not located within the Urban Coastal Fringe or Urban Residential Fringe Subdistricts; and a variety of non-residential uses. 1. Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Mixed Use Activity Centers have been designated on the Future Land Use Map Series identified in the Future Land Use Element. The locations are based on intersections of major roads and on spacing criteria. When this Plan was originally adopted in 1989, there were 21 Activity Centers. There are now 19 Activity Centers, listed below, which comprise approximately 3,000 acres; this includes three Interchange Activity Centers (#4, 9, 10) which will be discussed separately under the Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict. Two Activity Centers, #19 and 21, have been deleted as they are now within the incorporated City of Marco Island. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Mixed-Use Activity Center concept is designed to concentrate almost all new commercial zoning in locations where traffic impacts can readily be accommodated, to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development, and to create focal points within the community. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to be mixed-use in character. Further, they are generally intended to be developed at a human-scale, to be pedestrian-oriented, and to be interconnected with abutting projects – whether commercial or residential. Street, pedestrian pathway and bike lane interconnections with abutting properties, where possible and practicable, are encouraged. Allowable land uses in Mixed Use Activity Centers include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a maximum density of 26 units per acre, community facilities, and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designation. The actual mix of the various land uses shall be determined during the rezoning process based on consideration of the factors listed below. Except as restricted below under the provision for Master Planned Activity Centers, all Mixed Use Activity Centers may be developed with any of the land uses allowed within this Subdistrict. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Mixed-use developments ‒ whether consisting of residential units located above commercial uses, in an attached building, or in a freestanding building ‒ are allowed and encouraged within Mixed Use Activity Centers. Density for such a project is calculated based upon the gross project acreage within the Activity Center. If such a project is located within the 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict and is not within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density is sixteen (16) dwelling units per acre. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center that is not within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict but is within the Coastal High Hazard Area, the eligible density shall be limited to four (4) dwelling units per acre, except as allowed by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. If such a project is located within the boundaries of a Mixed Use Activity Center which is within the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, eligible density shall be as allowed by that Subdistrict. For a project located partially within and partially outside of an Activity Center, and the portion within an Activity Center is developed as mixed use, some of the density accumulated from the Activity Center portion of the project may be distributed to that portion of the project located outside of the Activity Center. In order to promote compact and walkable mixed use projects, where the density from a mixed use project is distributed outside the Activity Center boundary: * * * * * * * * * * * * * The factors to consider during review of a rezone petition for a project, or portion thereof, within an Activity Center, are as follows: a. Rezones 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 all requests for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. b. The amount, type and location of existing zoned commercial land, and developed commercial uses, both within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) road miles of the Mixed Use Activity Center. c. 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. d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) radial miles. e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. f. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) g. Natural or man-made constraints. h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. i. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. j. Coordinated traffic flow on-site and off-site, as may be demonstrated by a Traffic Impact Analysis, and a site plan/master plan indicating on-site traffic movements, access point locations 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. k. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. l. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. * * * * * * * * * * * * * The maximum amount of commercial uses allowed at Activity Center #7 (Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard) is 40 acres per quadrant, except that the northeast quadrant may have a total of 68.3 acres and the southeast quadrant may have a total of 49.2 acres, for a total of 197.5 acres maximum in the entire Activity Center; the balance of the land area shall be limited to non-commercial uses as allowed in Mixed Use Activity Centers. Multi-family (apartment) uses shall also be permitted in the northeast quadrant within the Hammock Park MPUD and shall be limited to a total of up to 265 multi-family (apartment) dwelling units. The addition of the 9.3 acres to the northeast quadrant of the Activity center shall not be the basis for adjacent parcels to be rezoned to commercial pursuant the Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict. With respect to the +/- 19 acres in the northeast quadrant of Activity Center #7, said acreage lying adjacent to the east of the Hammock Park Commerce Center CMPUD, commercial development (exclusive of the allowed “1/4 mile support medical uses”) shall be limited to a total of 185,000 square feet of the following uses: personal indoor self-storage facilities – this use shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; offices for various contractor/builder construction trade specialists inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and services that typically serve those construction businesses or otherwise assist in facilitating elements of a building and related infrastructure, including but not limited to architects, engineers, land surveyors and attorneys – these offices of related professional disciplines 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) and services shall occupy no greater than 50% of the total (185,000) building square feet; warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction trades occupants; mortgage and land title companies; related businesses including but not limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores, garden supply stores – all as accessory uses only, accessory to offices for various contractor/builder construction trade specialists or accessory to warehouse space for various contractor/builder construction trades occupants; management associations of various types of buildings or provision of services to buildings/properties; and, fitness centers. * * * * * * * * * * * * * 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 EXECUTED AFFIDAVIT OF AUTHORIZATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP INFORMATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK MPUD OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Wilton Land Company, LLC is owned by: 99% George P. Bauer Revocable Trust 1% Carol P. Bauer Revocable Trust George and Carol Bauer are husband and wife. Beneficiaries depend on timing: This is a revocable trusts so during grantor’s lifetime, he or she are the beneficiary. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Exhibit I.D Professional Consultants Planning: Alexis Crespo, AICP Waldrop Engineering, P.A. 28100 Bonita Grande Drive #305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 239.405.7777 239.405.7899 fax alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com Land Use Attorney: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 239.435.3535 239.435.1218 fax ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com Transportation: Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, PE Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Boulevard, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34110 239.566.9551 ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Market Analysis: Russ Weyer Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 239.269.1341 rweyer@ree-i.com Environmental: Bethany Brosious Senior Ecologist Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, #200 Fort Myers, FL 33912 239.274.0067 bethanyb@passarella.net 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) ALEXIS CRESPO Vice President of Planning Biography Project Experience education licensure professional experience professional affiliations resume AICP, LEED AP Alexis Crespo has over 13 years of professional planning experience in Southwest Florida, and is certified with the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP). Since joining Waldrop Engineering in 2011 she has led the Planning Staff in the successful completion of numerous privately initiated rezoning petitions, comprehensive plan amendments, annexations, variances, special exceptions and other planning and zoning actions relating to residential, commercial, institutional, and mixed-use development. Alexis regularly assists local governments with the formulation of Land Development Code amendments, Comprehensive Plan updates, review of privately initiated development applications, and other special projects. She also provides expert witness testimony and planning analysis relating to a variety of litigation matters, including Bert Harris actions and eminent domain proceedings. Alexis is a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Accredited Professional (LEED AP). Bachelor of Urban and Regional Planning, Ryerson University American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Acredited Professional (LEED AP) 13 years American Planning Association (APA) Florida Planning and Zoning Association (FPZA) Urban Land Institute (ULI) Real Estate Investment Society (REIS) Tiger Bay Club of Southwest Florida Collier County Building Industry Association (CBIA) Land Development Code Amendments - Bonita Springs, Florida Lead planner assisting the City of Bonita Springs with the preparation of land development code amendments to address aesthetics and community-specific design standards, redevelopment overlay districts, and supplementary regulations for intensive uses, such as automobile service stations, “big box” retail, and homeless shelters. Hendry County Airglades Land Use Study - Hendry County, Florida Ms. Crespo directed a long-range planning analysis for 36,000 acres in northern Hendry County surrounding the Airglades International Airport. Waldrop Engineering provided consulting services to the County for this state-funded project, which included extensive public facilitation and outreach, assessment of existing conditions, and growth projections and land use needs analyses. The resulting deliverables included three (3) land use scenarios depicting employment- based land uses, commercial and mixed-use nodes, and areas appropriate for workforce housing and civic support uses. The study was unanimously accepted by the Hendry County Board of County Commissioners and transmitted to the Department of Economic Opportunity in June 2018. Greater Pine Island Community Plan Update - Lee County, Florida Lead planning consultant for the preparation and processing of updates to the Greater Pine Island Community Plan and community-specific land development code regulations. The project also involved planning consultation in defense of eight (8) Bert Harris suits. The Loop - Punta Gorda, Florida Principal-in-Charge of the annexation, large-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and rezoning of this 200+/-acre property at the I-75 and Jones Loop Interchange. The project entailed the drafting of a new Future Land Use Category and zoning district to accommodate intensive employment centers uses near the Jones Loop Road/I-75 Interchange. North Olga Community Plan - Lee County, Florida Coordinated all aspects of community facilitation, policy writing, and representation at public hearings on behalf of the North Olga Community Planning Panel for preparation of their first community plan. The community plan was adopted by the Lee County Board of County Commissioners in October 2011, following over two (2) years of public input and consensus building efforts. Ms. Crespo also developed land development code regulations to implement the community’s long-range plan. community involvement Board of Directors, Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Sun Coast Board of Governors, REIS Vice President of Financial Affairs, FPZA Immediate Past Chair, Promised Lands Section of APA Florida PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE WALDROP ENGINEERING BONITA SPRINGSSarasota p. (239) 405-7777 f . (239) 405-7899 e. alexis.crespo@waldropengineering.com 28100 Bonita Grande Dr. #305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 OrlandoTampa 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Richard D. Yovanovich Experience/History: Rich Yovanovich is one of the firm’s shareholders. He was an Assistant County Attorney for Collier County from 1990-1994. As an Assistant County Attorney, he focused on land development and construction matters. Mr. Yovanovich has an extraordinary amount of experience in real estate zoning, construction and land-use, including projects ranging from residential and commercial projects to large developments of regional impact. Professional Activities/Associations: The Florida Bar Collier County Bar Association Awards & Recognition Recognized in 2010-2017 editions of The Best Lawyers in American for Real Estate Law AV Preeminent Peer Rating by Martindale Hubble Education: University of South Carolina: J.D. 1987 and M. Ed., 1986 Furman University: B.A., cum laude, 1983 Bar & Court Admissions: Florida, 1988 U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. President, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 1205 Piper Blvd., Suite 202  Naples, FL 34110 P 239.566.9551  www.trebilcock.biz Mr. Trebilcock specializes in transportation engineering. His professional experience includes highway design; signalization; utility relocation; drainage design; street and site lighting; access management; and permitting projects. He prepares and reviews traffic impact statements and related reports. He has attended numerous transportation seminars, and held leadership positions on many transportation-related task forces and in professional societies. Mr. Trebilcock served as the first Public Works Director for the City of Marco Island (1998-2000). As Public Works Director, he successfully transferred services within 30 days from Collier County Government (i.e., parks and recreation, streets and drainage, bridges, waterways, land development permitting, and beautification); developed master plans and multi- year capital improvement programs for Public Works; secured the city’s first stormwater quality improvement grant from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD); and established successful privatization program for efficient delivery of services. Representative Project Experience • Old 41 Downtown Improvements Design-Build; City of Bonita Springs, FL. Reconstruction of Old 41 as a complete street with sidewalks, bike lanes, narrow median, and two travel lanes. TCS provided traffic design for roadway improvements. Project length = 4,414 LF (0.84 miles). • Winterberry Dr & Collier Blvd (CR 951) Signal Evaluation; City of Marco Island, FL. TCS conducted a Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis at the intersection of Collier Blvd/Winterberry Dr. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the intersection and make recommendations for the installation of a traffic signal at this intersection. • Golden Gate Pkwy (CR 886) Grade Separated Overpass; Collier County, FL – Managed planning study for the project, as well as design up to 60% plans for 3-mile reconstruction converting 4-lane rural section to 6-lane urban section. Traffic operations design included signing, pavement marking, channelization, lighting, and signalization. Key coordination element was integrating design into proposed I -75 Interchange at Golden Gate Pkwy. • Vanderbilt Beach Road (CR 862); Collier County, FL – Project was a 2.1-mile, 4-lane new construction urban highway extension with provisions for 6-laning. Traffic operations design included signing, pavement marking, channelization, lighting, and signalization. From concept to concrete project, completed in less than half the time (6 yrs vs 13 yrs) compared to statewide experience with similar complex highway projects. Successfully permitted alignment through Cocohatchee Strand wetland system, avoiding building a bridge originally identified by permitting agencies, for a savings of over $2 million. • Coconut Road Traffic Study; Village of Estero, FL – TCS conducted a traffic study for the Coconut Road Corridor. Tasks included data collection, completing a detailed traffic analysis of the Coconut Road corridor from its western-most terminus to Three Oaks Pkwy for selected links and one intersection along the study section, completing an operational analysis at the Coconut Road/US 41 intersection using HCS traffic analysis software, safety review, and document collection. • Designed street lighting system for Airport-Pulling Road, Golden Gate Pkwy, Vanderbilt Beach Road, and Airport-Pulling Road intersection with Davis Blvd. • Designed arterial roadway signalization systems for 16 locations in SW Florida, including mast arm and concrete strain pole installations. • FDOT Driveway Access, Drainage and Utility Permits for the Northeast Commercial Area at Pelican Bay, Naples International Park, and Pelican Marsh PUD. Total Years of Experience 28 years (1990 – present) Education • University of Florida Master of Eng. in Public Works, 1989 • University of Miami B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1988 • US Army Engineering School Engineer Officer Basic Course, 1988 Licenses / Certifications • Professional Engineer, Florida #47116 • Certified Planner, American Institute of Certified Planners • Certification, FDOT Advanced Work Zone Traffic Control The firm is registered by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) as a Small Business Enterprise (SBE). Affiliations • American Planning Association • American Institute of Certified Planners • American Society of Civil Engineers • Florida Engineering Society, Calusa Chapter (Past President) • Institute of Transportation Engineers • Illuminating Engineering Society • Society of American Military Engineers Firm FDOT Pre-qualifications Group 3 Highway Design - Roadway 3.1 Minor Highway Design Group 6 Traffic Engineering & Operations Studies 6.1 Traffic Engineering Studies 6.2 Traffic Signal Timing Group 7 Traffic Operations Design 7.1 Signing, Pavement Marking & Channelization 7.2 Lighting 7.3 Signalization Group 13 Planning 13.4 Systems Planning 13.5 Subarea/Corridor Planning 13.6 Land Planning/Engineering 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Curriculum Vitae George Russell Weyer President Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. 707 Orchid Drive Naples, FL 34102 (239) 269-1341 rweyer@ree-i.com Overview • Over 30 years of real estate development experience in Florida, Ohio and Nevada with large corporations and family-owned companies that focused on commercial office, retail, industrial, hospitality, amenity and large scale community and residential development. • Senior management experience with the entire development process from acquisition identification, due diligence, purchase negotiations, financing, planning and securing entitlements, horizontal and vertical construction, sales/leasing and marketing, to property management and condominium turnover and disposition. Skills also include land acquisition, land planning, entitlement process, financing proforma development, market analysis, land development, CDD management, financing and assessment determination, home and commercial construction, sales and Marketing management, builder selection and management, amenity design and management, residential and commercial property owners association management and design review committee management . • Experience with governmental entities on budgeting, financing and identifying and implementing economic development programs. • Full member of the Urban land Institute and the past chairman of ULI’s Southwest Florida District Council. Professional Experience • President, Real Estate Econometrics, Inc., Naples, FL 2014-Present Real Estate Econometrics, Inc., a full-service consulting firm specializing in financial, economic and fiscal analysis and implementation for real estate projects, is well-versed in all aspects of the real estate/land development process from determining the market and land acquisition through planning and development and finally marketing and land disposition. Performing real estate valuation analysis, entitlement analysis (commercial need, affordable housing, fiscal impact), CDD formation and management, CDD methodology consultant, commercial POA management, fiscal impact analysis of real estate projects, large scale development market analysis, economic impact analysis, government assessment methodology development, litigation support analysis, public/private partnership coordination, tax increment financing. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) • Senior Associate, Fishkind & Associates, Inc., Naples, FL 2004-2014 Real estate valuation analysis, entitlement analysis (commercial need, affordable housing, fiscal impact), CDD formation and management, CDD methodology consultant, commercial POA management, fiscal impact analysis of real estate projects, large scale development market analysis, economic impact analysis, government assessment methodology development, litigation support analysis, Cape Canaveral economic and fiscal impact, annexation analysis, impact fee analysis, public/private partnership coordination, tax increment financing. • V.P. Development, JED of Southwest Florida, Inc. Naples, FL 2003-2004 Office complex design, construction and management, neighborhood retail complex design, construction and management, entitlement process management. • President, GRW Management, Inc., Naples, FL 2001-2003 Market and entitlement analysis • President, London Bay Homes, Inc. subsidiary, Romanza, Inc. Naples, FL 2000-2001 Managed two offices of an interior design company. Turn around into profitable entity. • V.P. Resort Operations, Lake Las Vegas Joint Venture, Las Vegas NV 1999-2000 Managed all commercial operations on site – 2 hotels, small retail center, two casinos, private community club, lake/marina operations, managed public and private golf course operations, designed and constructed third public golf course and clubhouse, community liaison for development company, design review committee chair, property owners association chair. • President & CEO, Cavalear Corporation, Toledo, OH 1997-1999 Management of 3 master planned communities – one with lake and two with golf courses, development and construction management of 2 residential villa neighborhoods, unit construction for two villa developments, single family unit construction • Director of Commercial Sales, Amenity Management & Marketing, Westinghouse Communities, Inc. Naples/Fort Myers, FL 1983-1997 Amenity manager, managed public and private golf courses, builder program manager, builder sales manager, model row development, marketing manager for two large scale master planned communities – Pelican Bay and Gateway, started and managed Pelican Landing and Pelican Marsh marketing departments. