Loading...
CCPC Agenda 09/19/2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 9/16/2019 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 19, 2019 9: 00 AM Mark Strain - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Edwin Fryer - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Stan Chrzanowski, Environmental Joseph Schmitt, Environmental Thomas Eastman, Collier County School Board Note: Individual speakers will be limited to 5 minutes on any item. Individuals selected to speak on behalf of an organization or group are encouraged and may be allotted 10 minutes to speak on an item if so recognized by the chairman. Persons wishing to have written or graphic materials included in the CCPC agenda packets must submit said material a minimum of 10 days prior to the respective public hearing. In any case, written materials intended to be considered by the CCPC shall be submitted to the appropriate county staff a minimum of seven days prior to the public hearing. All material used in presentations before the CCPC will become a permanent part of the record and will be available for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners if applicable. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the CCPC will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. September 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 9/16/2019 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. August 7, 2019, CCPC/LDC Minutes B. August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. PUDA PL20180003155: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 04-74, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD), to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1600 to 1950; and providing an effective date. The subject property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 616+/- acres. (PL20180003155) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] 2. PL20180003659: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Mixed Use Activity Center #16 Map by designating 10 acres in the Courthouse Shadows Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay eligible for residential development up to 12.8 units an acre plus a base density of 4 units an acre for the MPUD and up to 97 density pool units for the MPUD as determined by a rezone. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 And 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 10 acres of a 20.35+/- acre MPUD; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to PL20180003658) [Coordinator Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] September 2019 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 9/16/2019 3. PL20180003658: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending PL20180003658: Ordinance Number 92-08, as amended, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development by adding 300 multi-family rental dwelling units as a permitted use in addition to the commercial development; by adding development standards for residential only buildings; by adding deviations related to the residential uses; by revising development commitments and by revising the master plan. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to GMP item number PL20180003659) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] 4. PL20190000044: A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.96 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,500 residential dwelling units; a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center and a minimum of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center; a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities subject to a floor area ratio of 0.45 in place of a maximum square footage; and an 18 hole golf course; all subject to a maximum PM peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 5877.44 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located south of 45th Avenue NE and north of 26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, AICP, PLA] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 09/19/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: August 7, 2019, CCPC/LDC Minutes Meeting Date: 09/19/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 08/19/2019 4:49 PM Submitted by: Title: Dept Head - Growth Management – Growth Management Department Name: Thaddeus Cohen 08/19/2019 4:49 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 08/19/2019 4:50 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/19/2019 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 4 “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 1 of 19 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 7, 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 5:05 p.m., in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn Joe Schmitt Tom Eastman ALSO PRESENT: Jeremy Frantz, Land Development Code Manager Ellen Summers, Senior Planner Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Sally Ashkar, Assistant County Attorney 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 5 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 2 of 19 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the 5:05 evening meeting, August 7th, for the Collier County Planning Commission. It's for LDC amendments. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Will the secretary please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chair, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And Schmitt and Dearborn are excused absences, and that will take us into addenda to the agenda. We've only got one item scheduled for tonight, two issues on one item. That's the only thing that will stay on the agenda. And we just want to check with everybody. On August 15th we have a regular meeting. Does anybody know if they're not going to make it to that meeting? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The two things that are on it are what was continued from the last meeting, so you should have the packet -- most of the packet already. We also -- I believe it's been added to the agenda just for consent only is the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, since that was a meeting that they had already for it. So it will be consent hearing. And with that, we'll move into public hearings. The only advertised public hearing is the Land Development Code amendments for the airplane zoning maps for the Naples Municipal Airport, the Marco Island Executive Airport, the Everglades Airpark, the Immokalee Airport, and the review of the airspace obstructions, and we're also going to be reviewing the pricing signage for facilities with fuel pumps for electronic message boards. And it's legislative, so we'll just move right into the presentation by staff. And there's no members of the public here, so my assumption is everybody in this room is either staff or us, and we should have all read the packet. You can abbreviate your presentation to get right to the issues if you'd like; however you'd like to do it. MS. SUMMERS: For the record, Ellen Summers, senior planner. It's just a few slides just to give an introduction -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. MS. SUMMERS: -- if you'd like me to go through that. Back in 2016, Chapter 333 of the Florida statutes was updated, and this amendment to the Florida Statute required local municipalities with existing airport protection regulations to permit the construction of any airspace obstruction utilizing the established criteria from the Florida statutes, address obstruction marking and lighting standards, and to amend any conflicting zoning regulations that would conflict with 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 3 of 19 the Florida Statutes. So this LDC amendment provides a new definitions section which cross-references the Florida Statutes. It creates a new process for the review of airspace obstructions. It also eliminates any conflicts with the Florida Statutes. Additionally, that update to the Florida Statute included a few airport land-use compatibility regulations that have also been added to the amendment, and in order to implement the airspace obstruction review, this amendment also implements new zoning maps for that visible depiction of the airspace obstruction standards. Just to give a little overview of what an airspace obstruction is, because we'll be talking about that a lot today, it's any object that exceeds those federal obstruction standards and that could have a potential impact into air navigation, and that can be a structure as well as terrain or a tree. In those federal obstruction standards, they describe five imaginary surfaces which is what we have as far as our different standards go in the LDC amendment, and each of those standards are incorporated into the tables of the LDC as well as the maps within Appendix D of the amendment. These are our five different surfaces we're going to talk about, just to give you a visual. And this is an example of what those maps will look like on staff's GIS so that we have the contours to look at the different height limitations for different areas within the county. And the airspace obstruction review, this will occur at time of the Site Development Plan or building permit review. It requires us to receive a copy of the FAA notice form as well as the FAA's final determination as to whether or not the proposed structure or object will be a hazard or an obstruction. This review also requires coordination with the affected airport authorities as well as the requirement to send all those materials to the FDOT ASO, which they will provide technical guidance to. Brief presentation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That was perfect. Thank you. With that, then we'll move right into questions. I think the first thing on our -- in order of which you sent them to us is the -- isn't the automotive sign one the first one? Yes, that starts on Page 2. Is that -- MR. FRANTZ: And if we could skip past that, we've got representatives of the Naples Airport. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I have no problem. I just wanted to make -- what page -- what page do we start on then? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Twelve. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Twelve. Let's see if -- it's mine 14, but that works. MS. SUMMERS: So on Monday I sent you-all a memorandum that has updated text language, and I would like to go through that if you-all have a copy of it. If not, I have copies available. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'd like a copy. MS. SUMMERS: After the official packets were sent out to you-all, we received some additional comments, and we wanted to incorporate that into the drafts so that we could present this to you-all, and I can go through those changes before we get into any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Just so you know, our -- the only person up here who has a visual based on these little monitors that are up here is Karen. The rest of us are -- they're turned off for some reason. MS. SUMMERS: They're turned off. Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. If everybody was sitting to the right, we'd have it made. But everybody to the right doesn't have one. MS. SUMMERS: And I'll just briefly go through the highlighted changes. And starting on Page 2, just a couple of updates in the naming the City of Naples Airport Authority. So we have updated that throughout the amendment, as well as the -- we previously stated the Naples Airport map. It's the Naples Municipal Airport map. On the next page, Page 3, in Section 2.03.07 C.1.B, we've updated the purpose and intent to also 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 4 of 19 include to protect the full utility, the public investment of the public-use airports within the county. And in Subsection D, we removed the language that states to provide building height standards, as these height standards could apply to terrain or other objects as well. The next highlighted change occurs on Page 8, and that's Subsection (M)(2). This addition includes the review materials that would be needed for an airspace obstruction review. That includes the copy of the FAA form, a copy of the final FAA determination, as well as a narrative statement identifying -- or providing a detailed explanation or description of how that proposed obstruction meets the criteria in Subsection (M)(3). We added this for clarity so that there's no confusion. If review is required at time of building permit, they know what other items are to be submitted. Should I continue? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. You said you wanted -- we'll go back through and ask questions after you brief us on the -- MS. SUMMERS: Yeah. I wanted to make sure you all are aware of the highlighted changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I'm highlighting as we go. Thank you. MS. SUMMERS: One other addition was on Subsection (M)(3)(i), and that's the addition of criteria that states that comments and recommendations from the FDOT ASO, as well as the affected airports, aviation operations, and safety experts. Gives us the ability to have a little bit more input on these proposed obstructions. On the following page, Page 9, we've added additional information regarding the obstruction lighting and marking, just to reference the FAA advisory circular. Additionally, in Subsection 5, we wanted to make it clear that if the FAA has determined a proposed object is a hazard, that it would not be permitted. Same page, Subsection (N)(5), just updating terminology, that the proper term is "runway protection zones." And that's all the changes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, Page 10, you've got some standardized changes for municipal and -- MS. SUMMERS: Right. Those continue throughout the entire amendment, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's all the changes for the whole document? MS. SUMMERS: I'm sorry. On the administrative code section -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SUMMERS: -- starting on Page 29, we've just modified that language slightly to indicate that FAA must review these as well, and also a link for applicants, that they can go and see who needs to be -- or when their project needs to be noticed to the FAA. And that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Why don't we move to -- any Planning Commission members have any questions? Stan, and then Ned. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. Just one. When I got the packet -- I'm not an expert. I'm not a pilot. I'm only an engineer. I did a Control F search on FAA, figuring they're the experts, and you do have a lot of references, you know, get this, get that, talk to the FAA, whatever. Did you send a copy of this to the FAA and ask them for any comments to make sure that they agree with what we're doing? MS. SUMMERS: No, we did not. Once this is adopted, we are required to send a copy of it to the FDOT ASO, and the changes are -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: FDOT ASO. FDOT safety officer, what? MS. SUMMERS: It's the Airspace Aviation and Spaceports Office. They previously would review these obstructions, but what the state statute changed, they're available for technical guidance, and now it is the municipality's requirement to review them. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. So none of this ever goes to the FAA? Okay. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 5 of 19 Thanks. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Might the state forward it? MS. SUMMERS: That I do not know. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. I had an informative conversation with Ellen and Jeremy on the phone, so most of my questions were answered. I thought it was interesting, though, in contrast to the typical way things happen in Tallahassee to remove authority and responsibility from counties and municipalities. In this case, there is authority and responsibility being given from the state to the counties and municipalities, and then I realized what's really going on here: This is an unfunded mandate because there's no money going along with the new obligations, I take it, correct? No money coming down to cover us for the additional work that's being laid off on us. MS. SUMMERS: Not that I'm aware of. COMMISSIONER FRYER: My specific questions -- first of all, I'll cover a couple of what might be typos and then some more substantive questions. On Page 14 of 15, which corresponds to Page 3 of this handout, we're talking about the proposed revisions to 2.03.07(C). And C is divided into one subdivision, one, and then that subdivision is presently drafted as divided into 1, 2, 3, 4 -- 7, I guess, subsections or subdivisions. And I think, logically, what needs to happen here is that the lowercase letters need to be promoted to Arabic numerals beginning with 2, because these -- the ones, A through F, are really of like kind as No. 1. They're not really, logically, subsets of No. 1. They relate equally to Subsection C of the ordinance and don't go through 1, logically, to get to C. Heidi, does that make sense to you? I'm sort of talking lawyer here. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, if I'm understanding you correctly -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your mike. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: If I'm understanding you correctly, your issue is with the lowercase C; that you feel it should be a Roman numeral? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Jeremy, correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire LDC is based on this format. So if you change this section, you won't be following the format of the other sections of the LDC. MR. FRANTZ: I think the way I understood what you asked was to move A through F to now become C.2 through whatever that number would be. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes, that's what I was asking. MS. SUMMERS: And that may be correct. That may have been a drafting error. COMMISSIONER FRYER: A through F are of equal dignity to No. 1. They shouldn't be set out as subsections of 1. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Whatever your preference. This language is existing text that staff is modifying. So staff just worked with the format that was already provided. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just trying to make it accurate. MR. FRANTZ: It doesn't strike me as an issue to move those out, to become 2 through -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: You don't see a problem with doing that? MR. FRANTZ: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. All right. Then on 4.02.06, this is the same page, A, it says, the definitions shall be applicable to the terms of this section unless the text and/or context of this section provides otherwise. I'm okay with that word. I mean, the standard language in the esoteric language of the law would have said requires otherwise. But since this is -- well, this is new actually, though. So it would, I think, be more accurate if you change "provides" to "requires." I'm not going to fall on my sword over it the way I would have with the previous one, so... MS. SUMMERS: Any questions? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if you guys don't feel you understand it or think it's not necessary, just speak up; otherwise, we'll just assume you're going to make these grammatical changes. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 6 of 19 MR. FRANTZ: Okay. Yeah, I mean, I'm not hearing anything that we can't change so far. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Then into more substantive things. First of all, the -- Ellen informed me -- Ellen and Jeremy explained to me that there's an interlocal agreement between the City of Naples and the County of Collier with respect to coordinating the regulation of the airport because some of these surfaces spill outside the city limits, I believe, and are in unincorporated Collier. And so there is -- there has been an effort to coordinate the regulations. And I take -- and I see Chris here, of course, and I take that it's been closely coordinated, and the City of Naples and Collier County are satisfied that the interlocal has brought forth a coordinated logical and systematic regulation of this new subject? MR. FRANTZ: We haven't taken on the interlocal as a part of this LDC amendment process, but the County Attorney's Office is working with the Airport Authority to make some changes to the existing interlocal. I can't speak right now to where that is in the process. But as a part of our -- as a part of how we've thought about the actual review, we have worked through the implementation and when would our staff be notifying the affected airport and those kinds of issues. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I guess what -- I'm not asking it clearly, but my question really is that since a coordinated effort is required in order to accomplish what the federal government is now asking us to do, that -- I'm going to ask the same thing of the airport director, if he doesn't mind answering -- that is Collier County satisfied that the effort has been coordinated, there are no points of stress there or disagreement, and that nothing that we need to worry about with respect to the coordination between city and county? MR. FRANTZ: From the LDC perspective, there's nothing that we're concerned about. We're actually pretty happy that we think we are going to be introducing improvements to the review process for developments that are going to occur within these zones. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chris, were you planning on saying a word? MR. ROZANSKY: I can respond to any questions. I don't have any public comment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Well, would you respond to mine, if you wouldn't mind. I just want a signal from the city and the county that things are going smoothly with respect to that interlocal agreement since a coordinated effort is required in order to comply with the new requirements. That's all I'm looking for. MR. ROZANSKY: Sure. Chris Rozansky, executive director for the Naples Airport Authority. The interlocal is between the Airport Authority and Collier County that we are working with through the County Attorney's Office. And so our understanding is that will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners. And we've already submitted our comments on that, and the County Attorney's Office and the planning staff have been, you know, very good to work with and responsive to our comments, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. So no issues? No conflict? MR. ROZANSKY: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's really all I wanted to hear. MR. ROZANSKY: We agree it's going to result in some improvements actually, so... COMMISSIONER FRYER: While you're up there, if I may -- and I'm going to be coming back to Ellen as well. But there is a project afoot in Naples off Goodlette-Frank between the 700 and 900 block that extends east really almost all the way toward the western boundary of the airport. And although I didn't measure it the way Stan could have, it seems as though this Naples Commons project is going to be quite close to one of the runways, and it's -- it is planned. It hasn't been vetted by the city government yet, but the petitioners are asking for six habitable levels over two of parking, which to me says it could be, I don't know, 90 feet, perhaps, something like that in actual height. And so my question is is that -- is this going to be looked at, if it hasn't been looked at already? And how close could, let's say, a 90-foot building be to the end of one of your runways? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 7 of 19 MR. ROZANSKY: So about a year ago we completed a process of assisting the city and their planning commission with the update of their airport zoning ordinance. That, too, includes an interlocal agreement. So that outlines the city's requirements where they would need to notify us to take a look and review it. To my knowledge, we haven't received that official request to review that project yet. So I would need to take a look at its proximity to the end of the nearest runway at the airport and look at the updated maps that we had provided for that ordinance to see exactly how high a building could be established. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's going to come before the Naples Planning Advisory Board on August 23rd, and I plan to be there and will be asking those questions. I know you don't routinely go to those, but -- and I'm not suggesting you would need to, but it might be useful if they know what the parameters would be from the Airport Authority because to me, just looking at that, it seems awfully close. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: This wouldn't apply to that project. They're outside of our jurisdiction, so I'm not sure -- so I think the question is, has Naples -- has the City of Naples adapted these similar standards, and then that would be the issue you're looking for, right? MR. ROZANSKY: We did about a year ago, so -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That would come -- MR. ROZANSKY: -- that would be the process. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- under the jurisdiction of the City of Naples to get to that. Okay. That's what I was trying to -- okay. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay, good. And then my last question has to do with the mini-triangle which, again, to me seemed like an awfully high structure. The -- will that be revisited? I know it's been permitted, at least for zoning purposes. MR. ROZANSKY: As far as the Airport Authority is concerned, we reached an amenable agreement. There is a restrictive height covenant that would have to be executed by the new owner of the property if the -- upon closing of that. And as far as we're concerned, you know, we're okay with that. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: On Page 12 of your document, the mini-triangle is exempt from the process. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And is that because of a vested-right issue, or is it because, genuinely, we're not concerned with safety issues? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Because the LDC was amended to exempt it when the mini-triangle project went through as a companion item. COMMISSIONER FRYER: But I guess if there are any changes to the mini-triangle, that could be revisited in -- if there are changes in height, for instance, or in where the buildings are spotted? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Let me check the language real quick. MS. SUMMERS: In the mini-triangle PUD they do address that issue with the height, and it also cites an FAA determination. So if they were to change their allowed height in the PUD, they'd have to go through the PUD amendment or insubstantial change process, and that would be addressed. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. Thank you. That's -- wait a minute. I had one on Page 40. Let me see what this is. Oh, on Page 29 -- and we're in the administrative regulations now. You make reference to a CD-ROM, which is kind of limiting these days. I mean, DVD and thumb drives and the like are more prevalent. But I guess since it was already in there, you probably don't want to plan it, but I thought I'd mention it. MS. SUMMERS: Correct. That's an existing standard. It's in the LDC as well. And we have that in a few other sections of the administrative code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I had. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Chris, can we assume from your presence here and just from the 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 8 of 19 comments you've made that you have been part of this process and you are of aver (sic) of the changes that have been constructed? MR. ROZANSKY: We have, and we've worked extensively with the county staff and the County Attorney's Office, and we are satisfied with what you have here before you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I was hoping that one of you could give us, me, a couple of examples of challenges that you've had in the past and how this new language will help address those challenges and make things more -- work more smoothly moving forward. Just one or two. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Wasn't this new language initiated because it's a new requirement of the federal government? It's not ours. So it wasn't a matter of us having a challenge we have to reach with it. It's a matter of the government requires it now and we have to follow suit. Is that -- MR. ROZANSKY: The federal government hasn't changed their standards. The State of Florida did. The prior statute established a variance process and this, in turn, eliminates the variance process and creates a permitting process. That's the thrust of it. So, really, the reviews that took place in the past are very similar. The level of effort is -- I would say is similar, but it provides for a permit instead of a variance. COMMISSIONER FRY: So in laymen terms, why is this -- why is this better? MS. SUMMERS: I don't think it's a better or worse situation. It's just now that we have this requirement to review these airspace obstructions based on that Florida Statute change. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The county's now required to issue a permit whereas before we weren't expressly required to issue a permit. And the way staff structured it is the permit review requirements became a component of the SDP or building permit issuance. So that's how they structured it. And then they worked closely with the City of Naples Airport Authority, with Chris, I think, primarily, to update the maps and to update some of the regulations. COMMISSIONER FRY: So I was responding to a comment, I believe, that this would streamline the process moving forward somewhat. It would be an improved process. So I was just looking to find out what -- you know, in what way? So it's now part of the permitting process and, basically, just should be more streamlined and more efficient than previously? MR. FRANTZ: Yeah. Maybe you're responding to when I mentioned that we were making some improvements. COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MR. FRANTZ: And what I was really referring to there was because we don't currently have a permitting process -- or because we're now adding it into our current review process, we can integrate it with -- we can integrate with the Airplane Authority a lot better because we didn't really have that before. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. MR. ROZANSKY: And I'll add, I think it's beneficial to petitioners as well because it outlines very clearly the criteria that will be reviewed, and I don't think you had that previously. So it provides clarity, both sides, for petitioners and for the personnel responsible for administering it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Very good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I've got a few. So let's start on Page 6, and that's of the document that was passed out, which is the same page number that we had. Let's use Naples Municipal Airport as the example. You have a runway reference, 14-32. What does that mean? I don't care who answers as long as we get the answer. MR. ROZANSKY: Runways are numbered by their magnetic heading, and you drop the zero. So the runway -- it's the same piece of pavement, but when you're taking off or landing to the northwest, you're using runway oriented towards 320 degrees, and it's the same in reverse, 180-degree difference. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And since this document specifically referenced the runway and 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 9 of 19 then the height ratio, before we get into that, on Page 18, why wouldn't a member of the public, say from another state who is thinking of investing in land down here and wanting to know how the airport affects that land, how could they find out which runway is 14-32 if it's not labeled on the map that's on Page 18? Is there some way we could get that done so that everything -- members of the public aren't going to be able to follow this, and that's just the first step on that table that I have a concern with. MS. SUMMERS: No, I understand that, but we have included the updated airport zoning maps, and we were also going to be doing an official zoning atlas update to show the perimeters on these airspace obstruction areas. Now, each of the updated maps -- for instance, for the Naples, those tables are now visually depicted. You have those ratios that are now given a height limitation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Back up. Show me where the depiction of 14-32 shows up on that map on Page 18, or whatever map you were wanting to refer me to in the packet you gave us to review. MS. SUMMERS: So if you see here, you have Runway 32. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Can you tell me -- I don't know where you're at. Oh. Now, where did you get that map? Because I can't read mine. MS. SUMMERS: This is a separate PDF document. To include it in the LDC amendment text, we had to scale it down. But this is what it would look like. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So the -- no. Let's back up a minute. So what the LDC amendment's going to portray is what goes to MUNI code, wouldn't it? MS. SUMMERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And MUNI code's going to produce that map? MS. SUMMERS: MUNI code will be able to provide them a PDF version where you would actually be able to open and -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So us -- MS. SUMMERS: -- be a better quality than what's provided in the -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: For us reviewing it tonight, though, we have no way of knowing how you've labeled 14-32, because my screen's not working, so I can't see your blowup, and it's a little too small. Maybe I'm too old, but I can't -- do you have 14-32 -- okay, there you go. So the labels are there, and they will be available, if someone were to go online, to blow it up so they can read it? MS. SUMMERS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Awe, good. Then that takes us to the next concerning element, and that's the ratio of 34-1. Can someone explain to me what that means? 34-1 what, and how would we apply it? And let's use the Naples Airport. And Ned brought up a really good project. Let's talk about the Goodlette project. It's going to be right over 14-32. So if they were going to go to X amount of height, how do you decipher that from the ratio of 34-1? What does that mean? MR. ROZANSKY: For -- so that means for every 34 feet horizontally you go one foot vertical. It's a step. Thirty-four feet horizontally, one step vertically. (Simultaneous crosstalk.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Starting from the center of the runway? MR. ROZANSKY: I believe it's starting from the end of the runway pavement, or it might be from 200 feet off the end of the runway pavement. I can't remember precisely. That would be identified in the definitions sections. MS. SUMMERS: It's -- the language here states that it would be at the runway end height at the inner edge -- the inner edge of the runway. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So someone would then have to have a scaled drawing if they were just doing their due diligence before they put a lot of money and engineering into a piece of property to determine if they could put a building of 100 feet within a certain distance of that airport, and they'd have 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 10 of 19 to know where that point started and how the scale works to wherever far out it goes? Is that -- MR. ROZANSKY: A very precise response to that. In the administrative code, it's one of the recommendations we provided on Page 29, No. 26 where it refers to the website, that web address, oeaaa.faa.got/oeeaaa. It's a very useful tool for anyone. It's a public website. You can go in, type in the coordinates and the elevation, and it will give you an almost immediate response about the next -- whether it's penetrating and whether you need to go -- move forward in the obstruction review process by filing to the FAA. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And while we're on Page 29, the sentence that's highlighted in yellow says the following: An airspace obstruction review is required for any proposed obstruction that exceeds the criteria established in the LDC 4.02.04.6 (sic). Now, in net -- after that it says, and shall be reviewed by the FAA in the form or manner described in 14-77. By "exceeding" here you mean it makes it more hazardous; is that right? Because we usually state minimums in our code, and if you exceed -- you're always encouraged to exceed the minimums. In this case I think you've stated a maximum, but I think that needs to be clarified, because this appears on some of the typical language in the draft. And I was going to get to that. On Page 9 you use the same thing in this new language you introduced tonight. You use the word "exceed." And we try to tell people always the standards in the LDC are minimums. They're -- we encourage exceeding those. MR. ROZANSKY: I have an answer for that also. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I'm glad you're doing the presentation tonight. MR. ROZANSKY: If you don't mind, Ms. Summers. MS. SUMMERS: Not at all. MR. ROZANSKY: Okay. So it is not uncommon for a project to exceed those standards. That is the threshold where FAA needs to do an evaluation of it and determine whether or not exceeding that standard is a hazard to air navigation. The Gateway Triangle is a perfect example. The surface there -- the controlling surface there is the horizontal surface that, if you recall, was 150 feet above the elevation of the airport. And so that project -- I forget the ultimate altitude, but it did exceed it. But the FAA determined that exceeding it would not be a hazard to air navigation. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, just so we have some kind of link to consistency with our code, could we say something to the effect that the alteration would exceed the maximum obstruction standards or something like that so we know what we're -- how the "exceed" is applied? Because it's now exceeding something that is stated as a maximum where we normally encourage exceeding the minimums. I just don't know how -- that might get confusing to the way it looks at it. Is there a better way to word it? MS. SUMMERS: That's a good question. I think because we're -- the criteria establishes the minimum. If you exceed the minimum, you're within this threshold where we have that additional review. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, the criteria -- the criteria establishes, doesn't it, the maximum height, not the minimum height. That's the difference I'm trying to point out. MS. SUMMERS: Right. So once you exceed that maximum height, that's when this kicks in. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And that's what I'm suggesting is that now -- now we have used a standard that's a maximum instead of a minimum. And I'm just wondering if we can make it clearer. If you exceed the maximum obstruction standards contained in that section, then we know the point we're talking about. But if it's -- I'm not -- again, I like Ned's language; I'm not going to die on my sword. I just thought it was a different way of approaching our code that we haven't used before, and we could clarify it by another word in there. If it's -- you-all don't think it helps, then I'm not going to push it. MS. SUMMERS: I'd have to look into it further to see how it would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 11 of 19 MS. SUMMERS: -- work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The other question -- and this is one I asked you this morning when we met, and I hope you had time to research it. These ratios are different than the ratios that were there before. For example, for Runway 5, you had a 50-0 and 40-1. I don't know how zero factors in. But a 50-0 and a 40-1, and now it's all 34-1. So let's take the Goodlette project again. So they have a Planned Unit Development and a zoning document that they believe is vested. Well, it actually is vested. It's a -- redone in 2017. It vested certain parameters. It vested their height and the uses and the quantities and the traffic and other things. So they come in now, and this document changes that vesting -- that vested height to -- because of the ratio dropped from 50 to 34. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's more lenient, though. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Huh? COMMISSIONER FRY: This is more lenient. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's what I'm trying to find out. I'm trying to read this thing, but I don't understand it. What is it -- MR. ROZANSKY: I can't speak, sir, to the land-use planning rights that were granted on that project. I will give you an understanding of -- I may offer -- try to offer an understanding of why this ratio is being changed. There was a time at the airport many years ago where they were planning for an instrument approach that would allow aircraft to approach the runway in lesser visibility conditions. That is no longer an anticipated development. So we are able to reduce this ratio because it still accommodates the type of operations that we have at the airport today and are now planning for in the future. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. But -- that's nice, but that doesn't address the question. The question was, does this create any nonconformities? And I used Naples because we started with it. Karl's right, that's a bad example, but look at Marco Island Executive Airport; went from 20 -1 to 43-1, and we've got high-rises directly to the west of that. Now, that won't affect you because you're the city, but it may affect the county for towers that are already built and are proposed to be built. I think there's only two out of five. So, now, do they lose their vested rights if they still can't fit into that airspace because of this new -- it's almost double on the Marco Island Executive Airport. And do their existing buildings become nonconforming? Because if they're nonconformities they may not be able to build them, which means their mortgage lender and their insurance companies may be concerned should a hurricane hit or something like that. So had anybody looked at any of that aspect of this? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are these the federal standards that you now put into our code? And maybe that's a combination question for both of you, but -- MR. ROZANSKY: These are all federal standards. It's just a matter of what are you planning for at your own local airport. I wouldn't be -- I don't have the expertise to answer your question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And the Immokalee Airport's got the same situation. It went from 20-1 to 34-1. So we do have a difference in height allowed. All I'm trying to find out is if we've taken someone's property rights without proper notification or what we would have to do, and does this document end up doing that? I don't know if -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I understand your concern. From what I understand, the proposal before you is we have a statute that says the county has to review for airport obstructions, and those terms are defined by Florida Statute. And the obstructions are determined based on these data here from the federal government. So that's how we got here, correct? MS. SUMMERS: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that's fine. I'm not -- especially in today's world, I'm not thinking our federal government's too right on many things they do. But be that as it may. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 12 of 19 Are you saying that we can -- we have to force these on the property owners, and they can't -- we'll not be the ones -- we'll not be the ones responsible for their loss of vesting or their rights to build to the heights? It will be somebody else? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we can look into building in some sort of a safety clause, a remedy that property owners have, but I think that this is primarily regulated by the federal government, but now we're required to issue a local permit which, essentially, the local permit establishes that they meet the minimum criteria, because if they exceed the criteria, then we get probably a letter of -- MS. SUMMERS: Hazard. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: -- hazard from the FAA, and they don't get a permit issued, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So we don't know if this is consistent with the property rights we've already issued or the ones we have on the books for properties that aren't built yet? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, when I had spoken to Jerry about this earlier, he had said that he understood that the zoning regulations actually provided for a lower height in most of the zoning districts, and so our zoning actually is lower than the FAA requirement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Jeremy, you verified that on a 20-1, the buildings that are west of the Marco Island airport won't be affected because even though the 34-1 is almost double, it doesn't matter because we're already conservative in the height that was allowed there? MR. FRANTZ: No, we did not verify that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, I just thought I'd ask. MR. ROZANSKY: If I may offer one point that I can -- I don't believe those changes as it relates to the county-owned airports are a result of this change in Florida Statute. My understanding is that the Collier County airports have recently completed their own master plan, their own planning study, and that was hinged upon your timing of bringing this LDCA forward. MS. SUMMERS: That's correct. The updates to the airport master plan are not -- that's -- for the Collier County's airports, that's handled through the Board of County Commissioners. And so once the Immokalee Regional Airport was -- updated their master plan with their new proposed runways or existing runways, we needed to update this data to accurately reflect their new master plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the source of a 34-1, that number being in the document? MS. SUMMERS: It's a federal standard. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's a federal standard? MS. SUMMERS: Uh-huh, based on the zone, the approach zone, as well as the runway type. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: The 34-1, the source of that is probably some type of aircraft that needs that to land? MR. ROZANSKY: It's not really one specific aircraft. It depends on what category, what class of aircraft your airport and your runway are intended to serve. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. One -- it's the aircraft that needs the most shallow approach? MR. ROZANSKY: That needs the most protection for the type of activity at that particular airport. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. And it's probably the approach instead of the takeoff that matters? MR. ROZANSKY: They're generally lower on landing than they are on takeoff. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Jeremy, so I'm a little more comfortable, knowing that probably the highest buildings in the county close to an airport based on the bands that I see. And the bands that I see on the Marco airport, if you look at Page 19 and you look where 951 is versus the airport, those bands go way, way, way past the buildings on the Marco airport. So that means those buildings are within that inner circle. And I can't read it because it's too small. But on those buildings, they're regular residential high-rise, so they're substantially higher. What does -- what does that mean right there? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 13 of 19 MS. SUMMERS: This contour here, that would have -- your obstruction level would be at 154 feet. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if those buildings are over 154 feet, then they basically could be considered nonconforming, because they're sure vested by now, and they have a PUD that is already approved. And I will tell you what those buildings are. MR. ROZANSKY: Chair, if I may and I -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go right ahead. MR. ROZANSKY: I didn't mean to comment on the county's airports, but that surface is not changing, that 154. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. ROZANSKY: That -- we have the same surface at the Naples Municipal Airport. That's 150 feet above the elevation of the runway. On their -- looking at Page 6 in your -- the county's Marco Island Airport and the Immokalee Regional Airport, what's changing, it looks like those are the approach surfaces, and the approach surfaces are directly off the end of the runway on both ends. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. So the side surfaces for those particular buildings won't be affected by this change. That's all I'm trying to get to the answer. If you can say "yes," that covers it. MS. SUMMERS: Well, if I may ask you a question, Chris. When an airport updates their master plans and it is reviewed by the FAA, if the change in airspace or runway surfaces would create a nonconformity, meaning there's -- an existing building would become a hazard to air navigation, would that be approved for a change in the master plan? MR. ROZANSKY: For an existing building? MS. SUMMERS: Uh-huh. Would they take into consideration the existing? MR. ROZANSKY: And, mind you, I am not familiar with the Collier County Airports master plan or where they're at in the process of it. Once they complete their draft master plan, they have to submit it through that airspace review process. And if that -- the county's consultant for those -- for that project has submitted that for airspace review, you would receive a response from the FAA whether or not there is a hazard to air navigation by any changes that were being proposed. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MS. SUMMERS: I don't know if that helps. My thought was if you're changing the master plan and you have existing development, would they approve a change that would then create an airspace hazard or a potential obstruction? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'll tell you what, when we -- at some time between now and next time I get to talk to you and Jeremy, I'll pull the plans up for the towers that are already built at that location and just check that one as an -- now that I -- I couldn't read these maps you sent. Now that I know that outer ring or that inner ring is 154 feet, that's all I needed to know. And I'll see where it would lie, and then if there's an issue, I'll let you know only because that is what I've been trying to understand is how this is going to affect existing properties or future properties. So that would be the only -- and then the last thing I want to bring up -- and I know Ned's got another question -- you had said this makes it a lot clearer for the criteria and understanding of what to do. And if you turn to Page 8 under 2, criteria for review, it says, "The airspace obstruction may not be approved solely on the basis that the FAA determined that the proposed construction or alteration of an obstruction was not an airport hazard." Then it says, "The County Manager or designee will review and consider the following, A: The safety of persons on the ground and in the air," which, first of all, leads me to assume the FAA must not be considering that, but we are considering it. So what are we -- what's our criteria for the safety -- for that standard that isn't in our code so that if someone came in and said, their expert says they've met the safety of persons on the ground and the air, what criteria could we have to tell them, no, you didn't meet this criteria? It's the same issue we've just discovered on the TDM strategies for traffic for transportation impacts, the TDM strategies. There's no measurable quantities. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 14 of 19 So the applicants say, well, we're going to do them, but you can't hold us to anything because you don't have any measurable standards. And most of what I'm reading on the criteria review are not measurable: The character, the nature, the safety. But it would be nice if the safety of persons means something rather than a point that's going to be arbitrated or discussed or back and forth. And that's not your problem. It kind of, though, came about because of your comment that now we've got clear criteria. I can tell you I don't think we do. But it's probably better than what we've got already, so -- MR. ROZANSKY: It is subjective. But I'd like to point out that on Page 38 of this memo, it is -- that language is verbatim from the Florida Statute. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I've already been told that, yeah, and that means -- MR. ROZANSKY: Except for the last one which we requested be added. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And that's supposed to mean, I guess, that the state has very clearly told us what to do and, very clearly, they have not. But, okay. I appreciate the comment. So that's all the questions I had, and now Ned's got something he wants to point out. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Could I borrow your mic for a moment. MS. SUMMERS: Please. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chris, I put up there on the visualizer, you'll see a white dot. That is property in the easternmost part of the Naples Commons area where it is proposed that there would be a structure, a building, of about 100 feet in height, six over two, and it measures 1,734 feet to one of your runways. Do you see a problem with that? MR. ROZANSKY: I really have to take a look at our GIS base map on the aerial and cross-reference it to the city ordinance. It's -- I'm -- I can't really opine that, other than to see I do not believe that would penetrate our noise contour, so I don't believe it would be subject to any of the noise-related criteria. But I really would have to take a further look at it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: What about safety? MR. ROZANSKY: I don't -- you know, it's -- again, I'd have to look at how it sits and contours and the concentric circles and our surfaces off the end of our runway. I'm just not prepared to answer that. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Fair enough. That's fine. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: And the LDC before you today does not regulate that location. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. I think Ned's trying to do the same thing I -- I'm trying to understand how this applies. And we do have projects out there that have existing zoning and heights. And I just want to make sure if we are crossing something up, we know about it. And if it's the only way we can go, fine. I'm just trying to understand it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does the 34-1 ratio apply to that dimension? MR. ROZANSKY: It does. I'd have to look. It's not precisely off the end of the runway. It's set off to the side, so I'd have to take a look and see how far -- how wide that area is. There's also sloping upward. You know, the most practical way to look at these surfaces is to compare the runway to a football field that may be an NFL stadium. They go upward and outward. But if it pleases you, Commissioner Fryer, I'd be happy to follow up with you directly on that matter. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I would appreciate that very much. Thank you. That's all I have. MR. ROZANSKY: Happy to. COMMISSIONER FRY: If it was impacted by that 34-1, then it would only allow about a 51-foot building. 1,734 is about 51 at -- 51 feet at 34 feet per height. MR. ROZANSKY: Your math is better than mine. It certainly would have to undergo an FAA airspace review. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you can rise one foot for every 34 feet, at 1,734 feet you are at 51 feet in height. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So, Ned, it looks like you can only go with a building at 51 feet, and these are going to be about 100, so... 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 15 of 19 MR. ROZANSKY: Now, again, that doesn't mean it's a hazard. That means the FAA needs to review it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So the FAA review would be a necessary part of the process. Should that happen before the city looks at it or after? MR. ROZANSKY: Well, as I recall, the city ordinance, just like is stated in your proposed ordinance for the county, that the city cannot approve a permit until they have a final FAA determination in hand. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thanks. Thank you. MR. ROZANSKY: Cannot process a permit whether they approve or deny; cannot even process it. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, I think the bottom line is that is a better program, even though it may have its questions, than what we've already got. And so I guess we ought to look at it from that perspective. Because if we're going to get more, we can always implement it and enhance it after we understand it better. But right now, if this is the best we can do to meet the requirements that we now have on us, I think that's how we ought to probably be reviewing it, so... And, Ellen, you did a good job, and I want to -- because it's a complicated issue. MS. SUMMERS: It is. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I know I sprung the questions I had on you this morning because it's the soonest we could meet, but that's the only really concern I had about the whole thing. MS. SUMMERS: And, unfortunately, I just don't have a great answer to that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And if I could have read those charts, I would have been able to do some of that myself, but I couldn't read them. So if you -- I'll try to get a copy from you that's readable. MS. SUMMERS: For the maps. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'll do my own checking on it, and if there's an issue, I'll let you know before the Board hearing, and you can decide to address it or not. I'm fine that way. The rest of you? COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask just one more question? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Sure. COMMISSIONER FRY: What mechanism is in place to make sure that a building that is -- a developer's applying to build, who is responsible for catching that it needs this review for whether it is an obstruction to the aviation? MS. SUMMERS: It will be Collier County. It will be the Development Review Services Division. We have a couple of safeguards in place that we have implemented on our end of things so that we can catch potential airspace obstructions and forward them to the appropriate parties for review. So we have -- the new updated maps will also be updated into our GIS program. Our CityView software, which tracks all of our planning petitions, Site Development Plans, building permits, will be able to have a spatial query. So when you have a parcel number that comes in for a new development or a building permit, if it falls within that outer rings of the airspace obstruction overlay, there'll be a property alert, there'll be a building permit condition that automatically loads. So we have a couple of automatic safeguards that will be in place. COMMISSIONER FRY: Wow. MS. SUMMERS: It's a very difficult subject, so we wanted to make it as easy as possible for staff to handle. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It is. So I don't have any more questions. Does anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And there's no audience here. We've got staff presentation, so what's the preference of this board at this point? Anybody have a motion for -- well, do we do them separately or together, Heidi? I guess it doesn't matter? 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 16 of 19 MS. ASHTON-CICKO: The airport LDC. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We have two LDCs. Do we vote on them separately? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Are you going to discuss the gas station? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're not picking up -- your mic's not working, Heidi. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: I would vote on them separately. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Because they were presented in one agenda item; that's why I asked. Okay. So with that, does someone want to make a motion to move this forward to the Board with the suggested changes we had tonight? COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'll put that in the form of a motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. So who got the next hard one? MR. FRANTZ: That's me. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I think we got new language recommended by the County Attorney's Office's, too. MR. FRANTZ: That's correct, yeah. So this amendment I'm pulling up now you all have actually reviewed before, gave us a recommendation of approval, and we thought, you know, that's not good enough. We'd like that one more time. COMMISSIONER FRY: Sounds like us. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. MR. FRANTZ: So the change that we were initially bringing back, I'll just try and make that clear, was to allow for these -- what we're now calling field pricing signs to be located on a directory sign through the variance process through a PUD deviation or an SRA deviation, and then we also have some additional changes that were requested by the County Attorney's Office. So I'll have this up on the board, but I also do have some handouts if you all would like those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, the only one that has the board in front of them is Karen. So for the sake of some of us with older eyes, I would like a copy. Karl doesn't need one. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for clarifying that. MR. FRANTZ: So the various changes that we are requesting and wanted to give you all a chance to see before it goes to the Board are all highlighted in yellow. You'll see starting on that very first page we're updating the reference to Florida Statutes, and that's because we've found that in the last legislative session earlier this year there was a change made to Section 553-79 that renumbered some later sections, including this one. And so this was previously referencing Subsection 20, which has now become Subsection 22. There were no changes to that section. It was just renumbered. So we've made that change throughout the document in our backup materials as well as the LDC text. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 17 of 19 Some of the changes requested by the County Attorney's Office was to no longer call them electronic message boards but to call them electronic -- refer to it as electronic fuel pricing. And the idea, as I understand it, is to make sure that's very clear what the LED portion of the signs has allowed for, and that's strictly for the fuel pricing. Didn't want to leave any kind of wiggle room or area -- room for interpretation. That change is made wherever it used to say "electronic message board" now says electronic fuel pricing. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, Jeremy, that means they cannot have a flashing advertisement for a gallon of milk at 3.99 or anything of that nature. MR. FRANTZ: Correct. Scrolling through the amendment text, these changes were -- they were all referenced previously. There's also another section added by the County Attorney's Office that Heidi may be able to speak to a little bit more but it, essentially, allows for us to work with the proposed development order to ensure t hat if there's any changes to the statute language, that we can modify those signs to be compliant. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Before you move on to No. 5, I'd just like to point in the Subsection E that you can see on the screen, there was also the insertion of the word "deviation" after PUD. So it would say or "PUD deviation or SRA deviation." So the issue with No. 5 relates to a statute that provides that the county cannot adopt or enforce regulations that conflicts or impairs or degrades, you know, copyright trademark image related to franchises, and also we can't have any regulation that prevents the fuel price signage from not being visible from arterial roadways. So this Section 5, if we have a situation where a gas station is arguing that their sign is not visible, this section would allow the county to negotiate and settle without having to go through an LDC amendment, PUD amendment, or variance; likewise, if you're dealing with a franchisee, we have a number of -- they also happen to be gas stations. But Citgos, Sunocos that want to exceed our color standards and number of signs, that will allow us to work it out with those entities without having to come back and make them go through a PUD amendment or variance. So that just provides some more flexibility in resolving issues where -- where the entity's representatives will be arguing that there's a preemption. So rather than going to court to resolve it, we'd like to be able to settle it and have the authority to do it through this section, so that's where that comes from. And Mr. Klatzkow was recommending that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that apply to the height of the signs as well? Any -- is that any aspect of the LDC that can be varied based on -- MS. ASHTON-CICKO: We haven't had an issue of height raised yet, and it's got to be -- as far as that component of the signage, that part has to be an image or branding, a copyright. You know, they have to be trademark. It has to be falling under that type of category, which I would think height would not. However, what could fall under that category that we've discussed with Wawa is the slanting canopies, because right now our code does not allow slanting canopies. But that is an image of the Wawa stores that they have throughout. And what we do is we ask for pictures so they can show us that this is their established branding. COMMISSIONER FRY: So we were notified previous to the initial presentation of this by Wawa by an attorney representing Wawa that they -- I think they needed higher sign heights and other variations. But you're saying the only variation that Wawa needs is a slanting canopy at this point? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Well, we've resolved that issue. That's outside of it. I was just trying to give you an example of some of the issues that have come up. Some of the issues that we've had to deal with are one of them has, like, a little bird as part of their symbol, and they wanted that, so we had to, you know, reach a resolution of that. Right now we're dealing with them saying they -- and this is an issue that we haven't completely resolved, but they want the canopy to have Sunoco or Citgo on all three sides of the canopy that don't face the building, so our code doesn't presently allow that. So we're looking at that as to whether that's 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 18 of 19 something that we can approve through the preemption under the statute. COMMISSIONER FRY: So this opens up the possibility that there are a lot of different -- there are -- potentially each major brand could have its own special signage, canopies that are -- that you have to yield to in a way. So there could be different looks and feels to the signage and to the appearance of the various brands of gas stations? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: It's not just gas stations. It just is coming up under the gas station amendment. So the gas station amendment that is before you is primarily relating to making fuel price signs more visible, but we're tacking on this statute -- and I brought copies if you care to read the statute -- as to what the county is not allowed to regulate or enforce. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Does that answer the question? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions on this? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You answered all -- you got all mine, so I don't have any issues, and nobody else does. So with that, is there a motion to accept the changes suggested tonight on this particular LDC amendment and move it forward? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah, I'll move to accept. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Made and seconded. Discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 5-0. Jeremy, thank you. You guys did a good job, and -- MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- especially that first one was complicated, so we appreciate it. Is there any public comments? Since nobody from the public is here, good luck with that. Anybody want to make a motion to adjourn? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move to adjourn. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Moved by Ned. Seconded by -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- Karen. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. 5.A.1 Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) “Special” CCPC/LDC August 7, 2019 Page 19 of 19 ******* There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 6:11 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. 23 Attachment: 8-7-2019 CCPC-LDC Minutes (9887 : August 7, 2019 CCPC/LDC Minutes) 09/19/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.B Item Summary: August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes Meeting Date: 09/19/2019 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Name: Judy Puig 09/05/2019 2:11 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/05/2019 2:11 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 09/05/2019 2:11 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/19/2019 9:00 AM 5.B Packet Pg. 24 August 15, 2019 Page 1 of 29 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, August 15, 2019 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Collier County Planning Commission, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m., in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Mark Strain Stan Chrzanowski Patrick Dearborn Karl Fry Edwin Fryer Karen Homiak Joe Schmitt ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager David Weeks, GMP Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Tom Eastman, School District Representative 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 2 of 29 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Good morning, everyone. Now that Karen has shown up, welcome to the Thursday, August 15th meeting of the Collier County Planning Commission. If everybody will please rise for Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. If the secretary will please do the roll call. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Eastman? MR. EASTMAN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Chrzanowski? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'm here. Chairman Strain? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Here. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Mr. Dearborn? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Present. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Chairman, we have seven. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Addendum to the agenda. The Item 8A is a consent item. That is going to be heard first today, although the carryover from the previous meeting said it would be following land-use items. Since it's consent and we don't have public participation in consent, we will hear that first. It will be rather short, and then we'll move right into the regularly scheduled item. That takes us to Planning Commission absences. Our next meeting is 9/5. And, Ray, I assume we've got items scheduled for 9/5. MR. BELLOWS: We have three items on the 9/5 agenda. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And does everyone know if they're going to make it or not for 9/5? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody not going to make it? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: 50/50 right now. I'll let you know. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heads-up for the 9/19 meeting, which is the second meeting in September. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm here. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You're here. That one will start at our regular time, but we will have to stop at 4:00. Now, I've already seen the agenda for that one, and I would expect that we're not going to finish that day. So we'll just roll the others over till the next regular meeting. But the 19th, plan on being here till 4:00 that day. It's going to be a long meeting, unless something changes between now and then. So if you know -- anybody know they're not going to make it on the 19th? Stan, I know you may have to leave at noontime. So with that -- other than that, I think we'll have a quorum. That takes us into approval of the minutes. We were sent the electronic versions of the July 18th minutes. Does anybody know of any changes? If not, is there a motion to approve? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Move approval. COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by -- Fryer and Fry. All those in favor, signify by saying aye? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 3 of 29 COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. BCC report and recaps, Ray. They're not here, so you don't have anything, do you? MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Chairman's report: I don't have anything either. We'll just move right into the consent item. At staff's request, we are going to hear this early, and it was sent to us in our packet. It is consent. The purpose of consent is merely to -- for this panel to acknowledge that the writeup that staff has now formalized is consistent with the direction we gave them at the last meeting. With that in mind, does anybody have any comments, changes, or corrections to the consent item? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I had looked it over. It was as we instructed. So with that in mind, is there a motion to recommend approval? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So moved by Pat. Seconded by? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By Karen. Any discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Anita, is that fast enough for you? MS. JENKINS: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anita had some other things she needed to do and asked to move it forward, so that's no problem. Thank you. MS. JENKINS: Appreciate it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: ***And that takes us to our first and only -- we have two advertised public hearings. They're going to be discussed concurrently, voted on separately, both for the same area and same items. Under public hearings, 9A, the first one is PL20180003372/CPSS2019-2. This is for the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict, and that's the small-scale plan amendment. The second item that we'll discuss concurrently is PL20180003366, same Vanderbilt Commons Planned Unit Development. That is the rezone -- the zoning part of the small-scale plan amendment. All those wishing to testify on behalf of this item, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 4 of 29 (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Disclosures on the part of the Planning Commission. We'll start with Tom. MR. EASTMAN: None. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Other than correspondence, none. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Correspondence. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Same disclosures. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I wasn't here last time, so I don't know what you-all disclosed, because this was going to be heard last time. But then and now I've got a series of emails that -- I forwarded all of them to staff. Some I guess were in our packet. One I received late yesterday. I have not had time to read it. I had talked to some of the residents on the phone. I had met with the applicant. In fact, the basis -- and I know the audience was -- some of the people in the audience were upset that the last meeting got continued. That was not the applicant's fault. That was mine. In my meeting with them prior to the last meeting, I found things that were not caught by staff that needed to be corrected, and they took the time to correct those. And so that's part of what -- the reason why it was continued. With that, I think that's all the disclosures I have. Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing. Just emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Likewise, numerous emails, both forwarded by staff and then separately to my email, Collier gov email. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Patrick. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just the usual emails. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, whoever's representing staff -- or the applicant wanting to make the presentation. MR. WRIGHT: Good morning, Commissioners, Mr. Chair. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin law firm here on behalf of the applicant. I have here with me our team: Ralph Cioffi, applicant's representative; Lindsay Robin/Alexis Crespo is our planning team; Jim Ink from Waldrop is our engineer. Mr. Trebilcock could not make it, so he has sent Ciprian Malaescu with his firm to be here for our traffic consulting; and Natalie White with Studio Plus. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Just a quick overview to give you an idea where this is at. It's at the northwest corner of Vanderbilt Beach Road and Collier Boulevard. This is -- what you see on the screen there, there's a square that's right at the immediate corner. That's the original subdistrict that we're seeking to amend. A few years back it was expanded, so now it has kind of an "L lying on its back" type of a shape. And as you see there, what we're before you today on is the white area that's Lots 5 and 6 within the PUD. Obviously, we're giving our presentation via PowerPoint, and we're going to distribute those to the stenographer, County Attorney, and staff. We also have extra copies if anyone else cares to have one. MS. ROBIN: Do you want me to pass that out now? MR. WRIGHT: Yes, please. I want to thank you for giving us a chance to present today and our continuance the last time we were here. I know this meeting wasn't originally scheduled, so we do appreciate the accommodation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I need Troy to come and fix -- I don't know which button to push for it to show on my screen; if Troy's out there. Usually there used to be a button. MR. WRIGHT: So as I mentioned, our goal here is simple. The GMP currently imposes a configuration mandate for the mixed uses. It requires residential on top and commercial on the bottom. We want to eliminate that configuration mandates to allow construction of a residential apartment building with 58 units on Lots 5 and 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 5 of 29 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But just -- you're actually asking to eliminate the requirement to have commercial on the ground floor so you can have residential on all floors, right? MR. WRIGHT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. MR. WRIGHT: Again, here's -- the subdistrict itself is -- we're not changing the boundaries of it, and you see it there in green. The yellow is the expansion area which is co-extant with the PUD boundaries. And that's the companion item we'll be discussing next. Just an overview. It's a small-scale amendment involving just a little over two-and-a-half acres at the northwest corner of Collier Boulevard directly north of Vanderbilt Way. The mixed-use PUD is approved for 200,000 square feet of commercial uses and up to 58l dwelling units, residential. We believe that this change is appropriate because there is residential to the north and commercial to the south, and we believe that it's more compatible to have residential abutting the residential than it is to have commercial abutting that residential. This is an aerial to give you an idea of some of the surrounding uses. One thing I wanted to highlight is the preserve area to the north of that yellow rectangle. That yellow rectangle is the Lots 5 and 6 that we're here for today. But just north of that is a preserve. It's about 300 feet, 280 to 300 feet directly behind the Lots 5 and 6, and that's the adjacent residential that I referred to. We believe that the commercial that fronts Vanderbilt with a residential in between that commercial and Black Bear Ridge is a good transition of uses coming away from the arterial road there. Staff recommends approval. We agree with them. We think -- not just think. It's a fact that removing the first-floor commercial uses is more compatible with the adjacent residential development. The preserve, we're going to have a six-foot-high wall between our property and the property to the north, the residential. And the subdistrict's not going to change as far as density and uses. It still will provide a healthy mix of uses with multifamily close to a lot of amenities. We can get into the various amenities near by. But safe to say that the commercial use is a good supporting use for the residential. And as you'll see in the next item, this request is identical with our PUD amendment request. We're just trying to remove the configuration mandate. And with that, that concludes the presentation, and our team's here for any questions, and we would request your approval. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Planning Commission? Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, where do the -- where would prospective residents of the apartment complex park? MR. WRIGHT: The way we have it now, we haven't finalized the design, but there will be 10 ground-floor units that will have garages in the units, and the rest of them will be parked in the -- behind the -- to the north of the building. COMMISSIONER FRY: To the north. Between the preserve -- MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Between Black Bear Ridge and the preserve and the building. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the use immediately to the west, the building that's immediately to the west? MR. WRIGHT: I need to make a correction. Although our focus on parking was in the northern aspect of the property, we will have parking around the building. COMMISSIONER FRY: On all sides. MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. The next question was, what is the use -- what is the building immediately to the west? What is the use of that? You have a water retention area between the subject parcel, 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 6 of 29 and then there's a building to the east that's still part of that MPUD. What is that? MR. WRIGHT: That's a storage facility; 75,000 square feet of storage. COMMISSIONER FRY: Self-storage? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Self-storage, okay. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Actually, it's 93,000 square feet. MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you had 200,000 square feet of commercial and 58 units. I guess, how does this -- since you're not going to utilize the bottom floor for commercial, how does this impact the density of the commercial through the rest of the MPUD? MR. WRIGHT: It should have zero impact on density for the commercial or the residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, you have 200,000 square feet allocated to the site as a whole for commercial. MR. WRIGHT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have 164,000 square feet built. You've got 35,594 square feet left to build of commercial. Does that answer what you're looking for? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes. Where would that go? I guess is that -- MR. WRIGHT: Well, there is -- we don't own the other property within here, so we're not sure where that commercial would be. Theoretically, we could put the commercial on Lots 5 and 6, and -- but we're choosing to do an all-residential building. So as far as the placement of the commercial, there's a few options there, including our lots, but we don't intend to use commercial there. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I believe, just in reading some of the clients' concerns -- I'm sorry, some of the nearby residents' concerns, what was the process initially that resulted in the commercial first -floor residential above? Because the resistance that I see from the residents is it has to do with the change from -- the change in nature of that. Was that -- it obviously sounded like it was a negotiated agreement. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I could probably answer that better than you. MR. WRIGHT: Well, I just know I looked at the transcript from 2005, and it was almost in passing, and I think it might have been a hot topic to have mixed use configured that way back in '05. But there was no discussion, I don't believe, at the planning level as to why that configuration was -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. It started at the planning level. The Planning Commission -- and I was on the Planning Commission at the time. We had a member of our Planning Commission who was an architect, and he felt that it would be useful to encourage more mixed use by providing the mixed -- ability to do residential above commercial on this particular project. It wasn't something the applicant had asked for, but I remember questioning the applicant, do you want this. And they said, well, we're not going to turn it down. So they went ahead and got that as an added use with the limitation on the units that we had, and it was to be at that time suggested that it be a mixed use with commercial -- I mean, with commercial on the ground floor, and that's how it originated. And if they went to residential, they could go to so many floors above the commercial. No one at the time thought it out other than the fact it was allowed because of the general area, and that's how it came about. COMMISSIONER FRY: One of the concerns from residents was spillover from the residential units on the first floor having lawn chairs and barbecues out in the areas that were intended to be in front of commercial areas. Initially, what -- is there a response or a mitigation of that? MR. WRIGHT: Yeah. We don't -- first of all, we're going to have a property owners' association that will impose rules against that type of activity, and also, the way we're leaning towards the design-wise, there won't be the ability to do that. There will be enclosed units, and they won't have outdoor areas to lay their lounge chairs in the public areas. Now, within their own units, they can do whatever they want to. If they were to do what they are suggesting that they might do, that would be a violation of the property owner regulations and be enforceable 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 7 of 29 against whoever's violating those. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That's all I've got. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Joe and then Ned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Jeff, I guess I'm looking for your assessment. Why the significant angst over the conversion from commercial to residential? Residential is less intense use, and I -- what is your assessment? I've read several -- numerous letters. Most of them are the same letter that were submitted, but what is -- as the applicant, what is your sensing from the community as to why they would object to residential than commercial? MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's a good question because on its face, it's going to be a more compatible configuration. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MR. WRIGHT: To be honest with you, I think it's -- there's been some bad blood and some bad history with this development. We are not associated with the prior developer at all, but I think that Black Bear Ridge -- I don't walk in their shoes, but I know they've been through a lot getting to this point. And it seems like -- and I sympathize with their situation because the PUD, they fight, fight, fight, and then it comes back and gets amended some more, and usually for a good purpose like this. But from their perspective, I think maybe battle weary would be the right word, but I don't know of a logical reason why you wouldn't want a more compatible use next door. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I have some concerns about this. First of all, I'm concerned anytime the Growth Management Plan is to be amended, even a small-scale amendment, because I think it alters the expectations that others have reasonably established for themselves, what's going to take place, what will be in the neighboring areas. And to me the commercial under residential -- excuse me -- yeah, the commercial under residential is more transitional. It may not be more compatible with either of the uses, but it would serve to provide, I think, more of a transition from commercial to single-family residential. So I think that if it's a transition that's being looked for -- and, frequently, I think that's what we talk about in mixed-use developments, what you're going for, what you're asking for will be less transitional. Also the various statutes and rules talk about the changes to the GMP should be based on studies and data. Not really specific about what the contents of those studies and data should be. But what I found in the materials submitted as to studies and data, really, at best, in my judgment, it shows perhaps a lack of harm in certain areas like traffic. And I would concede that point. I don't think traffic is going to be a major problem here. But for the most part, the studies that have been proffered along with the application are market studies, and I think the bottom line of those is is that the argument in favor of this the developer is making is that it's a higher and better use from a standpoint of his investment. There will be more return on the investment that way. I don't see anything in the record that would establish a benefit to the neighboring community or to Collier County as a whole, and I find that troubling. Now, the other thing that is of concern to me, in the attachment to Exhibit A to the GMP proposed ordinance, you're wanting to strike the residential uses over commercial uses parenthetical, but what we're talking about here is the intent, the original intent of the people who drafted and who enacted this GMP. And you just can't rewrite history that way. It was their original intent to have residential uses over commercial uses. So it seems -- well, perhaps "disingenuous" is the wrong word, but somewhat misleading to want to rewrite history in that fashion. Then I see that the owner, Cioffi -- is that how he pronounces it? MR. CIOFFI: Cioffi. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Cioffi. I'm sorry. Mr. Cioffi opines that there's plenty of commercial near by, and I think reasonable people could differ on that point. I think the neighbors disagree. Also, Mr. Cioffi, you mentioned that you're planning on going a little bit above the county's landscaping requirements. You said that in the NIM. Would you be in a position to describe in greater detail what you're 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 8 of 29 prepared to do? MR. CIOFFI: I'd leave that up to my engineer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I'm sorry, sir. You won't be able to comment from the audience. You'll have to come up and identify -- if you've not been sworn in, you're going to have to be sworn in and then identify yourself for the record and use the microphone. Although I would -- I assume your representatives can answer the question for you, and you don't have to if you don't want to. MR. CIOFFI: Well, exactly. I mean the engineer and the architect. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You have to be sworn in. I'm sorry. (The speaker was duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) MR. WRIGHT: We have Jim Ink coming up, our engineer. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Has he been sworn? MR. INK: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. INK: Jim Ink, for the record, Waldrop Engineering, and I have been sworn in. The landscape plan would just be a betterment plan with a higher level of trees and shrubs around the area -- the green areas to enhance over the minimum Land Development Code. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Could you be more specific? MR. INK: It's in design right now, so it's hard to be more specific. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: The problem is, if you've said you're going to do something -- MR. INK: Yeah. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: -- and that's part of your commitment to get approval, we've got to specify what it is you're going to do. We can't specify that it's in planning. So if you're going to add more trees, you're going to increase the caliper, you're going to increase the height, you're going to decrease the spacing, all those things that are enhancements need to be spelled out so they become stipulations. And if you don't tell us what they are, then we don't have anything to deal with. That's how we've always done it, and that's how we will continue to do it. MR. INK: I understand that part of it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Well, then you know I've got to -- we've got to have an answer, if that's the route you're going to go, before the day's over. MS. ROBIN: Lindsay Robin, Waldrop Engineering. I'm a planner on this project. I just wanted to clarify at the NIM Ralph did state that we were going to be doing additional plantings to supplement a deviation we were requesting at the time. We no longer need that deviation, so we are no longer providing the additional palms that were mentioned at the NIM. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Well, here's exactly what he said, actually. He said, we'd like to go a little bit above the county's landscaping requirements. So that's no longer being offered? MS. ROBIN: I think what he meant is the project is going to provide a very nice landscaping plan. It's not going to be your code minimum, as some people do. MR. WRIGHT: I would add that we would like to go beyond the county's landscaping requirements, and we hope to do so, but we're not prepared to commit today because we haven't yet designed the facility to know exactly where the plans were. But it is an aspirational commitment, not an enforceable commitment at this time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I frequently make those, too, when I can get away with it. MR. CIOFFI: Could I make one comment? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yes. MR. CIOFFI: The benefit, if you will -- if we were to have the ground floor all commercial, I'd have to reduce the apartment count significantly probably by the number of units that are on the ground floor. So we'd go from -- actually, the zoning allows 58 units, but I've already committed to reduce them to 53 to make them bigger, which was one of the issues that the Black Bear Ridge people had. If I were to do all commercial on the bottom, I'd have to reduce that count probably by 10. And with the notion that, you know, the county's looking for rentals, we'd be actually reducing the residential count. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 9 of 29 COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. MR. CIOFFI: Because that commercial takes up additional parking. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. Also in the NIM it was stated that minimum rental period would be for 12 months. MR. CIOFFI: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Is that going to be an enforceable commitment of some kind? MR. WRIGHT: That's an enforceable commitment. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Where will that be found; in an exhibit to the ordinance? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRYER: All right. The size of the units is relatively small. It does not appear that they're being offered up as affordable housing. I would expect younger families would be attracted to those units at market rate conditions, yet there would be no amenities provided, playgrounds or the like, for the children. And I think one of the things that the neighbors are worried about is a spillover that would result: Kids trying to find things to do lacking furnished amenities. MR. WRIGHT: Right now they're allowed to put 58 residential units, so that could be a concern even if we didn't have this request before you. But I would point out that the nature of mixed use is to have a lot of things near by, and there's a lot of things near by here. For children, you know, the North Collier Regional Park is not too far away. It's about a five-mile drive, about three miles as the crow flies, but near by there's a lot of facilities -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's a long way? MR. WRIGHT: Yeah, it is. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. MR. WRIGHT: Obviously. But in the neighborhood, if you look at the aerial, in fact, the one that's right on the screen here, all of the roads that are adjacent to this project have dual sidewalks on both sides, and all the facilities, the commercial facilities, have bike racks. So there is an opportunity to bike in this extensive bike network with sidewalks on both sides that have recently been improved, so they could go right out of their place on their bike and go biking up the bike path as long as they want to. So there are recreational activities near by. It's just that given the mixed-use nature, we can't have all that stuff on this site. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. I may have some other questions after the public, Mr. Chairman. MR. CIOFFI: Can I comment on the amenities? COMMISSIONER FRYER: Yeah. MR. CIOFFI: On the frontage that goes along Vanderbilt Beach Road, there's 164,000 square feet of commercial, and then in Mission Square, directly adjacent to the east, I'm not sure how many thousands of square feet, but you've got the Winn-Dixie, you have Dunkin' Donuts, you have a gas station, you have L.A. Fitness. Within Vanderbilt Commons commercial that's there, you have restaurants, Five Guys, there's a veterinarian -- COMMISSIONER FRYER: Are you suggesting that these are places where kids can play? MR. CIOFFI: No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm saying those are amenities. That's commercial. It's significant. It's already there. There was some discussion about a playground, but there was, I guess, pros and cons, noise and what have you. What I did do, again, in response to that, is we planned in or the architect and engineer were able to come up with, I think, 9-by-10 or 10-by-11 patios that would be enclosed with landscaping and dividing walls on the front. But there will be a lot of working professionals. There may be children but, I mean, I can't prevent renters from having children. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's certainly not what I was suggesting. MR. CIOFFI: No, I know that, but... COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. That's all I have for now. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 10 of 29 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: A followup to one of Ned's comments. The people who wrote the GMP didn't count on this as a use. That was instituted and recommended or suggested by the Planning Commission. So to say that the GMP historically had this in there and someone had thought about it, no, it was kind of off comment at the Planning Commission level. At the time it seemed like a good idea. We have -- we do do housing mixed with commercial differently today than we did then. That may have -- would have had some bearing on how this would come out. The focus today is strictly whether that ground floor should be residential or commercial, from what I can see. And as a followup I do have some questions. You were -- at the NIM you had mentioned the 12-month rental period. You also talked about garages will be provided for the ground-floor units. And I think I heard you say how many -- all of them going to have garages or just a certain number on the ground floor, if the ground floor were to have residential? MR. WRIGHT: Ten units on the ground floor will all have their own parking, and they will be oversized units. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you said the units will be two- to three-bedroom, the two-bedroom being a minimum of 800 square feet and the three-bedroom being a minimum of 1,200 square feet. Is that consistent with your understanding? MR. WRIGHT: It is consistent with my understanding. I'm looking to Ralph to make sure. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, again, you can't talk from the audience. You have to come up to the microphone. And I'm sorry, but that's the process; otherwise, you don't get recorded. So if you'll identify yourself for the record. MR. CIOFFI: Ralph Cioffi. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. MR. CIOFFI: When we reduced the count from 58 to 53, we increased the sizes. So the minimum size for the two-bedroom is 865, I believe. The minimum size for the three-bedrooms, which are on -- well, the ground-floor three-bedrooms will be 1,407 square feet with 257-square-foot garages. So plenty of storage within the garage units. The three-bedrooms on the second and third floor, I believe, ended up being 1,265 square feet. I think that's the actual square footage, so... CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. I just wanted -- what we typically do and what the Board sees as recommendations, if you do something at a NIM, that becomes what we have to incorporate in the stipulations. MR. CIOFFI: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I'm just trying to make sure that you said 800 and 1,200. That's what the transcript read, and if you're not disagreeing with that, that's what we'll end up considering. MR. CIOFFI: I'm not disagreeing, though they should be larger. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And then the other thing you said, there will be no exterior balconies; is that correct? MR. CIOFFI: We removed the balconies. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And I heard a discussion earlier about a concern -- I don't know who brought it up -- about outside chairs and barbecues and things like that. If that's the case and that is a concern, then how could we possibly expect them to have play areas for children outside? Wouldn't that be kind of the similar concern? I mean, what, the parents are going to watch their kids play but can't sit down? MR. WRIGHT: It's something that we struggle with. Either way, with or without this amendment, we're going to have 58 units authorized on this -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I know. I'm trying to respond to the -- you guys said you're going to write into your docs. MR. CIOFFI: Well, the leases -- it will be the leases. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That they can't have outside activities. But that kind of dovetails with the concern that Ned brought up about what -- let me finish -- about what -- if there are children, what are they going 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 11 of 29 to do? But if -- it's almost a double-edged sword. You say you're not going to do these outside things, but then if you do put them in, as some people think are needed, you're going to get hit for that, too. So I'm just wondering if that's -- MR. CIOFFI: What would be in the lease is they're not going to be allowed to barbecue out in the parking lot or have barbecue grills anywhere on site, and they're not able to put lawn chairs out in front of the building. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if someone wanted to go out exercise -- do something around the outside of the building, it's going to be very limited to what they're -- MR. CIOFFI: Well, no. People can walk around the building, but we don't want -- I don't want lawn chairs in the parking lot or in front of the building or -- I don't want people barbecuing in the parking lot or that sort of thing. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I just wanted to understand what you're -- how that fits together. Then I have a question about one of the items in the actual document. It's on Page 21. It's the Item F on the top of the page, Page 21 of the Planned Unit Development. And what it says is no public access or circulation drives shall be provided to, from, or within, and I'm trying to figure out -- I don't think you intended this, but it looks like you've crossed out 4, 5, and 6. I think on that one you only mean 5 and 6 because you have no control over 4, and it's already done. And if I'm not mistaken, it's got a drive around the back. It's a storage facility. I mean, fire code requires it. So we can't tell them you can't do it. So I'm just wondering, on this one, you're just taking out 5 and 6 even though it really doesn't apply to 4 because 4's built, and I think it's got a driveway around the back. MR. WRIGHT: I agree 100 percent. We only want this to apply to 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. That's all I wanted. That's the only clarification I think I needed. And we'll move to -- anybody else have any questions? If not, we'll move to staff report. David? MR. WEEKS: David Weeks of the Comprehensive Planning section. Commissioners, staff is recommending approval of the plan amendment. We see it as a mixed-use project, and it's just a different version of what is currently provided -- excuse me -- currently required. Mixed-use development can be a residential and commercial mix within a building, it can be commercial and residential mixed on a site but in separate buildings, or a combination of the two. And so materially we don't see a difference. The net effect is there is still the allowance for the mixed-use development on this site, and we recommend approval. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Questions of the Comprehensive Planning staff? Go ahead, Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: If I were going to make a comment before, it would have been exactly what David said: I don't see the difference, so that's it. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And, David, I noticed that Corby wrote the staff report. His conclusions said the following: In summary, the proposed small-scale GMP engagement to allow residential uses on the first floor of buildings on Lots 5 and 6 will create a more compatible development and upholds the intent of mixed-use development in the Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard commercial subdistrict. This amendment does not request an increase in density or intensity previously approved through Ordinance 1747. So my understanding is the -- and from -- especially my recollection, the 58 units are basically vested from a prior approval. MR. WEEKS: In the PUD, that's correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's correct, yes. And from a GMP provision, we've done mixed use like this before. In fact, we just completed approval of Baumgarten. We've got Magnolia Square, which is over on Pine Ridge Road and Goodlette Road which just converted in the same manner, and those are all stand-alone residential buildings. Is that -- I believe those are correct. The actual issue here is the restriction on the first floor, and that's in the GMP, but if I remember correctly, those are the kind of details that you have always preferred not be in the GMP. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 12 of 29 MR. WEEKS: As a general rule, that's correct. What happens is these Comprehensive Plan amendments typically are site specific, such as this one. We're talking about a single tract. Go back to the original amendment of about 15 acres or so. And so, rather than a broader view, the perspective is focused right on this piece of property. And so we sometimes end up with development standards or site specific restrictions such as this within the Comprehensive Plan. But I agree with you, the preference would be not to get into that detail in the Comprehensive Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And part of the reason is is we're now changing two documents instead of one, which would have been just as effective in regards to how we're doing this today. MR. WEEKS: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. I don't have any more questions of staff. Anybody else? Go ahead, Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: On Page 4 of the 1,944 pages, I guess, is the document we got the first time around. It's referenced in the staff report, it says, Lots 5 and 6 comprise 10 acres within the 47.94 plus or minus. I assume that that's a typo. That it's really like 2.5 acres, right? MR. WEEKS: That's correct. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Okay. And there was also a reference to Buckthorn, but you mean Buckstone, right? That's the name of the street; correct? There's a reference in the staff report to Buckthorn, but the street is called Buckstone, I believe. MR. WEEKS: I'll accept that correction. I mean, it will be factual. It either is or it isn't, so I don't know that, but I accept your correction. MR. CIOFFI: One other comment. Ralph Cioffi again. In the NIM, I mentioned that I'm going to be the owner of this property. I have no plan of selling it. So I'm the developer, but I'm also going to be the owner of the property after it's developed. My two sons will be the property managers. We will coordinate with the commercial uses to use probably the same landscape people and what have you, but this will be a property that I own. And the other point I'd like to make is the commercial on the first floor isn't going to negate children and people outside and playing and running around. There's still going to be people on the second and third floor with children. So the commercial use doesn't negate that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Any further questions of the panel from -- of staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I have one of the applicant. The distance between the back of your building and the back of the nearest residential building to the north is how much? Do you have that? MS. ROBIN: The distance varies as you go across the Lots 5 and 6. It's between 260 and 280 feet as measured on the Property Appraiser. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. And it looks vegetated. MS. ROBIN: Very heavily, yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Have either of you stood in the back of that Lots 5 and 6? MS. ROBIN: Yes. Actually, in my PUDA presentation, I do have some compatibility slides with pictures to show. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Did we -- oh, you're still -- you've got another presentation besides -- MR. WRIGHT: Our plan was to do these as two separate agenda items with -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We never do that. We always do them concurrently. So why don't we see your other one now, because you're not going to have another chance. MR. WRIGHT: A lot of this stuff is familiar. Obviously, some overlap between the two applications. But the yellow bounded area there is the location map for the PUD. And in the upper right-hand corner of that yellow bounded area are Lots 5 and 6. As we mentioned, we're trying to amend the PUD to allow for a stand-alone residential building on Tracts 5 and 6. And then at this point I'm going to turn it over to Lindsay to go over the planning concerns of the PUD amendment. Thanks. MS. ROBIN: Thank you. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 13 of 29 Good morning, everyone. Lindsay Robin here on behalf of the applicant. Jeff has given a great overview of the location of the project and our request, so I'm going to not belabor that. I'm going to go ahead and skip around here. He's also covered our surrounding land uses. So I'm going to skip that, too. Skip right to our PUD request. The applicant is requesting to amend the Vanderbilt Commons Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development to remove the requirement to provide commercial on the first floor on the Lots 5 and 6. We are removing Deviation 2, which was deemed unnecessary, and we're also revising the master plan to reflect our amendments. And I just want to note we are not seeking any request to increase density or intensity and, as our client, Ralph, just mentioned, he's actually reducing the density from 58 units to 53 units. All we are requesting to do is to remove the commercial requirement from the first floor to allow the residential-only buildings. And here's an aerial over -- the master plan over an aerial for some context here. Lots 5 and 6 are outlined in yellow for you. And consistent with our currently approved master plan, the project will get access from Vanderbilt Way. We have a 10-foot Type A buffer and a six-foot wall provided along the north boundary where Lots 5 and 6 abut the Black Bear Ridge preserve. We have a 20-foot Type D buffer provided along Buckstone Drive to the east and a 10-foot Type D landscape buffer along Vanderbilt Way to our south. The amendment request, essentially, reduces the intensity of the project eliminating the additional commercial uses adjacent to Black Bear Ridge. The proposed residential-only development program for Lots 5 and 6 is consistent with the surrounding development pattern. Landscape buffers and a six-foot-high wall are provided to the north for additional screening purposes, and a significantly wide preserve is adjacent to the Black Bear Ridge and our Lots 5 and 6 that provides the contiguous habitat and the visual screening. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Ms. Robin, pardon me for interrupting. While we're talking about geographies here, just so that I can get clarity, I drove by this site some weeks ago, and there is construction in progress directly south of Lots 5 and 6 on the other side of Vanderbilt Way -- yeah, Way. It appears to me that that's going to be exclusively commercial; is that correct? Will there be any residential, like, on an upper level there? MS. ROBIN: My understanding is that is exclusively commercial development. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MS. ROBIN: No worries, thank you. Okay. So we have the significant preserve between us and Black Bear Ridge, and then also, again, we are not requesting to increase any density on this project. Okay. So the purpose of this slide here is to illustrate the significant separation. The visual screening that is provided between Lots 5 and 6 in the Black Bear Ridge community to our north. As you can see here, the preserve areas do range in size from 265 feet all the way up to 280 feet in width, and that was using the Property Appraiser measuring tool. And I'd also like to point out on the west side of Black Bear Ridge there you'll note the Portofino Falls multifamily residential development is approximately 90 feet to the nearest lot with a heavily traveled roadway, Pristine Drive, in between the two developments. And here's a couple more photos further demonstrating our compatibility to the Black Bear Ridge community to our north. This view is from Lots 5 and 6 as you're standing looking into the on-site and off-site preserve areas to our north and west. Very expansive preserve there. This photo here is standing looking directly north through the thick preserve areas toward Black Bear Ridge. And then this photo here shows the view looking north and east toward those preserve areas. COMMISSIONER FRY: Lindsay, are we standing on the south edge of the property? MS. ROBIN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: We are, okay. MS. ROBIN: Yes, you are. Okay. And to conclude, it is my professional planning opinion that the amendment does meet the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 14 of 29 requirements for approval, and I am in agreement with staff's recommendation of approval. This request is removing the first-floor commercial uses, making this project more compatibility with the residential development to the north than mixed-use building would be, and I'd also like to note that it is also my professional planning opinion that this does represent transition of density and intensity going from straight commercial to multifamily to single-family. The intent of this mixed-use project will be upheld by the existing and future commercial uses within the MPUD, and, lastly, our request is consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan as proposed to be amended and the Land Development Code. And just to -- I'd like to just recap a few changes that have been made to our PUD document since the last time we were here on August 1st. We are removing the strike from other site alterations from the Development Standards Table. We are adding where commercial is developed after the commercial design standards section just to clarify that those requirements would kick in for commercial buildings, which we are residential only, would not have to comply with that section. We are removing what was a previously proposed Deviation 3 for building foundation plantings, as that was also found to be unnecessary. And we are revising our PUD master plan just to reflect those changes. I'm happy to answer any questions. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody have any questions of the applicant? Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just questioned regarding the statement about lawn chairs going out in front. Was that going to be in the documents -- the rental documents, or was that language that's being proposed in the PUD? And my concern is if it's in the PUD, then it's -- it could be a code issue, and certainly Jeff is well aware, I don't think we want to send code enforcement people out to police lawn chairs in front of an apartment building. I don't believe that's what I would call a very good use of Code Enforcement. So I'd prefer that not be in the PUD documents but it be in the rental documents, if that is the intent. MR. WRIGHT: I believe the intent is to put them in the rental documents and also in the private covenants that govern this property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. It's not a PUD covenant then? MR. WRIGHT: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct. Okay, good. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, we will move to public speakers. And, Ray, if you'll start -- COMMISSIONER FRY: May I ask a question of Mr. Weeks? We were in the middle of the staff when we went back to the applicant. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Oh, I thought we finished. No problem. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm sorry. I just had a quick question. David, if this is approved, as Chairman Strain said, it would leave over 35,000 feet of undeveloped commercial uses in the overall PUD, and I guess five residential units still within the cap on the PUD. What are -- what are the potential -- are there any potential development avenues for that square footage of commercial and the additional five residential units, or would this basically build out the PUD so that those would -- the caps would never be reached? MR. WEEKS: It looks to me like it would build out the PUD. It would be a matter of future redevelopment or some other change. For example, reducing their preserve area to accommodate more land area. But physically it appears they'll be built out, and that will be what we sometimes refer to as ghost density for residential or ghost square footage for commercial. MR. KLATZKOW: And one approach would be to reduce that in this PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Except that the owner of that remaining density and intensity isn't here today. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. I'm just saying it's one approach, because these ghost units are going to be problematic. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 15 of 29 CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Right. But I mean, they're not part of the application. That's the only -- MR. KLATZKOW: Well, no, but you've got the ability to do that. What I'm saying is, you know, we talk about these ghost units, and we say, well, it's just redevelopment. And that's nice now, but years from now when we start this redevelopment, we're going to get denser and denser and denser because of it, and we won't have the infrastructure to handle it. It's just one approach to think about. Not necessarily for this PUD, but on a going-forward basis. These ghost units, whether residential or commercial, are a ticking time bomb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: Jeff, to Chairman Strain's question, though, do we have the purview today to amend the overall PUD beyond just the applicant's section of the property? MR. KLATZKOW: You'd have to continue the item at this point in time and get the approval from everybody to do this. But, yeah, it could be a condition. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Mark? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: One of these days, going with Jeff's comments, I'd like to get into a little discussion about the term "build out" because it's always been a question when you leave units on the table, can they come back and do it, can they cut out pieces of golf course? Can they take down other stuff? We should really talk about this some other time. It gets fairly complex when you look at, like Jeff said, all the stuff, it's a ticking time bomb. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that density is worth an awful lot of money. Take a look at Pelican Bay. They had about 12 -- 1,000 to 1,200. They came in for a PUD amendment. They negotiated some of the density down. I think it's 800 today. The units in there are selling between 5 and 6 million apiece. So you try to take that density away when it could be used for redevelopment for them to inquire -- resell issues, it's going to have a dramatic effect on how we're able to do that or not. We're talking substantial sums of money involving that vested hidden density. So I'm not saying Jeff's wrong. I'm just saying to get there is going to be a challenge. MR. KLATZKOW: Right. But when these people come in, they ask you to change the Comp Plan or they ask you to change the PUD, that's the time that you open it up. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And we have. MR. KLATZKOW: I understand that. All I'm saying and it's probably -- and I agree with Stan -- something for a later discussion to figure out how many ghost units we have out there. You're not eight-laning roads. I mean, you know, you've got a certain infrastructure that's being built out right now and, you know, we get to redevelopment time, that means larger buildings, that means more people, and you won't have the infrastructure to support that. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: And I don't disagree with you. It's just something that -- it takes a little -- there's a different side to it you've got to be considerate of, because that's the argument that's going to be put forth if they come forward. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Theoretically, concurrency was based on those ghost units and, theoretically, the infrastructure should be there to serve all that stuff. Theoretically, the roads should not be traffic bound. Theoretically. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, but you take concurrency and throw it out the window because -- COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: -- you know, that was -- everybody's got the right to develop, and it's not just, well, I came in first, so I met the concurrency. Well, you know, we don't have any concurrency; you can't develop. We're going to be developing. I'm just saying that be very careful about these ghost units on a going-forward basis, because decisions you make today 30 years, 40 years, 50 from now are going to bite us. That's all I'm saying. MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, sir. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 16 of 29 MR. WRIGHT: We're going to commit today to eliminating these ghost units and reducing the density from 58 to 53. So we can only speak to the residential, but the ghost units would be gone. The ghost square footage for commercial would remain, and we can't really speak to that. But that's one thing we do have control of and we are willing to commit to today, reducing the density from 58 to 53 residential. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you're -- you're -- can I -- you're testifying that you have control of all 58 units and that you can make this commitment? MR. WRIGHT: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Heidi? MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Your client is the contract purchaser, or do they own it? MR. WRIGHT: He's the owner. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: Okay. When he bought the property, did it assign any density as part of the contractor deed? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That's the question I just asked. So, I mean, he's got to have control of those by contract and deed or whatever means you've got it, and I thought you said you did. MR. CIOFFI: We do. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: But over the commercial? Do you have control -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, they're not addressing commercial. They're only addressing the units. MS. ASHTON-CICKO: That's correct, but if the deed assigned him, like, 20,000 square feet of commercial or so many of residential, that's what we need to know, whether or not he's got the ability as -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: He's only offering to reduce the units from 58 to 53. I don't think you're venturing into the commercial, are you? MR. WRIGHT: Correct, we're not. MR. CIOFFI: Correct. You know, one point -- maybe the staff can comment. There's virtually no way to add 34-, 36,000 more square feet of commercial anywhere on that PUD. There's not -- there's not enough parking. There's not enough space. The only way to do it would be to get rid of the apartment building altogether that I'm proposing and building 34,000 square feet of commercial there. The frontage is fully -- is going to be fully built out, which you don't see on the photograph is -- this is almost complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You've got to stay with the mic, I'm sorry. MR. CIOFFI: And if you look in the photograph, what looks like a cleared lot now is almost fully complete. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: But I think if we focus on the question, if you're -- you have agreed to reduce what you control from 58 units down to 53. MR. CIOFFI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You don't control any commercial, right? MR. CIOFFI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: It doesn't matter then. MR. CIOFFI: Well, I mean, the commercial I do develop is what I could develop on the ground floor. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So you have some control of commercial? MR. CIOFFI: I could build up -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's what Heidi's asking. You said no. Now you're saying yes. MR. CIOFFI: My point is I could build, in theory, the remaining commercial on Lot 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Then you have control of that by contract? MR. CIOFFI: I mean, I don't know -- I mean -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I think that's Heidi's point, which I thought you answered you didn't. Now you're saying you could. MR. CIOFFI: The answer is I don't know how it works. I mean, there's the commercial in the front, there's the commercial under the -- you know, the self-storage. I don't know how it works. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, could you build nothing but commercial on that lot? 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 17 of 29 MR. CIOFFI: I could, yes. MR. KLATZKOW: Up to the limit of the PUD? MR. CIOFFI: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: I think that answers the question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So Heidi's point was correct. You guys -- when I asked the question, you said you had control of the units but not the commercial, but apparently you have control of the commercial, too. MR. CIOFFI: To the extent no more could be built across the front. I mean, I don't want to speak for Welsh companies, but whatever remaining commercial there is to be built would have to be built on 5 and 6. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: That puts us in a strange dilemma. You have a contract that gives you the commercial and gives you the residential. MR. CIOFFI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: So if you were to be approved for this residential 53 units today, could you commit to not completing -- not providing -- not needing the balance of the commercial available on the site? MR. CIOFFI: Correct. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Thank you, Heidi. That's exactly what I think you were trying to get to. It's a different answer than we started with. I don't know -- my -- I pulled up the CTS program database for the county, and that's where I got the 35,000 from. It says on that database you have 164,000 square feet of commercial with about 35,000 left. I don't know how accurate the database is. It's updated regularly. The lady that does it's pretty definitive. She's good at what she does, so I'm assuming it's in the ballpark. But for this basis, for this stipulation today -- and I appreciate Jeff and Heidi's interest in getting rid of the ghost density -- would you have any objection to a stipulation to reduce the 58 units to 53 and acknowledging that if residential is built as proposed today on this site, you will give up the rest of the commercial? MR. WRIGHT: Yes. We're willing to commit to both of those. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, that helps a lot. Thank you both, Heidi and Jeff, for jumping in on this. COMMISSIONER FRY: I had one more question for Mr. Weeks. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: You had something to say? MR. WEEKS: I just wanted to comment. As long as -- I had a concern, because as Chairman Strain identified, I'm not sure how accurate the CTS tracking is. And I just had a conversation with a staff member over there earlier this week, and they expressed that concern that we not put too much weight on that -- unrelated to this project. So I would -- I like the way it was phrased that no more commercial built as opposed to tying their hands to a specified square footage because, theoretically, you might specify a square footage that, in fact, is removing some of what has already been built if our numbers are not precisely accurate. That was my comment. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No, I wasn't going to tie it to a -- I was worried about the same thing. I mean, Laurie does a great job in keeping up with this, but I'm not sure how -- an SDPI or SDPA may have come in and modified something a little bit, and we don't want to be off on that. So I would look at some general language that basically said, if residential's built on this site, the remaining commercial would not be built outside of that currently approved on the remaining sites. MR. WRIGHT: We're comfortable with that, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: David, for other projects that have been approved elsewhere where there are residential units above commercial, Commissioner Fryer brought up the concern about where do the kids play, what about amenities for the kids, what about barbecues and that type of things. How have those types of issues been balanced previously? Because it appears on this site there is no room for them to put a children's playground or barbecue area, anything like that. But how are those typically addressed in those other developments? MR. WEEKS: I can't think of any Comprehensive Planning provision that addresses that detail. It's more of what you read here, just it's an allowed mixture of uses, specify the intensity, how much square footage of commercial, what types of commercial uses, what density of residential, and maybe the type of residential 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 18 of 29 because some specifically limit to apartments. Beyond that, all those details of recreational uses and where they're going to go on the site, not in the Comprehensive Plan. And I respectfully submit it doesn't belong there either. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. With that, Ray, let's call the first public speaker, and we'll take a break at 10:30, if we're not finished with public speakers by then, just for 15 minutes. But in the meant ime, let's go forward, Ray. MR. BELLOWS: Terrie Abrams followed by Steve Abrams, and I believe Steve is ceding time. MS. ABRAMS: Good morning. My name is Terrie Abrams, and I live at 7213 Acorn Way in Black Bear Ridge. And before we get going here, I just want to clarify a couple things that I heard. First I heard there's no place to put any kind of outdoor living stuff but yet they're having open patios. So there's a little discrepancy in that comment. The other comment is about landscaping, that they want to put more landscaping, but when I talked to Ray yesterday, the companion to this thing is about getting rid of landscaping surrounding the building. So there seems to be a little bit of -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: They withdrew that. They withdrew that getting rid of the landscaping. They withdrew that application. That was Deviation No. 3, I think it was, that's been withdrawn. MR. BELLOWS: They made that motion this morning. MS. ABRAMS: Okay, okay. And then just one other bit of clarification on this. There is a section that there will be no wall because there is a preserve -- a kind of scraggly preserve on their area so the wall is not going to go across the back of the building. So just to clarify that -- and I'll get into what I originally had to say. When our residents purchased their homes, we believed the land in front of the community would be built out as defined in the PUD. When the developers purchased Vanderbilt Commons, they also knew the PUD restrictions and compatibility requirements, yet they continue to request deviations that only serve them. The developers continue to chip away -- I call it salami slicing for those who know marketing terms -- at the original intent defined in the PUD, and now we have compatibility issues. They asked to build a storage unit when there were no residents to produce that. We're still living with the lights today that shine into Black Bear Ridge. The building owner, who is part of this group today, refused to make the proper corrections. They tried to open a drive-through fast-food restaurant, which is not allowed in the PUD. They allowed a non-approved business to open and was told by the magistrate to shut it down. They're now asking to remove the stipulation requiring commercial to be built on the ground floor of a building on Lots 5 and 6. The request completely changes the compatibility of the plaza with the residents of Black Bear Ridge and undermines the original PUD intent. Per the PUD, residential was to be integrated into multiple bui ldings, 1.6 in the PUD. 2.2.E clearly states residential to be located on second or third floors of mixed-use buildings. Plural. Plural. 2.3 defines each tract. The PUD states these lots will have medical and professional and some residential, which is in keeping with the spirit of the PUD, and provides compatibility with Black Bear Ridge. Lots 5 and 6 in the PUD read, "Loading and unloading should be from the front," and that was done to be compatible with Black Bear Ridge. So why now it is okay to have a road, parking, garages backing right up to the community? During a meeting with the developer, he was asked and admitted, this is a workaround to a parking issue. So to solve a problem, an incompatibility issue should be created. No. He needed to put in the number of units of residential over commercial with the available parking spaces. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 19 of 29 So there is no compromise on their end. We've talked to them, and there is absolutely no compromise on their end. The issues are as follows: Completely changes the intent of the PUD. Residential was to be integrated, not a stand-alone building. This concept of residential over commercial is vibrant in Naples as well as other parts of the country. Mercato. Both sides of Fifth Avenue are examples. In Minneapolis, Excelsior and Grant attracts those wishing to have access to restaurants and other businesses. Orlando has several of these types of developments. Lights will be glaring into Black Bear Ridge. Noise levels will increase. The PUD again states no loading and unloading behind the building, yet this calls for an access road with garages and parking behind the building, and that's directly in front of us. No pole lighting is allowed in the PUD, yet when we saw their site plan, there was pole lighting. Daily living will spill into the development. They're saying there's going to be a property management company that's going to stop that. Go look at Falls of Portofino. Nobody's stopping what's going on there. It's, like, horrible. This is about these units being jammed into a five-pound sack when it should be in a 10-pound sack. Less than two years ago we were in this room, and during the meeting you helped us write the PUD language. We stopped the meeting, and you guys helped us to ensure the request the developer was making then remained true to the PUD and compatibility with not only Black Bear but the rest of the plaza. If I was the rest of the plaza, I wouldn't be happy with this either but, again, they all work in the same building. These developers are all connected. We are asking for the integrity of the PUD to remain as it was intended, which is to be compatible with Black Bear Ridge and supports the look and feel of the plaza. This request serves no current residents or future in Collier County and only undermines property values and quality of life to those in the surrounding areas. Thanks for your time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Robert Martin. MR. MARTIN: Thank you. My name is Robert Martin. I live in Black Bear Ridge, 7330 Acorn Way. I also wanted to address the compatibility of this project. It was obviously intended to spread out the 58 units. As a matter of fact, the PUD for Vanderbilt Commons states that it should be no more than 4.3 units per acre. Combining them all into one area like they're doing is going to create -- first we have to remember that's only two-and-a-half acres. They're talking about putting in first 58, now 52 (sic) units. And the parking that's going to be required for that is also going to have to go in the same place. The size of the units, two- and three-bedrooms, it's going to make a tight, cramped area with a lot of people all jammed into the one corner. Right now there's not much access to that entire L commercial property, the Collier/Vanderbilt L. That one small section on the intersection -- even this morning I was sitting past Vanderbilt Way coming out of Black Bear Ridge just waiting to make a right-hand turn. These stores aren't open yet along Vanderbilt Way. Once they open, all access for that new development, the new extension onto the Collier/Vanderbilt commercial area all has to come off of Vanderbilt Way. That's the storage unit and all the stores in the frontage area. Adding to it an apartment building with the parking necessary for that apartment building is going to make that whole area a disaster. Also the same road is the access going west -- going eastbound on Vanderbilt Road, that's the only access into the Winn-Dixie and the other commercial properties. That entire L is almost entirely built out; 90 percent built out. There's only these two lots left, and I believe three acres on the other area. It's all commercial. There is no residential in any of that. There is no residential contiguous to the property. The closest they get to residential is what they show there is where they're backed up to our preserve area. They want to put parking there by the preserve area. I don't really know that that's really conduci ve to -- actually, the preserve area's there for the wildlife. Putting parking back by a wildlife area I don't really think is going to be a great idea either. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 20 of 29 It's also going to be a playground for children. They have no place to go. You have a retention pond and another retention pond. And then you have this big grassy area. And I know as a boy, that's my playground. You know, I could see forts and everything else in there. But the problem being that the same conditions could result in somebody getting injured or fire or -- especially in a tinderbox like we are here in Florida. I have -- the density, I have nothing really against an apartment building, which basically this is. They're not talking about a mixed-use building anymore. They're just changing a commercial property into a real estate property. And I don't really have that much against the idea if you were going to keep the numbers lower than they're talking about. And we're talking about a density of 58 units for two-and-a-half acres, roughly about what, 26 units per -- 27 units per acre. Yeah, 26 units per acre. That's extremely high, especially in Collier County. In downtown Chicago, yeah, I could see it, but not here, and especially not in a corner and not with the traffic flow that we have over here. If we had wider streets or the ability for people to move around a little more, if we had wider sidewalks, if it was more pedestrian friendly, but it's not. People coming out of that apartment building are going to be walking into their parking lot. They'll have a parking lot that goes across to a little green strip and to a sidewalk, then another green strip and a street that has to be used by all of these commercial properties over here. I don't really see that as being a good environment to have children or just about anybody walking around. Basically, that's all I have for you. I thank you for the time. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you, sir. Next speaker, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Steve Bracci, and he has been ceded, from three other speakers, their time. MR. BRACCI: Good morning. Steve Bracci. I don't think I'll need the other -- all three of the other speakers' time. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Sir, how do you spell your name? MR. BRACCI: It's Bracci, B-r-a-c-c-i. And I'm a counsel to Black Bear Ridge. And I wanted to touch on a couple things. One is the history and the other was just the intent, both of the land use element as well as the MPUD. The Future Land Use Element, when it was first -- when it was drafted, it specifically said that the intent is to provide convenient shopping, personal services, and employment for neighboring and Golden Gate Estates residential areas as well as to promote mixed-used development, and then it said, in parentheses, residential uses over commercial uses. That is proposed to be stricken. And while you can agree that that's simply a parenthetical, it's also a very specific parenthetical which goes to the heart of what the land use element was going to be. Understood that, as Mr. Weeks said, from a planning standpoint, you typically wouldn't put that detail in a future land use; you'd put it in the zoning part. But nevertheless, it did exist, it does exist, and the Comp Plan, as we know, is a -- more of a stronghold that the surrounding residents can rely on than the zoning itself. So that's being proposed to be taken out. If you look at the MPUD intent, it's stated at 2.3.A that this -- the Vanderbilt Commons Mixed Use PUD, which are Lots 5 and 6 as well as the commercial south of it, this was intended to create a pedestrian-friendly atmosphere that encourages area residents to work and shop there as well as on-site workers to walk to other services. The next -- that same section also says that the north tract, which is the part north of Vanderbilt Way, including Lots 5 and 6, is expected to be more office and service oriented. There is no office nor is there any service at this point. There's been so many amendments to this PUD over the last couple years that there is no office that will be offered at the north end, nor is there any service. The first amendment was back when the storage facility was allowed. I think that was actually as an unsubstantial change, and it was argued whether that was to be allowed. Once that went in, the developer said, well, geez, this is a passive use. Nobody goes there. The traffic -- it doesn't generate any traffic, so we should be allowed to increase our intensity by 50,000 square feet. Well, why does nobody go there? Because it's not a service -- it's not pedestrian friendly. You can't bring your couch to your mini warehouse facility walking with it on your back. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 21 of 29 So Lots 5 and 6 really are the last opportunity for this developer or these related developers or successors to developers to actually achieve the intent of the MPUD, which is to create office and service-oriented mixed use on the north side. That's not happening. It's sort of -- when asked at the beginning the question was, you know, to what extent -- why does Black Bear Ridge oppose first-floor residential rather than mixed-use commercial? And the question was, well, I don't really know. It's just illogical. Well, why is that the standard? Why is it the standard that when these community -- these projects come in to residential areas, that the -- that it's not sufficient simply for the surrounding residents to want to hold true to the intent of what was originally pitched? Because this is something that's happening more and more as we do get denser and we do have more pressure of land availability when people are trying to bring uses into residential areas. Because what's happening then is over time they get winnowed down. In this particular case, there's now proposals -- for instance, if there's residential on the first floor, the question is, again, is this pedestrian friendly? Is it a destination? It's not a destination. So you have warehouse that's not a destination. If you have simply residential, that's not a destination. But then the question becomes one of compatibility with residential living spilling out into the -- into the area. The solution here is proposed that there would be a private covenant either by the owner of the land enforcing it through their leases or through a property owners' association. But the county is, what I'm hearing today, saying, well, we don't want to be involved in that. We don't want to have Code Enforcement involved in that and, yet, if it's just simply a private covenant, Black Bear Ridge, Falls of Portofino, Raffia Preserve, all those other residential areas have no ability themselves to enforce the compatibility with respect to residential life spilling out. Now, one proposal that -- to dust off our law school books, it's something that hasn't been done recently but might be a good solution for these situations where you have infill coming into residential communities is to have the developer agree to record a restrictive covenant in the public records of Collier County that give the surrounding residential communities, Black Bear Ridge, Raffia Preserve, others, give them the ability to privately enforce a covenant if the county wants to stay out of it. So that's another solution that could be proposed here. If they're true -- if they truly want to have no residential spilling out into their -- into the outside areas, they should be willing to record a restrictive covenant in the public records of Collier County for Black Bear Ridge and others to enforce. I want to clarify one thing about this as well. The planner for the applicant stated that this application reduces intensity. It does not reduce intensity. This application, as written, gives the developer/landowner an option to go with residential on the first floor. It doesn't take away their right to keep commercial on the first floor. This was brought out today by Ms. Cicko and Mr. Strain -- Chairman Strain's back and forth. But I wanted to clarify that point. And it's important for another reason. If you look at Section 5.8 where they're proposing to take out restriction on Lots 5 and 6 -- and that's the one where Chairman Strain said No. 4 should stay in there -- well, 5 and 6 you're proposing to take out the restriction on rear circulation. And number one, as Ms. Abrams said, that's a concern to Black Bear Ridge from a compatibility standpoint, but also, you're taking that away and yet the option for the developer to go with commercial still exists. So you're basically saying they can now build commercial and have rear circulation, which was the exact safeguard that Black Bear Ridge was trying to avoid in the first place. So that needs to be addressed. I believe that's all I have. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, you cut your time short. Thank you. Ray, do we have any other public -- registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Last speaker, Beverly Smith. MS. SMITH: Good morning. My name is Beverly Smith. I'm a resident at 7278 Acorn Way in Black Bear Ridge. First I would like to agree with many of the comments already made today. I guess at this point my only comment is to the Commission: We've been here before, and I have a feeling we're going to be here again, but I don't understand that there's no site plan submitted. There is no building plan submitted. You have no idea what the end product is going to be. So how can we come here logically and say something is compatible? We don't 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 22 of 29 know what that is going to be. We have no idea what their final plans are going to be for parking, for lighting, and that is a major issue with us, as we know from the warehouse. You have no factual information. No factual information was given to us at the NIM. There was nothing shown to us. The only thing we did get at a private meeting that we had with Mr. Cioffi and two representatives from the engineering company and Ms. Abrams and myself was a drawing of a building showing patios and showing some parking. When pushed, they finally showed us a site plan and showed us complete parking on four sides with garage entrance on the back. And I said, is this a final plan? And, no, they weren't sure. It's conceptual. Everything is conceptual. How can something go through Planning Commission, be approved, change a PUD when we don't know what the end product is going to be? I think it's imperative that we know what they want to do, that we know what they're going to have on that lot, and then we know what the actual effect is going to be on us. This is just pie in the sky right now. And, you know, I appreciate what this Planning Commission does. I know how hard you work. We appreciate everything you did. We just want a fair shot at this. We want to know what he's going to do and how it's going to affect us, and we don't know at this point because he's not given anything -- giving us anything to look at to say, this is what I'm doing. Everything is conceptual. Thank you, and thank you for all your hard work. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Thank you. Any other registered speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is any member of the public here -- sir, just be patient. Any member of the public here who has not spoken that would like to speak? Please raise your hand if you are. (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. No other public speakers. And then what we'll do is we're going to have a rebuttal opportunity by the applicant as we typically do, but it's a good time for a break. So let's take a break till 10:35. That's 15 minutes. Then that way the court reporter can rest her fingers. (A brief recess was had.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Welcome back from the break, everyone. We're going to resume the meeting where we left off, and that was with the opportunity for the applicant to rebut any testimony or comments that they heard prior to just now. So, Jeff, if you're going to be leading the charge, it's all yours. MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, Jeff Wright for the applicant. We listened intently to the comments from the public, and we've been hearing them for many months now. Beginning last year we offered to meet with them. We met with them in the neighborhood information meeting and then again a followup meeting to show them a little bit more detail on our plans. We tried to get an understanding of where we can meet in the middle, and we have tried to be good neighbors in that regard and find out what would be acceptable to them. One thing I want to highlight is this is still going to be mixed use. It's still going to meet the intent of mixed use. Residents can walk into the goods and services that are located within the mixed-use PUD and to Winn-Dixie and the Mission Hills restaurants and shopping centers there. It's very much meeting the intent of the GMP. Your staff agrees. One important thing I want to point out, highlight, is that by eliminating one of the existing deviations, we are making this project more compatible -- more compliant with the Land Development Code. Also, by reducing the number of units and committing to residential in this location, we're making it more compatible with the neighbors to the north. I heard a comment that -- I think it was Commissioner Fryer said that he didn't see any benefit to the 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 23 of 29 county or to the neighbors, and I just wanted to point out that having an adjacent property become more compliant and more compatible with your property is a good thing. And also, the county, you hear it all the time, there's a shortage of housing. And, in fact, this week I heard Charles Chapman, the city manager for the City of Naples, saying they have a critical need for housing. A lot of Naples employees don't even live in Collier County. They come from Lee County. So they're looking for housing. There's a critical demand for exactly this type of housing. And I think in that regard it would be a benefit to the county to meet that demand, not to mention the increase in taxes that would result from having this property developed versus vacant. So those are just some of the things I wanted to point out. We're here to answer any questions, but I just wanted to make sure that the Commission was aware that this is a more compliant, more compatible project, and your staff agrees with us. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Questions from the Planning Commission on rebuttal? Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Jeff, thank you. I think that's all we need. MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Your -- sir? MR. CIOFFI: Ralph Cioffi. I just want to clarify one thing that Terrie said. The patios will be buffered, and they will be landscaped. And we added the patios to deal with the ground-floor units where those people would have an ability to walk out of the units and sit on a patio. We also added dividing walls between each unit. So each unit will have a separately buffered patio. It will be south side of the building, not on the north side. And then the last point I'd make is she kept -- Terrie kept referring to they, they, they. I had nothing to do with the commercial that Welsh Company built. They negotiated the permitted uses. This is really my first time here. So I'm not the cause of any of their previous issues. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Cioffi, I guess this question is for you. What -- you know, the concerns of the residents -- and in our packet there are 230 pages of -- and there may have been a boilerplate, but 230 pages of objections from the neighbors. And so I came into this wondering, what is -- why so much -- and I think Commissioner Schmitt summed up my question when I walked in. Why so much angst from the neighborhood on what seems like the same number of units and -- you know, why would they be upset? So I've been trying to glean what are their main objections, and I think it's partly that they believe there's a change in the nature of it from a Mercato type of thing where you can float all the buildings, and there might be residential up above, which is kind of a cool feel. The change in the nature of the part north of Vanderbilt Way, which was supposed to be services and offices, that type of thing, and they have a storage unit and now apartment complex. I feel like one of the main concerns they expressed is the parking in the back, the additional traffic and parking in the back, garage entrances in the back. I guess my main question for you is, why the change? Why did you find the change necessary from what was in the GMP and the PUD with the commercial on the first floor to the fully residential apartments? The difference to you is, as you said, about 10 units -- oversized units with patios and garages on the first floor versus commercial. So why is it so important to you as a developer to do it this way rather than what was in the original plan? MR. CIOFFI: Well, I don't believe there's a need for more commercial there, number one. I want it to be all residential. I just thought it was a better project for the community than adding more commercial on the ground floor. And, by the way, there's no minimum amount of commercial that has to be put on the ground floor. And so -- and if I did build the commercial on the ground floor, I'm still going to have up to 58 units on the top two floors. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 24 of 29 As a developer and an owner, which I will be -- I'm not selling this or flipping it -- I felt the apartment building, the 53 units, was something that was -- call it more compatible. I just thought it made a hell of a lot more sense for the community and what I wanted to own long term. I didn't want to deal with commercial. And there's so much commercial already on that corner and in front of my property. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're saying that you could -- you felt you could have put commercial on the first floor and then 58 additional units on the second and third? MR. CIOFFI: Well, yeah. The PUD allowed me to do that without having to, you know, make any changes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Without having to be here. MR. CIOFFI: Exactly. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Do you have something you want to say before I close the public hearing? COMMISSIONER FRYER: No. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: With that, we will close the public hearing, and I'll turn to discussion with the Planning Commission members. I do have a list of items that we've discussed at some point. If someone wants me to read that, I'll be glad to. But in the meantime, Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just a discussion on mixed use. And I appreciate the comments that were made regarding mixed use and in comparison to the Mercato and other developments such as Orlando and elsewhere. But the real issue with mixed use, it has to be in the right location, and there has to be a draw. The Mercato certainly was built, and the restaurants there, what drew the population to go there, the public to go there. In fact, they really did have a difficult time selling the units. They didn't have a difficult time in selling the commercial area. I would think if this stayed mixed use and there were restaurants below, it would be probably even far more obtrusive than residential units. I really find no problem with having this become simply a residential building. I don't see it as any detrimental impact. And, as far as I'm concerned -- I'll hear Mr. Strain's list. I won't add to it because I know he's taken meticulous notes, but I find no problem in approving both petitions as proposed, subject to the amendments or the discussions from Commissioner Strain. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Ned. COMMISSIONER FRYER: I'd like to perhaps ask you, Mr. Chairman, to revisit, to the extent of your recollection, what was behind the explicit parenthetical that found its way into the GMP. I understand that usually we don't get that specific, but it stuck out to me that since -- in view of the fact that we don't usually get that specific there, that we did, that there must have been some intentionality or some thought process behind it that would be lost if we remove that language. Could you help me? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Now, remember, last meeting I couldn't remember who I even talked to when I came into the meeting, so you're at risk here. It was, what, 13 years ago, 2005? Yeah. So it's been a long time. At that time -- I think I was chairman at that time. That was the first or second year I became chairman, and Brad Schiffer was one of the members of our Planning Commission, and he was an architect. So we got through a lot of discussion on the project, and they didn't have a neighborhood around it like it does today. It was more sparsely built out. And as we were wrapping up, they talked about the commercial uses, and Brad brought up the idea that, well, we ought to encourage mixed use, and this would be an opportunity to do it. Even though the developer didn't ask for the density, why don't we allow them to add the density as residential units and let them do it above the commercial. That way it still stayed commercial, and they had the mixed-use ability. That, basically, is the extent I can recall it. I remember the developer saying -- when we asked the developer if they had any objection to that -- and I think it was almost comical, why would we object to adding something to our PUD or something -- some term like that. So in the end that's how it all happened. It was pretty 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 25 of 29 informal. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Mark, I'll follow up on that. I was the administrator for Community Development at that time. And we had just been through the Community Character Plan, as David remembers, and Ray, and -- much of the Community Character Plan, and there was significant promotion of mixed-use developments in the Community Character Plan. Brad brought it up as part of the Planning Commission, and exactly right. I remember this. He said -- and everybody said, yeah, okay, we'll add it. And there was no objection. It was simply just more, I think I remember, in trying to meet some of the objectives of the Community Character Plan. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yeah. That's how it came -- that's how I recall it. I mean, it wasn't as stringent of an idea as far as development standard that we're talking about now, but it was just something that we thought would be a good thing to add to incentivize it. David? MR. WEEKS: I could just comment along with what Commissioner Schmitt said that that was something that was being brought up. This isn't unique. This is not the only subdistrict that has the allowance for residential. As others came in either new or for amendments, that was something that was on the radar. I cannot answer the specific question of why it's referred to as a mixed-use building. COMMISSIONER FRYER: That's helpful. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody else? Karen. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: In 2005, there were 64 units, so they're dwindling away. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I didn't remember the number. I don't even know how we got at the number, to be honest with you. Stan. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: As the former county engineer and development review manager, I kind of remember some of the early discussions where -- sorry -- where are we going to put mixed -- not mixed use, but where are we going to put high-density residential apartments, and somebody said, why don't we put them over commercial like everybody else does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Because at the time we weren't allowing anything like that. And everybody was like, oh, yeah, it's a great idea. And then all of a sudden it started getting to be, well, let's do real high-class residential over commercial. But at first we were just looking for someplace to put residential. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Okay. Anybody else? Karl? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah. I guess I look at our job here as balancing. If an amendment is to be made to the management plan, there should be a reason. The neighborhood is saying that they bought based on what they assumed would be there based on what was in the plan, so there should be a justifiable reason to change it. We owe the neighborhood to listen to the concerns, but I think our job up here also is to balance whether -- ultimately, what is the impact to the neighboring neighborhood if this plan is approved. You have -- I mean, I see both sides of the coin. I'm a little bit torn on this -- but both sides of the coin. You've got less commercial than you would have had if the PUD was built out. You have less residential than you would have had if the PUD was built out. You have -- even if you had units on the second and third floor, you still have those same issue with people spilling out into the field with their pets, their kids playing. You just have 10 less units which would be replaced by commercial. The only real difference I see if you've got parking on the back of the building and maybe cars entering in the back and maybe less -- a couple less restaurants or offices that you might visit. So I think the -- it's difficult to see, for me, a real detriment to the community if this goes in. And sitting up here -- I'm the newest member. Sitting up here I see people coming come in, and we have to try to evaluate whether the perceived detriment to the neighborhood is really what it is or whether it might be less than intended. 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 26 of 29 I'm tending to believe that the detriment to the neighborhood, if any, is less than, perhaps, is perceived. And I look at this in my own neighborhood as well. And this developer is not the same owner that you've been dealing with for the last few years. He's a new owner, as I understand. So I'm tending to support this as being a somewhat nonmaterial change that actually reduces the density that would have been allowed in the PUD. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, if no one has any other comments, I can go ahead, and I'll read the stipulations that I've been acquiring as we've been talking. There's seven of them: The first one would be a 12-month rental period would be minimum. Second one, the garages will be provided for the ground-floor units. Third one, units with two to three bedrooms -- will all have two to three bedrooms. The two-bedrooms units will be a minimum of 800 square feet. The three-bedroom units will be a minimum of 1,200 feet. There will be no exterior balconies. The unit count will be reduced from 58 to 53, and that -- and this one needs to be worked out a little bit before it gets to the Board of County Commissioners, and I'm going to state that: If all residential is built on Lots 5 and 6, the remaining commercial would not be built outside of that currently approved on the remaining sites subject to developer verification of actual square footage reduction at the BCC meeting. And the reason I worded it that way is because I don't know how accurate the number I used that's in the current CTS program. Knowing Laurie, it's probably pretty accurate. But I would also suggest in looking at this from a practical viewpoint, the developer would be probably wrong to give up the exact number of square footages left, because what if they have a little bit remodeling or a little expansion on something that they can do within the development standards that are there? So my suggestion would be probably about 5,000 square feet less than what the actual number is. That leaves a little play room for future as the years go on. But, anyway, that's part of the discussion. And the last item on No. 7, the ground-floor patios that are going to be provided are all going -- will not be -- will be on the south side of the building. And that's the comments I heard from the developer, and those are the -- that's a followup also from the NIM. That's everything I heard us really hit on other than -- well, that's just about it. So does anybody have anything that they think needs to be added, changed, or modified? And if not, then is there a motion for any -- for or against? COMMISSIONER FRY: I would yield to you in terms of language of this, but I know one of the concerns of the residents was the lighting spilling over into Black Bear Ridge. Can we do anything in that regard -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We could, but it's not necessary. Let me read to you what's in the document: 5.15, lighting. Lighting provided at the rear of any building and structure adjacent to Black Bear Ridge subdivision for developments on Lots 5 and 6 as shown on the Vanderbilt Commons Subdivision plat recorded shall be in the form of shielded structure mounted sconces. These shielded structures will be placed no higher than 10 feet measuring from the finished floor of the building or structure. The areas identified shall be free of pole lighting. So what else -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I mean, that seems pretty practical. That was worked out the last time we had this discussion. COMMISSIONER FRY: You were prepared for that question. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Yes, I heard it asked. Anybody else? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there -- Tom? MR. EASTMAN: Do the landscape supplements remain aspirational? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: You know, Tom, with 280 feet of preservation, I'm not sure what good another bush and a 15-foot buffer's going to be worth. So I'm not -- I don't see that as a practical solution to anything, so I 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 27 of 29 wasn't going to go there. Anybody else? Is there a motion to either -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve both the Growth Management Plan and the PUD subject to the stipulations as proposed by Commissioner Strain. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion made and seconded. Is there any further discussion? COMMISSIONER FRYER: This would not need to come back by consent, would it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: No. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Would you be able to review it? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: I will -- yeah, the staff will have it to me for review of the language I just wrote that we just read. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Thank you. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor of the motion, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all for your attendance today. I'm sorry. That was for -- Joe, that was for the GMP amendment, right? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, I said both at the same. We want to take a second vote? CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Well, we should revote on them separately. Let's just do it one more time. The GMP is PL20180003372. The motion would be the same as you just previously made? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries. MR. WEEKS: I don't think you would want to include those stipulations in the GMP amendment. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right, in the GMP amendment, we would -- CHAIRMAN STRAIN: To the effect they're needed. If there's density listed in the GMP, this would have to revise that density, and we usually do it to the effect it's needed, so... And the second item is PL2018003366. It's the PUD ordinance. Is there a motion based on the previous 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 28 of 29 reading? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, I make the motion. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Seconded by Pat? COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: All in favor? COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Motion carries 7-0 on both counts. That takes us to the new business. There's none listed. Old business. Anybody? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Is there any public comment? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Hearing none, I know you don't -- I don't have to do this, but I'd like a motion to adjourn. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: So moved. COMMISSIONER FRYER: So moved. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Second? COMMISSIONER FRY: Second. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: By everybody. All in favor, signify by saying aye. COMMISSIONER CHRZANOWSKI: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRYER: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER DEARBORN: Aye. CHAIRMAN STRAIN: Anybody opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN STRAIN: We're out of here. Thank you. ******* 5.B.1 Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) August 15, 2019 Page 29 of 29 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:54 a.