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Expert Testimony • Mr. Weyer has testified as an expert in front of the following courts of law: o In the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in and for Sumpter County, FL o Florida Department of Administrative Hearings o In the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Collier County, FL o in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court in and for Lee County, FL o United States Bankruptcy Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division o United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division • Mr. Weyer has testified as an expert in front of the following governmental jurisdictions: o City of Naples, Florida o Collier County, Florida o City of Bonita Springs, Florida o Hillsborough County, Florida o Lee County, Florida o City of Fort Myers, Florida o City of Cape Coral, Florida o City of North Port, Florida o City of Tamarac, Florida o Miami-Dade County, Florida o Community Redevelopment Agency, Fort Myers, Florida o Community Redevelopment Advisory Board, Naples, Florida • Mr. Weyer has testified as an expert for following bond validation hearings: o Ave Maria Stewardship Community District o Fronterra Community Development District o Hacienda Lakes Community Development District o Cypress Shadows Community Development District Education University of Miami, Miami, FL MBA 1993 Michigan State University, Bachelor of Arts, Communications, 1977 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Bethany Brosious Senior Ecologist Offices in Florida and South Carolina 13620 Metropolis Avenue • Suite 200 • Ft. Myers, FL 33912 | 505 Belle Hall Parkway • Suite 102 • Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 www.passarella.net Senior Ecologist for Passarella & Associates, Inc., an ecological consulting firm providing environmental and ecological services. Services include state, federal, and local permitting; agency negotiations; environmental impact assessments; ecological assessments; listed species surveys, permitting and relocation; state and federal wetland jurisdictionals; wetland mitigation design, permitting and construction observations; and environmental project management. REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT EXPERIENCE AVIATION Southwest Florida International Airport, Lee County COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Corkscrew Crossing, Lee County Argo Manatee PUD, Collier County Avalon of Naples, Collier County Enclave Livingston, Collier County Residences at North Bay Village, Lee County Tree Farm PUD, Collier County The Terraces at Bonita Springs, Lee County Good Turn Center, Collier County Premier Airport Park, Lee County Meridian Center, Lee County Vincentian, Collier County Estero Grande, Lee County Creative Commons, Collier County MINING Cemex Alico North Quarry, Lee County East Naples Mine, Collier County San Marino Mine, Collier County Section 20 Mine, Collier County Charlotte County Mine, Charlotte County OTHER Collier County Public Schools, Collier County Suncoast Schools Federal Credit Union - Immokalee Branch, Collier County Bonita Springs Utilities, Lee County EXPERIENCE Senior Ecologist Passarella & Associates, Inc. (July 2012 – Present) Ecologist Passarella & Associates, Inc. (July 2006 – July 2012) Graduate Research Assistant Florida Gulf Coast University Coastal Watershed Institute (November 2004 – July 2006) Intern South Florida Water Management District (October 2003 – July 2006) EDUCATION Master of Science, Environmental Science 2010 Florida Gulf Coast University, Fort Myers, Florida Bachelor of Science, Animal Science 2003 University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida CERTIFICATIONS SCUBA Certified Diver by the National Association of Underwater Instructors PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS Florida Association of Environmental Professionals Society of Wetland Scientists Calusa Nature Center and Planetarium Board of Trustees (2011 - 2013) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 SANITARY LIFT STATION CALCULATIONS 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Project No. 05TSC1438 HAMMOCK PARK COLLIER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL DATA REPORT Revised April 2019 Prepared For: Tract L Development, LLC 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 208-4079 Prepared By: Passarella & Associates, Inc. 13620 Metropolis Avenue, Suite 200 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 (239) 274-0067 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 Environmental Data Authors .........................................................................................................1 Vegetation Descriptions .................................................................................................................2 Listed Species Survey ....................................................................................................................4 Native Vegetation Preservation .....................................................................................................4 References ......................................................................................................................................5 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) ii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Native and Non-Native Habitat Types and Vegetation Acreages ......................... 5 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) iii LIST OF EXHIBITS Page Exhibit 1. Project Location Map ......................................................................................... E1-1 Exhibit 2. Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands Map ........................................................ E2-1 Exhibit 3. Native Vegetation Map ...................................................................................... E3-1 Exhibit 4. Listed Species Survey ........................................................................................ E4-1 Exhibit 5. Aerial with Bald Eagle Nest and Protection Zones ........................................... E5-1 Exhibit 6. Aerial with On-Site and Adjacent Off-Site Preservation Areas ........................ E6-1 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 1 INTRODUCTION The following environmental data report is provided in support of the zoning application for Hammock Park (Project). The following information was prepared in accordance with the Collier County environmental data submittal requirements outlined in Chapter 3.08.00 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The Project totals 19.13± acres and is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Exhibit 1). More specifically, the Project is located northeast of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Project is bordered by the Good Turn Center project to the north, the McMullen Parcel to the east, Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the south, and Collier Boulevard to the west. The Project includes a modification to an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) known as Hammock Park Commerce Center (Ordinance No. 07-30). The modification includes the addition of a potential mixed-use or residential component. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Permit No. 11-02130-P and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) Permit No. SAJ-1999-04926 were issued for the Project on October 10, 2002 and February 12, 2009, respectively. Additional modifications to the SFWMD permit were issued on February 8, 2008 and July 1, 2014 and to the COE permit on July 21, 2014. The majority of the Project site is comprised of previously cleared, disturbed land. The Project site contains a 1.66± acre Collier County native vegetation preserve along the northern portion boundary which was designated as part of Ordinance No. 7-30. This report includes details regarding the authors’ qualifications, vegetation descriptions for the various on-site habitats, results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) in October 2018, and the minimum native vegetation preservation requirement. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA AUTHORS This report was prepared by Heather Samborski and Bethany Brosious. They both satisfy the environmental credential and experience requirements, per Section 3.08.00(A)2 of the Collier County LDC. Ms. Samborski is an Ecologist with PAI, with four years of consulting experience in the environmental industry. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Environmental Studies from Eastern Connecticut State University and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Sciences from Florida Gulf Coast University. Ms. Brosious is an Ecologist with PAI, with 12 years of consulting experience in the environmental industry. She holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Animal Sciences from the University of Florida and a Master of Science degree in Environmental Sciences from Florida Gulf Coast University. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 2 VEGETATION DESCRIPTIONS The existing vegetative cover and land uses on the Project site include a combination of undeveloped, disturbed land and forested uplands and wetlands with varying degrees of exotic infestation. The vegetation associations for the property were delineated using December 2017 rectified color aerials (Scale: 1" = 100'). Groundtruthing was conducted in October 2018. These delineations were classified based on the nomenclature of the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Levels III and IV (Florida Department of Transportation 1999). Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote disturbance and “E” codes were used to identify levels of exotic species invasion (i.e., melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), downy rose-myrtle (Rhodomyrtus tomentosa), and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)). AutoCAD Map 3D 2017 software was used to determine the acreage of each mapped polygon, produce summaries, and generate the final FLUCFCS map (Exhibit 2). A total of 12 vegetative associations and land uses (i.e., FLUCFCS codes) were identified on the property. The dominant habitat type on the property is Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401), accounting for 45.2 percent of the property (8.64± acres). Exotic vegetation documented on-site includes, but is not limited to, Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, torpedograss (Panicum repens), and melaleuca. The degree of exotic infestation ranges from 0 to nearly 100 percent cover. The Project site contains 13.59± acres of SFWMD and potential COE jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibits 2 and 3). The jurisdictional wetlands identified by FLUCFCS code include approximately 2.59± acres of Hydric Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1); 1.89± acres of Hydric Pine, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E4); 0.47± acre of Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E3); and 8.64± acres of Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401). The on-site wetland quality has been diminished by previously authorized site disturbance, a degraded regional hydrologic connection, and the infestation of exotic vegetation including Brazilian pepper, torpedograss, melaleuca, and earleaf acacia. The acreage and descriptions for each FLUCFCS classification are outlined below. Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1) The canopy contains slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The sub-canopy consists of slash pine, cabbage palm, wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), and earleaf acacia. The ground cover includes gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), little blue maidencane (Amphicarpum muehlenbergianum), and torpedograss. Pine, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4159 E4) The canopy is similar to FLUCFCS Code 4159 E1. The sub-canopy consists of 76 to 100 percent cover by earleaf acacia, melaleuca, and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover includes torpedograss, spermacoce (Spermacoce verticillata), bushy bluestem (Andropogon glomeratus), and beaksedge (Rhynchospora microcarpa). 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 143 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 3 Cypress, Pine, Cabbage Palm, Disturbed and Drained (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6245 E4) The canopy consists of slash pine, cypress (Taxodium distichum), and Brazilian pepper. The sub- canopy was mostly open with scattered cabbage palm. The ground cover includes grapevine (Vitis sp.), caesarweed (Urena lobata), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), torpedograss, and spermacoce. Hydric Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E1) The canopy consists primarily of slash pine. The sub-canopy contains slash pine, wax myrtle, myrsine (Myrsine cubana), dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and cypress. The ground cover includes sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), little blue maidencane, gulfdune paspalum, and spermacoce. Hydric Pine, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E4) The canopy consists of slash pine with some cabbage palm. The sub-canopy contains Brazilian pepper and earleaf acacia. The ground cover includes torpedograss, spermacoce, bushy bluestem, and beaksedge. Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6419 E3) The canopy is open with scattered cypress. The sub-canopy is open with scattered cypress, Brazilian pepper, and willow (Salix caroliniana). The ground cover includes pickerelweed (Pontederia cordata), arrowhead (Sagittaria lancifolia), smartweed (Polygonum spp.), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon), torpedograss, and fireflag (Thalia geniculata). Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740) The canopy and sub-canopy are open. The ground cover consists of torpedograss, spermacoce, bushy bluestem, and coastal foxtail (Setaria corrugata). Disturbed Land, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 7401) The canopy and sub-canopy are open with scattered melaleuca. The ground cover includes torpedograss, spermacoce, dog fennel, beaksedge, and inundated beaksedge (Rhynchospora inundata). Spoil Areas (FLUCFCS Code 743) The canopy is open and the sub-canopy includes Brazilian pepper and earleaf acacia. The ground cover includes fennel (Eupatorium leptophyllum), torpedograss, spermacoce, and caesarweed. Road (FLUCFCS Code 814) This area consists of a paved road which occupies 0.01± acre or 0.1 percent of the property. Utilities (FLUCFCS Code 830) This is comprised of a pump station and accounts for 0.10± acre or 0.5 percent of the property. Electrical Transmission Lines (FLUCFCS Code 832) This area is occupied by Florida Power & Light powerlines and accounts for 0.30± acre or 1.6 percent of the property. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 4 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY A listed plant and wildlife species survey was conducted by PAI on the Project site on October 2, 2018. No listed wildlife species were observed during the listed species survey. The listed species survey methodology and results are provided as Exhibit 4. The Project has previously been reviewed by both the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as part of the state and federal permitting process. A biological opinion for the Project was issued by the USFWS on December 17, 2008 and addressed potential Project impacts to the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). In addition, as part of a COE permit extension request, a USFWS concurrence letter was issued on March 20, 2014 and found that the Project “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” the Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). During a December 2018 site visit, a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) nest was documented approximately 20 feet north of the Project site. The nest is located in a live slash pine approximately 800± feet east of Collier Boulevard. An aerial depicting the location of the bald eagle nest and USFWS protection zones is included as Exhibit 5. Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the developer will coordinate with Collier County, the USFWS, and the FWCC with respect to the newly identified bald eagle nest regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements as described in the FWCC Bald Eagle Management Plan Handbook (FWCC 2010) and the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). NATIVE VEGETATION PRESERVATION Per PUD Ordinance 07-30, 15 percent of the on-site native vegetation was required to be preserved to meet the Collier County minimum native vegetation preservation requirement in accordance with Section 3.05.07.B.1 of the Collier County LDC. This resulted in a preservation requirement of 1.63± acres of native vegetation. A 1.66± acre Collier County native vegetation preserve, which both satisfies and exceeds the minimum native vegetation preservation requirement, was established on the northern boundary of the Project. The preserve is protected via a conservation easement granted to Collier County and the SFWMD. The preserve has been enhanced through the removal of exotic vegetation and supplemental plantings. The proposed zoning amendment application incudes the addition of a residential land use to the PUD. Per LDC Section 3.05.07.B.1, for a residential or mixed-use development that is less than 20 acres in size, the minimum preserve requirement is 15 percent of the native vegetation. The Project contains 7.14± acres of native vegetation. A utility easement which bisects the eastern portion of the property was not classified as native vegetation for this zoning amendment application. In addition, 2.22± acres area of Disturbed Land; 8.64± acres of Disturbed Land, Hydric; 0.37± acre of Spoil Areas; 0.01± acre of Road; 0.10± acre of Utilities; and 0.30± acre of Electrical Transmission Lines were classified as non-native vegetation. Also excluded was 0.35± acre of Freshwater Marsh (50-75% Exotics) located within the existing electrical powerline easement (Exhibit 3). 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 5 Table 1 provides a summary of the existing native vegetation communities on-site and the native vegetation preservation calculation. Table 1. Native and Non-Native Habitat Types and Vegetation Acreages FLUCFCS Code Description Native Acreage Non-Native Acreage 4159 E1 Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) 0.16 4159 E4 Pine, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) 0.63 6245 E4 Cypress, Pine, Cabbage Palm, Disturbed and Drained (76-100% Exotics) 1.75 6259 E1 Hydric Pine, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) 2.59 6259 E4 Hydric Pine, Disturbed (76-100% Exotics) 1.89 6419 E3 Freshwater Marsh, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) 0.12 0.35 740 Disturbed Land 2.22 7401 Disturbed Land, Hydric 8.64 743 Spoil Areas 0.37 814 Road 0.01 830 Utilities 0.10 832 Electrical Transmission Lines 0.30 Total 7.14 11.99 Minimum Retained Native Vegetation Requirement Per Collier County Ordinance No. 07-30 1.63* *Per Collier County Ordinance No. 07-30, 15 percent of the on-site native vegetation was preserved. Please see the Master Concept Plan and Exhibit 6 for the preserve area location. The on-site preserve location and habitats were selected according to the priority criteria set forth in Sections 3.05.07(A)4 and 3.05.05(A)5 of the Collier County LDC. The on-site preserve maintained the highest quality native vegetation on-site, connects to off-site preservation areas to the north, and is in close proximity to off-site adjacent preservation areas to the east (Exhibit 6). Enhancement activities conducted within the preserve areas included the removal of exotic vegetation and supplemental planting. The preserve area is currently protected via a conservation easement granted to both Collier County and the SFWMD and will remain protected in perpetuity. REFERENCES Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Second Edition. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010. Bald Eagle Management Plan Handbook. Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATECCHHAARRLLEEMMAAGGNNEEBBLLVVDD AAUUGG UUSS TT AA BBLLVVDDW HITA K ER R DWHITAKER R D LLAAKKEEWWOOOODDBBLLVVDDAALLBBIIRRDDVV EE RR OO NN AAWW AALLKK CC II RROOUU TT EE RR DD RR DDIIXX IIEE DD RR TTRREEVVIISSOOBBAAYYBBLLVVDDHHEENNLL EEYYDDRRG A I L B LV DGAIL B LV D GGAABBRRIIEELLCCIIRRCOUNTY BARN RDCOUNTY BARN RDN E W M A N D RNEWMAN D R NN OO RR TT HH RR DD TTEEXXAASSAAVVEEGE OR G I A A V EGEOR G I A A V E CO P E L NCOPE L N CR EW S R DCREWS R D PP OO LLLLYYAAVVEEPALM DRPALM DRLE BUFFS RDLE BUFFS RDBENFIELD RDBENFIELD RDMA RK LE Y AV EMARKLEY AV E TT HH OOMMAASSSSOONN DDRRCCOO RRSSOOBBEE LLLLOODDRRTT EE RR YYLLRRDDF L OR I D A N A V E F L OR I D A N A V E SMITH RDSMITH RDRR OO YYAA LLWWOOOODDBBLLVVDDLIVINGSTON RDLIVINGSTON RDWAS HBURN AV EWASHBURN AV E KKIINNGGSSWWAAYYCCOOUUNNTTRRYYSSIIDDEEDDRR BE C K B LV DBECK B LV D 33 22 NN DD AAVV EE SS WW BBAA RR EE FF OO OO T T WWI I LLLLI I AAMMSSRRDDNNAAPPLLEESSHHEERRIITTAAGGEE D DRR CC LL UU BB EE SSTTAATTEESSDDRRCCEERRRROO MM AARR DDRR WWIILLDDFFLLOOWWEERR WWAA YY LLEELLYYRREESSOORRTTBBLLVVDDCCEELLEESSTTEEDDRRGGLLEENNEEAAGGLLEEBBLLVVDD GGRRAAN N DDLLEE LLYYDDRR SSAAIINNTT AA NN DD RR EE WW SS BBLLVVDDWWHHIITTEELLAAKKEE BBLLVVDD KK IINN GG SS LLAAKKEEBBLLVVDDBLACKBURN RDBLACKBURN RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRA D IO R DRADIO R D RR AATT TT LL EE SS NN AAKK EE HH AAMM MM OO CC KK RR DD D AV IS B LV DDAVIS B LV D S A B AL PA L M R DSABAL PA L M R DCOLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)KKEENN TTDDRR LLAAMMBB TT OO NN LLNN BB EELLVVIILL LLEEBBLLVVDD (/41 ;3EXIT101 §¨¦75 Gulf of MexicoOL DUS41S AN MARCOD R OIL WELL R D EVERGLADES BLVD¿À951 ¿À858 ¿À837 ¿À839 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER L E ELEE ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VERO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA CITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 14, TWP 50 S, RNG 26 E EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP T.F. B.B. 10/8/18 10/8/18HAMMOCK PARK 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) P/L743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.04 Ac.±)743(0.05 Ac.±)740(0.05 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.01 Ac.±)743(0.03 Ac.±)743(0.01 Ac.±)743(0.03 Ac.±)743(0.03 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.05 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)~CR 951 (COLLIER BLVD)~832(0.30 Ac.±)7401(0.28 Ac.±)6419E3(0.47 Ac.±)7401(0.21 Ac.±)740(0.12 Ac.±)6259E1(1.50 Ac.±)4159E1(0.16 Ac.±)4159E4(0.63 Ac.±)6245E4(0.15 Ac.±)740(2.05 Ac.±)814(0.01 Ac.±)6259E1(<0.01 Ac.±)6259E4(1.89 Ac.±)7401(6.96 Ac.±)7401(0.31 Ac.±)6245E4(1.60 Ac.±)~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~6259E1(1.09 Ac.±)830(0.05 Ac.±)7401(0.93 Ac.±)J:\2005\05TSC1438\Hammock Park Commerce Center\2018\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 2 Aerial with FLUCFCS and Wetlands 101618.dwg Tab: 17X11-C TB Mar 26, 2019 - 10:14am Plotted by: TomFD.B.B.B.REVISIONS10/16/18DATEDATE10/16/18DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.05TSC1438DATESCALE: 1" = 100'3620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICEWITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2017.PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER WALDROP ENGINEERING INC.DRAWING No.18-23SR.DWG DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018.FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.HAMMOCK PARKAERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS MAPEXHIBIT 2LEGEND:SFWMD AND COE WETLANDS(13.64 Ac.±)SURVEYED WETLAND LINEFLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER ANDFORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS)(FDOT 1999).SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER VANESSE &DAYLOR DRAWING NO. PASS0318041.DWG DATEDMARCH 22, 2004.WETLAND LINES REVIEWED AND APPROVED BYSFWMD AS PART OF ERP NO. 11-02130-P.9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 150Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) EXHIBIT 3 NATIVE VEGETATION MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) P/L743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.04 Ac.±)743(0.05 Ac.±)740(0.05 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.01 Ac.±)743(0.03 Ac.±)743(0.01 Ac.±)743(0.03 Ac.±)743(0.03 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)743(0.05 Ac.±)743(0.02 Ac.±)~CR 951 (COLLIER BLVD)~832(0.30 Ac.±)7401(0.28 Ac.±)7401(0.21 Ac.±)740(0.12 Ac.±)6259E1(1.50 Ac.±)4159E1(0.16 Ac.±)4159E4(0.63 Ac.±)6245E4(0.15 Ac.±)740(2.05 Ac.±)814(0.01 Ac.±)6259E1(<0.01 Ac.±)6259E4(1.89 Ac.±)7401(6.96 Ac.±)7401(0.31 Ac.±)6245E4(1.60 Ac.±)~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~6259E1(1.09 Ac.±)6419E3(0.35 Ac.±)6419E3(0.12 Ac.±)830(0.05 Ac.±)7401(0.93 Ac.±)J:\2005\05TSC1438\Hammock Park Commerce Center\2018\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 3 Native Vegetation Map 101618.dwg Tab: 17x11 Mar 26, 2019 - 10:15am Plotted by: TomFD.B.B.B.REVISIONS10/16/18DATEDATE10/16/18DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.05TSC1438DATESCALE: 1" = 100'3620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICEWITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2017.PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER WALDROP ENGINEERING INC.DRAWING No.18-23SR.DWG DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018.FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIALPHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED.HAMMOCK PARKNATIVE VEGETATION MAPEXHIBIT 3LEGEND:NATIVE VEGETATION(7.14 Ac.±)SURVEYED WETLAND LINEELECTRICAL POWER LINEEASEMENTFLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER ANDFORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS)(FDOT 1999).SURVEYED WETLAND LINES PER VANESSE &DAYLOR DRAWING NO. PASS0318041.DWG DATEDMARCH 22, 2004.WETLAND LINES REVIEWED AND APPROVED BYSFWMD AS PART OF ERP NO. 11-02130-P.9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 152Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) EXHIBIT 4 LISTED SPECIES SURVEY 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) E4-1 HAMMOCK PARK LISTED SPECIES SURVEY Revised March 2019 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of the listed species survey conducted by Passarella & Associates, Inc. (PAI) on October 2, 2018 for the 19.13± acre Hammock Park (Project). The Project includes a proposed mixed-use commercial/residential development with associated infrastructure and stormwater management system. Listed species surveys for the Project were previously conducted in September 2006 and July 2012. The Project is located in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County (Figure 1). More specifically, the Project is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road. The Project is bound by Good Turn Center to the north, the McMullen Parcel to the east, Rattlesnake Hammock Road to the south, and the 951 Canal and Collier Boulevard to the west. The Project site contains an on-site preservation area that is located on the northern boundary. The remainder of the Project site is comprised of undeveloped, partly forested land that has been invaded to various degrees by exotic vegetation. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW AND FIELD SURVEY METHODOLOGY A literature review and field survey was conducted to determine whether the Project site was being utilized by state and/or federally-listed species as identified by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern. In addition, the property was surveyed for plant species listed by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and the USFWS as endangered, threatened, or commercially exploited or species included on the Collier County Rare and Less Rare plant lists (Land Development Code (LDC) Section 3.04.03). 2.1 Literature Review The literature review involved an examination of available information on listed species in the Project’s geographical region. The literature sources reviewed included the FWCC Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species (2017); Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies (Runde et al. 1991); USFWS Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region (1987); the Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan (Logan et al. 1993); the Landscape Conservation Strategy Map (Kautz et al. 2006); and USFWS and FWCC databases for telemetry locations of the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) (RCW), Florida black bear (Ursus americanus 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) E4-2 floridanus), Florida scrub jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens), and wading bird rookeries (such as the wood stork (Mycteria americana)) in Collier County. The FWCC and USFWS database information is updated on a periodic basis and is current through different dates, depending on the species. The FWCC information that was reviewed is current through the noted dates for the following four species: Florida panther telemetry – September 2018; bald eagle nest locations – April 2016; black bear telemetry – December 2007; and RCW locations – August 2017. 2.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted during daylight hours by qualified ecologists walking parallel belt transects across the Project site. Transects were spaced to ensure that sufficient visual coverage of ground and flora was obtained. Approximate transect locations and spacing are shown on Figure 2. At regular intervals the ecologists stopped, remained quiet, and listened for wildlife vocalizations. The survey was conducted with the aid of 8x or 10x power binoculars. The listed wildlife species surveyed for included, but were not limited to, gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), RCW, wood stork, Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida panther. The listed plant species surveyed for included species typical to forested upland and wetland habitats in this geographical region, as well as listed epiphytes and terrestrial orchids common in Southwest Florida. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 Literature Review The literature search found no documented occurrences for listed wildlife species on the Project site (Figure 3). The closest documented bald eagle nest is an unnumbered nest located approximately 20 feet north of the northern property boundary. The nest was discovered during a December 2018 site visit and is located in a live slash pine (Pinus elliottii) tree. The location of the nest and the USFWS eagle protection zones are depicted in Figure 4. Bald eagles are not a state or federally-listed species; however, they are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. No RCW colonies or cavity trees are documented on the Project site, per the FWCC’s database (Figure 3). The closest documented RCW location is located approximately 0.25 mile west of the Project site. This location and the others documented west of Collier Boulevard are considered relic or historic locations, as there are no currently known active cavity trees west of Collier Boulevard, based on PAI’s survey experience in 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) E4-3 this region over the last 20 years. The RCW is a state and federally-listed endangered species. The Project site is located within the 30± kilometer (18.6± miles) Core Foraging Area (CFA) of one documented wood stork rookery (No. 619018) (Figure 5). The wetlands within the proposed development limits are predominantly infested with exotic vegetation including torpedograss (Panicum repens), spermacoce (Spermacoce verticillata), and earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis). As such, the property’s foraging potential is rather poor. The wood stork is a state and federally-listed threatened species. No Florida panther telemetry is located on the Project site; however, panther telemetry points were documented in the immediate vicinity of the Project (Figure 3). The telemetry points were from Florida panther Nos. 148 and 219 and were recorded in August 2010 and December 2013, respectively. Both panthers have since died. The property is within the Florida panther Primary Zone (Kautz et al. 2006) (Figure 6). The Florida panther is a state- and federally-listed endangered species. The Project site is located within the USFWS Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridana) Consultation Area but outside of the USFWS Florida bonneted bat Focal Area (Figure 7). The Florida bonneted bat is a state and federally-listed endangered species. 3.2 Field Survey The field survey was conducted on October 2, 2018. Weather conditions during the survey were partly cloudy skies, with 10 to 15 miles per hour easterly winds, and temperatures in the upper 80s to low 90s. The field survey identified no listed wildlife or plant species on the Project site (Figure 2). No listed species were documented utilizing the Project site during the October 2018 survey. During a December 2018 site visit, a bald eagle nest was discovered approximately 20 feet north of the northern property boundary (Figure 4). 4.0 SUMMARY The literature search and review of agency databases found no documented occurrences for listed species on the Project site. The Project site is located within the Primary Zone for the Florida panther and is located within one documented wood stork colony CFA. The Project is located within the consultation area for the RCW and the Florida bonneted bat. The October 2, 2018 field survey documented no listed species within the Project limits. In December 2018, an active bald eagle nest was documented approximately 20 feet north of the Project. This is a previously undocumented nest location. Prior to the initiation of construction activities, the developer will coordinate with Collier County, the USFWS, and the FWCC with respect to the newly identified bald eagle nest regarding applicable guidelines and permitting requirements as described in the FWCC Bald Eagle Management Plan Handbook (FWCC 2010) and the USFWS National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) E4-4 5.0 REFERENCES Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2010. Bald Eagle Management Plan Handbook. Tallahassee, Florida. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. 2017. Florida’s Endangered and Threatened Species. Official Lists, Bureau of Non-Game Wildlife, Division of Wildlife. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Tallahassee, Florida. Kautz, R., R. Kawula, T. Hoctor, J. Comiskey, D. Jansen, D. Jennings, J. Kasbohm, F. Mazzotti, R. McBride, L. Richardson, K. Root. 2006. How much is enough? Landscape-scale conservation for the Florida panther. Biological Conservation, Volume 130, Issue 1, Pages 118-133 Logan, Todd, Andrew C. Eller, Jr., Ross Morrell, Donna Ruffner, and Jim Sewell. 1993. Florida Panther Habitat Preservation Plan South Florida Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Gainesville, Florida. Runde, D.E., J.A. Gore, J.A. Hovis, M.S. Robson, and P.D. Southall. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies, Update 1986 - 1989. Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 10. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Habitat Management Guidelines for the Bald Eagle in the Southeast Region. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DAT E DAT E DAT ECCHHAARRLLEEMMAAGGNNEEBBLLVVDDAAUUGGUUSSTTAABBLLVVDDWHITAKER RDWHITAKER RD AALLBBIIRRDDVVEERR OONNAAWWAALL KK CCIIRROOUUTTEERR DDRR DDIIXXII EE DDRR HHEENNLL EEYYDDRRGAIL BLVDGAIL BLVD GGAABBRRIIEELLCCIIRRCOUNTY BARN RDCOUNTY BARN RDNEWMA N DRNEWMAN DR HHAARRDDEEEESSTTNORT H RDNORTH RD TTEEXXAASSAAVVEEGEOR GIA AVE GEOR GIA AVE COP E LNCOPE LN CREWS RDCREWS RDINDUSTRIAL BLVDINDUSTRIAL BLVDPP OO LLLLYYAAVVEEPALM DRPALM DRLE BUFFS RDLE BUFFS RDBENFIELD RDBENFIELD RDMARKLEY AVEMARKLEY AVE TT HHOOMM AASSSSOONN DDRRCCOORRSSOOBBEE LLLLOODDRRTTEERR YYLLRRDDFLORIDAN AVE FLORIDAN AVE SMITH RDSMITH RDRROO YYAA LLWWOOOODDBBLLVVDDLIVINGSTON RDLIVINGSTON RDWASHBURN AVEWASHBURN AVE KKIINNGGSSWWAAYYCCOOUUNNTTRRYYSSIIDDEEDDRRBBEECCKK BBLLVVDD 32 ND AVE SW32ND AVE SW BBAA RR EEFF OO OO TT WWI I LLLLII AAMMSSRRDDNNAAPPLLEESSHHEERRIITTAAGGEE DDRR CC LLUUBB EE SSTTAATTEESSDDRRCCEERRRROOMMAARR DDRR WWIILLDDFFLLOOWWEERRWW AA YY LLEELLYYRREESSOORRTTBBLLVVDDCCEELLEESSTTEEDDRRGGLLEENNEEAAGGLLEEBBLLVVDD GGRRAANNDDLLEELLYYDDRRSSAAIINNTTAANNDDRREEWWSSBBLLVVDD WWHHIITTEELLAAKKEEBBLLVVDD KKIINNGGSSLLAAKKEE BB LLVVDDBLACKBURN RDBLACKBURN RD SANTA BARBARA BLVDSANTA BARBARA BLVDRADIO RDRADIO RD RRAATTTTLLEESSNNAAKKEE HHAAMMMMOOCC KK RR DD DAV IS BLVDDAVIS BLVD SABAL PALM RDSABAL PALM RDCOLLIER BLVD (CR 951)COLLIER BLVD (CR 951)KKEENN TTDDRR LLAAMMBB TT OONN LLNN BB EELLVV IILL LLEEBBLLVV DD (/41 ;3EXIT101 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico OLDUS41SAN MARCOD R OIL W ELL R D EVERGLADES BLVD¿À951 ¿À858 ¿À837 ¿À839 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER L E ELEE ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORL ANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSAC OL A FORT MY ERS VERO BEAC H LAKE PL ACID PANAMA C ITY GAIN ESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JAC KSON VI LLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUD ERD ALE¶ PRO JE CT LOCATIONSEC 14, T WP 50 S, RNG 26 E FIGUR E 1. P ROJECT LOCATION MA P T.F. B.B. 10/8/18 10/8/18HAMMOCK PARK 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) P/L~SR 951 (COLLIER BLVD)~~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~J:\2005\05TSC1438\Hammock Park Commerce Center\2018\LSS\Figure 2 Aerial with Survey Transects.dwg Tab: 17X11-C TB Oct 25, 2018 - 2:18pm Plotted by: ThoneST.F.B.B.REVISIONS10/1/18DATEDATE10/1/18DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.05TSC1438DATESCALE: 1" = 100'13620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Fort Myers, Florida 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BY HAMMOCK PARKAERIAL WITH SURVEY TRANSECTSFIGURE 2NOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICEWITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2017.PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER WALDROP ENGINEERING INC.DRAWING No.18-23SR.DWG DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018.LEGEND:SURVEY TRANSECTS9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 159Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) DRAWN BY REVIEW ED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE                LEGEND  A  #* !H  !( A  0 0.5 1Miles ¶ FIGU RE 3. DOCUMENTED O CCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES D.B. R.F. 10/10/18 10/10/18HAMMOCK PARK A !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#*#* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #*#* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* #* !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H!H A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A BE CK BLV D SANTA BARBARA BLVDCOUNTY BARN RDRADIO RD RAT TLESNAKE H AMMOC K DAVIS BLVD ¿À951 (/41 §¨¦75 PROJECT LOCATION T.F.3/26/19 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) P/L~SR 951 (COLLIER BLVD)~~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~J:\2005\05TSC1438\Hammock Park Commerce Center\2018\LSS\Figure 4 Aerial with Eagle Nest 011619.dwg Tab: 17X11-C TB Mar 26, 2019 - 11:48am Plotted by: TomFT.F.B.B.REVISIONS10/1/18DATEDATE10/1/18DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.05TSC1438DATESCALE: 1" = 200'3620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2017.PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC. DRAWINGNo.501160003DM01.DWG DATED APRIL 2, 2008.HAMMOCK PARKAERIAL WITH BALD EAGLE NEST AND PROTECTION ZONESFIGURE 4LEGEND:APPROXIMATE LOCATIONOF BALD EAGLE NEST330' ZONE660' ZONE9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 161Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) DRAWN BY REVIEW ED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE kj kjkj kj kj Gulf of Mexico BarronCollier 619018(Corkscrew) Sadie Cypress LI VI NGSTONRDLOGAN BLVDBIRDONRDTERRY S T CRAYTONRDR AD I O RDTHREEOAKSPKWYVANDERBILT DROI L WE L L G R A D E R D CAMP KEAIS RDD A V IS BLVDO L D US41 GOLD EN G A T E P K W Y GOODLETTEFRANKRDBO NITA BEACH RD ESTEROBLVD AIRPORT-PULLING RDGOLDE N G AT E B LV D SAN MARCO DROI L WE L L RD C OR K S C R EW RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À849 ¿À850 ¿À951 ¿À858 ¿À837 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L I E RCOLLIER L E ELEE 0 3 6Miles ¶         LEGEND  kj      FIGU RE 5. FLORIDA WOO D STORK NESTING COLONIES D.B. R.F . 10/9/18 10/9/18HAMMOCK PARK PROJECT LOCATION AND 18.6 MILE C ORE FO RAGING AREAS 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Gulf of Mexico (/41B (/27 (/41 C H A R L O T T ECHARLOTTE C O L L I E RCOLLIER G L A D E SGLADES H E N D R YHENDRYLEELEE M O N R O EMONROE §¨¦75 REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE              FIGURE 6. PANTHER ZONES WITH PANTHER FOCU S AREA D.B. R.F. 10/9/18 10/9/18HAMMOCK PARK 0 5 10Miles ¶ LEGEND       PROJECT LOCATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) EXHIBIT 5 AERIAL WITH BALD EAGLE NEST AND PROTECTION ZONES 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) P/L~SR 951 (COLLIER BLVD)~~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~J:\2005\05TSC1438\Hammock Park Commerce Center\2018\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 5 Aerial with Eagle Nest 011619.dwg Tab: 17X11-C TB Mar 26, 2019 - 10:19am Plotted by: TomFT.F.B.B.REVISIONS10/1/18DATEDATE10/1/18DATEDRAWING No.SHEET No.05TSC1438DATESCALE: 1" = 200'3620 Metropolis AvenueSuite 200Ft. Myers, FL 33912Phone (239) 274-0067Fax (239) 274-0069DRAWN BYDESIGNED BYREVIEWED BYNOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'SOFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2017.PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER RWA, INC. DRAWINGNo.501160003DM01.DWG DATED APRIL 2, 2008.HAMMOCK PARKAERIAL WITH BALD EAGLE NEST AND PROTECTION ZONESEXHIBIT 5LEGEND:APPROXIMATE LOCATIONOF BALD EAGLE NEST330' ZONE660' ZONE9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 165Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) EXHIBIT 6 AERIAL WITH ON-SITE AND ADJACENT OFF-SITE PRESERVE AREAS 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) P/LHAMMOCK PARKMCMULLENPARCELGOOD TURN CENTERHACIENDA LAKES~RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD~~CR 951 (COLLIER BLVD)~J:\2005\05TSC1438\Hammock Park Commerce Center\2018\Environmental Data Report\Exhibit 6 Aerial with On-site and Off-site Preserve Areas.dwg Tab: 11X8-C TB Mar 26, 2019 - 10:21am Plotted by: TomF SCALE: 1" = 300'DRAWN BYREVIEWED BYREVISEDT.F.B.B.12/6/18DATEDATE12/6/18DATENOTES:AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGHTHE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICEWITH A FLIGHT DATE OF DECEMBER 2017.PROPERTY BOUNDARY PER WALDROP ENGINEERING INC.DRAWING No.18-23SR.DWG DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2018.EXHIBIT 6. AERIAL WITH ON-SITE AND ADJACENT OFF-SITE PRESERVE AREASHAMMOCK PARKLEGEND:ON-SITE PRESERVE AREAOFF-SITE PRESERVE AREAS9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 167Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 PUBLIC FACILITIES MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) #1 #1 #2 #1#1 #1 #2#1 #2 #3 #4 #1 !H !H !H !H!H Hammock Park ¯ 0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2Miles 1 Mile 2 Miles 3 Miles Collier BlvdRattlesnake Hammock Rd Collier BlvdU S 41Santa Barbara BlvdU S 41 Radio Rd §¨¦75 Urban Services & Facilities MapExhibit IV.E Hammock Park Legend Hammock Park Parcel Collier County Parks Employment Nodes !H Commercial Plaza by Davis Blvd !H Hacienda Lakes Bussiness Park !H Florida SouthWestern College Center !H Physicians Regional Hospital !H Walmart Supercenter Plaza Collier County Libraries #1 South Regional Library Collier County Schools #1 Calusa Park Elementary School #2 Lely Elementary School #3 Lely High School #4 Parkside Elementary School Golden Gate Fire Department #1 Station 72 #2 Station 75 Collier County Sheriff #1 East Naples Substation Dist 3 Physicians Regional - Collier Blvd #1 Physicians Regional - Collier Blvd Collier County EMS #1 Medic 25 #2 Medic 75 (Housed at FD Station 75) BusStop #1 BusStop Route17 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 PUBLIC FACILITIES 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Public Facilities Analysis Page 1 of 3 Hammock Park GMPA Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis Revised March 2019 The proposed text amendment is site-specific and only applies to the northeast corner of Mixed Use Activity Center #7, specifically the Hammock Park PUD. The Hammock Park CPUD currently permits up to 160,000 square feet of commercial uses on approximately 19 acres. The GMPA proposes to add a maximum of 265 multi-family (apartment) dwelling units with a maximum of 148,500 square feet of commercial, so as not to exceed the existing trip count for the currently approved 160,000 square feet of commercial uses. The following public facilities analysis evaluates the project impacts on potable water, wastewater, drainage, parks, schools, roadways, fire/EMS, and solid waste. The source for the LOS information is the 2018 AUIR). 1. POTABLE WATER Adopted Level of Service Standard = 150 GPD/person/day for Collier County Utilities Existing Demand: None Total Existing Demand: 0 GPD Proposed Demand: Multi-family 265 DU x 150 GPD x 2.5 x 1.3 = 129,188 GPD Total Proposed Demand: 129,188 GPD Permitted Capacity: 52.75 MGD Required Plant Capacity FY24: 44.8 MGD The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased potable water demand of 129,188 GPD. The property is located within the Collier County potable water service area. The County has existing plant capacity of approximately 48.75 MGD. The proposed addition of 265 multi-family dwelling units will not create any LOS issues in the 5-year planning horizon. This Project will have no significant impact on the potable water system and capacity is available in Collier County. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Public Facilities Analysis Page 2 of 3 2. SANITARY SEWER Adopted Level of Service Standard = 150 GPD/person/day Existing Demand: None Total Existing Demand: 0 GPD Proposed Demand: Multi-family 265 DU x 100 GPD x 2.5 X 1.5 = 99,375 GPD Total Proposed Demand: 99,375 GPD Permitted Capacity: 16.0 MGD Required Plant Capacity FY24: 16.0 MGD The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased sanitary sewer demand of 99,375 GPD. The subdistrict is located in the South Sewer Service Area of the Collier County Water/Sewer District. This Project will have no significant impact on the Collier County Regional Sewer System. 3. ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR ROADS Please refer to the Traffic Impact Statement for discussions of the project’s impact on level of service for arterial and collector roadways within the project’s radius of development influence. 4. DRAINAGE The County has adopted a LOS standard for private developments which requires development to occur consistent with water quantity and quality standards established in Ordinances 74-50, 90-10, 2001-27, and LDC Ordinance 2004-41, as may be amended. The single project within the proposed subdistrict has been issued a surface water management permit by the South Florida Water Management District which has established criteria for the volume of water stored on site as well as the quality of the water which may be discharged from the site. The development within the subdistrict is consistent with the County LOS standards. 5. SOLID WASTE The adopted LOS for solid waste is two years of lined cell capacity at the previous 3-year average tons per year disposal rate and 10 years of permittable landfill capacity of the disposal rate. Existing Demand: Retail 160,000 SF x 5 lbs./1,000 SF = 800 lbs./day x 365 = 292,000 lbs./year or 292 tons/year 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park GMPA Public Facilities Analysis Page 3 of 3 Total Existing Demand: 292,000 lbs./year Proposed Demand: Retail 148,500 SF x 5 lbs./1,000 SF = 500 lbs./day x 365 = 271,013 lbs./year or 271 tons/year Multi-family 265 DU x 0.54 tons per person x 2.4 = 343.44 tons Total Proposed Demand: 614,453 lbs./year The proposed GMP amendment results in an increased solid waste demand of 322,453 lbs. a year. Current landfill capacity in 2018 is anticipated to be 18,710,256 tons. There are no current capacity issues, and none are anticipated through the year 2069. 