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.B.1 Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 8-15-2019 CCPC Minutes (10078 : August 15, 2019 CCPC Minutes) 09/19/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: PUDA PL20180003155: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 04-74, the Orange Blossom Ranch Planned Unit Development (PUD), to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1600 to 1950; and providing an effective date. The subject property is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (C.R. 858) approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846) in Sections 13, 14 and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 19, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 616+/- acres. (PL20180003155) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/19/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 08/30/2019 11:21 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/30/2019 11:21 AM Approved By: Review: Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 09/04/2019 2:31 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/04/2019 5:38 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 09/05/2019 11:48 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/09/2019 4:32 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 3:54 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 4:08 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/19/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 54 PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 1 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 SUBJECT: PUDA PL20180003155 ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH PUDA ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT/AGENT: Owners: Agent: RP Orange Blossom Owner LLC 3953 Maple Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75219 Applicant: RP Orange Blossom Owner LLC 3953 Maple Avenue, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75219 Jennifer Sapen, AICP Barraco and Associates, Inc. 2271 McGregor Boulevard, Suite 100 Fort Myers, FL 33901 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioners are requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to amend Ordinance Number 2016-31 the Orange Blossom Ranch Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD). The applicant proposes to amend the +/-616 acre Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD to increase the density from a maximum of 1,600 dwelling units to a maximum of 1,950 dwelling units. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property consists of +/-616 acres and is located along Oil Well Road near the intersection of Hawthorn Road and Oil Well Road in Section 13,14, 19, 24 Township 48 South, Range 27, 28 East, Collier County (see location map, page 2). The proposed master plan document is included as Attachment B. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 2 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 9.A.1.aPacket Pg. 56Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 3 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property is the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD and was established by Ordinance 2004-74. The PUD was later amended by Ordinance 2016-31 to allow for removal of excess excavation material and to amend the master plan to change the landscape buffers to the current LDC requirements. The applicant proposes to increase the density of the residential PUD by adding 350 dwelling units and increasing the maximum number of dwelling units from 1,600 to 1,950 units. The current density for Orange Blossom Ranch PUD is 2.8 DU/A. The applicant states that by increasing density, they seek to provide lower-cost options for residential home purchasers in Collier County by adding attached villas and townhomes. The surrounding PUD projects with approved acreage, dwellings units and densities are listed here: Orange Tree – 2,137 acres – 3,150 units – 1.36 DU/A Estates – residential – 0.44 DU/A Orange Blossom Ranch – 616 acres – 1,950 units – 3.4 DU/A A density map of the surrounding PUD projects and the respective densities for each project has been included as Attachment C. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, zoned Orange Tree MPUD South: Vacant and Golf Course, zoned Orange Tree MPUD East: Residential, zoned E Estates West: School, Residential, zoned Orange Tree MPUD 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 4 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 Aerial Map (County GIS) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is ±616-acre site and is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (CR-858), approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (CR-846). It lies in Sections 13, 14, 19, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27, 28 East. The site is designated Agricultural/Rural – Settlement Area District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) of the Growth Management Plan. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Settlement Area District is described in the GGAMP as follows: “This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 and 1970. In settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property has been "vested" for the types of land uses specified in that certain "PUD" by Settlement Zoning granted by the County as referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT dated the 27th day of January 1986. Twenty-one hundred (2,100) dwelling units and twenty-two (22) acres of neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel use are “vested.” 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 5 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 This area is now known as the Orange Tree PUD, and the types of uses permitted include residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational uses, and essential service uses. By designation in the GMP’s Golden Gate Area Master Plan as Settlement Area, the Plan recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban Designation, is appropriate for the following types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational, and essential services. Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of this District will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above-referenced vested status. The geographic expansion of the Settlement Area to additional lands outside the areas covered by Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), shall be prohibited. The Settlement Area Land Use District is limited to the area described above and shall not be available as a land use district for any other property in the County.” Residential is an allowable use in the Settlement Area District. The Settlement Area District does not have a maximum number of dwelling units limit; therefore, the proposed amendment to increase density from 1,600 dwelling units (DUs) (2.80 DU/A) to 1,950 DUs (3.41 DU/A) is consistent with the GGAMP. Orange Blossom Ranch’s total acreage (616A), minus the proposed total commercial acres (44A) equals 572 Acres, and this is the total acreage used to calculate the density above. The Growth Management Plan Consistency is included as Attachment D. CONCLUSION: This PUDA petition may be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Transportation Element (TE): In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s June 10, 2019, Traffic Impact Statement for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the applicable 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County 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 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 6 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with the proposed rezoning the applicant is requesting to increase the number of residential units from the current 1,600 dwelling units to 1,950 dwelling units (net increase of 350 dwelling units). The proposed development will generate a projected total increase of +/-304 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadways, Oil Well Road (CR 858) and Immokalee Road (CR 846). The resulting development will generate a projected total of +/- 2,419 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the following roadways (note that total increase in PM peak hour, 2-way trips with this request is +/- 304 trips): Roadway Link 2018 AUIR Existing LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2018 Remaining Capacity Oil Well Road (CR 858) Immokalee Road to Everglades Boulevard (4 lane undivided) C 2,000/East 863 Immokalee Road (CR 846) Oil Well Road to SR-29 (4 lane divided and 2 lane undivided) C 900/East 322 Immokalee Road (CR 846) Oil Well Road to Wilson Boulevard (6 lane divided) C 3,300/East 827 Collier Boulevard (CR 951) Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road (6 lane divided) C 3,000/North 773 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 7 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 Based on the 2018 AUIR, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed new trips for the amended project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Tr ansportation Element of the GMP. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Review: Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). No revisions to the environmental portions of the PUD petition are being made. The proposal is consistent with the CCME. There are no existing preserves in the PUD that will be impacted by the proposed petition. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (referred to as the “PUD Findings”), and Section 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as “Rezone Findings”), which establish the legal basis to support the CCPC’s recommendation. Drainage: The proposed PUD Amendment request is not anticipated to create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage will be addressed through the environmental resource permitting process with the South Florida Water Management District. County staff will also evaluate the project’s stormwater management system, calculations, and design criteria at the time of site development plan (SDP) and/or platting (PPL). Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. There are no existing preserves in the PUD that will be impacted by the proposed petition. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Landscape Review: There are no deviations requested. The buffers shown on the updated Master Plan are the same as what was shown on the original Master Plan. The proposed changes have no impact regarding buffers. School District: At this time, there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years for the purposed development at the elementary, middle, and high 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. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval, with the following conditions: 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 8 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 Conditions of Approval to be added to Developer Commitments: PUD Monitoring “One entity (hereinafter the Managing Entity) shall be responsible for PUD monitoring until close-out of the PUD, and this entity shall also be responsible for satisfying all PUD commitments until close-out of the PUD. At the time of this CPUD approval, the Managing Entity is the RP Orange Blossom Owner; LLC. Should the Managing Entity desire to transfer the monitoring and commitments to a successor entity, then it must provide a copy of a legally binding document that needs to be approved for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney. After such approval, the Managing Entity will be released of its obligations upon written approval of the transfer by County staff, and the successor entity shall become the Managing Entity. As Owner and Developer sell off tracts, the Managing Entity shall provide written notice to County that includes an acknowledgment of the commitments required by the CPUD by the new owner and the new owner’s agreement to comply with the Commitments through the Managing Entity, but the Managing Entity shall not be relieved of its responsibility under this Section. When the PUD is closed-out, then the Managing Entity is no longer responsible for the monitoring and fulfillment of PUD commitments.” Transportation Planning “The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 2,149 two- way PM peak hour net trips based on the use codes in the ITE Manual on trip generation rates in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval.” Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the Orange tree wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are readily available via existing infrastructure on-site and within adjacent rights-of-way, and sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. Adequate downstream wastewater system capacity is presently available based on a cursory engineering analysis but must be confirmed at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review through a thorough engineering analysis, which will be discussed at a mandatory pre-submittal conference with representatives from the Public Utilities Engineering and Project Management Division and the Growth Management Development Review Division. Any improvements to the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s wastewater collection/transmission system necessary to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project will be the responsibility of the owner/developer and will be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. Zoning Services Review: The applicant proposes to add 350 dwelling units, which is a reasonably significant increase. The proposed change in density will increase the intensity of the use and the Orange Blossom development project. The applicant proposes to increase the density from 2.8 DU/A to 3.4 DU/A. While the increase in the number of dwelling units is reasonably significant, 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 9 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 the change in density is less than 4 DU/A. There are no changes proposed to the permitted uses or the accessory uses. Additionally, the applicant has not proposed any changes to the development standards. There are no deviations proposed with this request. PUD Findings: LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5 states that “In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan’s compliance with the following criteria in addition to the findings in LDC Section 10.02.08”: (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold) 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Zoning Division staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the additional dwelling units and density are compatible with the development approved in the area. The Public Utilities Division further states that the PUD already receives potable water and wastewater services from the CCWSD, and there is adequate treatment capacity available to future development as proposed by this petition. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and demonstrate unified control of the Courthouse Shadows PUD. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the petition and analyzed it for consistency with goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. They have found the proposed amendment to be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on the location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed changes to the PUD Document do not affect the landscaping standards of the originally approved PUD. Additionally, the Development Review Division has reviewed the proposed amendment and finds it consistent with the LDC provisions. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 10 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 There is no deviation from the required usable open space as submitted. Compliance with approved standards would be demonstrated at the time of SDP. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. Compliance with all other applicable concurrency management regulations is required, including but not limited to, plat plans or site development plans. The Public Utilities Division further states The CCWSD has sufficient treatment capacity for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacity must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. The Transportation Division further states that the roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat), at which time a new TIS will be required to demonstrate turning movements for all site access points. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including County water and sewer mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on a determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to the literal application of such regulations. Proposed future development for the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD is required to comply with the LDC and any other applicable codes. The applicant is not seeking deviations for the proposed PUD Amendment. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, “When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners…shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following when applicable.” Additionally, Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County LDC requires the Planning Commission to make findings as to the PUD Master Plans' compliance with the additional criteria as also noted below: (Zoning Division staff responses in non-bold): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and the elements of the GMP. Comprehensive Planning staff has determined that the petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM and other elements of the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 11 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 The existing land use pattern related to surrounding properties is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this report. The proposed residential uses and the additional dwelling units will not change the existing land use patterns in the area. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The property is zoned PUD and would remain that way. It would not be an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The application does not include boundary changes to the PUD. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed change is not necessary. It is a request; however, that complies with the provisions of the LDC as the applicant seeks to increase the maximum number of allowable dwelling units permitted in the PUD. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect living conditions in the neighborhood. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at time of first development order (SDP or Plat). Additionally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. It is not anticipated that the PUD Amendment request will create drainage problems in the area. Stormwater best management practices, treatment, and storage for this project will be addressed through Environmental Resource Permitting (ERP) with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD). County environmental staff will evaluate the stormwater management system and design criteria at the time of SDP or PPL. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The PUD Amendment for Orange Blossom Ranch is not likely to reduce light or air to 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 65 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 12 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. Property value is affected by many factors. It is driven by market conditions and is generally a subjective determination. Zoning alone is not likely to adversely affect the property values. Market conditions usually prevail. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Nearly all the immediately adjacent property is not under development. The addition of dwelling units to the Orange Blossom Ranch site is not likely to deter development activity of surrounding property. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. If the proposed PUD Amendment complies with the GMP and is found consistent, then it is consistent with public policy and the change does not result in the granting of a special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is determined to be consistent with public welfare. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The subject property can be used in accordance with existing zoning; however, the additional dwelling units that are proposed cannot be approved or permitted without amending the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. The Zoning Division staff determination is the proposed change to add dwelling units to the approved PUD is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The application was reviewed and found compliant with the GMP and the LDC. The Zoning Division staff does not review other sites related to a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 13 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 The applicant is proposing to increase the maximum number of dwelling units from 1,600 to 1,950, and the proposed zoning classification will not change. Site clearing and land balancing will be required to construct additional dwelling units. Development standards would be applied during the SDP and plat process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. The project is required to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities (APF), and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by County staff responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process, and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD Document. The concurrency review for APF is determined at the time of SDP or PPL review. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is not seeking any deviations from the requirements of the LDC. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on Wednesday, April 3, 2019, 5:30 pm at the UF/IFAS Extension Office Collier County located at 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. For further information, please see the NIM Summary, included in the backup materials Attachment E. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: This project does not require the Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on August 30, 2019. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Division staff recommends the CCPC forward petition PUDA-PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval, subject to the stipulations listed: 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PUDA-PL20180003155; Orange Blossom Ranch Page 14 of 14 Revised: August 30, 2019 1 Transportation Stipulation for PUD monitoring. 2 Transportation Stipulation for maximum daily trip count. Attachments: A) Proposed PUD Ordinance (strikethrough) B) Proposed Master Plan Orange Blossom C) Orange Blossom Density Map D) FLUE Consistency Review E) Back up material Orange Blossom 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: Staff Report Draft1 Orange Bloss (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 080619 (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 080619 (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 080619 (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.cPacket Pg. 72Attachment: Attachment B Master Plan Document (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) E MPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD MPUD CFPUD O i l W e l l R D RANDALL BLVD Map Date: 8/29/2019 Growth Management DepartmentOperations & RegulatoryManagement Division I 0 800 1,600400 Feet Orange Blossom RanchDensity: 2.8 Density: 1 per 2.25 ac. SUBJECT PROPERTY:ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH2.8 d.u. per acre GROSS DENSITY UNITS PER ACRE (UPA)ORANGE BLOSSOM RANCH ANDSURROUNDING PROPERTIES (PL20180003155) Orange Blossom Ranch PUD Orange TreeDensity: 1.36 Orange TreeDensity: 1.36 Orange TreeDensity: 1.36 Orange Blossom RanchDensity: 2.8 Orange Blossom RanchDensity: 2.8 E Density: 1 per 2.25 ac. E Density: 1 per 2.25 ac. E Density: 1 per 2.25 ac. E Density: 1 per 2.25 ac. 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: Attachment C Orange Blossom Density Map (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Zoning Division · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104 · 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 2 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Section, Zoning Division Date: May 20, 2019 Subject: Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Consistency Review PETITION NUMBER: PUDA - PL20180003155 - REV 2 PETITION NAME: Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD REQUEST: The petitioner is requesting to amend Ordinance #04-74, as most recently amended by Ord. #16-31, the Orange Blossom Ranch Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD), to increase density from an approved maximum number of 1,600 dwelling units to a maximum number of 1,950 dwelling units. Submittal 2 revised the Working Master Plan, submitted a Statement of Utility Provisions, revised the Traffic Impact Statement (including an increase of the trip limit), PUD document, application, the boundary survey, and the Disclosure of Interest form. LOCATION: The ±616-acre site is located on the north and south sides of Oil Well Road (CR-858), approximately one mile east of Immokalee Road (CR-846). It lies in Sections 13, 14, and 24, Township 48 South, Range 27 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural – Settlement Area District, as identified on the Future Land Use Map in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) of the Growth Management Plan. The Settlement Area District is described in the GGAMP as follows: “This area consists of Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), which was zoned and platted between 1967 and 1970. In settlement of a lawsuit pertaining to the permitted uses of this property, this property has been "vested" for the types of land uses specified in that certain "PUD" by Settlement Zoning granted by the County as referenced in that certain SETTLEMENT AND ZONING AGREEMENT dated the 27th day of January, 1986. Twenty-one hundred (2,100) dwelling units and twenty-two (22) acres of neighborhood commercial uses and hotel/motel use are “vested”. This area is now known as the Orange Tree PUD and the types of uses permitted include residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational uses, and essential service uses. By designation in the Growth Management Plan’s Golden Gate Area Master Plan as Settlement Area, the Plan recognizes the property as an area which, while outside of the Urban Designation, is appropriate for the following types of uses: residential, earth mining, commercial, agricultural, community facility, community uses, education facilities, religious facilities, golf course, open space and recreational, and essential services. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: Attachment D FLUE Consistency Review (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Zoning Division · 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104 · 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 2 Future zoning changes to add dwelling units or commercial acreage within the geographic boundaries of this District will not be prohibited or discouraged by reason of the above-referenced vested status. The geographic expansion of the Settlement Area to additional lands outside the areas covered by Sections 13, 14, 23 and 24, and a portion of 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East (the former North Golden Gate Subdivision), shall be prohibited. The Settlement Area Land Use District is limited to the area described above and shall not be available as a land use district for any other property in the County.” Residential is an allowable use in the Settlement Area District. The Settlement Area District does not have a maximum number of dwelling units limit; therefore, the proposed amendment to increase density from 1,600 dwelling units (DUs) (2.80 DU/A) to 1,950 DUs (3.41 DU/A) is consistent with the GGAMP. Orange Blossom Ranch’s total acreage (616A), minus the proposed total commercial acres (44A) equals 572 Acres; and this is the total acreage used to calculate the density above. Relevant FLUE Objectives and policies are stated below (in italics); each policy is followed by staff analysis (in bold). FLUE Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). [Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services Section’s staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety.] FLUE Objective 7 & Policies 7.1 – 7.4: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: [Staff has determined it is unnecessary to conduct a detailed analysis of FLUE Policies 7.1 , 7.2 and 7.4 pertaining to access, walkability, etc., with this application due to there being no proposed changes to access points, internal roads, land use tracts, etc. from the original PUD approval. Staff determined that FLUE Policy 7.3 should be reviewed due to a new interconnection now being shown on the Master Plan (see below).] FLUE Policy 7.3 states: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [The revised Working Master Plan, Submittal 2, shows that Hawthorne Road will run northwest from Oil Well Road to the western edge of the subject property and will access the proposed entrance to the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park, which abuts part of the western boundary of the project site. Two potential east-west interconnections with Palmetto Ridge High School (west of the Orange Blossom Ranch PUD western commercial/office area) are also shown on the Working Master Plan.] CONCLUSION This PUDA petition may be deemed consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. PETITION ON CITY VIEW cc: Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Raymond V. Bellows, Manager, Zoning Division, Zoning Services Section PUDA-PL2018-3155 Orange Blossom Ranch R2.docx 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: Attachment D FLUE Consistency Review (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 76Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 77Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 78Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 79Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 80Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 81Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 82Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 83Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 84Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 85Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 86Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 87Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 88Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 89Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 90Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 91Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 92Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 93Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 94Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 95Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 96Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 97Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 98Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 99Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 100Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 101Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 102Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 103Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 104Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 105Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 106Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 107Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 114Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 115Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 117Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 118Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 119Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 120Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 121Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 122Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 123Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) INDOOR ATHLETICCOMPLEXMODIFIED EX. CORKSCREW LAKE97.990 AC*PHASE 1TOTAL LAKE AREA102.839 ACDOG PARKPHASE 2PROP. LAKE1.250 AC.PROP. LAKE3.600 AC.COLLIER COUNTYPROPERTY LINENE RECYCLINGCENTERAREA OF EX. LAKE TO BE FILLED (43.854 AC.)KAYAK/CANOE DROPOFF/LAUNCHPROJECT BOUNDARY LINECOLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LINECOLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LINE PROP. CONTROL ELEV. = 11.25'(4) BASEBALL FIELDSCOLLIER COUNTYPROPERTY LINECOLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY LINETHE WATERWAYSCOLLIER COUNTYFAIRGROUNDSPROJECT BOUNDARY LINEPROJECT BOUNDARY LINECOLLIER COUNTYPROPERTY LINEFUTURE WATER TREATMENT PLANT39TH AVENUE NEOIL WELL ROADORANGE BLOSSOM RANCHPALMETTO RIDGE HIGH SCHOOLGradyMinorCivil Engineers ● Land SurveyorsPlanners ● Landscape Architectswww.GradyMinor.comBIG CORKSCREW ISLAND REGIONAL PARKFebruary 12, 20190SCALE: 1" = 250'250'125'9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 124Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 135 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 141 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 142 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 143Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 144Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 149Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 150Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 153Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 154Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 156Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 159Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 161Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 162 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 164Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 166Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Proposed Utilities Calculations Project Information: Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA Cursory Analysis of the Proposed Wastewater Collection System August 13, 2019 BAI # 23218 Fort Myers, Fl 33902-2800 Certificate of Authorization No. 7995 Barraco and Associates, Inc. 2271 McGregor Boulevard P.O. Drawer 2800 Florida P.E. No. 38536 For the Firm Carl A. Barraco, P.E. Page 1 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) page 3 4 9 11 12 WaterCAD Model (Depiction of WaterCAD model used to design forcemain system) End (nothing follows) TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Information: Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA DATA Project Narrative (Summary of considerations and factors affecting the utility design for this project) Waste Water Collection and Transmission System Calculations Pump Station Design (Calculation of required pump discharge and size based upon proposed demand) Proposed Flows Within system (Analysis of the system flows and pressures based on pumping rates and pipe characteristics) Page 2 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Design Considerations for Proposed Wastewater Utilities 1. a. Orange Blossom Ranch Phase 1A (PPL-AR-7186) - 244 Residential Units b. Orange Blossom Ranch Phase 1B (PPL-2005-AR-7431) - 137 Residential Units c. Ranch at Orange Blossom Phase 2A (PPL-PL15-2151) - 393 Residential Units d. Ranch at Orange Blossom Phase 3 (PPL-PL18-0417) - 248 Residential Units 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 1. 2. a. b. c. 3. design conditions is maintained, in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Design Standards. Force main diameters were evaluated to ensure a desired scour velocity of 2.5 fps (2.0 fps minimum) at The existing offsite Collier County forcemain has been evaluated to ensure the flows generated by the 1,950 residential units and 200,000 sq. ft. allowable commercial uses at full build-out do not result in scour velocities exceeding 6.0 fps. The proposed lift stations were designed with a 0.40% gravity sewer slope and 0.1' drop in each manhole. In an attempt to minimize the number of lift stations required, the project was analyzed to determine The submitted design represents an efficient sewer collection and forcemain system based on the following parameters, as established by the Engineer of Record for this project: ideal locations for the lift stations. been utilized in designing the wastewater system. Sanitary sewer flows of 250 GPD per residence with a peaking factor in accordance with 10 States Standards have Orange Blossom PUDA COLLIER COUNTY UTILITIES III. Design Considerations II. Proposed Scope in accordance with the Collier County Utilities Standards Manual. The purpose of this summary is to discuss design considerations for the proposed sewer collection/transmission system to serve the development referenced above. I. Existing Infrastructure Currently, 1,022 Residential Units have existing development orders for Orange Blossom Ranch PUD, as follows: There are four existing onsite lift stations serving the Site Development Plans listed above. At full build-out, the wastewater collection system is proposed to provide sufficient capacity for The existing offsite forcemain infrastructure is proposed to accept flows from full build out conditions up to a total of 1,950 residential units and 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial development allowable by zoning. The lift stations are connected via existing forcemains to the County's 12" transmission main along Oil Well Road. The existing offsite 12" forcemain is approximately 4,600 LF to the wastewater treatment plant at 1445 Oil Well Road. Page 3 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Proposed Utilities Calculations Project Information: Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA Pump Station Design August 13, 2019 BAI # 23218 Page 4 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PROJECT: DATE:8/13/2019 QTY. 351 units 87,750 GPD 878 people (approximately) Other: 87,750 GPD AVG 87,750 GPD 3.84 336,598 GPD PEAK 261.0 gpm 2 8 ft 50.27 cf/ft 1.50 ft 75.40 c.f. 9.26 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow 2.82 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow) 12.07 min. = Fill time + Run time 2.48 2.41 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow 2.16 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate 4.57 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak 6.56 40.50 ft 12.80' -1.22 Force main length 1,500.0 ft 1,800.0 ft =Force Main Length*1.2 6.00 in 2.96 fps 120 12.86 ft 54.52 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head 67.38 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.78' NAVD Rim Elevation = 15.78' NAVD Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =1.78' NAVD High water alarm elev. = 1.28 Lag pump on elev. = 0.78 Lead pump on elev.= 0.28 Pumps off elev. = -1.22 Bottom wet well elev. =(EX. = -2.22)-2.22 Depth of Wet Well = 18.00 ft Single Family Multi-Family Office / Retail / Amenity General Commercial Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) = Velocity in FM at pump rate = Hazen-Williams C-factor = Dynamic Head due to pump rate = DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION: Static Head = Total Discharge Head (TDH) = Storage Volume = Phase 3 Flows: TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW = Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) = PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS Orange Blossom Groves (Ex. PS1B-1) CONTRIBUTING UNITS: Force main highest elevation = Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations = (or 60.94 gpm) SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS: (or 233.75 gpm)Required Pump Capacity during peak = Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 60.94 gpm) Based on projected population of 878 people Cycle time (for avg. flows) = Fill time (for avg. flows) = (or 376.0 g/ft) (or 564.0 gal.) Storage Depth = Volume Wet Well per foot = AVG. DAILY FLOW Fill time (for peak flows) = Run time (for peak flows) = Cycle time (for peak flows) = Number of pumps in wet well = Design Pumping Rate per pump = Diameter of Wet Well = Run time (for avg. flows) = Peak Factor = WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS: External head = Force Main Diameter = Pump Elevation = Force Main Equivalent Length = cycles per hour / pump cycles per hour / pump PVC pipe = Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev. = Invert elev. - 0.50' = Alarm elev. - 0.50' = Lag elev. - 0.50' = Pump elev. - 1.0' = Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev. Page 5 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PROJECT: DATE:8/13/2019 QTY. 351 units 87,750 GPD 878 people (approximately) 5,000 s.f.750 GPD 63 people (approximately) Other: 88,500 GPD AVG 88,500 GPD 3.82 337,806 GPD PEAK 240.0 gpm 2 8 ft 50.27 cf/ft 1.50 ft 75.40 c.f. 9.18 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow 3.16 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow) 12.34 min. = Fill time + Run time 2.43 2.40 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow 2.35 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate 4.75 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak 6.31 15.00 ft 12.80' -0.72 Force main length 1,100.0 ft 1,320.0 ft =Force Main Length*1.2 6.00 in 261.0 gpm 5.68 fps 120 31.52 ft 28.52 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head 60.04 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.78' NAVD Rim Elevation = 15.78' NAVD Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =2.28' NAVD High water alarm elev. = 1.78 Lag pump on elev. = 1.28 Lead pump on elev.= 0.78 Pumps off elev. = -0.72 Bottom wet well elev. =(EX. = -1.72')-1.72 Depth of Wet Well = 17.50 ft PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS Orange Blossom Groves (Ex. PS1B-2) AVG. DAILY FLOWCONTRIBUTING UNITS: Single Family Multi-Family Office / Retail / Amenity General Commercial Phase 3 Flows: TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW = (or 61.46 gpm) SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS: Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 61.46 gpm) Peak Factor = Based on projected population of 941 people Required Pump Capacity during peak =(or 234.59 gpm) Design Pumping Rate per pump = Number of pumps in wet well = Diameter of Wet Well = Volume Wet Well per foot =(or 376.0 g/ft) Storage Depth = Storage Volume =(or 564.0 gal.) Fill time (for avg. flows) = Run time (for avg. flows) = Cycle time (for avg. flows) = Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) =cycles per hour / pump Fill time (for peak flows) = Run time (for peak flows) = Cycle time (for peak flows) = Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) =cycles per hour / pump DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION: External head = Force main highest elevation = Pump Elevation = Force Main Equivalent Length = Force Main Diameter = Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations = Velocity in FM at pump rate = Hazen-Williams C-factor =PVC pipe Dynamic Head due to pump rate = Static Head = Total Discharge Head (TDH) = WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS: = Invert elev. - 0.50' = Alarm elev. - 0.50' = Lag elev. - 0.50' = Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev. = Pump elev. - 1.0' = Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev. Page 6 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PROJECT: DATE:8/14/2019 QTY. 434 units 108,500 GPD 1085 people (approximately) 124 units 31,000 GPD 310 people (approximately) 5,094 s.f.764 GPD 64 people (approximately) Other:61,000 GPD 610 people (approximately) 201,264 GPD AVG 201,264 GPD 3.57 719,375 GPD PEAK 514.0 gpm 2 8 ft 50.27 cf/ft 1.48 ft 74.39 c.f. 3.98 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow 1.49 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow) 5.47 min. = Fill time + Run time 5.49 1.11 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow 1.08 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate 2.20 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak 13.66 50.00 ft 10.80' -6.77 Force main length 1.0 ft 1.2 ft =Force Main Length*1.2 8.00 in 342.0 gpm 5.46 fps 120 0.02 ft 67.57 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head 67.59 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.80' NAVD Rim Elevation = 15.28' NAVD Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =-3.79' NAVD High water alarm elev. = -4.29 Lag pump on elev. = -4.79 Lead pump on elev.