6. Parks: Community and Regional The proposed 265 multi-family dwellings will pay park impact fees to mitigate for their impacts on this public facility. No adverse impacts to Community or Regional Parks result from the amendment of the subdistrict. 7. Schools The proposed 265 multi-family dwellings will pay school impact fees to mitigate for their impacts. No adverse impacts to schools result from the amendment to this subdistrict. 8. Fire Control and EMS The proposed project lies within the Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District. The Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District - Station #23 is located at 6055 Collier Blvd., which is approximately 4.5 miles from the property boundary. No significant impacts to Fire Control level of service are anticipated due to the proposed project. Estimated impact fees for EMS and fire would be determined at time of SDP based on each unit. Sheriff, Fire Protection and EMS Services location/address of facilities intended to serve the project are; North Collier Fire and Rescue District - Station #23 6055 Collier Blvd. Collier County Sheriff North Naples Substation 8075 Lely Cultural Pkwy. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 APARTMENT MARKET NEEDS ANALYSIS 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) APARTMENT MARKET NEEDS ANALYSIS FOR HAMMOCK PARK AT THE NE INTERSECTION OF COLLIER BOULEVARD AND RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK ROAD COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA October 22, 2018 Prepared for Wilton Land Company, LLC C/O Mr. David Torres 7742 Alico Road Fort Myers, FL 33912 Prepared by Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. Suite 100 707 Orchid Drive Naples, Florida 34102 (239) 269-1341 Ree-i.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 1 Background The Wilton Land Company (“Applicant”) is proposing a site-specific text amendment to the Collier County (“County”) Future Land Use Element, Mixed Use Activity Center #7 to allow for up to 265 multi-family dwelling units (limited to rental apartments) with the Hammock Park project, along wit the existing permitted commercial uses. The Hammock Park subject property (“Property”) comprises 19+/- acres and is generally located at the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. The Property is designated within the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center #7, and Urban Residential Fringe (URF) future land use designations. The Property is zoned Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) pursuant to Ordinance 07-30. The CPUD allows up to 160,000 square feet of commercial uses, including commercial retail and office. The Property is currently undeveloped and partially vegetated. The proposed text amendment will allow for build-out of this quadrant of an arterial intersection and activity center node with a compact, mixed-use project that provides for market-rate rental housing in close proximity to available public infrastructure, goods, services and employment. The Applicant has requested an apartment market study from Real Estate Econometrics, Inc. (“Consultant”) to accompany the application. The apartment market study is comprised of four parts; the site assessment, the supply component, the demand component and the supply/demand comparison analysis. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 2 1.0 Site Assessment 1.1 Subject Property Attributes The Subject Property is located on the north side of Rattlesnake Hammock Road and the east side of Collier Boulevard (County Road 951) approximately three and a half miles south of Interstate 75 in Section 14 – Township 50 – Range 26. An aerial locator photo in Figure 1.1.1 is followed by a summary of the Subject Property’s legal, location, zoning, and land use attributes obtained from the Collier County Property Appraiser website. Figure 1.1.1 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 3 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser 2.0 Market Area 2.1 Market Area Definition During the pre-application meeting for the Subject Site, County Staff indicated that the apartment needs analysis market area should follow the urban services boundary area which is a mile east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and would include all of the urban area of the County. The Consultant utilized the ESRI Business Analyst GIS program to calculate the boundaries of the Subject Site’s market area. Figure 2.2.1 below depicts the market area from the Subject Property. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 4 Figure 2.2.1 Subject Property Market Area Source: ESRI ArcGIS Business Analyst Mapping System 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 5 2.2 Market Area Demographic Detail Table 2.2.1 below shows the 2010 U.S. Census demographic profile of the population that lives within the 282 square-mile market area of the subject site. The remaining 2010 U.S. Census data can be found in Appendix A. It is important to note that the U.S. Census Bureau uses the Decennial Census as the basis for issuing their annual American Community Survey census data that is used in the demand section of this report. The 2018 ACS report was the most recent data source available at the time of this report. Table 2.2.1 Source: ESRI and U.S. Census Bureau 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 6 Also important to the development of this apartment project is the location of businesses and subsequent employment centers located near the subject site. Figure 2.2.1 below shows businesses near the subject site with 50 or more employees that would benefit from having residential offerings available to their employees. Figure 2.2.1 Despite an economy that relies a great deal on real estate, construction and tourism, the industry mix for the Naples MSA is not severely out of line with U.S. averages. The shares of employment devoted to the Trade, Transportation & Utilities; Financial Activities; Information; and Education & Health Services industries are within about 100 basis points (“bps”) of the national norms. Figure 2.2.2 on the next page shows the industry mix within the Naples Metropolitan Statistical Area (“MSA”). 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 7 The largest differences from the national norms are in Leisure & Hospitality (+939 bps); Manufacturing (-592 bps); Professional & Business Services (-284 bps); Other Services (+249 bps); and Government (-596 bps). Given the number of wealthy retirees who make Naples at least their winter home, it is not surprising to see larger shares of employment in industries that cater to this population. Although the share of Health Services was not significantly different from the U.S. share, it has increased by about 200 bps since 1996. The increase of industries outside of construction and leisure/hospitality will continue to diversify the market economy and will continue to increase the median income leading to an increase in the demand for apartment living as a residential choice. Although the nearby employment hubs will provide a source of future residents, the demographics trends and lifestyle choices will also determine the subject site’s demand potential. 3.0 MARKET ANALYSIS 3.1 Market Area Supply Shown on the next page is a map and table of existing and future apartment complexes located in Collier County. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 8 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9 The previous map shows a mixture of subsidized and market rate apartment complexes. For purposes of this study, the subsidized apartment complexes were removed along with the apartment complexes east of the urban services boundary located 1 mile east of Collier Boulevard/CR 951 including Ave Maria and Immokalee. 3.2 Market Rate Apartments Market rate apartments were the first developed in the county, with subsidized housing starting in the late 1980’s to accommodate the increasing employment for hotels and other hospitality related industries. There is a total of 5,579 market rate rental units in Collier County which accounts for 46.32% of the total. The increase in market rate apartment supply of 3- and 4-bedroom units did not begin until 2000 when the availability of affordable family accommodations was restricting due to rapidly rising home prices. Home prices are still on the rise, which continues to create a demand for the larger market rate apartment units. Most of the market rate rental apartment communities are located on major arterial roadways allowing for easy access to a wider market area. Market rate rental apartment complexes prefer to be located closer to employment centers, entertainment venues and other support facilities to attract tenants. Average occupancy rate for market rate apartments has been hovering just above 95% for the past five years, which is indicative of a very tight under-supplied rental market. Table 3.2.1 on the next page shows the market rate apartment complexes that are used in this report. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 10 Table 3.2.1 Collier County Market Rate Apartment Complexes County Map ID Apartment Complex Address Units Acres Density 2 Belvedere 260 Quail Forest Blvd Naples 162 14.87 10.89 3 Berkshire Reserve 3536 Winifred Row Ln Naples 146 11.53 12.66 5 Brittany Bay I & II 14815 Triangle Bay Dr Naples 392 13.06 30.02 6 Bryn Mawr 7701 Davis Blvd Naples 240 11.55 20.78 12 Ibis Club 8210 Ibis club Dr Naples 134 14.62 9.17 14 La Costa 3105 La Costa Cir Naples 276 31.01 8.90 15 Laguna Bay 2602 Fountain View Cir Naples 363 38.19 9.51 16 Malibu Lakes 2115 Malibu Lakes Cir Naples 356 9.88 36.03 18 Naples 701 3531 Plantation Way Naples 188 11.81 15.92 19 Naples Place I-III 4544 Sunset Rd Naples 160 12.21 13.10 21 Northgate Club 4300 Atoll CT Naples 120 9.99 12.01 22 Oasis - Arbor Walk 2277 Arbour Walk Cir Naples 216 10.82 19.96 25 River Reach 2000 River Reach Dr Naples 556 50.15 11.09 28 San Marino-Aventine 9300 Marino Cir Naples 350 38.96 8.98 29 Shadowood Park 6475 Sea Wolf Ct Naples 96 16.95 5.66 33 Summer Wind-Arium Gulfshore 5301 Summerwind Dr Naples 368 28.05 13.12 36 Waverley Place 5300 Hemingway Ln Naples 300 27.42 10.94 40 Aster Lely Resort 8120 Acacia ST Naples 308 17.79 17.31 41 Sierra Grande 6975 Sierra Club Cir Naples 270 18.1 14.92 46 Orchid Run 10991 Lost Lake Dr Naples 282 21.91 12.87 66 Milano Lakes 418400700 Naples 296 23.65 12.52 5,579 432.52 14.59 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section The average density per acre of the market rate apartment complexes is 14.59 apartments per acre. The proposed Project’s density will be 13.25 apartments per acre, which is right in line with previously approved and built market rate apartments. Apartment complexes in the approval and development process must also be considered on the supply side of the supple/demand calculation. Table 3.2.2 on the next page shows the apartment complexes that are currently in the development process pipeline. There are currently 3,473 apartment units in the Collier County approval and development process pipeline. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 11 Table 3.2.2 Collier County Pipeline Market Rate Apartment Complexes County Map ID Apartment Complex Parcel ID Units 62 Springs at Sabal Bay 71750000402 340 64 Inspira at Lely Resort 53570120027 304 65 Journey's End 736200103 483 67 Briarwood Apartment 24767504003 320 68 Legacy Naples New Hope Ministries 399760006 304 69 Addison Place 188360002 240 70 Pine Ridge Commons 240280606 375 71 I-75/Alligator Alley PUD 21968000121 425 72 Courthouse Shadows PUD 28750000523 300 73 Livingston Rd/GG Parkway Residential Subdistrict 38100120001 382 3,473 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section The total apartment unit supply in Collier County is currently 9,052 using both the existing apartments and approved apartments in process. The aging of market rate apartments must also be considered. Over 50% of the market rate apartments in Collier County are more than 20 years old. A national report by Apartmentlist.com noted that the balance of new and old units affects the rents being charged. The report stated the percentage of rental units less than 10 years old is at an all time low in the Naples area. The report also shows that rentals over 30 years old increased 33% from 2000 to 2016 while buildings aged out so that the share of rentals 10 years old or less declined by 26%. The result of the study is that the cost of renting a house or apartment isn’t likely to go down in older units until there are enough new ones coming into the market to replace them. Note Appendix C where the report was noted in the Naples Daily News editorial September 7, 2018. The Chart on the next page shows the number of apartment units that were brought on line by year in Collier County since 1975. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 12 Chart 3.2.1 Apartments Built by Year in Collier County 3.3 Source: Collier County Property Appraiser Market Area Demand The first step in determining market demand is to start with the current population of the apartment market area. The market area covers many Collier County planning areas and bisects a few of them. So in order to determine an accurate population forecast for the apartment market area, the Consultant utilized the American Community Survey (“ACS”) which is the annual update to the 2010 Census performed the by the US Census Bureau. The ACS is an ongoing survey that provides vital information on a yearly basis about our nation and its people. Information from the survey generates data that help determine how more than $675 billion in federal and state funds are distributed each year. Table 3.3.1 on the next page is the 2018 Collier County housing profile. This table is the updated ACS survey for the 282.5 square mile market area. It shows the current population for this market area is 284,220. The ACS survey also estimates the same data in the report for 2023, which matches the County’s 5-year planning horizon. ACS estimates that the market area population will be 308,530 in 2023. The census annual percent growth of 1.65 % was used to calculate the annual population from 2018 to 2023. 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 1975 1986 1988 1989 1990 1991 1995 1998 2000 2001 2002 2014 2015 Total Apartment Units Built by Year 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 13 Table 3.3.1 2018 Collier County Housing Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau Table 3.3.1 also shows that the percent of renter occupied housing units is 19.1% in 2018 and falls to 17.7% in 2023. That is a reduction of 0.3% annually and is used in the calculation of the market area demand. Table 3.3.2 on the next page establishes the household income and corresponding monthly rental payment. The median household income in Collier County is $63,202. The table shows the income ranges that are used in the calculation of demand. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 14 Table 3.3.2 Monthly Rental Payment Calculations Median Household Income: $63,202 Household Income Monthly Household Income Monthly Rental Payment @ 30% $30,000 $2,500 $750 40,000 3,333 1,000 50,000 4,167 1,250 60,000 5,000 1,500 63,202 5,267 1,580 70,000 5,833 1,750 80,000 6,667 2,000 90,000 7,500 2,250 100,000 8,333 2,500 Source: The Consultant The percent of households by income is shown in Table 3.3.3 on the next page. The percentage of households in the $30,000 to $100,000 range ranges from the current 69.4% to 63.2% in 2023. That is a reduction of 1.24% annually and is used in the calculation of the market area demand. (Rest of Page left Intentionally Blank) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 15 Table 3.3.4 Apartment Study Market Area Demographic and Income Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 16 Table 3.3.5 below shows the renter-occupied housing units by contract rent. The number of units in the $800 to $1,999 range is 20,725. That is 70.11% of the 29,559 total cash rent units and is used in the calculation of the apartment market area demand. That data range is highly reliable data according to ACS. Table 3.3.5 Apartment Study Market Area Housing Summary Source: U.S. Census Bureau 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 191 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 17 Table 3.3.6 below shows the apartment study market area demand calculation using the date points previously explained in Tables 3.3.1 through 3.3.5. The population is increased annually. The percent of rental households were reduced annually and multiplied with the corresponding annual households to obtain the annual rental households. The rental households were then multiplied by the percentage of households with incomes in the $30,000 to $90,000 range. That calculation establishes the annual demand for market rate rental housing units in the market area. That annual number is then multiplied by the percent of rental units with rents in the $800 to $1,999 range to establish the demand for market rate apartment units. That demand is slowly declining over the next five years. Table 3.3.6 Apartment Study Market Area Demand Calculation Year Population Total Households Percent Rental Rental Households % With Income $30k-$99k Annual Demand % of Units with rent $800-$1,900 Unit Demand 2018 284,220 127,052 19.1% 24,267 69.4% 16,841 70% 11,789 2019 289,082 129,286 18.8% 24,332 68.2% 16,584 70% 11,609 2020 293,944 131,519 18.5% 24,384 66.9% 16,318 70% 11,422 2021 298,806 133,753 18.3% 24,423 65.7% 16,041 70% 11,229 2022 303,668 135,986 18.0% 24,450 64.4% 15,756 70% 11,029 2023 308,530 138,220 17.7% 24,465 63.2% 15,462 70% 10,823 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau and the Consultant Table 3.3.7 on the next page shows the same market area demand calculation from Table 3.3.6 above and adds the existing market rate apartments shown in Table 3.2.1 and the future apartment complexes in the planning and development process. The Table establishes that there is a current deficit of 2,737 market rate apartments in the market area and falling to a deficit of 1,771 market rate apartments in 2023. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 18 Table 3.3.7 Apartment Study Market Area Supply – Demand Analysis Year Population Total Households Percent Rental Rental Households % With Income $30k- $99k Annual Demand % of Units with rent $800- $1,900 Unit Demand Market Supply Surplus/Deficit Units 2018 284,220 127,052 19.1% 24,267 69.4% 16,841 70% 11,789 9,052 -2,737 2019 289,082 129,286 18.8% 24,332 68.2% 16,584 70% 11,609 9,052 -2,557 2020 293,944 131,519 18.5% 24,384 66.9% 16,318 70% 11,422 9,052 -2,370 2021 298,806 133,753 18.3% 24,423 65.7% 16,041 70% 11,229 9,052 -2,177 2022 303,668 135,986 18.0% 24,450 64.4% 15,756 70% 11,029 9,052 -1,977 2023 308,530 138,220 17.7% 24,465 63.2% 15,462 70% 10,823 9,052 -1,771 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant Adding the proposed 265 proposed apartment units to the market supply (the units would most likely be added in 2021) will still show a significant deficit of market rate rental units in the horizon year of 2023 as shown in Table 3.3.7 below. Table 3.3.7 Apartment Study Market Area Supply – Demand Analysis with Subject Property Units Included Year Population Total Households Percent Rental Rental Households % With Income $30k- $99k Annual Demand % of Units with rent $800- $1,900 Unit Demand Market Supply Market Supply with Subject Property Surplus/Deficit Units 2018 284,220 127,052 19.1% 24,267 69.4% 16,841 70% 11,789 9,052 9,052 -2,737 2019 289,082 129,286 18.8% 24,332 68.2% 16,584 70% 11,609 9,052 9,052 -2,557 2020 293,944 131,519 18.5% 24,384 66.9% 16,318 70% 11,422 9,052 9,052 -2,370 2021 298,806 133,753 18.3% 24,423 65.7% 16,041 70% 11,229 9,052 9,317 -1,912 2022 303,668 135,986 18.0% 24,450 64.4% 15,756 70% 11,029 9,052 9,317 -1,712 2023 308,530 138,220 17.7% 24,465 63.2% 15,462 70% 10,823 9,052 9,317 -1,506 Source: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section, Collier County Property Appraiser, ESRI ARCgis mapping system and the Consultant 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 4.1 The Consultant used all of the data and analysis in the previous sections to determine that the total supply of market rate apartments will still be significant in the horizon year of 2023. The analysis also shows that with the addition of the Project’s proposed apartment units, there will still be a deficit of 1,922 units in the year 2021 as highlighted in Table 3.3.7 above. That is very close to the 2021 1,900-deficit number that the County Staff calculated for 2021 and as reported in the Brent Batten article in Appendix C. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 19 APPENDICIES 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 20 Appendix A 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 21 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 22 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 23 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 24 Appendix B 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 25 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 200 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 26 Appendix C 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 MASTER SITE FILE LETTER 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph | 850.245.6439 fax | SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us This record search is for informational purposes only and does NOT constitute a project review. This search only identifies resources recorded at the Florida Master Site File and does NOT provide project approval from the Division of Historical Resources. Contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333 for project review information. October 17, 2018 Lindsay Felice Robin, MPA Project Planner CIVIL ENGINEERING | PLANNING | LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Direct: E: lindsay.robin@waldropengineering.com Office: P: (239) 405-7777 | F: (239) 405-7899 In response to your inquiry on October 17, 2018, the Florida Master Site File lists no archeological sites and no other cultural resources located at the designated area at the Hammock Park, Collier County, Florida T50S R26E Section 14 as submitted with search request When interpreting the results of this search, please consider the following information: • This search area may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, historical structures or other resources even if previously surveyed for cultural resources. • Federal, state and local laws require formal environmental review for most projects. This search DOES NOT constitute such a review. If your project falls under these laws, you should contact the Compliance and Review Section of the Division of Historical Resources at 850-245-6333. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions regarding the results of this search. Sincerely, Eman M. Vovsi, Ph.D. Data Base Analyst Florida Master Site File Eman.Vovsi@DOS.MyFlorida.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, FL 32399-0250 • www.flheritage.com/preservation/sitefile 850.245.6440 ph | 850.245.6439 fax | SiteFile@dos.state.fl.us 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) CR01165 CR00878 CR011 64 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX,Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 ADDRESSING CHECKLIST Please complete the following and email to GMD_Addressing@colliergov.net or fax to the Operations Division at 239-252-5724 or submit in person to the Addressing Section at the above address. Form must be signed by Addressing personnel prior to pre-application meeting, please allow 3 days for processing. Not all items will apply to every project. Items in bold type are required. FOLIO NUMBERS MUST BE PROVIDED. Forms older than 6 months will require additional review and approval by the Addressing Section. PETITION TYPE (Indicate type below, complete a separate Addressing Checklist for each Petition type) BL (Blasting Permit) BD (Boat Dock Extension) Carnival/Circus Permit CU (Conditional Use) EXP (Excavation Permit) FP (Final Plat LLA (Lot Line Adjustment) PNC (Project Name Change) PPL (Plans & Plat Review) PSP (Preliminary Subdivision Plat) PUD Rezone RZ (Standard Rezone) SDP (Site Development Plan) SDPA (SDP Amendment) SDPI (Insubstantial Change to SDP) SIP (Site Im provement Plan) SIPI (Insubstantial Change to SIP) SNR (Street Name Change) SNC (Street Name Change – Unplatted) TDR (Transfer of Development Rights) VA (Variance) VRP (Vegetation Removal Permit) VRSFP (Vegetation Removal & Site Fill Permit) OTHER LEGAL DESCRIPT ION of subject property or properties (copy of lengthy description may be attached) FOLIO (Property ID) NUMBER(s) of above (attach to, or associate with, legal description if more than one) STREET ADDRESS or ADDRESSES (as applicable, if already assigned) PROPOSED STREET NAMES (if applicable) SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN NUMBER (for existing projects/sites only) LOCATION MAP must be attached showing exact location of project/site in relation to nearest public road right- of-way PROPOSED PROJECT NAME (if applicable) SDP - or AR or PL # SURVEY (copy - needed only for unplatted properties) CURRENT PROJECT NAME (if applicable) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 1 of 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT www.colliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 (239) 252-2400 FAX (239) 252-5724 Please Return Approved Checklist By: Email Personally picked up Applicant Name: Signature on Addressing Checklist does not constitute Project and/or Street Name approval and is subject to further review by the Operations Division. FOR STAFF USE ONLY Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Folio Number Approved by: Date: Updated by: Date: IF OLDER THAN 6 MONTHS, FORM MUST BE UPDATED OR NEW FORM SUBMITTED Fax Email/Fax:Phone: Project or development names proposed for, or already appearing in, condominium documents (if application; indicate whether proposed or existing) Rev. 6/9/2017 Page 2 of 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Print Tax Bills Change of Address   Parcel No 00416720000 Site Address 8530 COLLIER BLVD Site City NAPLES Site Zone *Note 34114 Name / Address WILTON LAND COMPANY LLC 206 DUDLEY RD City WILTON State CT Zip 06897 Map No. Strap No. Section Township Range Acres *Estimated 5B14 000100 005 5B14 14 50 26 18.99 Legal 14 50 26 S1/2 OF SW1/4 OF SW1/4 LESS R/W, AND W80FT OF S1/2 OF SE1/4 OF SW1/4, LESS THAT PORTION FOR R/W AS DESC IN OR 4336 PG 3681, AND N30FT OF N1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF SEC 23-50-26 LESS R/W Millage Area 39 Millage Rates *Calculations Sub /Condo 100 ACREAGE HEADER School Other Total Property Summary Property Detail Sketches Trim Notices Page 1 of 1Details 9/6/2018http://www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/recorddetail.html?sid=127729460&Map=No&FolioNum=0041... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 209 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) LOCATION MAP 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 WARRANTY DEED 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 LIST IDENTIFYING ALL PROPERTY OWNERS & PARTIES OF THE CORPORATION 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Department of State /Division of Corporations /Search Records /Detail By Document Number / Document Number FEI/EIN Number Date Filed State Status Detail by Entity Name Florida Limited Liability Company WILTON LAND COMPANY, LLC Filing Information L09000066780 27-0590349 07/10/2009 FL ACTIVE Principal Address 206 DUDLEY ROAD WILTON, CT 06897 Mailing Address 206 DUDLEY ROAD WILTON, CT 06897 Registered Agent Name & Address COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH & KOESTER, P.A. 4001 TAMIAMI TRAIL N. SUITE 300 NAPLES, FL 34103 Name Changed: 04/20/2011 Address Changed: 04/20/2011 Authorized Person(s) Detail Name & Address Title MGR GEORGE P BAUER REVOCABLE TRUST UAD 7/20/90 206 DUDLEY ROAD WILTON, CT 06897 Annual Reports Report Year Filed Date 2016 07/18/2016 2017 04/24/2017 2018 01/19/2018 DIVISION OF CORPORATIONSFlorida Department of State Page 1 of 2Detail by Entity Name 10/15/2018http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=Entit... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Document Images 01/19/2018 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/24/2017 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 07/18/2016 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 03/23/2015 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 06/10/2014 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/15/2013 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/27/2012 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/20/2011 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 04/08/2010 -- ANNUAL REPORT View image in PDF format 07/10/2009 -- Florida Limited Liability View image in PDF format Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations Page 2 of 2Detail by Entity Name 10/15/2018http://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/CorporationSearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=Entit... 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 220 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Traffic Impact Statement Hammock Park Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Collier County, Florida 04/05/2019 Prepared for: Prepared by: Waldrop Engineering, PA 28100 Bonita Grande Drive, Suite 305 Bonita Springs, FL 34135 Phone: 239-405-7777 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* – $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* – Small Scale Study – No Fee Note – *to be collected at time of first submittal 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 221 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 222 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 6 Background Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 8 Existing and Future Roadway Network........................................................................................... 9 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis ............................................................ 10 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis ...................................................................................................... 12 Improvement Analysis .................................................................................................................. 13 Mitigation of Impact ..................................................................................................................... 13 Appendices Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan ................................................................................... 14 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) .................................................. 16 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations ............................................................................. 23 Appendix D: Collier County Transportation Element Map TR-7 – Excerpt .................................. 33 Appendix E: Turning Movement Exhibits .................................................................................... 35 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 4 Project Description The Hammock Park project (formerly known as Hammock Park Commerce Center) is located in the northeast quadrant of the Collier Boulevard (CR 951) and Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864) intersection and lies within Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The subject property is approximately 18.99 acres in size. Refer to Figure 1 – Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan. Figure 1 – Project Location Map Currently, the subject parcel is vacant. This development was previously approved to allow up to 160,000 square feet (sf) of retail and office uses (per Collier County Ordinance #07-30). A purpose of this report is to document the transportation impacts associated with the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA). The proposed amendment requests to allow up to 148,500 sf of commercial uses and up to 265 multifamily dwelling units (apartments). Additionally, a Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) proposes a change to the projects current zoning classification of Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) with a request to rezone the property to add a maximum of 265 multi-family dwelling units as a permitted use. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 5 The proposed amendment would allow for this alternative mixed-use development scenario, while preserving the right to build out the project with the approved 160,000 square feet of commercial uses, depending upon market demand. For the purposes of this report, it is anticipated that the project will be a single-phase development. The traffic analysis utilizes year 2023 planning horizon for buildout conditions. Traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated generally based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. In agreement with ITE Land Use Code (LUC) descriptions, the ITE land use designations are illustrated in Table 1. Consistent with the previously approved Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) entitled “Hammock Park Commerce Center” dated September 7, 2006, the ITE Retail LUC 820 – Shopping Center is utilized to model the commercial land uses. Table 1 Development Program – ITE Land Use Designation Development Land Use - [SIC Code in Brackets] ITE LUC Size (ITE variable) Approved Development Parameters Commercial Retail and Office - [All PUD permitted uses typical for a shopping center as an inline/outparcel use]1,2 820 – Shopping Center 160,000 square feet Proposed Development Parameters Residential Multifamily (Apartments) - [N/A]3 220 – Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) 265 dwelling units Commercial Retail and Office - [All PUD permitted uses typical for a shopping center as an inline/outparcel use]1,2 820 – Shopping Center 148,500 square feet Notes: 1) Refer to PUD section III 3.3A. 2) Shopping Center used as a highest and best use. Other SIC land uses may be used subject to size and trip cap limitations as applicable. 3) N/A= Not applicable. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on October 18, 2018, via email [ref. Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)]. Please note that specific development parameters have changed. Proposed access points to the surrounding roadway network are depicted in the Conceptual Site Plan (Appendix A). A detailed evaluation of applicable access points – turn lane 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 6 requirements will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available. Trip Generation The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software), most current version is used to evaluate the projected trip generation for the project. The ITE equations and/or rates are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. For this project, the software program OTISS is used to generate associated internal capture trips. The OTISS process follows the trip balancing approach as recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. As internal capture data for the weekday daily time period is not available, the daily internal capture is assumed consistent with the AM peak hour internal capture rates. Based on the Collier County TIS Guidelines recommendations, the overall internal capture rate should be reasonable and should not exceed 20%. The resulting internal capture rates associated with the proposed development for the weekday traffic, AM peak hour and PM peak hour are 1%, 1% and 18%, respectively. The pass-by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational turn lane analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Per ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition traffic data, the average pass-by trip percentage for LUC 820 – Shopping Center, PM peak period is 34%. The Collier County TIS Guidelines recommend that shopping center pass-by rates should not exceed 25% for the peak hour and that the daily capture rates are assumed to be 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. For the purposes of this report, the shopping center daily pass-by capture rate is calculated at 15%, and the associated AM and PM peak hour capture rates are capped at 25%. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 7 In addition, consistent with the Collier County TIS Guidelines, the approved pass-by percentage is applied to the total (external) traffic and the resulting number of pass-by trips is equally split between the inbound and outbound trips. Per FDOT’s Site Impact Handbook (Section 2.4.4) the number of pass-by trips should not exceed 10% of the adjacent street traffic. Based on our trip generation evaluation, the proposed pass- by trips do not exceed the 10% threshold. The estimated trip generation associated with the approved development parameters is illustrated in Table 2A. The traffic evaluation for the proposed GMPA/PUDA development conditions is summarized in Table 2B. Table 3 shows the estimated net new traffic volume – the difference between Table 2A and Table 2B (proposed conditions versus approved development parameters). Table 2A Trip Generation – Approved Development – Average Weekday Proposed Build-out Daily Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Size* Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Shopping Center 160,000 sf 8,276 144 88 232 369 400 769 Total Traffic 8,276 144 88 232 369 400 769 Internal Capture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total External 8,276 144 88 232 369 400 769 Pass-by 1,241 29 29 58 96 96 192 Net External 7,035 115 59 174 273 304 577 Note(s): *sf = square feet. Table 2B Trip Generation – Proposed GMPA/PUDA Build-out Conditions – Average Weekday Proposed Build-out Daily Two- Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour ITE Land Use Size* Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Shopping Center 148,500 sf 7,867 140 86 226 349 379 728 Multifamily Housing (Low Rise) 265 du 1,963 28 92 120 89 52 141 Total Traffic 9,830 168 178 346 438 431 869 Internal Capture 60 2 2 4 63 63 126 Total External 9,770 166 176 342 375 368 743 Pass-by 1,176 28 28 56 83 83 166 Net External 8,594 138 148 286 292 285 577 Note(s): *sf = square feet; du = dwelling units. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 8 In agreement with the Collier County Traffic Impact Study (TIS) guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for adjacent roadway network is PM. For the purpose of this TIS, the surrounding roadway network link concurrency analysis is analyzed based on projected PM peak hour net new external traffic generated by the proposed GMPA/PUDA project as illustrated in Table 3. Table 3 Trip Generation – Projected Net New External Traffic – Average Weekday Development PM Peak Hour* Enter Exit Total Proposed Development GMPA/PUDA 292 285 577 Current Approved Development 273 304 577 Net New External Traffic Increase/(Decrease) 19 (19) 0 Note(s): *refer to Table 2A and Table 2B. As illustrated in Table 3, transportation concurrency impacts associated with the proposed GMPA/PUDA development scenario do not exceed the traffic impacts allowed under current zoning conditions. In addition, the development should be limited to a maximum of 577 two- way PM peak hour net external trips generated at project buildout conditions. The site access turn lane analysis is evaluated based on the projected AM and PM peak hour external traffic conditions. The evaluated external two-way PM peak hour traffic associated with the proposed development is less intensive than the projected external traffic allowed under current zoning conditions. However, the inbound AM and PM peak hour traffic calculated under the proposed development scenario is higher and will be utilized in the traffic operational analyses. Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 9 minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2017), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the planning horizon year 2023. It is noted that the Rattlesnake Hammock Road segment located east of Collier Boulevard (aka Florida Sports Park Rd) is not a Collier County monitored roadway. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2018 - 2023) Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2018 AUIR Pk Hr, Pk Dir Background Traffic Volume (trips/hr) Projected Traffic Annual Growth Rate (%/yr)* Growth Factor 2023 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Growth Factor** Trip Bank 2023 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Trip Bank*** Collier Blvd 34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 1,660 2.0% 1.1041 1,833 506 2,166 Collier Blvd 35.0 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to US 41 1,900 2.0% 1.1041 2,098 338 2,238 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 75.0 Santa Barbara Blvd to Collier Blvd 530 2.0% 1.1041 586 170 700 Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate - from 2018 AUIR, 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1+Annual Growth Rate)5. 2023 Projected Volume= 2018 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2023 Projected Volume= 2018 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2023 Peak Hour – Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the Collier County 2018 AUIR and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five-year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 10 Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2018 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2018 Roadway Condition Min. Standard LOS 2018 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume 2023 Roadway Condition 2023 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Collier Blvd 34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 6D E 3,000 (NB) 6D 3,000 (NB) Collier Blvd 35.0 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to US 41 6D E 3,200 (NB) 6D 3,200 (NB) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 75.0 Santa Barbara Blvd to Collier Blvd 6D E 2,900 (WB) 6D 2,900 (WB) Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D =4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon year 2023. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant and adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2023 future build-out conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the surrounding roadway network. As illustrated in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 6.02.02 – M.2., once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using the 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 11 Collier County TIS criterion, the development’s impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2023 Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2018 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Roadway Link, Peak Dir, Peak Hr (Project Vol Added)* 2023 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Volume w/Project** % Vol Capacity Impact by Project Min LOS exceeded without Project? Yes/No Min LOS exceeded with Project? Yes/No Collier Blvd 34.0 Davis Blvd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 3,000 (NB) N/A 2,166 0.0% No No Collier Blvd 35.0 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to US 41 3,200 (NB) N/A 2,238 0.0% No No Rattlesnake Hammock Rd 75.0 Santa Barbara Blvd to Collier Blvd 2,900 (WB) N/A 700 0.0% No No Note(s): *N/A = not applicable; No additional trips are projected over what was previously approved. **2023 Projected Volume= 2023 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. Policy 5.1 of the Collier County Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) states that “the County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved.” As illustrated in Table 6 of this report there is available capacity on the analyzed surrounding roadway network to accommodate the proposed development. Therefore, the subject development is consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Collier County’s GMP. It is noted that Collier Boulevard and Rattlesnake Hammock Road facilities are Collier County designated hurricane evacuation routes as depicted in Collier County Transportation Element – Map TR - 7. For details refer to Appendix D. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 12 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis Proposed access points to the surrounding roadway network are depicted in the Conceptual Site Plan (refer to Appendix A: Project Conceptual Site Plan), and these access connections will be further described in future SDP, PPL or DO submittals, as applicable, to determine turn lane requirements as more accurate parameters become available. Connections to the subject project are proposed via an existing right-in/right-out access on westbound Rattlesnake Hammock Road, a proposed full movement access on westbound Rattlesnake Hammock Road and a proposed right-in/right-out access on northbound Collier Boulevard. Collier Boulevard (CR 951) is under Collier County Department of Transportation jurisdiction. This roadway is a north-south six-lane divided arterial roadway. This roadway has a posted legal speed of 50 mph and an assumed design speed of 50 mph in the vicinity of project. Based on FDOT Standard Plans Index #711-001, the minimum turn lane length is 240 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Rattlesnake Hammock Road (CR 864) is under Collier County Department of Transportation jurisdiction. This roadway is a four-lane divided no outlet roadway. This roadway has a posted legal speed of 40 mph and an assumed design speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of project. Based on FDOT Standard Plans Index #711-001, the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Project access is typically evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Right-of- way Manual: (a) two-lane roadways – 40 vph for right-turn lane/20 vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided roadways – right-turn lanes shall always be provided; and c) when median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles within the peak hour traffic. Rattlesnake Hammock Western Access: The proposed project is expected to generate 33 vph and 75 vph westbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. A dedicated westbound right-turn lane is warranted at this location as it meets the multi-lane criterion. At the minimum, the right-turn lane should be 235 feet which includes a minimum 50 feet of storage. Rattlesnake Hammock Eastern Access: The proposed project is expected to generate 17 vph and 38 vph westbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 13 respectively. A dedicated westbound right-turn lane is warranted at this location. At the minimum, the right-turn lane should be 210 feet which includes a minimum 25 feet of storage. The proposed project is expected to generate 66 vph and 150 vph eastbound left-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. A dedicated eastbound left-turn lane is warranted at this location as it meets the multi-lane criterion. At the minimum, the turn-lane should be 310 feet which includes a minimum 125 feet of storage. There is an existing approximately 350 foot left-turn lane at this location that is currently gore striped. Collier Boulevard Access: The proposed project is expected to generate 50 vph and 112 vph northbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. A dedicated northbound right-turn lane is warranted at this location as it meets the multi-lane criterion. At the minimum, the turn-lane should be 290 feet which includes a minimum 50 feet of storage. There is an existing approximately 410 foot right-turn lane available for this proposed access. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points – turn lane requirements will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available. Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, the proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed development without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 577 two-way PM peak hour net external trips. These trips shall be calculated based on applicable land use codes as illustrated in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of future development order applications. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 14 Appendix A Project Conceptual Site Plan 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 15 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 235Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 16 Appendix B Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 17 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 18 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 19 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 20 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 240Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 21 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 22 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 23 Appendix C ITE Trip Generation Calculations 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 24 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 25 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 26 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 27 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 28 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 29 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 30 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 31 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 32 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 33 Appendix D Collier County Transportation Element Map TR-7 – Excerpt 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 34 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 254Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 35 Appendix E Turning Movement Exhibits 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 36 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 256Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – April 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA Page | 37 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 257Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 AFFIDAVIT OF COMPLIANCE – NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) May 16, 2019 RE: Vanderbilt Commons PUDA-PL20180003366 GMPA-PL20180003372 Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that Waldrop Engineering, P.A. on behalf of Vanderbilt Way Apartments, LLC has filed two (2) concurrent applications to Collier County. These applications seek approval of: (1) a PUD amendment for the Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to remove the requirement to provide commercial uses on the first floor of the mixed-use building on Lots 5 and 6, and add one (1) deviation relating to building perimeter plantings; AND (2) a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) to allow residential uses on the first floor of buildings on Lots 5 and 6. The GMPA does not request to increase density or intensity and no changes made affect any other portion of the MPUD. The subject property totals 14.49+/- acres and is generally located immediately north of Vanderbilt Beach Road, approximately ¼ of a mile west of Collier Boulevard in unincorporated Collier County, Florida. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to hear a presentation about this application and ask questions. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Monday, June 3rd, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. at the Greater Naples Fire Rescue Headquarters, 14575 Collier Blvd., Naples, FL 34119. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me directly at (239) 405-7777 ext. 2232, or lindsay.robin@waldropengineering.com. Sincerely, WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. Lindsay F. Robin, MPA Project Planner *Please note that Greater Naples Fire Rescue does not sponsor or endorse this program. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) PL20180003366500'5/7/2019Site: Vanderbilt Commons MPUD 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME67205 VANDERBILT WAY LLC PTA-CS# 5406 PO BOX 320099 ALEXANDRIA, VA 22320---0ABREU, MILAGROS PO BOX 117 KEASBEY, NJ 08832---117ALLEN, MARCUS A & MARY L 7347 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---8091ANDREEV, BORISLAV VIOLETA ANDREEV 158 RANKIN CRES TORONTO M6P 4H9AVENOSO, DONALD G 7355 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0BARRIOS, HARVY E NUVIA AGUILERA DE BARRIOS 7029 AMBROSIA LN APT 606 NAPLES, FL 34119---9651BCNMD INC 2600 S DOUGLAS ROAD SUITE #510 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134---0BCNMD INC 2600 S DOUGLAS ROAD #510 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134---0BCNMD INC 2600 S DOUGLAS ROAD #510 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134---0BCNMD INC 2600 S DOUGLAS ROAD #510 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134---0BEADLE, RYAN J & TONYA 7359 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CARDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---0BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CARDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---0BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CARDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---0BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CARDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---0BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CARDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---0BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CARDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---1900BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC % CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CRDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---0BLACK BEAR RIDGE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC %CARDINAL PROPERTY MGMT 4670 CARDINAL WAY STE 302 NAPLES, FL 34112---0BNEI RIVKAH GROUP LLC 156 DUFFY AVENUE HICKSVILLE, NY 11801---0BOTIE, PHILIP KERRY MINER 4 RYDER AVE DIX HILLS, NY 11746---6107CARUS, CARLOS M & KAREM 7070 VENICE WAY #2903 NAPLES, FL 34119---0COLLIER CNTY % OFC OF COLLIER CNTY ATTORNEY 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E HARMON TURNER BLDG 8TH FL NAPLES, FL 34112---0COLLIER CNTY % OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E STE 800 NAPLES, FL 34112---5749COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0COLLIER COUNTY 3301 TAMIAMI TRAIL E NAPLES, FL 34112---0CONTI FAMILY RES TRUST 20 NAUGHTON DRIVE RICHMOND HILL L4C 4M7CUBERO, ROY 1504 BAY ROAD #2408 MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139---0DORGAN, CHRISTOPHER P FABRIENA A DORGAN 7367 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9611DORSEY, STEPHEN M SUSAN SERRA DORSEY 17 TIFFANY PL SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY 12866---9059DUPRE, JAMES 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430EASTMAN TR, JULIE MAE 7050 AMBROSIA LN APT 3408 NAPLES, FL 34119---9630EBICADO LLC 250 SUNNY ISLES BLVD BLDG 3 APT 1905 SUNNY ISLES, FL 33160---0EDM INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC 3300 LAUREL OAK ST FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33312---6396EDM INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC 3300 LAUREL OAK ST FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33312---6396EDM INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC 3300 LAUREL OAK ST FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33312---6396EDM INVESTMENT HOLDINGS LLC 3300 LAUREL OAK ST FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33312---6396EMERITUS INVESTMENTS INC 2600 S DOUGLAS RD SUITE 510 CORAL GABLES, FL 33134---0FALLS OF PORTOFINO MASTER HOA INC C/O ASSOC LAW GROUP P L 1200 BRICKELL AVENUE PH 2000 MIAMI, FL 33131---0FLYNN LIVING TRUST 6209 WINNEQUAH RD MONONA, WI 53716---3461FONTANA TR, BUDD & MARION BUDD & MARION FONTANA L/TRUST UTD 01/20/2011 4180 5TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---1500FUCHS REVOCABLE TRUST 7351 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9611GILMORE, BRUCE & CRISTINA 4281 7TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---0GIMENEZ, TEODORO-& MILDRED 5530 RIDGE XING HANOVER PARK, IL 60133---5369IGLESIAS, NARCISA 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430J & C L MAYNARD JT TRUST 7362 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0J L PHIPPS D D S LOVING TRUST 521 ERIE CT BOWLING GREEN, OH 43402---2745KEAGY, DOROTHY 7327 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0KERRY A NICI GIFTING TRUST 1185 IMMOKALEE RD STE 110 NAPLES, FL 34110---4806KUPEL, GEORGE W & MARIANNE K 7342 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0LANG, ANN WEBER & TIMOTHY W 4161 7TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---1521LOT 3 VANDERBILT COMMONS LLC % WELSH CO FL INC 2950 N TRAIL STE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103---0MANOO, HAROLD 1187 OLD COLONY ROAD OAKVILLE L6M1J1 POList_500_PL20180003366 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) PL20180003366500'5/7/2019Site: Vanderbilt Commons MPUD 2 MARTIN, ROBERT E MARY ELIZABETH ROGAN 7330 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0MAUSEN, JOHN C ROBERT E MAUSEN 1086 FOREST LAKES DR #303 NAPLES, FL 34105---0MAUSEN, ROBERT E & GEORGINA M 4355 7TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---1525MCA PORTOFINO NAPLES LLC 5201 NW 77 AVENUE #400 MIAMI, FL 33166---0MCA PORTOFINO NAPLES LLC 5201 NW 77 AVENUE #400 MIAMI, FL 33166---0MCA PORTOFINO NAPLES LLC 5201 NW 77 AVENUE #400 MIAMI, FL 33166---0MCA PORTOFINO NAPLES LLC 5201 NW 77 AVENUE #400 MIAMI, FL 33166---0MCA PORTOFINO NAPLES LLC 5201 NW 77 AVENUE #400 MIAMI, FL 33166---0MENDAX, SCOTT 7371 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9611MISSION HILLS STATION LLC 11501 NORTHLAKE DRIVE CINCINNATI, OH 45249---0NAZARIAN, CHRISTINE 7060 VENICE WAY APT 3104 NAPLES, FL 34119---9626NISTOR, JOHN J & DIANE E 4331 7TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---1525NORBERTO JR, FRANK & DENNINE 7326 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9610NOSSEN ROBERT P & FRANCES 7335 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---8091NUNES, NORBERTO A 3345 27TH AVE SW NAPLES, FL 34117---7141O'DONNELL, PAUL F 7358 ACORN WAY S NAPLES, FL 34119---0OZBAY, EREN 5361 CHERRY WOOD DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34119---0OZBAY, ERHAN 5361 CHERRY WOOD DRIVE NAPLES, FL 34119---0PIAZZA, SALVATORE & ANNA G 3765 HELMSMAN DR NAPLES, FL 34120---0POLLAK, LAURA E JEFFREY A PETRINITZ 7346 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0POPE FAMILY TRUST 7350 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9610PRD OWNER LLC % PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE DEV PO BOX 768 EFFINGHAM, IL 62401---0PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430 POList_500_PL20180003366 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) PL20180003366500'5/7/2019Site: Vanderbilt Commons MPUD 3 PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430 POList_500_PL20180003366 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) PL20180003366500'5/7/2019Site: Vanderbilt Commons MPUD 4 PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430PRIME HOMES AT PORTOFINO FALLS 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430R J FAY & J D FAY REV/L/TRUST 4191 7TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---1521REFERENCE ONLY FALLS OF PORTOFINO CONDOMINIUM NO 1, THEREFERENCE ONLY FALLS OF PORTOFINO CONDOMINIUM NO 2, THEREFERENCE ONLY FALLS OF PORTOFINO CONDOMINIUM NO 5, THEREFERENCE ONLY FALLS OF PORTOFINO CONDOMINIUM NO 6, THEREYES, CRISTOBAL & LOYDA 110 9TH ST SW NAPLES, FL 34117---0SCHMADER, JOHN F VIRGINIA M ELLIOTT 7323 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9625SHALOM, YEHIEL SAR 4651 SHERIDAN ST STE 480 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33021---3430SUN, WEIYONG QIUYAN KONG 210 STOKES FARM RD FRANKLIN LAKES, NJ 07417---0SUNCOAST SCHOOLS FED CR UNION ATTN: CINDY CURTIS 6801 E HILLSBOROUGH AVE TAMPA, FL 33610---4110TABOR, DONALD J & AGNES H 4241 7TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34119---1523TERIMAKI LLC 175 SW 7TH STREET STE 1611 MIAMI, FL 33130---0THE FALLS OF PORTOFINO LAND TRUST I 1615 S CONGRESS AVENUE STE 200 DELRAY BEACH, FL 33435---0UNIVERSAL PROPERTY LLC 175 SW 7 STREET STE 1611 MIAMI, FL 33130---0UNIVERSAL PROPERTY LLC 175 SW 7 STREET STE 1611 MIAMI, FL 33130---0UNIVERSAL PROPERTY LLC 175 SW 7TH STREET STE 1611 MIAMI, FL 33130---0VANDERBILT COMMONS OWNERS' ASSOCIATION INC 2950 TAMIAMI TRL N #200 NAPLES, FL 34103---0VANDERBILT COMMONS I TRUST 2950 TAMIAMI TRAIL N #200 NAPLES, FL 34103---0VANDERBILT COMMONS OWNERS ASSN INC 2950 9TH STREET NORTH NAPLES, FL 34103---0VANDERBILT COMMONS OWNERS ASSN INC 2950 9TH STREET NORTH NAPLES, FL 34103---0VANDERBILT WAY APARTMENTS LLC 2950 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103---0VANDERBILT WAY APARTMENTS LLC 2950 TAMIAMI TRL N STE 200 NAPLES, FL 34103---0VASSAR, ROBERT A & ANGELA C 7343 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9611VIGILANTE, ANTHONY KATHLEEN WHITE-VIGILANTE 7319 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0VIVAS, NEOMI FREDDY VIVAS JACOB AGAY 1669 DIPLOMAT DR MIAMI, FL 33179---6404WEILAND, JAY H & JOAN M 7338 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9610WILLIAMS, SEAN S & TARA LEE 7363 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9611WITT, DAVID C & JOYCE E 7334 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---9610WOERZ, GARY F & ANNA G 7315 ACORN WAY NAPLES, FL 34119---0 POList_500_PL20180003366 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Published DailyNaples, FL 34110 Affidavit of PublicationState of FloridaCounties of Collier and Lee Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Natalie Zollar who on oath says that she serves as Inside Sales Manager of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Na-ples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.___________________________________________________________Customer Ad Number Copyline P.O.#_____________________________________________________________________________________ WALDROP ENGINEERING, P.A. 2281189 Neighborhood Meeting Pub DatesMay 17, 2019 _______________________________________(Signature of affiant) Sworn to and subscribed before meThis May 17, 2019 _______________________________________(Signature of affiant) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 14A z FRIDAY, MAY 17, 2019 z NAPLES DAILY NEWS + NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING The public is invited to attend a neighborhood information meeting held by Wa ldrop Engineering,P.A.on behalf of Va nderbilt Wa y Apartments,LLC at the following time and location: Monday,June 3,2019,at 5:30 p.m. Greater Naples Fire Rescue District Headquarters 14575 Collier Blvd,Naples,FL 34119 Please be advised that Va nderbilt Way Apartments,LLC has filed two (2) concurrent applications (PL20180003366 &PL20180003372)with Collier County.These applications are seeking approval of:(1)a PUD amendment for the Va nderbilt Commons Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD)to remove the requirement to provide commercial uses on the first floor of the mixed-use building on Lots 5 and 6,and add one (1)deviation relating to building perimeter plantings;AND (2)a Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA)to allow residential uses on the first floor of buildings on Lots 5 and 6.The GMPA does not request to increase density or intensity and no changes made affect any other portion of the MPUD. The existing MPUD consists of 14.49+/-acres and is generally located immediately north of Va nderbilt Beach Road,approximately ¼of a mile west of Collier Boulevard in unincorporated Collier County,Florida. WE VALUE YOUR INPUT Business and property owners and residents are welcome to attend the presentation and discuss the project with the owners’representatives and Collier County staff.If you are unable to attend this meeting,but have questions or comments,they can be directed to: Waldrop Engineering,P.A.c/o Lindsay Robin 28100 Bonita Grande Dr.,Suite 305,Bonita Springs,FL 34135 (239)405-7777,ext.2232 OR lindsay.robin@waldropengineering.com *Please note that Greater Naples Fire Rescue District does not sponsor or endorse this program. Summer Rate $38 Includes Green Fee and Cart Quail Run Golf Club 1 Forest Lakes Blvd Naples,FL 34105 239-261-3930 Call for Special Afternoon RatesCallforSpecialAfternoonRates Memberships AvailableMembershipsAvailable MEMB E R FOR A DAY! A HIDDEN JEWEL IN THE MIDDLE OF NAPLES! HindmanAuctions.com Compliment ar y Auction Estimates AMeissen Porcelain Pate sur Pate Four Piece Clock Garniture. Sold for 87,500. 8506th Avenue South Naples,Florida 34102 239.643.4448 naples@hindmanauctions.com hindmanauctions.com/naples SCHEDULE ACOMPLIMENTARY AUCTION ESTIMATE Hindmanspecialists in ourNaples of ficeare currentlyproviding complimentar yauction estimates foryourFineFurniture,Decorative Arts andSilver. Compliment ar y HAPPYHOUR $4 COCKTA ILS $6 APPETIZERS BAR 3PM -8PM 1DINNER PLUS 1GLASS OF WINE $14.99 10711 TA MIAMI TRL AC ROSS FROM TRADER JOE’S 239-260-1075ND-GCI0110434-01 SEAFOOD-STEAKS-PASTA Breakfast-Lunch-Dinner 643-2559 933 Airport Rd.S,Naples,FL 34104 3.5 blks.N.of Davis,1 blk S.of Naples Airport Open Sun 1-5pm •Mon.-Sat.10am-6pm all widths AAAA -EEEE custom fi tting by trained factory sales staff. We help consumers achieve pain-free walking by providing 5 star service, great selection,and superior quality comfort fashion footwear. NAOT,Mephisto,Ta ryn Rose,Helle Comfort,Wolky,Cole Haan, Thierry Rabotin,Beautifeel,Sperry,Ecco,Birkenstock,Florsheim, Finn Comfort,New Balance,SAS,Saucony,Asics,Sebago, Hushpuppy,Te va,Merrell,Fit Flop,Orthaheel,Acorn Slippers and many more... COUPONCOUPON www.shoewarehousenaples.com $25 OFF Must present Coupon at time of purchase. Not valid with any other offer. Expires 5/31/19 *Excludes SAS & Mephisto Kybun and Birkenstock Qual it y Co mfort and Service ND-GCI0177716-10 When Sergio Hostins moved from Maine to Saraso- ta in April of 2018, he planned to visit his aunt often. They talked on the phone every other day, and Hos- tins told Teresa Giani, 66, of West Palm Beach, he was looking forward to only being a few hours in the car away. However, Hostins, 55, was killed by a man he was having a relationship with — about six months after he moved to Florida. “Sergio was very friendly,” Giani said. “He liked to help friends and he helped his family a lot in Brazil. He worked here and all he thought about was his family back in Brazil.” Hostins moved to the U.S. as a child and worked at an Italian restaurant in Maine for 22 years. Then he accepted a job near Sarasota that was opening under the same ownership. “He used to do everything,” Giani said. “He would do plumbing, he was a good painter, he was a good waiter, he was a good electrician. He did it all at the restaurant.” Hostins often sent money to his mother and other family he left behind in Brazil , Giani said. “He was such a good person,” she said. “He was a very happy person, Sergio. He was al- ways making jokes.” On Tuesday, a jury found Daniel Da- venport, 31, of Sarasota, guilty of sec- ond-degree murder. Davenport killed Hostins in October 2018, stole his car and credit cards then dumped his carpet-wrapped body at a home in Naples Park, prosecutors said during the trial. The jury also found Davenport guilty of grand theft of a motor vehicle, 10 counts of fraudulent use of per- sonal identification information and unlawful posses- sion of four or fewer identities. Davenport was arrested in Orlando after eluding authorities for more than a week. He and Hostins met on a social media app for gay men, called Grindr, in September 2018 and developed a relationship. The last time Giani talked with her nephew it seemed like he knew he was in danger, she said. A few days before Hostins’ body was discovered at the home in the 700 block of 102nd Avenue North, he called Giani and asked for her address. Hostins told Giani he needed it so authorities would know to contact her in case something bad happened to him. Hostins was at the Department of Motor Vehicles and didn’t have time to explain what was going on. He told her he would call her back later, Giani said. “I gave the address to him, and those were the last words I heard from him,” Giani said. Hostins told a different family member he was fighting with his boyfriend, who kept asking him for money, Giani said. “What happened to Sergio with this guy, it was just for money,” Giani said. “He just wanted more and more money and then Sergio told him to get out because he needed money to pay his own bills.” It was hard for Giani to sit in the Sarasota courtroom for more than a week so close to her nephew’s killer, she said. “There was a lot, a lot of evidence,” Giani said. “They had so much evidence to prove he was guilty.” Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court Judge Stephen Walk- er deferred Davenport’s sentencing, pending a pre- sentence investigation. Everyone, from Hostins’ family to his boss loved him, Giani said. Homicide victim moved to Fla. shortly before his death Sergio Hostins is pictured inside the Italian restaurant he worked at near Sarasota. Hostins was killed about six months after he moved down to Florida from Maine.COURTESY OF TERESA GIANI Jake Allen Naples Daily News USA TODAY NETWORK - FLORIDA Davenport 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) HAMMOCK PARK GMPA CCPC PACKAGE PL20180002804/CP-2018-8 NIM SYNOPSIS 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 1 of 3 Memorandum To: Nancy Gundlach, PLA, AICP & Sue Faulkner From: Lindsay Robin cc: David Torres, Wilton Land Company, LLC Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester Date: June 27, 2019 Subject: Hammock Park PUDA & GMPA (PL20180002904 & PL20180002813) Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis Waldrop Engineering, P.A., and Collier County Staff conducted a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) on Wednesday, June 19, 2019. The meeting was held at 5:30 p.m. at the South Regional Library at 8065 Lely Cultural Pkwy., Naples, Florida 34113. The sign-in sheet is attached as Exhibit “A” and demonstrates 11 residents were in attendance. Handouts were distributed providing the project overview and development regulations. The handouts are attached as Exhibit “B”. Alexis Crespo (Agent) conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and Staff, and an overview of the proposed GMPA and PUD amendment applications, including the location of the 19-acre subject property and the request to add a maximum of 265 multi-family (apartment) dwelling units, with a maximum of 148,500 square feet of commercial as an option for development. She also outlined the amendment processes and opportunities to provide input at public hearings. David Torres, the Applicant, also spoke about the project and provided input on details relating to the surrounding residential developments in proximity to the subject area, and the market demand to create a mixed-use project on this intersection. Following the Consultant’s presentation, the meeting was opened up to the attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The following is a summarized list of the questions asked and responses given. The Applicant’s representatives’ responses are shown in bold. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 2 of 3 Question/Comment 1: You’ve only reduced the commercial by a few thousand square feet. How does that equate to 265 multi-family units?  Response: The reduction of commercial does equate to the same number of trips as 265 multi-family units. Commercial uses produce significantly more trips than residential uses. [the project traffic engineer provided further explanation on the traffic study]. It was also pointed out that in reality, you will not be able to fit all of the residential and commercial on the property. Question/Comment 2: Will the residential element of this development be similar to residential developments the owner has constructed previously?  Response: It will use similar building designs, but with updated exteriors and façades. Question/Comment 3: What type of consumer and income groups are you trying to attract? Will this be apartments or condominiums?  Response: There were some zoning commitments relating to “Essential Service Provider” Housing that were attached to our previous residential developments on Lord’s Way that will not be committed to in this project. Question/Comment 4: So, you’re thinking apartments versus condominiums?  Response: Apartments. Even though the code defines multi-family as multi- family regardless of the use. Question/Comment 5: Is there enough demand for commercial uses such as restaurants?  Response: There’s currently not enough demand in the area yet. Adding apartments will create more demand. Question/Comment 6: Commissioner Fiala commented on the commercial branding that real estate agents are using to brand their developments in this area of Collier County as “South Naples”. She noted the residents are proud of the East Naples area and would like to keep that naming intact.  Response: We recognize the conditions out here. A lot of it goes back to large companies signing leases, and they are looking at the numbers. Being on the east side can hurt us because we are on the fringe. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 3 of 3 Question/Comment 7: What is the business “success” factor that would entice national restaurant brands to come to the area? Is the success rate of certain restaurants factored in?  Response: Absolutely, and it speaks well all the success on US 41, particularly the national chains like Outback and Carrabas. Sue Faulkner asked the Applicant to clarify if the dwelling units proposed are rental or “for sale” multi-family units. Alexis clarified that the zoning limits the multi-family units to rental apartments. There were no further questions or comments. Ms. Crespo thanked the attendees for coming and noted that their contact information is available for those who wished to reach out with any further questions. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:30 p.m. The meeting was recorded per the CD attached as Exhibit “C”. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Name Address E-Mail Address EXHIBIT "A" NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING HAMMOCK PARK MPUD PL20180002813 & PL20180002804 June 19, 2019@ 5:30p.m. PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY ***Please be ciclvtsecl*** The information on this sheet is to contact you regarding this project and future public meetings. Under Florida law, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and certain home addresses are public records once received by a government agency. If you do not want your e-mail address, phone number or home address released if the county receives a public records request, you can refrain from including such information on this sheet. You have the option of checking with the county staff on your own to obtain updates on the project as well as checking the county Web site for additional information. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park MPUD - PL20180002813 & PL20180002804 Neighborhood Information Meeting Wednesday, June 19, 2019 5:30 p.m. PROJECT INFORMATION SHEET Project Size: 19+/- Acres Future Land Use: Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, Mixed Use Activity Center Current Zoning: Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Proposed Zoning: Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Approved Density/Intensity/Uses: 160,000 sq. ft. commercial uses Proposed Density/Intensity/Uses: 265 multi-family dwelling units and up to 148,500 sq. ft. of commercial uses Project Requests: (PL20180002804) a Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) for a site-specific text amendment to the Future Land Use Element, Mixed Use Activity Center #7, to allow up to 265 multi-family dwelling units within the Hammock Park project, along with the permitted commercial uses - (PL20180002813) PUD Amendment to the Hammock Park Commerce Centre Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) to add a maximum of 265 multi-family dwelling units as a permitted use; reduce the maximum intensity of non-residential uses from 160,000 sq. ft. to 148,500 sq. ft.; and to change the name of the CPUD from Hammock Park Commerce Centre CPUD to Hammock Park Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). EXHIBIT "B"9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) Hammock Park MPUD PERMITTED USES AND STRUCTURES 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. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures 1. Amusement and recreation services, Indoor only (Groups 7911-7941, 7991, 7993, 7997, 7999) 2. Apparel and accessory stores (Groups 5611, 5621, 5631, 5641, 5651, 5661, 5699) 3. Automotive repair, services and parking (Groups 7514, 7542) All uses are prohibited within 500 feet from the easterly right-of-way line of C.R. 951. 4. Auto and home supply stores (Group 5531) 5. Building construction - general contractors (groups 1521 -1542). 6. Building materials, hardware, garden supply (Groups 5231, 5251, 5261) 7. Business services (Groups 7311, 7323, 7334, 7335, 7336, 7338, 7352, 7359, 7371-7379, 7384, 7389) 8. Communications (Groups 4832, 4833) 9. Construction - special trade contractors (Groups 1711-1793, 1796, 1799) 10. Depository institutions (Groups 6011-6099) 11. Eating and drinking places (Groups 5812, 5813 except contract feeding, food service and industrial feeding) 12. Engineering, accounting and management (Groups 8711-8721, 8741, 8742, 8748) 13. Food stores (Groups 5411, 5421, 5441, 5451, 5461, 5499) 14. Funeral service and crematories (Group 7261) 15. Gasoline service stations (5541 subject to the provisions of the LDC) 16. General merchandise stores (Groups 5311, 5331, 5399) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 17. Hardware stores (5251) 18. Health services (Groups 8011-8059) 19. Home furniture, furnishings, and equipment stores (Groups 5712, 5713, 5714, 5719,5722,5731,5734,5735,5736) 20. Hospitals (Group 8062) 21. Hotels and motels (Group 7011) 22. Insurance agents, brokers and service (Group 6411) 23. Membership organizations (Groups 8641, 8661) 24. Miscellaneous repair services (Groups 7622, 7623, 7629, 7631, 7641) (Group 7699 with approval of County Manager, or his designee, who shall be guided by the objective of allowing uses that are compatible with existing development.) All uses are prohibited within 500 feet of the easterly right-of- way line of C.R. 951. 25. Miscellaneous retail (Groups 5912, 5921, 5932, 5941-5949, 5984, 5992, 5993, 5999) 26. Motion pictures (Groups 7832-7833) 27. Museum, art galleries (Group 8412) 28. Multi-family rental dwelling units. 298. Non-depository credit institutions (Groups 6141, 6159, 6162, 6163) 2930. Offices (All Groups) 310. Personal services (Groups 7211-7212, 7215, 7219, 7221, 7231, 7241, 7251, 7291) 321. Restaurants (All Groups) 323. Real estate (Groups 6531, 6541, 6552) 334.Social services (Group 8351) 345.United States Postal Service (Group 4311) 356. Veterinarian's office (Group 0742, except no outside kenneling) 367. Any other use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) may be permitted subject to the procedures set forth in the LDC, as amended. ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES A. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to uses permitted. B. Any other accessory use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses may be permitted subject to the procedures set forth in the LDC, as amended. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (COMMERCIAL) A. Minimum lot area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet. B. Minimum lot width: One hundred (100) feet. C. Minimum yard requirements: 1. Front yard: Twenty-five (25) feet. 2. Side yard: Zero for common or abutting walls, otherwise one-half the height of the building, but not less than ten (10) feet. 3. Rear yard: Twenty (20) feet. 4. Preserve: Twenty-five (25) feet D. Distance between principal structures: The distance between any two principal structures on the same parcel shall be fifteen (15) feet or a distance equal to one half the sum of their heights, whichever is greater. E. Minimum floor area of principal structure: Seven hundred (700) square feet per building on the ground floor. F. Landscaping and off-street parking shall be in accordance with the LDC, as amended. G. Maximum height: Fifty (50) feet. H. General application for setbacks: Front yard setbacks shall comply with the following: 1. If the parcel is served by a public or private right-of-way, the setback is measured from the adjacent right-of-way line. 2. If the parcel is served by a non-platted private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 3. If the parcel is served by a platted private drive, the setback is measured from the road easement or property line. I. All buildings, landscaping and visible infrastructures shall be architecturally and aesthetically unified. Said unified architectural theme shall include a similar architectural design and similar use of materials and colors on all of the buildings to be erected on site. Landscaping and streetscape materials shall also be similar in design throughout the site. A conceptual landscape plan for the entire site shall be submitted concurrent with the first application for site development plan approval. J. Outside storage or display of merchandise is prohibited unless it is ancillary to a permitted use and screened from view from adjacent public roadways. Outside storage may be approved by the County Manager, or his designee, as part of the approval of an SDP. K. The FP&L easement may be used for ancillary uses such as parking, storage, service drives, and water management, provided written authorization for those uses is obtained from FP&L and submitted with the application for SDP. L. The two accessory tower structures described in Deviation 3 shall have a minimum PUD perimeter setback of ten (10) feet, and a maximum actual height of thirty (30) feet for the southern tower and maximum actual height of fifteen (15) feet for the northern most tower.2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (RESIDENTIAL) PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES MULTI-FAMILY Min. Lot Area 1 acre Min. Lot Width N/A Min. Lot Depth N/A Front Yard (1) 10 feet Side Yard 5 feet Min. Lake Maintenance Easement Tract Setback 0 feet Min. Setback from FPL Easement 0 feet Min. PUD Boundary Setback, excluding boundary abutting FPL Easement 25 feet Min. Distance Between Buildings 20 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Preserve 25 feet MAXIMUM HEIGHT Actual Zoned 60 feet 50 feet ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Front Yard SPS Side Yard SPS Rear Yard 5 feet Preserve 10 feet MAXIMUM HEIGHT Actual Zoned SPS SPS Footnotes: (1) Front setback is measured from the edge of pavement or back of curb except for public roads. (2) Approved in HEX decision 2016-42. GENERAL: Except as provided for herein, all criteria set forth below shall be understood to be in relation to individual parcel or lot boundary lines, or between structures. Condominium, and/or homeowners’ association boundaries shall not be utilized for determining development standards. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Application_Petition CP-18-8 Hammock Park (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Transmittal CCPC Advertisement CP-18-8 (9765 : Hammock Park GMPA Transmittal) 09/05/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20180002668: A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay, to allow a base density of .2 dwelling units per acre plus density bonuses for native vegetation and transfer of development rights for a total maximum dens ity of 2.5 dwelling units per acre, for property within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District -Receiving Lands, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard, in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 37.62± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/05/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 08/19/2019 10:44 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/19/2019 10:44 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 08/19/2019 1:22 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 08/19/2019 4:01 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/20/2019 9:12 AM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 08/20/2019 9:32 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/20/2019 11:38 AM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/05/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 281 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 2019 CYCLE 3 AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARINGS) PL20180002668/CP-2018-7 CCPC: September 5, 2019 BCC: October 22, 2019 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: CCPC Cover (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) TABLE OF CONTENTS 2018 Cycle 3 GMP (Full Scale) Amendments Transmittal Hearings CCPC September 5, 2019 1) TAB: Transmittal Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20180002668/ CP-2018-7 2) TAB: Resolutions DOCUMENT: Transmittal Resolution with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps): PL20180002668/CP-2018-7 3) TAB: Projects/Petitions DOCUMENT: Petitions/Applications PL20180002668/CP-2018-7 4) TAB: Legal Advertisements DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisements 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Table of Contents_CCPC (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 1 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: September 5, 2019 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20180002668/CP-2018-7 2018 CYCLE THREE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE APPLICANT/AGENTS Applicant: Ryan Zuckerman Owner: Carole Construction of Naples, Inc. RJH II, LLC 1100 Cypress Woods Drive 7466 NW 51st Way Naples, FL 34103 Coconut Creek, FL 33073 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, PA 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION The subject property, consisting of ±37.62 acres, is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, along the west side of Richards Street, and along the north side of Sundance Street, approximately two miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), in Section 25, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. REQUESTED ACTION This petition seeks to establish an Overlay designation in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) by amending: 1) Policy 1.9, to add the new Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay; 2) Overlays and Special Features, to add the new Overlay provisions; 3) Future Land Use Map Series list, to add the title of the new Residential Overlay inset map; 4) Countywide Future Land Use Map to depict the Overlay; and, 5) Future Land Use Map Series to add an inset map depicting the Overlay site. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 2 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE The Overlay text, Countywide Future Land Use Map, and FLU Map Series inset map proposed by this amendment are found in Resolution Exhibit “A.” PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The petition proposes the new Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Receiving Lands that: allows a maximum residential density of 2.05 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) yielding 77 DUs; utilizes Transfer of Development Rights Credits (TDRs) for this property that would otherwise be ineligible due to being less than the minimum 40 acres required in the RFMUD; provides for bonus TDRs for native vegetation retention beyond that required in the RFMUD; and, provides for a bonus DU for each TDR redeemed (2 for 1). [Note: This petition was originally submitted to allow 95 DUs (2.53 DU/A) and access to Richards Road; shortly before drafting of this Report, the density was reduced to 77 DUs, access was changed to Immokalee Road, and a landscape buffer provision was added. As a result, some petition materials may still reference or be based upon the original submittal provisions.] FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS, ZONING AND LAND USES: Existing Conditions: Subject Property: The subject property, which comprises ±37.62 acres, is designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Receiving Lands, which generally provides for higher [land use] densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints (than Sending Lands) and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The property is zoned A-RFMUO, Rural Agriculture and Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay Receiving Lands and is undeveloped and wooded. FUTURE LAND USE MAP EXCERPT (Note: subject site is not to scale – is much smaller than appears on map) Surrounding Lands: North: To the north, across Immokalee Road, lands are designated RFMUD Receiving Lands and are within the Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Area Overlay. It is zoned Heritage Bay MPUD (Mixed Use Planned Unit Development) and is developed with residential units, lakes (former quarry) and conservation areas. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 3 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE East: To the east, across Richards Road, lands are designated RFMUD Receiving Lands and zoned A-MHO-RFMUO Receiving Lands (MHO-mobile home overlay). There is a County stormwater retention area then undeveloped lands. South: To the south, across Sundance Street, lands are designated RFMUD Receiving Lands and zoned A-RFMUO Receiving Lands. They are part of the La Morada residential golf course development. West: To the west, lands are designated RFMUD Receiving Lands and zoned A-RFMUO Receiving Lands. Some parcels are undeveloped and wooded while others contain a single-family dwelling. The Future Land Use Map designates land lying immediately west (and southwest) of the subject property Rural Fringe Mixed Use District-Receiving Lands. In summary, the existing and planned land uses, and zoning, in the area surrounding the subject property are primarily low-density single-family residences and undeveloped acreage parcels. STAFF ANALYSIS Along this segment of Immokalee Road, a six-lane divided arterial, the RFMUD Receiving Lands comprises a 3-mile corridor. It begins one mile east of Collier Blvd. and extends east to Golden Gate Estates. Land uses along this corridor, running west to east, are generally identified below. North Side of Immokalee Road • 1st Mile: A portion of the 2,562-acre Heritage Bay PUD/DRI approved for 3,450 DUs (gross density of 1.35 DU/A), 66 acres/230,000 s.f. of commercial development, 200 ALF units, golf courses, 863+ acres of wetlands, and 677 acres of lakes (487 acres are former quarry). The entire PUD/DRI comprises four Sections (+4 square miles); three Sections are designated RFMUD Receiving Lands, and one Section is Urban Residential Subdistrict and Mixed-Use Activity Center Subdistrict. The entire PUD/DRI is also within the Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Area Overlay, established in 2003 by a private sector GMP amendment, which allows the density from the Urban Section to be distributed throughout the Overlay. • 2nd Mile: Bonita Bay East Golf Course, which includes a significant amount of conservation lands, zoned A-RFMUO Receiving Lands. • 3rd Mile: Twin Eagles Golf & Country Club, a residential golf course development, a portion of which utilizes TDR credits; the gross density is <1 DU/A. The development is zoned A-RFMUO Receiving Lands. South Side of Immokalee Road • 1st Mile: Portion of La Morada residential and golf course development; utilizes TDR credits; gross density is < 1 DU/A. Church on 9.35-acre parcel. Two undeveloped, wooded parcels, +8 acres, and 17.25 acres. Portion of La Morada. Fogg’s plant nursery on +17.5 acres. An undeveloped, wooded parcel, +17.25 acres. Subject site. All of these properties are zoned A- RFMUO Receiving Lands. Staff’s opinion is there is little opportunity to aggregate properties. • 2nd Mile: County stormwater management pond on +7.7 acres. Four undeveloped, wooded parcels, +18.3 acres, 8.6 acres, +0.5 acres, +0.9 acres. Two parcels containing one single- family dwelling and a horse training facility (7.25 acres total), and an undeveloped parcel (+18.4 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 4 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE acres), all three of which comprise a portion of a site for which a 2019 pre-application meeting was held for a church conditional use. A church on +9.1 acres. Three undeveloped, wooded parcels, 3.6 acres, +2.2 acres, +1.4 acres. A church on land zoned MPUD (+35 acres), approved for church, school, childcare and ALF-assisted living facility. Two undeveloped, wooded, 0.5-acre parcels. A 22-acre public school site, frontage portion recently cleared. Three undeveloped parcels, each between +1.1 and +1.2 acres. Except for the one MPUD, all of these lands are zoned A-RFMUO Receiving Lands. Staff sees two potential opportunities to aggregate property, one of which is the site of the proposed church CU. • 3rd Mile: Brentwood Lakes (fka Twin Eagles South) platted residential subdivision, cleared and infrastructure work underway; utilizes TDR credits. Two undeveloped parcels comprising +24.4 acres that is the site of a pending GMP amendment and PUD rezoning proposing a mixed-use project to allow 44,400 s.f of commercial, daycare, and 129 DUs yielding a gross density of 5.29 DU/A. (Not fronting Immokalee Road is a landscape maintenance business on +15.7 acres.) Nine parcels varying in size from +0.75 to 13 acres – four are undeveloped and wooded, three are in agricultural use, two contain a SFDU each. County stormwater management pond on +5.1 acres. Two parcels in agricultural use, 1.1 and +1.4 acres. All of these lands are zoned A-RFMUO Receiving Lands. Given the small size of most parcels and the existence of SFDUs, staff’s opinion is there is minimal opportunity to aggregate property. In summary, all adjacent properties on the south side of Immokalee Road are limited to 1 DU/5 acres (0.2 DU/A) and agricultural uses by right, and are currently undeveloped or contain a single-family dwelling; and all property on south side of Immokalee Road in this 3-mile corridor of RFMUD Receiving Lands are developed or approved with residential density <1 DU/A or agricultural uses or institutional uses allowed by the RFMUO Receiving Lands zoning overlay. It is acknowledged the site fronts on a six-lane divided road, has central utilities available, and is across Immokalee Road from the urban-style development of Heritage Bay. However, staff also notes that Heritage Bay opposite this site is separated by both Immokalee Road and the Cocohatchee Canal, and then within Heritage Bay is a landscape berm and buffer, a local road, then a single row of 1 story dwellings. Further, Heritage Bay has an approved density of 1.35 DU/A. In staff’s opinion, though the proposed density might not be incompatible with surrounding density based upon high level view, it is out of character with the adjacent and extended area development pattern in the RFMUD Receiving Lands corridor along Immokalee Road. Appropriateness of the Site and the Change: The Meyers Research Needs Analysis (June 2018), is part of the supporting data & analysis submitted with GMPA application materials (Exhibit V.D.1.). The Meyers Research analyzes the [specific] need for this number of residences at this location. The Analysis indicates that the projected population growth provides sufficient demand for the density already allowed by the RFMUD Receiving Lands. Staff’s opinion is that this amendment will not increase the countywide population, rather reallocate a small portion of the population growth such that there is an increase to this site of 113 persons (124 persons vs. presently allowed 11 persons). [Calculations: 77 DUs per the Overlay x 2.38 persons per household (countywide ratio) x 0.675 (67.5% - the countywide occupancy rate) = 124 persons.] The amendment will introduce new residential density (77 DUs v. 7 DUs) by establishing 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 5 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE a future land use designation in an area where it is not now allowed. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is out of character with the surrounding development pattern. Per the petitioner materials, the subject parcel was previously 40+ acres in size; as such, it qualified to utilize TDRs to increase density to a maximum of 1 DU/A. W hen the County acquired a portion of the site to expand Immokalee Road ROW, resulting in the parcel size of 37.62 acres, the landowner was compensated, presumably for the value of the changes to property rights and made whole. This overlay would now return the rights to the property owner to use TDRs plus double the allowable density through a “buy one get one” allowance. The petitioner notes similarities between this site and proposed overlay with the Urban Residential Fringe (URF) Subdistrict and contends that the overlay provides for a transition between Urban and Rural Fringe areas/densities. The URF: is located along the east side of Collier Blvd., a 6-lane divided road, from Beck Blvd. (near I-75) south to US 41 East; is served by central utilities; is one mile wide; comprises +8.5 Sections (+5,400 acres); limits density to 1.5 DU/A or 2.5 DU/A with use of TDR credits; is intended to serve as a transition between higher densities allowed on the west side of Collier Blvd. (Urban Residential Subdistrict, 4 DU/A base and potentially higher if qualifying for a density bonus(es) and the RFMUD to the east (mostly Sending Lands, 1 DU/40 acres); and, is within the Urban FLUM designation. Staff notes this small property fronts a 6-lane divided road and is served by central utilities, but it provides no transition as it is +0.9 mile east of the urban boundary - it is an island surrounded by RFMUD Receiving Lands limited, residentially, to a rural density of 1 DU/5 acres (0.2 DU/A) - or up to 1 DU/A utilizing TDRs but only for projects of >40 contiguous acres (the closest portion of the La Morada project, which uses TDRs, is +660 feet to the west and not fronting Immokalee Road). While staff might characterize the proposed density as urban sprawl, it must be acknowledged that one could argue the presently allowed density is also urban sprawl. RFMUD Restudy White Paper The RFMUD White Paper presents a compilation of public comments gathered from the various meetings and workshops held in the community to solicit public input as well as staff recommendations. One of those recommendations is to consider allowing a density up to two DU/A but only for affordable/workforce housing projects. BCC direction for RFMUD GMP amendments includes for staff to take into account housing affordability, mobility, economic vitality, and environmental protection. This petition doesn’t address any of these considerations and specifically doesn’t propose affordable/workforce housing; though there is a proposed density increase for additional native vegetation retention, there is no incentive to do so since the maximum allowable density can be achieved via the purchase of TDR credits and equivalent number of free DUs. Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes Data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 6 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: (f) All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue. 1. Surveys, studies, and data utilized in the preparation of the comprehensive plan may not be deemed a part of the comprehensive plan unless adopted as a part of it. Copies of such studies, surveys, data, and supporting documents for proposed plans and plan amendments shall be made available for public inspection, and copies of such plans shall be made available to the public upon payment of reasonable charges for reproduction. Support data or summaries are not subject to the compliance review process, but the comprehensive plan must be clearly based on appropriate data. Support data or summaries may be used to aid in the determination of compliance and consistency. 2. Data must be taken from professionally accepted sources. The application of a methodology utilized in data collection or whether a particular methodology is professionally accepted may be evaluated. However, the evaluation may not include whether one accepted methodology is better than another. Original data collection by local governments is not required. However, local governments may use original data so long as methodologies are professionally accepted. 3. The comprehensive plan shall be based upon permanent and seasonal population estimates and projections, which shall either be those published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research or generated by the local government based upon a professionally acceptable methodology. The plan must be based on at least the minimum amount of land required to accommodate the medium projections as published by the Office of Economic and Demographic Research for at least a 10-year planning period unless otherwise limited under s. 380.05, including related rules of the Administration Commission. Absent physical limitations on population growth, population projections for each municipality, and the unincorporated area within a county must, at a minimum, be reflective of each area’s proportional share of the total county population and the total county population growth. Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. Florida Statutes: 2. The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as applicable, including: a. The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth. b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area. c. The character of undeveloped land. d. The availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services. e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 7 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE f. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations. g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and consistent with s. 333.02. h. The discouragement of urban sprawl. i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will strengthen and diversify the community’s economy. j. The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions. Section 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes: (a) A future land use plan element designating proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, agriculture, recreation, conservation, education, public facilities, and other categories of the public and private uses of land. The approximate acreage and the general range of density or intensity of use shall be provided for the gross land area included in each existing land use category. The element shall establish the long-term end toward which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. 8. Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following analyses: a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services. b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic resources on site. c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of this section. It is incumbent upon the petitioner to provide appropriate and relevant data and analysis to address the statutory requirements for a Plan amendment, then present and defend, as necessary, that data and analysis. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: A Traffic Impact Statement, dated January 25, 2019, prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, Inc., was submitted with this petition (Exhibit “V.E.3”). It notes that all traffic accessing the property comes from Immokalee Road (35% to/from the east; 65% to/from the west). Collier County Transportation Planning staff reviewed this petition and had no objection to its approval, finding it consistent with Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Environmental Impacts: A Protected Species Survey, dated October 2, 2018, prepared by Earth Tech Environmental, LLC (ETE), was submitted with this petition (Exhibit V.C.1). Environmental specialists with County Development Review Division, Environmental Planning Section, reviewed these documents and provided the following comments: 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 8 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE The subject property is visited by bear, panther, bobcat and other animal species. The levels of protections granted to these animals, along with their habitat found on property, affects the potential for development. The native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the GMP and Section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Public Facilities Impacts: A Public Facilities Report, dated January 29, 2019 (Exhibit V.E.1), was submitted with this petition and concluded there is adequate capacity of public infrastructure to serve the proposed project – potable water, wastewater collection and treatment, solid waste collection and disposal, stormwater management, parks and recreational facilities, public schools, and emergency medical (EMS) and fire rescue services. Appropriate staff reviewed this petition and identified no issues or concerns regarding impacts upon public infrastructure. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS The application team held a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) in the Sanctuary of the Peace Lutheran Church, located at 9850 Immokalee Road, Naples on June 12, 2019, at 5:30 p.m. as required by Section 10.03.05 F. of the LDC. This NIM was advertised, noticed and held jointly for this GMP amendment petition and companion PUD rezone petition [which is not under formal consideration with this GMPA transmittal hearing]. Approximately fifteen people other than the applicant team and County staff attended ‒ and heard the following information: Robert Mulhere (agent representing the applicant) of Hole Montes, presented an overview of the proposed development, and how it first required amendments to the County’s Growth Management Plan. He explained that this Plan amendment was a full-scale amendment that will be heard by the Planning Commission and the County Board for both transmittal and adoption hearings over a number of months. Mr. Mulhere pointed out the property location fronted on three sides by Immokalee Road (N), Richards Street (E) and Sunset Road (S). This project is designed to access directly onto Richards Street with its main entry and an additional emergency-only access. He identified a number of residential developments nearby, including La Morada and Bent Creek. This project is designed to develop predominantly the southerly half of the property residentially while protecting those less-developable [natural] areas characterizing the northerly half. Mr. Mulhere invited, heard, and responded to questions and comments. Several members of the public spoke, asking questions, seeking more information, expressing concerns, and expressing opposition for the proposed project. Many of them identified themselves as being residents of the nearby rural agricultural area, who use and upkeep the private roads Richards Street, Sunset Road, and Krape Road. Their comments and concerns included: • How the property is already entitled to a relatively high residential density using TDRs; and, what reasons are given to grant additional, higher density this property? • Traffic congestion; including adopting these local private roads into use by new residential traffic [without proposing compensating improvements, directional signage, etc.], directly 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 9 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE accessing Richards Street at its main entry where vehicles waiting on Richards already do not have the stacking depth to allow additional vehicles, introducing new or additional turning maneuver conflicts crossing through the Immokalee Road medians at Richards Street and Krape Road. • How past or current property owners have allowed [3rd party] ditching or berming along portions of the site resulting with improperly displaced surface water offsite [especially across Richards Street then on to neighboring properties]; and, if property development will discharge its surface waters into these areas to compound the problem, or if the design will attempt to correct these problems and restore a more-natural flow? • How the property, like their own, (was, and) is suitable for low-density development intended by the Rural Fringe [Mixed Use District]. • The County should keep the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) intact [without the changes proposed by this GMP amendment.] • Project characteristics, The incompatibility of this high-density project with the established surrounding low-density residential area (too narrow, too small), as now planned, is out of character with the area. • Impacts on the neighborhood taxes? The agent explained how effects are minimized, as Impact Fees paid by the developer absorb the costs of new or additional services required by the development. • Emergency services and the conflicts of introducing new and additional traffic onto these private roadways are where problems already apparent; agent answered that Fire District representatives review these proposals for the impacts on their ability to provide services and are addressing these concerns. The strong consensus was expressed in opposition to developing the subject property as proposed. The Information Meeting was ended at approximately 6:30 p.m. This synopsis provides the annotated NIM proceedings. An audio recording of the entire Neighborhood Information Meeting is available on the County’s “I” drive, at I:/GMD/Comprehensive Planning/NIM Recordings & PREAPP Notes. [Synopsis prepared by C. Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • The subject site and surrounding lands are designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands; the Urban designated area is 0.9 miles to the west. • This petition proposes to allow 77 dwelling units (2 DU/A) with the net effect being an increase of 70 DUs. Density is achieved via use of TDRs and a “buy one get one free” density allowance. • Surrounding properties, and properties within the 3-mile Immokalee Road corridor in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands in which this site is located, are limited to a maximum density of 1 DU/5 Acres (0.2 DU/A) - or up to 1 DU/A via use of TDRs if >40 acres in size; 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 10 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE agricultural uses; essential services; institutional uses by conditional use (e.g. daycare center, ALF, church). • The requested density of 2 DU/A is out of character with the RFMUD Receiving Lands in which the site is located. • The RFMUD White Paper includes a staff recommendation for a density increase to 2 DU/A but only for affordable/workforce housing, and BCC direction is to include consideration for housing affordability, mobility, economic vitality, and environmental protection. The subject site is 37.62 acres, and the proposed overlay does not address these considerations. • The subject parcel was previously >40 acres prior to Immokalee Road widening. The owner was compensated for the land taken for that road. • The subject site fronts Immokalee Road (CR 846), a 6-lane divided arterial road, and County water and wastewater service is available to the site. • There are no issues or concerns regarding LOS impacts upon public infrastructure or upon natural (environmental) resources or historical/archaeological resources. • People attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting expressed opposition to the proposed intensity and density of this Overlay and the companion PUD project. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on August 16, 2019. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element and map series are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2. and 163.3177(6)(a)8., Florida Statutes. [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Based on the analyses provided within this report, staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20180002668/CP-2018-7 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity and other statutorily required agencies. However, if, and only if, the CCPC forwards the petition with a recommendation to approve, staff recommends the density be reduced to 1 DU/A (37 DUs) via use of TDRs (the density that could have been achieved prior to the taking of a portion of the site for Immokalee Road widening) – as reflected below. (Note: single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, and double strike through text is deleted, as proposed by staff; all subsequent portions of the petitioner’s proposed Overlay text would be deleted.) C. Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay 1. The Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately two (2) miles east of Collier Boulevard (approximately one (1) mile east of the Urban Boundary), and consists of 37.62± acres. The Overlay is within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and is designated as Receiving Lands. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 11 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE 2. Development within the Overlay shall adhere to applicable RFMUD Receiving Lands standards and regulations, except where otherwise stated in this Overlay and subject to the following: a. Primary access shall be via Immokalee Road. b. The maximum density shall be 77 37 dwelling units. c. Density shall be achieved as follows: as provided for in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands for parcels forty (40) acres or larger in size. Staff provides the following reminder: This GMP amendment follows the Expedited State Review process. Chapter 163.3184 (3)(c)1, Florida Statutes, provides that the County Board (local governing body) shall hold its Adoption (second public) hearing within 180 days after receipt of agency comments, unless extended by agreement with notice to the DEO (state land planning agency) and any affected person that provided comments on the amendment. This notification, review, and comment process period is approximately 7.5 months (225 days) from the time the County Board holds its Transmittal (initial public) hearing. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) Agenda Item 9. ‒ 12 ‒ PL20180002668 / CP-2018-7 Ventana Pointe Residential Overlay in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District - FLUE 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Transmittal Staff Report_CP-18-7dw-hacFNL (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 302Attachment: Transmittal Resolution (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: CCPC Advertisement_CP-18-7 Ventana Point (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 304Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 305Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 306Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 307Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 308Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 309Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 310Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 311Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 312Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 313Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 314Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 315Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 316Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 317Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 318Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 319Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 320Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 321Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 322Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 323Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 324Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 325Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 326Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 327Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 328Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 329Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 330Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 331Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 333Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 340Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 341Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 342Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 343Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 344Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 345Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 346Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 347Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 348Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 349Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 350Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 351Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 352Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 353Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 354Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 355Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 356Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 357Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 358Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 359Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 360Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 361Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 362Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 363Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 364Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 365Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 366Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 367Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 368Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 369Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 370Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 371Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 373Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 374Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 375Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 376Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 378Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 379Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 380Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 381Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 382Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 383Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 384Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 386Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 387Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 389Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 390Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 391Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 392Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 393Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 394Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 395Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 396Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 397Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 398Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 399Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 400Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 401Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 404Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 405Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 406Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 407Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 408Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 409Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA Transmittal) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Transmittal Petition_Application-Ventana Pointe GMPA (9764 : Ventana Pointe GMPA