= -5.29 Pumps off elev. = -6.77 Bottom wet well elev. =(EX. = -7.77)-7.77 Depth of Wet Well = 23.05 ft Single Family Multi-Family Office / Retail / Amenity General Commercial Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) = Velocity in FM at pump rate = Hazen-Williams C-factor = Dynamic Head due to pump rate = DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION: Static Head = Total Discharge Head (TDH) = Storage Volume = Phase 3 Flows: TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW = Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) = PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS Orange Blossom Lift Station 1 CONTRIBUTING UNITS: Force main highest elevation = Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations = (or 139.77 gpm) SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS: (or 499.57 gpm)Required Pump Capacity during peak = Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 139.77 gpm) Based on projected population of 2,069 people Cycle time (for avg. flows) = Fill time (for avg. flows) = (or 376.0 g/ft) (or 556.5 gal.) Storage Depth = Volume Wet Well per foot = AVG. DAILY FLOW Fill time (for peak flows) = Run time (for peak flows) = Cycle time (for peak flows) = Number of pumps in wet well = Design Pumping Rate per pump = Diameter of Wet Well = Run time (for avg. flows) = Existing 244 Units (44 gpm) Peak Factor = WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS: External head = Force Main Diameter = Pump Elevation = Force Main Equivalent Length = cycles per hour / pump cycles per hour / pump PVC pipe = Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev. = Invert elev. - 0.50' = Alarm elev. - 0.50' = Lag elev. - 0.50' = Pump elev. - 1.0' = Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev. Page 7 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PROJECT: DATE:8/14/2019 QTY. 312 units 78,000 GPD 780 people (approximately) 134 units 33,500 GPD 335 people (approximately) Other: 111,500 GPD AVG 111,500 GPD 3.77 420,246 GPD PEAK 340.0 gpm 2 8 ft 50.27 cf/ft 2.00 ft 100.53 c.f. 9.71 min. = Storage Volume/ Total avg. flow 2.86 min. = Storage Volume/ (Pump Rate - Total flow) 12.58 min. = Fill time + Run time 2.39 2.58 min. = Storage Volume/ Peak flow 2.21 min. = Storage Volume/ Pump Rate 4.79 min. = Fill time for peak + Run time for peak 6.27 50.00 ft 12.50' -8.21 Force main length 3,300.0 ft 3,960.0 ft =Force Main Length*1.2 8.00 in 2.17 fps 120 11.40 ft 70.71 ft = (FM highest Elev.-Pump Elev.)+External Head 82.11 ft = Static Head + Dynamic Head Wet-season ground water table elevation =11.80' NAVD Rim Elevation = 16.08' NAVD Lowest Gravity Sewer Inlet Invert =-3.71' NAVD High water alarm elev. = -5.21 Lag pump on elev. = -5.71 Lead pump on elev.= -6.21 Pumps off elev. = -8.21 Bottom wet well elev. = -10.21 Depth of Wet Well = 26.29 ft = Lead elev. - Storage Depth = Pump Elev. = Pump elev. - 2.0' = Rim elev. - Bottom WW elev. = Invert elev. - 1.50' = Alarm elev. - 0.50' = Lag elev. - 0.50' Dynamic Head due to pump rate = Static Head = Total Discharge Head (TDH) = WET WELL / SWITCH ELEVATIONS: Pump Rate from Upstream Manifolded Stations = Velocity in FM at pump rate = Hazen-Williams C-factor = PVC pipe Pump Elevation = Force Main Equivalent Length = Force Main Diameter = DYNAMIC HEAD LOSS DETERMINATION: External head = Force main highest elevation = Run time (for peak flows) = Cycle time (for peak flows) = Pump cycles / hour (for peak flows) = cycles per hour / pump Cycle time (for avg. flows) = Pump cycles / hour (for avg. flows) = cycles per hour / pump Fill time (for peak flows) = Storage Volume = (or 752.0 gal.) Fill time (for avg. flows) = Run time (for avg. flows) = Diameter of Wet Well = Volume Wet Well per foot = (or 376.0 g/ft) Storage Depth = Required Pump Capacity during peak = (or 291.84 gpm) Design Pumping Rate per pump = Number of pumps in wet well = Required Pump Capacity for avg daily flow = (or 77.43 gpm) Peak Factor = Based on projected population of 1,115 people TOTAL AVG DAILY FLOW =(or 77.43 gpm) SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS: Multi-Family Office / Retail / Amenity General Commercial Restaurant PUMP STATION CALCULATIONS Orange Blossom Lift Station 2 AVG. DAILY FLOWCONTRIBUTING UNITS: Single Family Page 8 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Proposed Utilities Calculations Project Information: Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA WaterCAD Model August 13, 2019 BAI # 23218 Page 9 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 23218-GROVES-FM.wtg Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 2 [10.02.00.43] Page 1 of 1 Scenario: Base 6/21/2019 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Page 10 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Proposed Utilities Calculations Project Information: Orange Blossom Ranch PUDA Proposed Flows within System August 13, 2019 BAI # 23218 Page 11 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) Label Length (Scaled) (ft) Start Node Diameter (in) Flow (gpm) Velocity (ft/s) Headloss Gradient (ft/ft) P-9 310 PS1B-2 6.0 240 2.72 0.004 P-10 1,094 J-6 6.0 501 5.69 0.016 P-12 1,550 PS1B-1 6.0 261 2.96 0.005 P-1 1,410 LS-2 8.0 340 2.17 0.002 P-2(1) 1,615 J-1 8.0 340 2.17 0.002 P-5 150 LS-1 8.0 514 3.28 0.004 P-6 1,741 J-3 8.0 855 5.46 0.010 P-7(1) 2,343 J-4 12.0 1,356 3.85 0.003 P-3 134 R-2 99.0 340 0.01 0.000 P-4 149 R-1 99.0 514 0.02 0.000 P-8 85 PS1B-2 99.0 240 0.01 0.000 P-11 182 PS1B-1 99.0 261 0.01 0.000 Page 1 of 1 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 WaterCAD CONNECT Edition Update 2 [10.02.00.43] Bentley Systems, Inc. Haestad Methods Solution Center 27 Siemon Company Drive Suite 200 W Watertown, CT 06795 USA +1-203-755-1666 Hazen-Williams C 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.0J-4 R-7 LS-2 LS-1 PS1B-2 PS1B-1 FlexTable: Pipe Table 23218-GROVES-FM.wtg 8/13/2019 Stop Node J-6 J-4 J-6 J-1 J-3 J-3 Page 12 of 12 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 190Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 191Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange #14. EXHIBITS A – F • Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses • Exhibit B: Development Standards • Exhibit C: Master Plan • Exhibit D: Legal Description • Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and Justifications • Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 193Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 194Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 195Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 196Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 197Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 198Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 199Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 200Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 201Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 202Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 203Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 204Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 205Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 206Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 207Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 208Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 209Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 210Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 211Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 212Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 213Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 214Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 215Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 216Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 217Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 218Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 219Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 220Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 221Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 222Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 223Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 224Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 225Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 226Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 227Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 228Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 229Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 230Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 231Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 232Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PROPOSED CHANGES TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-74 Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions. Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD / PL20180003155 / 2019-03-06 1 of 2 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE The development consists of 616± acres of property in Collier County as a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) to be known as the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD, which will be in compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of Collier County as set forth in the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). The Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD is a mixed-use residential community with associated community facility, recreational, and commercial uses and will be consistent with the applicable elements of the Collier County GMP for the following reasons: 1. The subject property is within the Settlement Area District Designation as identified on the Future Land Use Map, which permits a wide variety of land uses, including commercial, residential, community facility and recreation. 2. The total acreage of the MPUD is 616 ± acres. The maximum number of dwelling units to be built on the total acreage is 1,600 1,950. The number of dwelling units per gross acre, less the 44± acre Commercial/Office area, is approximately 2.8 3.4 units. The density on individual parcels of land throughout the project may vary according to the type of housing placed on each parcel of land. No maximum densities have been established in the Settlement Area District. SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION 1.6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The MPUD is a mixed-use residential single family and multi-family community with a maximum of 1,600 1,950 units designated "R/G" dwelling units and 200,000 square feet of commercial and office leasable area within areas designated "C/O" on the master plan. Recreational facilities may ·be provided in conjunction with the dwelling units. Residential land uses, recreational uses, community facility uses, commercial uses and signage are designed to be harmonious with one another in a natural setting by using common architecture, appropriate screening/buffering, and native vegetation, whenever feasible. SECTION III RESDIENTIAL/GOLF “R/G” 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to identify permitted uses and development standards for areas within the Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD designated on the Master Plan as "R/G", Residential/Golf. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PROPOSED CHANGES TO ORDINANCE NO. 04-74 Words underlined are additions; words struck through are deletions. Orange Blossom Ranch MPUD / PL20180003155 / 2019-03-06 2 of 2 3.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS A maximum of 1,600 1,950 dwelling units of various types may be constructed within areas designated R/G on the Master Plan. 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 235Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 236Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 2,149 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 238Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 239Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 240Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 241Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 242Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 243Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 244Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 245Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 246Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 247Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 248Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 249Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 250Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 251Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 252Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 253Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 254Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 255Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 256Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 257Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 258Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 259Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 260Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 261Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 262Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 263Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 264Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 265Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 266Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 267Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 268Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 269Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 271Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 272Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 273Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 274Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 275Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 276Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 277Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 278Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 279Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 280Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 281Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 282Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 283Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 284Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 285Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange 9.A.1.fPacket Pg. 286Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange PROJECT DESCRIPTION FILE NAME LOCATION PLOT DATE OVERALL PLAN.DWG J:\23218\DWG\ZONING\2018\EXHIBITS\ THU. 3-21-2019 - 9:21 AM COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORANGE BLOSSOM MPUD THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND INTENDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. SITE LAYOUT AND LAND USE INTENSITIES OR DENSITIES MAY CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL AND / OR REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND / OR OPPORTUNITIES. PLOT BY ANGELICA HARDY DRAWING NOT VALID WITHOUT SEAL, SIGNATURE AND DATE COPYRIGHT 2019, BARRACO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRODUCTION, CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED PREPARED FOR WWW.RONTO.COM PHONE (239) 649-6310 3066 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., UNIT 201 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 2271 McGREGOR BLVD., SUITE 100 POST OFFICE DRAWER 2800 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-2800 PHONE (239) 461-3170 FAX (239) 461-3169 arraco and Associates, Inc.B CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING www.barraco.net FLORIDA CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORIZATION ENGINEERING 7995 - SURVEYING LB-6940 CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS C PLAN REVISIONS SHEET NUMBERPROJECT / FILE NO. 1 PROPOSED DENSITY EXHIBIT 23218 PLAN STATUS OIL WELL ROAD IMMOKALEE ROADIMMOKALEE ROADN S W E 0 210 420 840 SCALE IN FEET PALMETTO RIDGE HIGH SCHOOL CORKSCREW MIDDLE SCHOOL COLLIER COUNTY FAIR AND EXPOSITION COLLIER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE-DISTRICT 4 PHASE 2 PHASE 1 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PROJECT DESCRIPTION FILE NAME LOCATION PLOT DATE DENSITY ANALYSIS PLAN.DWG J:\23218\DWG\ZONING\2018\EXHIBITS\ THU. 3-21-2019 - 9:16 AM COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORANGE BLOSSOM MPUD THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND INTENDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. SITE LAYOUT AND LAND USE INTENSITIES OR DENSITIES MAY CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL AND / OR REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND / OR OPPORTUNITIES. PLOT BY ANGELICA HARDY DRAWING NOT VALID WITHOUT SEAL, SIGNATURE AND DATE COPYRIGHT 2019, BARRACO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRODUCTION, CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED PREPARED FOR WWW.RONTO.COM PHONE (239) 649-6310 3066 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., UNIT 201 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 2271 McGREGOR BLVD., SUITE 100 POST OFFICE DRAWER 2800 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-2800 PHONE (239) 461-3170 FAX (239) 461-3169 arraco and Associates, Inc.B CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING www.barraco.net FLORIDA CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORIZATION ENGINEERING 7995 - SURVEYING LB-6940 CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS C PLAN REVISIONS SHEET NUMBERPROJECT / FILE NO. 1 PROPOSED DENSITY EXHIBIT 23218 PLAN STATUS N S W E 0 200 400 800 SCALE IN FEET FUTURE 5.1 D.U. / AC. . (1176 UNITS ON 230 AC) ACREAGE TOTALS DO NOT INCLUDE ROAD OR AMENITIES PHASE 1 2.8 D.U. / AC. (381 UNITS ON 137 AC) PHASE 2 5.0 D.U. / AC. (393 UNITS ON 78 AC) OIL WELL ROAD FUTURE COMMERCIAL 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) PREPARED FOR PROJECT DESCRIPTION FILE NAME LOCATION PLOT DATE 23218-Z01-WORKING.DWG J:\23218\DWG\ZONING\2018\ THU. 3-28-2019 - 11:01 AM COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ORANGE BLOSSOM MPUD WWW.RONTO.COM PHONE (239) 649-6310 3066 TAMIAMI TRAIL N., UNIT 201 NAPLES, FLORIDA 34103 THIS PLAN IS PRELIMINARY AND INTENDED FOR CONCEPTUAL PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY. SITE LAYOUT AND LAND USE INTENSITIES OR DENSITIES MAY CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BASED UPON SURVEY, ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL AND / OR REGULATORY CONSTRAINTS AND / OR OPPORTUNITIES. PLOT BY CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS 2271 McGREGOR BLVD., SUITE 100 POST OFFICE DRAWER 2800 FORT MYERS, FLORIDA 33902-2800 PHONE (239) 461-3170 FAX (239) 461-3169 CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVEYING LAND PLANNING FLORIDA CERTIFICATES OF AUTHORIZATION ENGINEERING 7995 - SURVEYING LB-6940 BASEPLAN = 23218-Z00.DWG ANGELICA HARDY CROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGSCROSS REFERENCED DRAWINGS C DRAWING NOT VALID WITHOUT SEAL, SIGNATURE AND DATE COPYRIGHT 2019, BARRACO AND ASSOCIATES, INC. REPRODUCTION, CHANGES OR ASSIGNMENTS ARE PROHIBITED SHEET NUMBER PLAN REVISIONS PLAN STATUS PROJECT / FILE NO. 1 WORKING MASTER PLAN 23218 USE: HIGH SCHOOL ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD CANAL CANALCANAL R/G R/G R/G R/G R/G R/G R/G R/G C/O USE: GOLF COURSE ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD USE: VACANT ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD POTENTIAL INTERCONNECT POTENTIAL INTERCONNECT CF USE: SINGLE FAMILY ZONED: ORANGETREE PUD ORANGETREE WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY NO BUFFER REQUIRED 15' WIDE BUFFER 15'TYPE"D"BUFFER15'TYPE"D"BUFFER20'TYPE"D"BUFFER20'TYPE"D"BUFFERSITE SUMMARY (R/G) RESIDENTIAL / GOLF ± 474 ACRES (C/O) COMMERCIAL / OFFICE ± 44 ACRES (CF) COMMUNITY FACILITY ± 98 ACRES TOTAL ± 616 ACRES NOTES 1) MASTER PLAN AND SITE SUMMARY ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND RESIDENTIAL TRACTS AND LAKES ARE SUBJECT TO REFINEMENT DURING JURISDICTIONAL AGENCY REVIEW AND APPROVAL, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWS AND APPROVAL. 2)LAKE AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE AND LOCATIONS ARE CONCEPTUAL. THEIR FINAL SIZE AND CONFIGURATION WILL BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF PLATTING OR SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL. 3)INTERNAL ROADWAYS, AND INGRESS AND EGRESS LOCATIONS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ARE CONCEPTUAL IN NATURE AND ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN OR PLAT APPROVAL. 1-5 ON THE MASTER PLAN REPRESENT APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 5 WATER WELL EASEMENTS THAT WERE AGREED TO IN THE 2004 PUD APPROVAL. 3)POTABLE WATER WELL LOCATIONS 1-5 ARE SHOWN CONCEPTUAL AND ARE SUBJECT TO PUD SECTION 6.4. DRAINAGE BASIN ONE DRAINAGE BASIN TWO DRAINAGE BASIN THREE60' PUBLIC ACCESS RECREATIONAL AMENITIES ± 5 ACRES OILWELLROADC/O TYPICAL WELL EASEMENT 1 2 3 TYPICAL PERIMETER BERM EXISTING GRADE 2' 4 :1 4:1 TOP OF BERM ELEVATION 16.0' NOTE: STEEPER SLOPES MAY BE REQUESTED AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT WITH ADDITIONAL STABILIZATION (I.E. RIP-RAP) TYPICAL LAKE CROSS SECTION BOTTOM OF LAKE ELEVATION ± -7.0' BREAK POINT ELEV. ± 3.0' CONTROL ELEV. ± 13.0' 4 :1 2 :1 4 5 EXISTING LAKE ± 90 AC CSA-2 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS N S W E 0 200 400 800 SCALE IN FEET 15'WIDEBUFFER15' WIDE BUFFER 10'WIDEBUFFER10'WIDEBUFFERLEGEND *HAUL ROAD ACCESS AREA OF SOIL REMOVAL * * THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO CHANGE THE AREA DESIGNATED C/O IN THE PRIOR MASTER PLAN APPROVED IN 2004 IN ORDINANCE 04-74. NOTE DRY SEASON WATER ELEV 8.4' GOLDEN GATE CANAL GOLDEN GATE CANAL USE: SINGLE FAMILY ZONED: GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 25' RIGHT OF WAY RESERVATION 75' RIGHT OF WAY RESERVATION CS1B-1 CS1A-1 CS1A-2 15' WIDE BUFFER 10' TYPE "A" BUFFER 10'TYPE "A"BUFFER R/G 30' PIPELINE EASEMENT 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment E Backup Materials Orange Blossom (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 290Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment F Affidavit of Posting Sign (10009 : PUDA PL20180003155 Orange Blossom Ranch) 09/19/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: PL20180003659: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Mixed Use Activity Center #16 Map by designating 10 acres in the Courthouse Shadows Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay eligible for residential development up to 12.8 units an acre plus a base density of 4 units an acre for the MPUD and up to 97 density pool units for the MPUD as determined by a rezone. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 And 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 10 acres of a 20.35+/- acre MPUD; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to PL201 80003658) [Coordinator Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/19/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 09/05/2019 7:04 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/05/2019 7:04 AM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 09/05/2019 11:17 AM Growth Management Department David Weeks Additional Reviewer Completed 09/05/2019 2:11 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/09/2019 4:31 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 3:54 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 4:09 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/19/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 298 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARINGS) PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1 [Zoning Companion PL20180003658] CCPC: SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 BCC: NOVEMBER 12, 2019 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: CCPC COVER (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC – September 19, 2019 COLLIER COUNTY GMP SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT ADOPTION HEARING 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENT: CCPC Staff Report: PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps): PL20180003659/CPss-2019-1 3) TAB: Project PL20180003659/ DOCUMENT: Application/Petition Petition CPSS-2019-1 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: CCPC Table of Contents (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 1 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE S TAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: September 19, 2019 SUBJECT: PETITION PL20180003659 / CPSS-2019-1, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [ADOPTION HEARING] (Companion to PL20180003658, Courthouse Shadows PUDA) ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) PETITIONER/OWNER/AGENTS: Petitioner/Owner: Mark S. Jenkins, Sr. V.P., for KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 1100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Q. Grady Minor & Associates, PA Coleman Yovanovich & Koester, PA 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Naples, Florida 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION The subject property comprises ten (10) acres and is located off-frontage, south of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East, (US 41) and Airport-Pulling Road South, and south and east of Peters Avenue, in Section 12, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. The subject property makes up a portion of the larger Courthouse Shadows Commercial Planned Unit Development (a companion PUD amendment (PUDA) petition would change this to a Mixed Use PUD) (±20.35 acres), and lies within both the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict #16 and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO). (East Naples Planning Community) The 10-acre site is depicted with a diagonal striped pattern on the Activity Center #16 map excerpt on the next page. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 2 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE REQUESTED ACTION This petitioner seeks to amend Mixed Use Activity Center #16, US 41 and Airport-Pulling Road, in the FLUE Future Land Use Map Series of the Growth Management Plan (GMP), affecting ten (10) or fewer acres, by amending the: 1) FLUM inset map for Mixed Use Activity Center #16 to depict the affected 10-acre area, 2) Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) text to revise provisions regarding the uses and density allowed within the affected area. Both the amended map and Overlay language proposed by this amendment are found in Ordinance Exhibit “A”. [Note: Though the amendment text in petition materials differs from that in the Ordinance, the density is the same and the petition agents have seen and approved of the Ordinance language.] PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT The petitioner proposes amended Overlay provisions that allow a residential density increase of 12.8 dwelling units per acre (DU/A) or 128 DUs; these DUs are limited to rental apartments only and to the 10-acre portion of the PUD that is the subject of this GMP amendment petition. Additional density allowances already existing in the FLUE would allow an additional 172 DUs, for a total of 300 DUs, within that portion of the Courthouse Shadows PUD proposed to allow mixed uses via the companion PUDA petition. The FLUE does not limit these 172 DUs to apartments – they could be single family or multi-family, rental or fee simple ownership – but the companion PUDA does. As the subject site 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 3 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE is presently zoned commercial, which has no assigned residential density, none of the proposed density is an entitlement. Refer to the table below. FLUE Provision Density GMP Amendment 12.8 DU/A X 10 acs. = 128 DUs Mixed Use Activity Center density 4 DU/A x 18.8 acs. within PUD proposed for mixed use = 75 DUs Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay density bonus pool 97 DUs SUM 300 DUs STAFF ANALYSIS FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, ZONING AND LAND USE: Subject Property: The subject property, which comprises approximately 10 acres, is currently designated Urban Mixed Use District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, which generally provides for concentrating 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 [including the full array of commercial, residential, institutional, hotel/motel, community facilities, and other land uses] developed at a human-scale, to be pedestrian-oriented, and to be interconnected with abutting projects. This property also lies within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO), and the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). It is zoned the Courthouse Shadows CPUD, and developed with a commercial shopping center. (The entire Courthouse Shadows CPUD lies with the Mixed Use Activity Center #16, the B/GTRO, and the CHHA.) Surrounding Lands: The Collier County Government Center, including the Collier Area Transit station, is across US 41 East to the north, and a Walmart store lies to the east across US 4 1 East. A shopping center lies within ½ mile to the southeast and northwest, as well as several strip centers and individual buildings containing retail, restaurant, office and personal service uses. North and East: The Future Land Use Map designates land north and east of the subject property, across US 41 East, as Urban Mixed Use District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict; this land is within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center #16. Generally, the governmental properties to the north lie within the boundaries of the B/GTRO and the CHHA, while those commercial properties to the north lie outside the Overlay. Land nearer Airport-Pulling Road South is zoned Collier County Government Complex PUD and is developed with the County’s Main Administrative Facilities. Land further south and east along US 41 East is zoned C-5, General Commercial, and is developed with a major commercial retailer. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 4 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE South: The Future Land Use Map designates land lying south of the subject property, across College Court, and across Henderson Creek, as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and within B/GTRO. Generally, properties to the southwest lie within the boundaries of the B/GTRO and the CHHA, while those properties to the southeast, across US 41 East, lie outside the Overlay. These areas are zoned C-3, Commercial (BMUD R-1), RSF-4, Residential Single-Family (BMUD R-1), and are developed residentially. West: The Future Land Use Map designates land immediately west of the subject property as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict and within the B/GTRO and the CHHA; areas are also within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center #16. These areas are zoned RMF-6, Residential Multi-Family (BMUD R-1), and RSF-4, Residential Single-Family, and are developed residentially. A small number of properties fronting US 41 East, and west of the subject property across Peters Avenue, are zoned C-3, Commercial (GTMUD MXD), and developed as such. In summary, the subject property lies along the transitional US 41 East corridor ‒ the existing and planned land uses, and current zoning, in the area to the north and east of the subject property are primarily commercial and institutional, while in the area to the south and west of the subject property are primarily residential. Criteria for GMP Amendments in Florida Statutes The data and analysis requirements for comprehensive plans and plan amendments are noted in Chapter 163, F.S., specifically as listed below. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Criteria in Florida Statutes, Chapter 163.3187, to Qualify as a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan (GMP) Amendment: The process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) the following statutory standards be met, [followed by staff analysis in bracketed text]. (1) A small scale development amendment may be adopted under the following conditions: (a) The proposed amendment involves a use of 10 acres or fewer. [The amendment pertains to a 10-acre property.] (b) The proposed amendment does not involve a text change to the goals, policies, and objectives of the local government’s comprehensive plan, but only proposes a land use change to the future land use map for a site-specific small scale development activity. However, text changes that relate directly to, and are adopted simultaneously with, the small scale future land use map amendment shall be permissible under this section. [This amendment involves text changes that relate directly to site-specific Future Land Use Map changes.] (c) The property that is the subject of the proposed amendment is not located within an area of critical state concern, unless the project subject to the proposed amendment involves the construction of affordable housing units meeting the criteria of s. 420.0004(3), and is located within an area of critical state concern designated by s. 380.0552 or by the 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 5 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (4) Comprehensive plans may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to s. 163.3177. [The amendment preserves the internal consistency between and among GMP elements.] Section 163.3177(1)(f), Florida Statutes: The process for adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) that plan amendments shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government, (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. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 6 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE Section 163.3177(6)(a)2. Florida Statutes: The process for adoption of a comprehensive plan amendment requires (in part) that plan amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies and data regarding the area, 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. 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: The process for adoption of a comprehensive plan map amendment [which this is] requires (in part) that plan amendments shall be based analyses of the availability of facilities and services, the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed uses, and of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements of the existing subdistricts, overlays and special designations, within which land use programs and activities are ultimately directed. (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. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 7 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE 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. BACKGROUND, CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYSIS Subject Property History Includes: (1) Collier County adopted the Growth Management Plan, which included the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistricts (MUAC), in 1989. From its inception, the MUAC concept allowed and encouraged mixed use development. The site was also seaward of the Coastal Management Boundary, predecessor to the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). (2) Collier County approved a rezone petition for 20+ acres to establish the CDC aka Collier PUD in 1985 to allow commercial development – appears to be C-3 uses plus hotel (unspecified square feet; hotel limited to 156 units). The existing shopping center, anchored by a grocery store, was built in 1988, per Collier County Property Appraiser GIS data. Outparcels were developed at different times. (3) The CDC PUD was rezoned to Courthouse Shadows PUD in 1992 to allow 147,000 square feet of C-3 uses. (4) Collier County adopted the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Plan in early 2000 and adopted the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) in the FLUE in late 2000. Both encompassed the Courthouse Shadows PUD. (5) In the mid-2000s, the South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) was adopted in the Transportation Element; it encompassed the Courthouse Shadows PUD. Development in the TCEA may require employment of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies. (6) At some point, the County approved a small expansion (±0.25 acres) of the PUD to add land along Peters Street, and to increase the permitted floor area to 165,000 square feet of C-3 uses. Appropriateness of the Site and the Change: Mixed Use Activity Centers in Collier County encourage and provide for residential development in mixed-use settings. The size and location of the site is appropriate for redevelopment adding a residential component. The site is proximate to major employment opportunities, goods and services, and public transit – both within and outside of the Activity Center. The Collier County Government Center, including the Collier Area Transit station, is across US 41 East to the north, and a Walmart store lies to the east across US 41 East. A shopping center lies within ½ mile to the southeast and northwest, as well as several strip centers and individual buildings containing retail, restaurant, office and personal service uses. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 8 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE The site is also within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, an Overlay specifically created to encourage redevelopment. The existing shopping center in the Courthouse Shadows CPUD is almost completely vacant. Though the site lies within the CHHA, mitigation is provided (via the companion PUDA petition) as requested by Bureau of Emergency Services (BES); both US 41 East and Airport-Pulling Road South are emergency evacuation routes; and, for lower intensity storm events, the BES typically encourages shelter-in-place for residents in well-built structures (e.g. concrete block structures built to current Code requirements). The site is also within the South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). This area may be exempt from transportation concurrency requirements, so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using the procedures established in Policies 5.5 and 5.6 of the Transportation Element. Meyers Research prepared a Rental Apartment Needs Analysis (January 2019) as part of the supporting data & analysis submitted with GMPA application materials. The Meyers Research analyzes the [specific] need for market rate rental apartments, revealing that a healthy apartment market is evidenced by rental rates for market-based apartments that steadily increased from the beginning of 2011, by several projects at lease-up stage, and by market rate rental apartments historically hovering near full occupancy rates. The Analysis indicates that the projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments, with the ability to absorb from 7,055 (2020) to 7,490 residents (2022). At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion that the proposed GMP amendment is appropriate for the site. The companion PUDA petition to implement the subdistrict provisions will need to address specific compatibility measures. These could include maximum building height; landscape buffers, preserve area location, and open space; building locations and minimum setbacks; building massing and orientation. Environmental Impacts: The subject property is 10 acres of the parent Mixed Use Activity Center #16 and the site is developed with a shopping center. It is not designated as being located within a County Wellfield Protection Area, but is located in the CHHA. Policy 12.2.5 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) defines the CHHA. The CHHA boundary is generally depicted on the FLUE’s Countywide Future Land Use Map and is more precisely shown in the Future Land Use Map series. CCME Policy 12.2.6 requires “all new sanitary sewer facilities in the CHHA be flood proofed, and be designed to reduce leakage of raw sewage during flood events to the maximum extent practicable.” This policy applies to “structures or systems designed for the collection, transmission, treatment, or disposal of sewage” and encompasses both on-site (and typically privately owned) and off-site (publicly owned, in the right-of-way and on County owned lands) facilities. Notwithstanding the objective under which this policy lies, this policy is not limited to public infrastructure – it also applies to private infrastructure. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 9 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE As it applies to the proposed small-scale GMPA, there is no action or design required by this policy beyond that which is already required by Collier County, FDEP and possibly other agencies. Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. prepared an Environmental Due Diligence Report (amended to January 2019) as part of the supporting data & analysis submitted with GMPA application materials. The Due Diligence Report provides a preliminary site assessment and document research in evaluating the proposal, indicating: ▪ Wetland permitting will be limited to the relocation or improvements to the stormwater outfall structure from the development to the Creek. ▪ If docks are proposed, then additional state and federal permitting will be required for the docks. ▪ A gopher tortoise relocation permit may be required if the burrow observed remains active and the proposed redevelopment impacts the area within 25 feet of where the burrow is located. ▪ Redevelopment will likely require native habitat preservation for the County, which would result in a conservation easement over at least 25% of the shoreline mangroves (assuming they are not within the existing drainage easement). Staff reviewed the Report and determined these evaluation remarks do not directly impact Comprehensive Planning findings. The companion PUDA petition will need to address specific compatibility measures.] Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Impact Analysis, Including Transportation Element Consistency Determination: Both US 41 East and Airport-Pulling Road South are emergency evacuation routes; and, for lower intensity storm events, BES typically encourages shelter-in-place for residents in well-built structures (e.g. concrete block structures built to current Code requirements). The site is also within the South US 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA). This area may be exempt from transportation concurrency requirements, so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated using the procedures established in Policies 5.5 and 5.6 of the Transportation Element. JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. submitted a Traffic Impact Statement (revised to April 2019). [Review comments from Transportation Planning staff were not received with regard to the TIS generally, nor to the specific issues of how project traffic engineers are addressing pedestrian traffic issues, including 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 10 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE with the Collier Area Transit station, across US 41 East; the impacts of US 41 East and Airport-Pulling Road South serving as emergency evacuation routes; and, TCEA transportation concurrency requirements.] Public Facilities Impacts: The petitioner submitted a Public Facilities Analysis, dated June 18, 2019 (Exhibit V.E). Staff reviewed the Analysis and provide the following [bracketed] remarks: • Potable Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems: The subject property lies within the City of Naples Potable Water Service Area and the Collier County Water-Sewer District. [System capacity is confirmed at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) review, and a commitment to provide service will be established upon permit approval.] [Eric Fey, P.E., Senior Project Manager Public Utilities Department] • Solid Waste Collection & Disposal: The solid waste disposal service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2018 AUIR notes that the County projects no landfill capacity issues [nor does the pending 2019 AUIR]. • Stormwater Management System: The Facilities Analysis indicates stormwater retention and detention will comply with the SFWMD requirements, and, with County standards for basin [stormwater] discharge rates. • Park and Recreational Facilities: [A full analysis of impacts to Community or Regional Parks and Recreation Facilities is not provided.] The analysis simply states that parks and recreational facilities are not adversely impacted by the “creation of the subdistrict”, going on to state that the associated multi-family residential development “will pay park impact fees to mitigate their impacts”. [Review comments from Parks & Recreation staff were not received with regard to the lack of an analysis of parks and recreational facilities’ impacts.] • Schools: [A full analysis of impacts to schools and school facilities is not provided.] The analysis simply states that school facilities are not adversely impacted by the “creation of the subdistrict”, going on to state that the associated multi-family residential development “will pay school impact fees to mitigate their impacts”. [Review comments from Collier County School District staff were not received with regard to the lack of an analysis of schools and school facilities’ impacts.] • Emergency Medical (EMS) and Fire Rescue Services: The subject property is located within the Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District, who’s collocated EMS/fire station 22 is located at 4375 Bayshore Drive, approximately 1.0 mile to the southwest. No adverse impacts to these safety services result from the proposed development. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05.F. was [duly advertised, noticed and] held, jointly for this small-scale Growth Management Plan amendment petition and companion PUD amendment petition, on May 7, 2019, 6:00 p.m. at the Naples Botanical Garden Buehler Auditorium meeting facilities, located at 4820 Bayshore Drive, Naples. Approximately thirty-five people other than the application team and County staff attended. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 11 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE Wayne Arnold, of Q. Grady Minor (agent representing the applications), introduced other principals present, including Sharon Umpenhour, also of Q. Grady Minor, Rob Sucher of Johnson Development (developer of the residential component), Doug Kirby of Kite Realty (current owners), Christina Johnson of J.R. Evans Engineering (project engineers), Jim Banks of Banks Engineering, and Rich Yovanovich of Coleman Yovanovich & Koester (attorney). James Sabo and Sue Faulkner, AICP, Principal Planners with the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, and Commissioner Donna Fiala, Board of County Commissioners, were also in attendance. Mr. Arnold described the existing characteristics of the property, located southwest of US 41 East and south of Airport-Pulling Road. He explained how the small-scale GMPA and PUDA requests will allow the option for residential development, plus existing commercial uses. He displayed a site plan showing a possible arrangement of buildings for the multi-family residential uses. Mr. Arnold explained how the Activity Centers generally allow for residential uses. This amendment is similar to that previously proposed for the Sam’s Club uses, in that it allows for another development option in Courthouse Shadows. Commercial uses will remain on outparcels, while residential buildings can be located centrally, on a 16-acre internal parcel. Neighbors in attendance expressed their concerns on automobile traffic, and how this intersection’s high volume in particular, creates lengthy back-ups and a dangerous pedestrian environment. Pedestrian interconnections and safety are major concerns. Mr. Arnold explained that the major employers nearby and pedestrian traffic were characteristics that made this site attractive, and how project traffic engineers will be addressing these issues. One speaker asked about the residential density, and unit types. Rob Sucher, of Johnson Development addressed this, describing up to 300 market rate apartments, of 1- to 3-bedroom units. Building heights and fire suppression capabilities were discussed. Concerns were raised over the traffic maneuvers at Peters Avenue. Team discussed how proposal will remove the extra access onto Peters previously approved for Sam’s Club. Mr. Sucher said the developer has prepared a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) to address traffic issues, which directs the residential traffic onto US 41 East access points. One speaker asked about the type of development and amenities proposed. Rob Sucher discussed how the residential concept included utilization of Haldeman Creek for residents’ recreational access. a dog park, swimming pool, and on-site work centers as office space available to residents. Examples of similar projects located elsewhere were given. Concerns regarding a history of construction activities, their related problems, and an inability for neighbors to contact someone about them, led Mr. Arnold to commit to providing the surrounding residents with contact phone number(s) for 24-hour responses to their concerns during the construction of the residential component of the project. This may also include during the demolition of the commercial building(s). Neighbors asked about the public hearing process before the Planning Commission and County Board, and the anticipated schedule these two companion petitions are on. Mr. Arnold explained hearing dates would be posted on their website. The Information Meeting was ended at approximately 7:10 p.m. 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 12 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE 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 is currently zoned CPUD and developed with a 30-year-old commercial shopping center. The entire Courthouse Shadows PUD is designated Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict on the FLUM, which allows and encourages mixed use development, and lies within the boundaries of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay, an area where numerous incentives promote redevelopment projects. • The site lies within the South US 41 TCEA, an area where it may require employment of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce traffic impacts. • The site also lies within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). However, the companion PUDA includes mitigation, and both US 41 East and Airport-Pulling Road South are hurricane evacuation routes. • The site is proximate to major employment opportunities, goods and services, and public transit. • Analysis indicates that projected population growth provides sufficient demand for market-based apartments. • At the macro level at which a GMP amendment is reviewed, staff is of the opinion t hat the proposed GMP amendment is compatible with surrounding properties. The companion PUDA petition will need to address specific compatibility measures. • No issues regarding impacts upon potable water, wastewater collection and treatment or solid waste collection and disposal services have been identified, nor concerns for impacts upon other public infrastructure. • The proposed GMP amendment has no effect on the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME), and there is no action or design required by Policy 12.2.6 beyond that which is already required by existing regulations. • People attending the Neighborhood Information Meeting expressed a strong consensus that developing the property needs to take both vehicular and pedestrian traffic and safety into consideration. • A companion PUDA petition has been submitted concurrent with this GMPA petition to permit 300 market rate rental apartments. Approval of this amendment, and the companion PUDA, would allow the subject property to develop with any one or more of the commercial uses permitted, or with a mixed use (commercial-residential) project. • A commitment will be fulfilled through the companion PUDA to provide onsite signs posting, or by other means to keep people informed of, contact phone number(s) for 24-hour responses to their concerns during the construction of the residential component of the project. This commitment may also include the period during the demolition of the commercial building(s). 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 13 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS The Office of the County Attorney reviewed this report on September 9, 2019. In addition to pertinent small-scale (GMP) amendment criteria in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3187 addressed above, 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 Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve for adoption and transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Agenda Item 9.A.2 ‒ 14 ‒ CPSS-2019-1 / PL20180003659 Amending Mixed Use Activity Center #16 in the FLUE PETITION No.: PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1 Staff Report for the September 19, 2019, CCPC meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the October 22, 2019, BCC meeting. G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\Comp Planning GMP DATA\Comp Plan Amendments\2019 Cycles and Smalls\2019 Small Scale petitions\CPSS-19-1 AC 16-CH Shadows\CCPC\CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1.docx 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: CPSS-19-1 CCPC stff rprt_FNL1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Ordinance - 080819(2)(2) (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Ordinance - 080819(2)(2) (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Ordinance - 080819(2)(2) (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Ordinance - 080819(2)(2) (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.dPacket Pg. 319Attachment: Ordinance - 080819(2)(2) (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment (GMPA) PL20180003659 Application and Supporting Documents September 19, 2019 CCPC Hearing November 12, 2019 BCC Hearing 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com February 11, 2019 Mr. David Weeks Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Division/ Planning and Regulation Land Development Services Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment Application Courthouse Shadows CPUD (PL20180003659), Activity Center #16 Dear Mr. Weeks: A Collier County Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application for properties located at the southeast quadrant of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) is being submitted for review. This application proposes revise language of the Activity Center Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element to allow a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units within 10 acres of the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The proposed amendment reflects the market demand for residential development in this location. The GMPA is supported with a companion PUD amendment, which establishes the specific development standards for the proposed use, and a Master Plan for development of the residential use. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: Doug Kirby Rob Sucher Richard D. Yovanovich GradyMinor File 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 1 APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATOIN NUMBER PL20180003659 DATE RECEIVED ______________________________ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE January 15, 2019 DATE SUFFICIENT ______________________________________________________________________ This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Department, Suite 400, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252-2400 (Fax 239-252-2946). 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 Mark S. Jenkins-Senior Vice President Company KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Address 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100 City Indianapolis State IN Zip Code 46204 Phone Number 317-578-5165 Fax Number B. Name of Agent * D. Wayne Arnold, AICP  THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. Address 3800 Via Del Rey City Bonita Springs State Florida Zip Code 34134 Phone Number ____________________ Fax Number ___________________________ B1. Name of Agent * Richard D. Yovanovich  THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. Address 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34103 Phone Number 239-435-3535 _ Fax Number ___________________________ C. Name of Owner (s) of Record _KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC__________________________ Address 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100_____________________________________________ City Indianapolis State IN Zip Code 46204 Phone Number 317-577-5600 Fax Number ________________________________ 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 2 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. Please see Exhibit I-D 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). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Not Applicable _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock Not Applicable _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 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 Not Applicable _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 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 KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 100% KRG Courthouse Shadows I LLC 30 S. Meridian St, Suite 100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 _________________________ Please see Exhibit II _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 3 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 _________________________ Johnson Development Associates, Inc. 100% Please see Exhibit II _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ Date of Contract: _08/27/2018__ 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 Not Applicable ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ G. Date subject property acquired (X 2006) 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 re sponsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Please see Exhibit III.A _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ B. GENERAL LOCATION 3420 and 3290 TAMIAMI TRL E, Southeast quadrant of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail E. (U.S. 41) C. PLANNING COMMUNITY East Naples D. TAZ 289 E. SIZE IN ACRES 20.35± acres F. ZONING Courthouse Shadows CPUD G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN Developed residential and commercial H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S) Urban Designation, Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, #16 US 41 and Airport-Pulling Road 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 4 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 _______ Capital Improvement Element _______ CCME Element X Future Land Use Element _______ Golden Gate Master Plan _______ Immokalee Master Plan B. AMEND PAGE (S) 57 and 143 OF THE Future Land Use 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: _________________________________________________________________________ Please see Exhibit IV.B _________________________________________________________________________ C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Not applicable TO Not applicable D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) Activity Center #16 ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: Not applicable __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 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 Exhibit V.A Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI’s, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. Exhibit V.A Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. Exhibit V.A 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 Exhibit VB 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. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 5 C. ENVIRONMENTAL N.A. 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. N.A. 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 archaeological sites on the subject property. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J-11.006, F.A.C. 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: N Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)(5), F.A.C.). IF so, identify area located in ACSC. N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380 F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.a, F.A.C.) N/N Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? (Reference 9J-11.006(1)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) 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. Y, ** 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? (Reference Rule 9J-5.006(5) F.A.C.). 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. (Reference Rule 9J-11.007, F.A.C.) ** Please see Market Study prepared by Michael J. Timmerman 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: Exhibit V.E. Potable Water Exhibit V.E. Sanitary Sewer *** Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS Pine Ridge Road Goodlette-Frank Road *** Please see Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by . Exhibit V.E. Drainage Exhibit V.E. Solid Waste Exhibit V.E. Parks: Community and Regional 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 6 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. Exhibit V.E. 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. N.A. 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: Zone X Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). N.A. Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps) N.A. Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable N.A. Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable N.A. High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION N.A. $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) Provided $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) Provided Proof of ownership (copy of deed) Provided Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form ) Submitted Electronically 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. * 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.2.e Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Comprehensive Plan Consistency and Statutory Criteria for Plan Amendments April 25, 2019 Page 1 of 2 KRCSA Comp Plan Consistency-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The project is located within Activity Center #16 on the Future Land Use Map. The project is also located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Overlay. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to provide for both commercial and residential development. The PUD amendment is accompanied with a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, which proposes to permit increased density on a 10 - acre portion of the site. The application proposes a total of 300 multi-family apartments on approximately 18.8 acres of the 20.35 acre PUD. The plan is to utilize up to 97 units from the bonus pool, in addition to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre, with the balance of the 300 units resulting from the units permitted by the small-scale amendment. Chapter 163.3167 Scope of act.— (9) Each local government shall address in its comprehensive plan, as enumerated in this chapter, the water supply sources necessary to meet and achieve the existing and projected water use demand for the established planning period, considering the applicable plan developed pursuant to s. 373.709. The City of Naples provides potable water to the site, and there are no existing or anticipated deficiencies. Sanitary Sewer services are provided by Collier County. Chapter 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. 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. The applicant has provided a market analysis, which demonstrates that the proposed residential option is supported by demand for rental apartments at this location. The property is located in the urban area of Collier County and is within an Activity Center, which supports higher densities of residential uses under the existing Growth Management Plan. The site is appropriate for higher intensity uses. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Comprehensive Plan Consistency and Statutory Criteria for Plan Amendments April 25, 2019 Page 2 of 2 KRCSA Comp Plan Consistency-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The property is located proximate to the Collier County government center, which houses a majority of the County’s governmental functions. The site is a largely vacant retail commercial center and the market analysis demonstrates that there is a demand for additional rental units at this location. Redevelopment of the site as a mixed-use property is consistent with the objectives of the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Commercial and residential development are adjacent to the site. The GMP provides for mixed -use projects within the Activity Centers. Buffers and development standards have been proposed which insure compatibility of the proposed MPUD with surrounding properties. Redevelopment of the site as a mixed use project will support redevelopment and discourage urban sprawl consistent with Chapter 163.3177 of the Florida Statutes. The GMP amendment is necessary under the Collier County GMP in order to permit the proposed intensity for a portion of the applicant’s property. Chapter 163.3177 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. Public infrastructure exists to service the proposed uses within the Activity Center. 163.3184 Process for adoption of comprehensive plan or plan amendment. This Section of statute outlines the process and authority for the agency review of plan amendments. The applicant understands that regional and state reviewing agencies will be responsible for review of any transmitted comprehensive plan amendment per the requirements of Chapter 163.3184 F.S. The applicant’s experts are of the opinion that there are no regional or state impacts associated with the application. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 GMPA Narrative April 25, 2019 Page 1 of 2 KRCSA GMPA Narrative.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The Courthouse Shadows Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) is a 20.35± acre property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Airport Road. The property is located within designated Activity Center #16 on the Future Land Use Map. A small-scale plan amendment has been submitted which proposes to permit an increase in density for a 10 acre portion of this project located within the activity center as a development option for this PUD in order to achieve a total of 300 units within the PUD . The PUD has been developed to date with approximately 150,000 square feet of retail and office commercial uses. This amendment proposes to develop up to 300 multi-family apartments as an option for the site. An alternative Master Plan (Exhibit B) option identifies the location of the potential residential dwellings and the area that would remain for commercial uses. A market analysis demonstrating demand for the residential use has also been provided. The project is located within Activity Center #16 on the Future Land Use Map. The proje ct is also located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Overlay. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to provide for both commercial and residential development. The PUD amendment is accompanied with a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, which proposes to permit increased density on a 10-acre portion of the site. The companion PUD application proposes a total of 300 multi-family apartments on approximately 18.8 acres of the 20.35 acre PUD. The plan is to utilize up to 97 units from the density pool, in addition to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre, with the balance of the 300 units resulting from the increased units permitted by the small-scale amendment. The density calculations are as follows: Activity Center 18.8 ac x 4 du/ac = 75 units Bonus Pool Units 97 units Proposed Small-scale 10 ac x 12.8 du/ac = 128 units Total 300 units Net Density for 18.8 acres residential area 16 du/ac Gross Density for PUD (20.35) 14.74 du/ac 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 GMPA Narrative April 25, 2019 Page 2 of 2 KRCSA GMPA Narrative.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com A map amendment to Activity Center #16 is also included with the small-scale amendment application, which identifies the 10-acre area in which the increased density will be applicable. The site is well suited for the increase in density, which will authorize redevelopment of a defunct shopping center with up to 300 multi-family apartment units. The resulting project will be a mixed-use development, which is consistent with the Future Land Use Activity Center Subdistrict stated objectives. The Bayshore/Gateway CRA promotes development and redevelopment opportunities within the CRA. This project will fulfill the stated goals for the CRA. The project location is ideal due to the proximity to the Collier County Government complex, which provides opportunities for employment, and it provides an opportunity for residents to easily travel throughout Collier County with the Collier Area Transit (CAT) transfer station located on the government complex. The County Government complex is easily walkable from the proposed residences, and residents have a safe crossing of U.S. 41 to the County Government complex via a traffic-signalized intersection serving the Courthouse Shadows PUD. Infrastructure is in place to service the proposed residential component, and the site has direct access to two signalized intersections. Although a portion of the site is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), the applicant will mitigate for its impacts as required by Florida Statutes. To this end, the applicant concurs with the mitigation strategy suggested by Emergency Management staff; therefore, the project will be consistent with the statutory mitigation requirement. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 332Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 333Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Exhibit I.D. Professional Consultants January 11, 2019 Page 1 of 1 KRCSA Exhibit ID Consultants.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Planning/Project Management: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239.947.1144 239.947.0375 fax warnold@gradyminor.com 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: James M. Banks, P.E., President JMB Transportation Engineering, Inc. 4711 7th Avenue SW Naples, FL 34119 239.919.2767 jmbswte@msn.com Market Analysis: Michael Timmerman Meyers Research 239-269-0769 mtimmerman@meyersllc.com 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Exhibit II Disclosure of Interest Information January 31, 2019 Page 1 of 2 KRCSA Exhibit II Disclosure of Interest.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com II. Disclosure of Interest Information: 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 KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 100% 30 S. Meridian St, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46204 Sole Member: KRG Courthouse Shadows I LLC 30 S. Meridian St, Suite 100, Indianapolis, IN 46204 KRG Courthouse Shadows 1, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Kite Realty Group, L.P., the General Partner of which is Kite Realty Group Trust, a publicly traded company. Officers Percentage of Stock  John A. Kite- Chairman of the Board and N/A Chief Executive Officer  Thomas K. McGowan- President and N/A Chief Operating Officer  Scott E. Murray- Executive Vice President N/A  Mark S. Jenkins-Senior Vice President N/A  Rick S. Lally-Senior Vice President-Construction N/A  Randy Burke-Director-Construction N/A 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Exhibit II Disclosure of Interest Information January 31, 2019 Page 2 of 2 KRCSA Exhibit II Disclosure of Interest.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 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 Johnson Development Associates, Inc. 100% P.O. Box 3524, Spartanburg, SC 29304 Officers Percentage of Stock George D, Jr., Chairman/Director 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400, Spartanburg, SC 29306 Dan C. Breeden, Jr., Director/Secretary/Treasurer 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400, Spartanburg, SC 29306 George D. Johnson, III, CEO 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400, Spartanburg, SC 29306 William Spry, CFO 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400, Spartanburg, SC 29306 Thomas Messervy, President – Multifamily Division PO Box 3524, Spartanburg SC 20304 George Dean Johnson, Jr. 2009, Shareholder Revocable Trust dated April 10, 2009 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400, Spartanburg, SC 29306 33 1/3% Revocable Trust of George Dean Johnson, III U/A dated January 23, 2017 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400, Spartanburg, SC 29306 33 1/3% Susanna Presnell Johnson Trust under agreement dated October 9, 1987 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400, Spartanburg, SC 29306 33 1/3% Date of Contract: 8/27/18 g. Date subject property acquired 07/2006 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) EXHIBIT III.A.9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 337Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) EXHIBIT III.A.9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 338Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Exhibit IV.B Proposed Language August 5, 2019 Page 1 of 1 KRCSA Exhibit IVB-rev3.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Revise the FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** V. OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL FEATURES [Page 97] *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** F. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay [Page 142] *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** [Beginning Page 143] 6. For parcels currently within the boundaries of Mixed Use Activity Center #16, land uses will continue to be governed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, except residential density may also be increased as provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5, above. The development standards of the Bayshore Drive Mixed Use Overlay District or Gateway Triangle Mixed Use Overlay District in the Collier County Land Development Code, whichever is applicable, shall apply to all new development within the Activity Center. Residential Density for a mixed-use project within Mixed Use Activity Center #16 that is located within the Courthouse Shadows Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) may also be increased as follows: A ten-acre portion of the MPUD identified on Activity Center #16 Map in the Future Land Use Map series is eligible for a density bonus of 12.8 dwelling units per acre (128 units); these units are limited to rental apartments only. This density is in addition to a density of up to four dwelling units per acre allowed by the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict for the MPUD and up to 97 density bonus pool units for the MPUD, which may be assigned during a rezone. The density bonus of 12.8 dwelling units per acre (128 units) will only be located on the ten acres identified on the Activity Center #16 Map. *** *** *** *** *** Text break *** *** *** *** *** 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) GradyMinorCivil Engineers●Land Surveyors●Planners●Landscape ArchitectsCert. of Auth. EB 0005151Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151Business LC 26000266Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.3800 Via Del ReyBonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144www.GradyMinor.com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380SITEACTIVITY CENTER #16 (COURTHOUSE SHADOWSPUD) = 20.35± ACRESMULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AREA= 10 ACRESAIRPORT ROAD - TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)Collier County, FloridaMULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 340Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 341Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 342Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) SUBJECT PROPERTY - 20.35± ACRES EXISTING ZONING:COURTHOUSE SHADOWS CPUD EXISTING FLUE:ACTIVITY CENTER #16 EXISTING USE:DEVELOPED COMMERCIAL ADJACENT PROPERTY NORTH ZONING:C-3-GTMUD-MXD AND COLLIER COUNTY GOV'T COMPLEX PUD USE:COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENT OFFICES SOUTH ZONING:RMF-6-BMUD-R1, C-3-BMUD-R1. RSF-4-BMUD-R1, RSF-4 AND C-3 USE:COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL EAST ZONING:C-5 AND COLLIER COUNTY GOV'T COMPLES PUD USE:ROW, RETAIL/COMMERCIAL AND GOVERNMENT OFFICES WEST ZONING:C-3-GTMUD-MXD, RSF-4-BMUD-R1, C-3-BMUD-R1 AND RMF-6-BMUD-R1 USE:COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL AND VACANT SUBJECT PROPERTY 500 FOOT RADIUS ZONED: C-3-GTMUD-MXD AND RMF-6-BMUD-R1 USE: COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL AND VACANT TAM IAM I TRA I L EAS T (U .S . 4 1 )AIRPORT ROADZONED: C-3-GTMUD-MXD USE: COMMERCIAL ZONED: COLLIER COUNTY GOV'T COMPLEX PUD USE: GOVERNMENT OFFICES GradyMinor Civil Engineers Ɣ Land Surveyors Ɣ Planners Ɣ Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 www.GradyMinor.com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 ZONED: RSF-4 AND C-3 USE: RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL ZONED: RMF-6-BMUD-R1 USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RSF-4-BMUD-R1 USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: C-3-BMUD-R1 USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RMF-6-BMUD-R1 USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: RSF-4-BMUD-R1 USE: RESIDENTIAL ZONED: C-5 USE: RETAIL/COMMERCIAL ZONED: C-3 USE: RETAIL/COMMERCIAL 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) GradyMinorCivil Engineers●Land Surveyors●Planners●Landscape ArchitectsCert. of Auth. EB 0005151Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151Business LC 26000266Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.3800 Via Del ReyBonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144www.GradyMinor.com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380SITEACTIVITY CENTER #16(COURTHOUSE SHADOWSPUD) = 20.35± ACRES9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 344Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) COURTHOUSE SHADOWS Environmental Due Diligence P REPARED FOR: J OHNSON D EVELOPMENT A SSOCIATES 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400 Spartanburg, SC 29306 PREPARED BY: TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34104 AMENDED J ANUARY 31, 2019 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Site Description .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 FLUCFCS Codes ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Vegetation Associations ............................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Hydrologic Indicators................................................................................................................ 4 3 Photos .................................................................................................................................................. 5 4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................ 7 5 Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 9 6 Permitting .......................................................................................................................................... 10 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 11 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 1 1 INTRODUCTION Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. (THA) has conducted a preliminary site evaluation on several parcels located at 3290 Tamiami Trail East, Naples. The parcel folio numbers are 28750000028, 28750000523, 28750000769, and 30480040100. The properties are approximately 18.74 acres combined and located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County. The purpose of the Due Diligence Report is to review existing environmental conditions relating to the properties and to identify issues that may impact the development potential of the site. Specifically, the field work and research conducted was; • To map and identify existing vegetative communities on the property. • To estimate the extent of state and federal jurisdictional wetlands. • To research the presence or absence of state and federal listed species. • To assess the environmental permitting requirements for construction of residential development. This assessment did not research or consider zoning, deed restrictions, easements, or other encumbrances that might be present and could affect the development of the property. This assessment also did not include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment which can identify potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. This assessment was limited to the wetland and wildlife environmental factors only and is presented solely to assist with the planning process. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 2 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is comprised of four parcels, three of which have been cleared and impacted by past and current commercial development and the fourth parcel including the canal and drainage easement at the south end of the site. The site has been developed since the early 1990’s with the current buildings. For the purpose of this report, vegetative communities and other land uses are combined between the parcels. It appears as though there were no wetland impacts associated with the development in the 1990’s. No SFWMD ERP permit could be located for the project. The majority of the soils within the site are mapped as Immokalee Fine Sand with a small area of Basinger Fine Sand in the southeast corner of the site. Basinger Fine Sand is a hydric soil, but Immokalee Fine Sand is not. Vegetative communities are remnant only with the majority of the vegetation present consisting of various planted landscaping components. The perimeter of the site contains moderately heavy exotic vegetation including Brazilian pepper along most of the west and south perimeter and scattered Australian pines, Java plum, and phragmites in the southwest border of the site. There is a mangrove fringe separating the development from Haldeman creek which consists predominately of red mangroves and Brazilian pepper. There is also a drainage easement associated with Haldeman Creek Running along the south boundary of the project site. See attached FLUCFCS map for location within the site of the different habitats. 2.1 FLUCFCS Codes The Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) manual was used to classify all of the vegetative communities occurring within the site boundaries. The attached FLUCFCS exhibit shows the subject property, its vegetative cover, and depicts the approximate limits of the wetland and upland areas. A general description is provided below in Table 1 along with any site-specific nuances that may be relevant to the assessment. Table 1: FLUCFS Codes found on-site FLUCFCS Code Description Acres Jurisdictional Wetlands 141 Retail sales and services 16.07 No 190 Open Lands in Urban Setting 0.54 No 510 Streams and Waterways (Haldeman Creek) 1.08 Yes 612E2 Mangrove Swamp (Fringe) 1.05 Yes Total 18.74 2.2 Vegetation Associations The mangrove fringe habitat along the south boundary is the only natural native habitat remaining on the property. Vegetative communities in Florida designated as Mangrove Swamp typically occur in such a way that red, white, or black mangroves dominate the canopy and 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 3 midstory while very little vegetation is present in the ground cover. This site is situated along the man-made portion of Haldeman Creek and is dominated by red mangroves. This site habitat is becoming slightly overgrown with exotics and has a very limited understory. A list of commonly observed plant species within this community can be found below in Table 2. Table 2: Commonly observed species found within the Mangrove Fringe Community Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Dominant Red mangrove Rhizophora mangle C, M Yes Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia C No Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto M No Leather fern Acrostichum danaeifolium G No Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia V No C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum The remainder of the vegetation outside of the mangrove fringe is all planted vegetation serving as buffer or landscape material throughout the development. A list of commonly observed plant species within this community can be found below in Table 3. Table 3: Commonly observed species found within the landscape and buffer portions of the site Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Location Slash pine Pinus elliottii C Southern perimeter berm Live Oak Quercus virginiana C Throughout site Java Plum Syzygium cumini C, M Southern Perimeter berm, outfall area Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto C, M Throughout site Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia M, G Western and southern perimeter Coco plum Chysobalanus icaco M Western perimeter Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia V Western and southern perimeter C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum There are two wet detention basins located on the western portion of the site. These basins are interconnected with each other and do maintain wetland vegetation. A list of observed plant species within the basins can be found below in Table 4. Table 4: Commonly observed species found within the dry retention basins Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Location Alligator flag Thalia geniculate G North retention basin Wedelia Sphagneticola trilobata G Both retention basins Maidencane Panicum hemitomon G Both retention basins Pickerelweed Pontedaria cordata G Both retention basins Spikerush Eleocharis cellulose G South retention basin False Buttonweed Spermacoce verticullata G Both retention basins C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum 2.3 Soils According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 3 types of soil mapped within the project site. Immokalee Fine Sand, which is a non-hydric soil, is mapped through the majority of the property. A small triangle of the site in the southeast corner is 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 4 mapped Basinger Fine Sand, which is a hydric soil. The mangrove fringe and creek are at the south of the site are mapped as Durbin and Wulfert Mucks which is a hydric soil. Soil plugs were taken in the open habitats of the site to determine if hydric soil characteristics are present. Within the open urban areas, the soils were disturbed and heavily compacted with rock and shell present. No hydric indicators were visible within these areas. The soils at the bottoms of the retention basins both had a shallow much layer indicative of hydric conditions which is to be expected as their design is to hold water. See the attached soils map for the extent of the soil units across the property 2.4 Hydrologic Indicators Hydrologic indicators were only observed on this site within the retention basins and drainage swale. Tidal lines were also observed along Haldeman creek in the mangrove fringe. Water lines and algal matting were both observed within the detention basins. It is clear that water does stand in the retention basins for extended periods of time. See photos in Section 3 for examples of hydrologic indicators. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 5 3 PHOTOS Photo 1: Trees and debris from open lands in northwest corner of the site Photo 2: Non-hydric soil profile from open lands. Photo 3: Depression with Thalia adjacent to outfall structure in north retention basin Photo 4: Overgrown structure connection between north and south retention basins. Photo 5: Outfall structure from parking areas into drainage swale. Photo 6: Drainage swale between south retention basin and overflow structure. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 6 Photo 7: Overflow structure at east end of drainage swale. Only functions at flood stage Photo 8: Outfall pipe from overflow structure and splash wall at rip-rap outfall into creek. Photo 9: Rip-rap outfall from project site into Haldeman Creek along south boundary. Photo 10: Potential Gopher tortoise burrow next to overflow structure at east end of drainage swale. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 7 4 WILDLIFE Endangered Wildlife Species is defined as any species of fish or wildlife naturally occurring in Florida, whose prospects of survival are in jeopardy due to modification or loss of habitat; over- utilization for commercial, sporting, scientific or educational purposes; disease; predation; inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (FS 372.072). Threatened species include any species of fish or wildlife naturally occurring in Florida which may not be in immediate danger of extinction, but which exists in such small populations as to become endangered if it is subjected to increased stress as a result of further modification of its environment. Species of Special Concern are animals that: 1) Have a significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming a threatened species unless appropriate protective or management techniques are initiated or maintained, 2) Data are limited or lacking, 3) May occupy such an unusually vital or essential ecological niche that should it decline significantly in numbers or distribution other species would be adversely affected to a significant degree, 4) Has not sufficiently recovered from a past population depletion. Taking into account the location and condition of the property, and conversations with state and federal agency personnel, listed wildlife species that could potentially be found on or around the site include: A full blown Threatened and Endangered Species survey was not done and should not be required due to the existing conditions of the property and existing surrounding developments. Initial investigations around the property did discover one potential gopher tortoise burrow located along the southern border of the project site in the old perimeter berm close to the stormwater overflow. The burrow is located at coordinates N 26 07.429, W 081 45.924. See Exhibit with burrow location and Photo 10 in Section 3 of this report. It appeared as though this was a relatively new burrow which did show signs of recent activity. If the proposed redevelopment Common Name Scientific Name Status Florida Bonneted Bat Eumops floridanus E Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea T Tri-colored Heron Egretta tricolor T Wood Stork Mycteria americana E Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC Indigo Snake Drymarchon couperi T Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 8 of the project impacts this area, a permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will be required to relocate the burrow. During the site visits no other potential listed species presence was observed. It is assumed that wading birds could and do utilize the mangrove shoreline along Haldeman Creek for foraging activities. The proposed redevelopment is not expected to impact the mangrove shoreline and so would not impact this use. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 9 5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS The definitions in 33CFR 328.3 state that “waters of the United States” include interstate “wetlands” which are defined as those areas “inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Based on Version 2.0 of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, the only portions of the project site which meets the definition of a wetland are the two retention basins and the shoreline fringe along Haldeman Creek. The retention basins are man-made structures which were created out of historically upland habitat and which are an integral part of the surface water management system for the development. Permitting of the redevelopment will require review and authorization from the SFWMD. We believe that the USACE will not assert jurisdiction over the stormwater retention areas due to the fact that they are man-made, they were constructed out of uplands for the stormwater management system, and they are isolated from direct connection to “Waters of the US” by the overflow structure. The USACE will assert jurisdiction over Haldeman Creek and the adjacent shoreline mangroves. A Nationwide Permit will likely be required from the Corps to repair or upgrade the outfall structure from the development into the Creek which currently appears to be in need of maintenance (See Photo 9 in Section 3 above). See the attached FLUCFCS map for the approximate extent of the wetland areas. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 10 6 PERMITTING Based on the document research conducted to date, we could find no evidence of prior SFWMD or USACE permitting for the project. It is assumed that this project was permitted by Collier County back when the County had the delegation of authority to do so for smaller projects with no wetland impacts. No USACE or SFWMD Environmental Resource Permits were found. Environmental / Wetland SFWMD (State review) - The redevelopment plan will impact the existing surface water management system and will require permitting for the proposed changes. The wetland impacts that would potentially require mitigation would be the relocation or improvement of the outfall from the development into the creek. We would anticipate any impacts associated with this to be very minor and could be mitigated through improvements to the remainder of the shoreline. USACE (Federal review) – If the redevelopment does require relocation or improvements to the stormwater outfall into the creek, then a Nationwide permit from the Corps will be required for modifications to the existing stormwater management system (Nationwide #43). There is no direct connection between the existing stormwater detention basins and the Creek. They are separated by the overflow structure. Therefore we do not believe that the Corps will assert jurisdiction over the retention basins and no USACE permitting will be required for the reconfiguration or elimination of the two retention basins. FWS (Federal Listed Species review) – Since this is the redevelopment of an already developed property, no additional impacts to any listed species would occur. A preconstruction nesting survey may be required to insure that no wading bird or osprey nests are present in any trees that may be removed. Docks No mention was made as to whether or not docks would be a part of the redevelopment. Since the project is on Haldeman Creek, docks should be an allowed use. Water depths and the width of the waterway would limit the number and types of vessels that could moor. And docks or water access would require additional permitting with the SFWMD and the Corps. Collier County The County requires preservation of existing native habitat within a PUD to meet the Land Development Code. If the zoning on these parcels is changed to residential, it is anticipated that the County will require preservation of a portion of the existing native habitat. Since this would be a residential or mixed-use development within the Coastal High-Hazard area a minimum of 25% of the existing native habitat will need to be preserved. It is not known if the County will include the native landscape buffer along the southern boundary within native habitat calculations or exactly where the Drainage Easement for Haldeman Creek is in relationship to the vegetation but assuming a worst-case scenario, a minimum of 25% of the shoreline and buffer would need to be preserved to meet the native vegetation retention requirements. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 11 7 CONCLUSION Based on the preliminary site assessment and document research conducted, we believe that wetland permitting will be limited to the relocation or improvements to the stormwater outfall structure from the development into the Creek. If docks are proposed, then additional state and federal permitting will be required for the docks. A gopher tortoise relocation permit may be required if the burrow observed remains active and the proposed redevelopment impacts the area within 25 feet of where the burrow is located. Redevelopment will likely require native habitat preservation for the County which would result in a conservation easement over at least 25% of the shoreline mangroves (assuming that they are not within the existing drainage easement). Based on current USACE review timeframes, between 4 and 8 months should be allowed for the federal permitting effort for the Nationwide permit (if required). State permitting should be accomplished concurrently with the federal permitting. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPSTATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPNOTES:<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SUBJECTPROPERTYSUBJECTPROPERTY<> LATITUDE:N 26.124865<> LONGITUDE:W 81.765841SITE ADDRESS:<> 3290 TAMIAMI TRNAPLES, FL 34112Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg LOCATION 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERLOCATION MAP50-------------------01 OF 04COLLIER COUNTYCOLLIER COUNTY)7.(1(/':+%1)7.(1(/':+%18588288641MARCOISLANDEVERGLADESCITY9329846NAPLES90908399483783784129292983983992887846951862I-758486431856850846890896NESWKEY WESTTAMPAFT.MYERSMIAMINAPLESSUBJECTPROPERTY9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 358Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg FLUCFCS 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERFLUCFCS MAP50-------------------02 OF 04UPLAND (ACRES):WETLAND (ACRES):PROJECT (ACRES):·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYFLUCFCSDESCRIPTIONAREA(AC)141RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES15.86510DITCH1.08612E2MANGROVE SWAMPS (EXOTICS 25-50%)1.26TOTAL18.20TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUE141190612E2510612E218.2015.861.26WETLAND (ACRES):1.08SUBJECTPROPERTYAPPROXIMATEWETLAND LINE9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 359Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) NESW0150300600SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg SOILS 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERSOILS MAP50-------------------03 OF 04·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.·SOIL DATA PROVIDED BY:1998 UNITED STATES DEPT OF AGRICULTURESOIL SURVEY OF COLLIER COUNTY AREA, FL"NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYCODEDESCRIPTIONHYDRIC7IMMOKALEE FINE SAND17BASINGER FINE SANDYES34URBAN LAND-IMMOKALEE-OLDSMAR,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, COMPLEX40DURBIN AND WULFERT MUCKS,FREQUENTLY FLOODEDYES3471740TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUESUBJECTPROPERTY9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 360Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg SPECIES 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERLISTED SPECIES MAP50-------------------04 OF 04·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYTAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUESUBJECTPROPERTYACTIVE GOPHER TORTOISE BURROWACTIVE GOPHERTORTOISEBURROWAPPROXIMATEWETLAND LINE9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 361Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) COURTHOUSE SHADOWS RENTAL APARTMENTS Rental Apartment Needs Analysis Kite Development Naples, FL January 2019 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) CONTACT INFORMATION This analysis was prepared by Meyers Research,a market research and consulting firm specializing in the real estate industry.It was commissioned by Kite Realty Group.during the due diligence stage of the project. Michael Timmerman served as Project Director and managed the day-to-day aspects of the assignment.Follow-up questions should be directed to him at 239-269-0769 or mtimmerman@meyersllc.com. OBJECTIVE The objective of the engagement is to provide a needs analysis of market rate rental apartments in Collier County,Florida in order to satisfy the market study requirement for a growth management plan amendment.The site is located on Tamiami Trail East in South Naples and consists of 18.35 +/-acres of land.The client is proposing the development of up to 300 multi-family dwelling units that will be rented based on current market conditions. LIMITING CONDITIONS Kite Realty Group.is responsible for representations about its development plans,marketing expectations and for disclosure of any significant information that might affect the ultimate realization of the projected results. There will usually be differences between projected and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected,and the differences may be material. We have no responsibility to update our report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of our report. Payment of any and all of our fees and expenses is not in any way contingent upon any factor other than our providing services related to this report. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 2 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) TABLE OF CONTENTS Key Findings 4 Development Assessment 8 Locational Analysis 13 Economic and Demographic Profile 16 Market Rate Apartment Analysis 21 Competitive Project Analysis 27 Market Demand Analysis 32 Appendix 38 Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 3 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Key Findings Courthouse Shadows Apartments Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 4 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SUPPLY WILL SATISFY FUTURE DEMAND •Collier County has ample demand for new market based rental apartments due to the anticipated growth in population and employment.Based on our analysis,we estimate the cumulative demand for market rate rental by the of 2022 to be over 3,741 units.The annual need starting in 2018 is 118 units,growing to 1,002 units by the end of 2022.The net demand is the cumulative demand less the approved future units.As of Year End 2018,the net demand is 881 units growing to 1,019 units by the end of 2022. Located below is a summary of the net demand calculation and the list of additional planned units,with the anticipated delivery date. •Including the additional 300 units proposed at Courthouse Shadows,there are a total of 3,122 units in eight projects that are in varying stages of development or planning.The projects are located throughout the county,with location and community amenities influencing rental rates.Newer communities located closer to employment centers in the South Naples planning district tend to have higher rental rates and higher demand. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 5 Apartment Est Delivery Year Total Units Legacy Naples New Hope Ministries 2019 304 Briarwood Apartments 2020 320 Ave Maria Apts 2020 250 Springs at Sabal Bay 2020 340 Journey's End 2021 483 Courthouse Shadows 2021 300 Pelican Nursery 2021 400 Pine Ridge Commons 2022 375 Allura 2022 350 Total Units 3122 Year Current Supply Annual Need Cumulative Demand Approved Units Net Demand 2012 2015 5648 134 134 134 2016 5648 236 371 371 2017 5944 392 763 763 2018 6488 118 881 881 2019 6488 362 1243 304 939 2020 6488 567 1810 910 596 2021 6488 929 2739 1183 342 2022 6488 1002 3741 725 619 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) COLLIER APARTMENT MARKET IS HEALTHY •The rental rates for market based apartments steadily increased from the beginning of 2011.Annual growth rates increased at a sustainable pace through mid 2013,where the demand exceeded supply resulting in rates and occupancies increased dramatically. The additional supply that became available starting in 2015,temporarily lowered the annual rate increases to more sustainable levels,with occupancy once again growing.The demand for market based apartments is forecasted to continue,with the currently approved supply helping to satisfy the demand. •Occupancy of existing units and completed units in those projects currently under construction is estimated at 94%.Stabilized occupancy of existing projects is closer to 96%,indicting additional supply is needed to satisfy the demand.Population growth, along with an increasing demand from semi -retirees and seasonal residents supports the need for additional supply. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 6 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Development Assessment Courthouse Shadows Apartments Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 7 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) PROJECT SUMMARY •Courthouse Shadows Apartments is a proposed market rate rental community located on a site on the south side of Tamiami Trail east just east of the intersection with Airport Road in Naples, Collier County, FL. The site is currently improved with an older vacated community shopping center. Several outparcels of the shopping center are improved with newer facilities that will remain as support for the proposed rental community and the surrounding area. Transportation infrastructure in the area is very good and allows for easy access north and west to the greater Naples area and east toward Marco Island and south Naples. •Based on the Collier County Property Appraiser’s office, the site consists of 2 parcels owned by KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC. , that is approximately 18.35 +/-acres. The site is proposed for a market rate rental apartment community not to exceed 300 units. •The site is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment (CRA) Community Redevelopment Agency. The purpose of this CRA is to provide higher densities in an area with fewer natural resource constraints and where existing and planned public facilities are concentrated. The site is also located in the Mixed Use Activity Center which typically encourages higher density residential and commercial uses. •The site is currently zoned as the Courthouse Shadows/Collier PUD, which was adopted in 1992 and allows for the development of 165,000 SF of commercial development on the entire site, including outparcels. Currently, 149,862 SF of commercial space has been developed. •The client is seeking an amendment to the FLUE to create the Subdistrict that will consist of the rezoned aforementioned parcel. The Subdistrict will allow for up to 300 residential multi-family dwelling units, reflecting a density of 16 units per gross acre, which is consistent with recently developed rental apartments. The objective of this study is to determine if there is market support for high density residential need to satisfy the needs analysis requirement of the Land Use Amendment process. •Located below are maps showing the site’s location, aerial surroundings, future land use and proposed FLUE Subdistrict boundary. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 8 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) PROPOSED SITE PLAN The proposed site plan below provides a general concept of the building layouts for the site. Parking and access to amenity centers will be focused internal to the property to provide privacy and security. Walkability to the Collier County Government center and convenience to existing retail outparcels will enhance the marketability and property acceptance. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 9 23 Units 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) PLANNING COMMUNITY AND SUBJECT SITE MAP The subject site is located within the East Naples Planning Community and is serviced by local fire and EMS district. The East Naples Planning district has a 2018 estimated population of 23,500 according to the Collier County Planning Department. This district is located between the City of Naples and South Naples, making it one of the most established in the County. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 10 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) LOCATION ALLOWS FOR HIGHER DENSITY The subject site is within a Mixed Use Activity Center that part of the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA district. This location offers incentives for higher density residential product and is a key contributor to the redevelopment efforts in the area. The recent enhancement land uses in the CRA will benefit the site and its future residence. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 11 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Locational Analysis Courthouse Shadows Apartments Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 12 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) COURTHOUSE SHADOWS HAS GOOD ACCESS TO SUPPORT FACILITES The site is located in a desirable area of Collier County proximate to schools,shopping and employment centers.The immediate area surrounding the site is well established and is currently undergoing a resurgence to redevelop sites in which the improvements no longer represent the highest and best use.The subject site is a perfect example of the a change in uses that will benefit the market by providing rental housing near employment centers and provide an increase in fiscal benefit to Collier County. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 13 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) EMPLOYMENT IS LOCATED NORTH AND WEST OF THE SITE The darker areas of the map show the concentration of major employment centers where residents in the subject area travel to work.Residents in this zip code generally work the north and west of the subject site at employment centers in the City of Naples and along Airport Road.A significant portion of the residents in this area are retired,therefore employment location are not a major factor,however access to these centers in important for all residents. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 14 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Economic and Demographic Profile Courthouse Shadows Apartments Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 15 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) The Collier County area has seen significant population growth since 2009,with one of the highest percentage change in the population noted in the state in 2015.Annual population growth in 2017 was temporarily suppressed due to the Hurricane Irma which directly hit Collier County.Population growth forecast are significantly higher in the next few year based on the Economy.com analysis.The consultant has adjusted the population forecast in the analysis to account for future market risk. POPULATION GROWTH WILL CONTINUE IN THE COLLIER Collier County , FL - Ten Year History Economy.com Five-Year Forecast 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018F 2019F 2020F 2021F 2022F Total Population 316,641 318,485 322,601 327,667 332,556 339,483 348,216 357,194 366,095 372,880 385,335 399,691 414,603 430,755 447,538 Prior Year Change 2,204 1,844 4,116 5,066 4,889 6,927 8,733 8,978 8,901 6,785 12,455 14,356 14,913 16,151 16,783 Annual % Change 0.7%0.6%1.3%1.6%1.5%2.1%2.6%2.6%2.5%1.9%3.3%3.7%3.7%3.9%3.9% Population History & Forecasts Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 16 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Household formations in the Collier County area have expanded significantly since 2009 due to price reductions as a result of the Great Depression and the migration of Baby Boomers from the northeast and Midwest.Projections call for accelerated levels of household formations between 2018 and 2022.The consultant made more conservative estimates of the household formation growth in the demand analysis.This was corelated with the consultants population adjustments. HOUSEHOLD FORMATIONS CONTINUE IN COLLIER Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 17 Collier County , FL - Ten Year History Economy.com Five-Year Forecast 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018F 2019F 2020F 2021F 2022F Total Households 132,536 132,787 133,775 135,422 136,996 139,882 143,037 145,957 148,533 150,447 155,253 162,623 170,112 178,051 186,419 Prior Year Change 1,411 251 988 1,647 1,574 2,886 3,155 2,921 2,575 1,915 4,806 7,370 7,489 7,938 8,369 Annual % Change 1.1%0.2%0.7%1.2%1.2%2.1%2.3%2.0%1.8%1.3%3.2%4.7%4.6%4.7%4.7% Household History & Forecasts 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Construction has been the fastest growing employment sector in the past year due to the rebuilding of homes and businesses after Hurricane Irma,and the natural population growth of the area.The prior rebuilding,has influenced the supporting Professional and Business Services and has improved the Leisure and Hospitality sectors which were severely impacted after the hurricane. PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION ARE DOMINANT Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 18 High Income Sectors Other Sectors Financial Activities Information Professional and Business Services Construction Education & Health Services Government Leisure & Hospitality Manufacturing Other Services Trade, Transp. and Utilities Current Month 8,409 1,445 16,437 17,439 21,736 13,761 28,599 3,913 8,140 26,436 Same Month Previous Year 8,344 1,455 16,155 15,568 21,404 13,731 27,817 3,864 8,201 26,700 12-Month Growth 64 -10 282 1,872 332 30 782 49 -60 -263 Employment by Sector 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Housing starts have grown steadily since 2010,with the annual change in Multifamily Starts expected to continue as pricing of single family homes rise.The increase in Multifamily starts includes both fee simple condominiums and rental apartments.Growth of both designs will satisfy the population increases and employment changes. HOUSING STARTS WILL CONTINUE TO EXPAND Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 19 Collier County , FL - Ten Year History Economy.com Five-Year Forecast 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018F 2019F 2020F 2021F 2022F Total Housing Starts 1,007 801 1,190 1,279 1,571 2,441 3,348 3,986 3,910 3,948 4,574 5,703 6,045 6,773 7,501 Annual % Change -50.4%-20.5%48.5%7.5%22.8%55.4%37.2%19.1%-1.9%1.0%15.9%24.7%6.0%12.0%10.8% SFD Housing Starts 676 622 807 929 1,284 1,726 2,418 3,091 3,098 2,961 3,772 5,047 5,495 5,864 6,170 Annual % Change -41.5%-8.1%29.7%15.2%38.3%34.4%40.0%27.9%0.2%-4.4%27.4%33.8%8.9%6.7%5.2% MF Housing Starts 331 179 383 350 286 714 931 895 812 987 802 656 549 909 1,331 Annual % Change -62.2%-45.8%113.7%-8.7%-18.2%149.5%30.3%-3.8%-9.3%---18.7%-18.2%-16.2%65.4%46.5% Housing Starts History & Forecasts 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Market Rate Apartment Analysis Courthouse Shadows Apartments Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 20 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) EXISTING PROJECTS ARE LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY Existing Rental Apartment Communities are located east and south of the beaches and the City of Naples. Access to employment centers, support facilities and recreation amenities of the county are easily accessible from all the rental communities. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 21 MapID Apartment Name Year Built Total Units Age 2 Belvedere 1986 162 33 3 Berkshire Reserve 2000 146 19 5 Brittany Bay I & II 2002 392 17 6 Bryn Mawr 1998 240 21 12 Ibis Club 2000 134 19 14 La Costa 1995 275 24 15 Laguna Bay 1989 456 30 16 Malibu Lakes 2002 356 17 18 Naples 701 1975 188 44 19 Naples Place I-III 1985 160 34 21 Northgate Club 1988 120 31 22 Oasis of Naples (Arbor Walk)1991 216 28 25 River Reach 1987 556 32 28 San Marino (Aventine)2001 350 18 29 Shadowood Park 1989 96 30 33 Summer Wind 1986 358 33 36 Waverley Place 1990 273 29 40 Aster Lely 2014 308 5 41 Sierra Grande 2014 273 5 42 Orchid Run 2015 282 4 43 Milano Lakes 2017 296 2 115 Inspiria at Lely Resort 2018 304 1 120 Addison Place 2019 350 0 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) PROJECT SIZE IS TYPICAL TO OTHER MARKETS The typical rental apartment project size in Collier County ranges from 250 to 500 units. This is considered an industry norm as it provides for increased property management efficiency and adequate resident amenity usage. Many of the larger projects located in the northern portion of the county are also some of the oldest. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 22 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) NEWER PROJECTS ARE LOCATED SOUTH The majority of the rental apartment housing stock is more than 20 years old, with the newer products located in southern Collier County. Southern Collier County has lower land cost which previously influenced rental rates. The expansion of the support facilities and the new development of higher priced residential real estate has increased the demand for this area, which has resulted in increased rental rates and occupancy. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 23 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 384 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Market Demand Analysis Courthouse Shadows Apartments Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 24 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) DEMAND IS GROWING DUE TO INCREASED SF HOME COST •The demand for market rate rental apartments is not isolated to a specific area of Collier County, however, the rental communities within the South Naples planning district are some of the oldest in the county. The demand for rental apartments is based in part on the lack of available supply, resulting in record occupancy of the existing facilities and an increase in new supply over the past 24 months. Rental apartment demand is a function of population and employment growth. Most of the occupants for rental apartments are single and/or couples, are employed, and vary in age from millennials to baby boomers or from 26 to 60 years of age. •The forecast for rental apartment demand starts with a review of the current market status. Data used to support this forecast is based on the US Census Estimates, Economy.com, the American Community Survey (ACS) Housing Summary and the National Multifamily Housing Council. The supporting documentation is included in the addendum of this report. Located below is the calculation of demand for market rate rental apartments in Collier County, with an explanation and support of the forecast on the following slides. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 25 A B C D E F G H I J K L M Year Population Total Housholds Persons per HH Pct Annual Rental Rental Households Pct with Income between 35K and 99K Annual Demand for Market Rate Units Pct of Rental Units with rent between $800 and $2,500 Total Market Demand Current Supply Annual Need Cumulative Demand 2012 332,556 138,755 2.40 2015 357,194 145,194 2.46 15% 21,779 45.0%9,801 59%5,782 5,648 134 134 2016 366,095 147,758 2.48 15% 22,164 45.0%9,974 59%5,884 5,648 236 371 2017 372,880 151,401 2.46 15% 22,710 45.0%10,220 62%6,336 5,944 392 763 2018 379,555 152,924 2.48 15% 22,939 45.0%10,322 64%6,606 6,488 118 881 2019 389,699 158,557 2.46 15% 23,784 45.0%10,703 64%6,850 6,488 362 1,243 2020 398,019 163,308 2.44 15% 24,496 45.0%11,023 64%7,055 6,488 567 1,810 2021 413,563 171,697 2.41 15% 25,755 45.0%11,590 64%7,417 6,488 929 2,739 2022 416,210 173,370 2.40 15% 26,005 45.0%11,702 64%7,490 6,488 1,002 3,741 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) MARKET DEMAND CALCULATIONS The estimate of market rate rental unit demand is based on the relationship between rental unit supply and population. Column B and Column C reflect Population and Household figures as reported by the US Census from 2012 to 2017. The 2018 through 2022 population and household estimates are from the Economy.com forecast, which is reported in the Economic and Demographic Profile section of this report. After a review of the Collier County population projections which are in based on BEBR projections, the consultant adjusted the 2018-2022 forecast of population and household formations down to account for potential future market risk. The adjustment calculations are located in the appendix of this report. Column D is the calculation of the persons per household, a calculation derived by dividing total population by the total households. •Column E is the percentage of households in Collier County that are identified as reserved for rental. As of the 2018 Demographic and Income Profile, there are a total of 44,317 units in Collier County that are reserved for use as rentals, which represents 29% of the total units in the county, including seasonal rental units. We have estimated that approximately half of the total rental units or 15% of the total units in the county are rented on an annual basis. •Column F is the estimated number of Rental Households. It is calculated by multiplying Column C (Total Households) by Column E, (the percentage of households that represent annual rentals) •Column G reflects the percentage of households that have income between $35,000 and $99,000 within the County based on the 2018 Demographic and Income Profile. The households with income in this range are most likely to rent apartments in the county. The household income range represents 45% of the total within the county. •Column H is the estimate of total market rate rental households based on the household income range and is calculated by multiplying Column F by Column G. •Column I reflects the percentage of rental units that have month rental rates between $800 and $2,500 per month. This is obtained from page 2 of the ACS Housing Survey that provides support for the percent of units that have rental rates in this range. Based on the 2018 estimate, 64% of the rental units in Collier County have a monthly rental rate between $800 and $2,500 per month. Prior year estimates were 59% and 62%, which is reflected in the prior year calculations. Those units with rental rates below are considered subsidized housing, with those with monthly rates above, typically represent condominiums in superior locations. •Column J is the estimate of total market rate rental households. It is calculated by multiplying Column H, (Annual Market Rate Demand)by Column I, (the percentage of rentals that have a rental rate consistent with market rates from the ACS Housing Survey). •Column K reflects the total market number of market rate rental apartment units in Collier County as of December 31, 2018. This includes the recently completed Inspira Rental Community in Lely Resort and Addison Place in North Naples. •Column L is the difference between the Column J, the total demand for market rate rental apartments, and Column K, the supply of market rate rental apartments as of December 31, 2018. This reflects the annual need for market rate rental apartment units. •Column M is the cumulative number of annual market rate rental units needed until 2022. Based on this analysis, we estimate that at Year End 2018, there will be demand for an additional 881 market rate rental apartment units over the current supply of 6,488 units. The demand is anticipated to grow to a total of 3,741 over the current supply by the end of 2022. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 26 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) NEW SUPPLY IS LOCATED THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY In addition to the existing 6,488 market rate rental apartment units,there are currently nine properties with a proposed total of 3,122 units that are in varying stages of completion,or pending approval in Collier County.Assuming all 3,122 units are delivered at their projected delivery year,these units must be subtracted from the estimated demand to reflect the net need for additional market rate apartments units.The nine projects and their estimated delivery dates are below. The ten properties are located throughout the county,providing the market with many designs and rental rate opportunities.The estimated delivery date reflects the delivery of units within the projects on a review of the construction status as of December of 2018.It should be noted that not all the projects will be completed on the estimated delivery date and that some of the projects listed may not delivery the expected units within the forecasted timeline of this report. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 27 Apartment Est Delivery Year Total Units Legacy Naples New Hope Ministries 2019 304 Briarwood Apartments 2020 320 Ave Maria Apts 2020 250 Springs at Sabal Bay 2020 340 Journey's End 2021 483 Courthouse Shadows 2021 300 Pelican Nursery 2021 400 Pine Ridge Commons 2022 375 Allura 2022 350 Total Units 3122 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) FUTURE PROJECTS ARE IN GOOD LOCATIONS The geographic distribution of future rental apartments is more diverse as it includes more apartments in the North Naples area or near already established employment centers. The redevelopment of older improvements in well located sites is a trend we will continue to see as the market searches for housing alternatives to home purchase. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 28 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Demand Forecast assumes shift from SF to Rental Apartments The analysis above indicates an increasing demand for market rate rental apartments in Collier County.Currently,nine facilities are proposed for a total of 3.122 additional market rate rental apartments that will be added to the current supply to help to satisfy the proposed future demand.Located below is a summary table showing the net demand for market rate rental apartments assuming the delivering of the eight proposed projects. Assuming all of the proposed facilities are delivered to the market near the estimated delivery date,by the end of 2022 there will be a need for an additional 619 market rate rental units.The increased demand is driven by population growth and corresponding employment,along with an increasing number of semi-retiree and seasonal residents who are electing to rent properties vs buy.The lack of vacant sites with adequate size and functional utility will continue to limit the development of new facilities unless the repurposing of existing facilities are considered alternative sites to help satisfy the future demand. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 29 Year Current Supply Annual Need Cumulative Demand Approved Units Net Demand 2012 2015 5648 134 134 134 2016 5648 236 371 371 2017 5944 392 763 763 2018 6488 118 881 881 2019 6488 362 1243 304 939 2020 6488 567 1810 910 596 2021 6488 929 2739 1183 342 2022 6488 1002 3741 725 619 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Appendix Courthouse Shadows Apartments Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 30 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ACS Market Supply of Rental Units By Monthly Rate ACS Housing Summary ACS Estimate Percent MOE(±)Reliability 2012-2016 Collier County, FL Prepared by Esri Collier County, FL (12021) Geography: County With cash rent 34,768 93.2%1,263 Total 37,288 100.0%1,361 RENTER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY CONTRACT RENT $200 to $249 287 0.8%117 $150 to $199 159 0.4%89 $100 to $149 119 0.3%68 Less than $100 89 0.2%51 $400 to $449 293 0.8%122 $350 to $399 283 0.8%150 $300 to $349 574 1.5%175 $250 to $299 275 0.7%103 $600 to $649 887 2.4%215 $550 to $599 553 1.5%204 $500 to $549 827 2.2%236 $450 to $499 372 1.0%125 $800 to $899 4,640 12.4%563 $750 to $799 1,837 4.9%267 $700 to $749 1,639 4.4%254 $650 to $699 1,144 3.1%269 $1,500 to $1,999 3,527 9.5%511 $1,250 to $1,499 4,371 11.7%605 $1,000 to $1,249 5,879 15.8%580 $900 to $999 4,526 12.1%594 $3,500 or more 605 1.6 187 $3,000 to $3,499 337 0.9%143 $2,500 to $2,999 394 1.1%136 $2,000 to $2,499 1,151 3.1%246 Average Contract Rent $1,117 $64 Median Contract Rent $975 $15 No cash rent 2,520 6.8%435 Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 31 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ESRI Demographic and Income Profile Percent 5.7% 6.1% 8.0% 12.3% 19.0% 13.4% 16.0% 6.7% 12.7% Demographic and Income Profile Summary Census 2010 2018 2023 Collier County, FL Prepared by Esri Collier County, FL (12021) Geography: County Households 133,179 152,265 167,090 Population 321,520 366,709 401,866 Average Household Size 2.38 2.38 2.38 Families 89,276 101,247 110,734 Renter Occupied Housing Units 37,020 44,317 44,962 Owner Occupied Housing Units 96,159 107,948 122,128 Trends: 2018 - 2023 Annual Rate Area State National Median Age 46.9 50.2 51.9 Households 1.88%1.36%0.79% Population 1.85%1.41%0.83% Owner HHs 2.50%1.91%1.16% Families 1.81%1.30%0.71% 2018 2023 Median Household Income 3.35%2.52%2.50% Number <$15,000 11,814 7.8%9,588 Households by Income Number Percent 10,194 $25,000 - $34,999 14,985 9.8%13,361 $15,000 - $24,999 12,289 8.1% 20,624 $50,000 - $74,999 28,977 19.0%31,824 $35,000 - $49,999 20,684 13.6% 22,394 $100,000 - $149,999 21,008 13.8%26,715 $75,000 - $99,999 18,833 12.4% 11,115 $200,000+15,185 10.0%21,275 $150,000 - $199,999 8,490 5.6% Median Household Income $61,684 $72,747 $116,367 Per Capita Income $40,758 $48,792 Average Household Income $97,081 Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 32 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) CONSULTANT POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ADJUSTMENTS Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 33 Source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 US Census Population 332,556 339,483 348,216 357,194 366,095 372,880 385,335 399,691 414,603 430,795 447,538 Consultants Population Est 371,880 379,555 389,699 398,019 413,563 416,210 Census Forecast Annual Change 3.3%3.7%3.7%3.9%3.9% Consultants Forecast Annual Change 2.1%2.7%2.1%3.9%0.6% US Census Houshold Formations 138,755 139,563 142,636 145,194 147,758 151,401 155,253 162,623 170,112 178,851 186,419 Consultants Household Est 151,401 152,924 158,557 163,308 171,697 173,370 Census Forecasted Annual Change 2.5%4.7%4.6%5.1%4.2% Consultants Forecased Annual Change 1.0%3.7%3.0%5.1%1.0% Actual Forecast 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Meyers Research,a Kennedy Wilson Company,is a nation-wide research firm guiding real estate investors throughout the country.Our highly educated and experienced consulting staff believes in providing the highest quality service possible to our clients, which means completing the exact analysis they need.Based in Beverly Hills,we are home to over 140 experts in 10 offices across the country. Our company offers a unique research tool known as Zonda that offers an edge to our research with easy access real-time data at a local level across the United States.Our local Zonda database provides our team with a history of new and resale housing information,maps,comprehensive data,and many other metrics we use in our analyses to begin the reporting process with greater accuracy --quickly,accurately and cost- effectively --with on the ground and in person research.Zonda provides access to over 275 metrics influencing the housing industry including monthly and annual historical trends,future projections and real-time narrative reported by seasoned analysts across the country. Our senior executive team are thought leaders that individually have more than 30 years of experience in housing and real estate research.With our advisory services,we have navigated builders through different housing cycles and have a deep understanding of local markets.Our consulting team has a broad range of housing expertise and experience spanning the country including consumer research,feasibility studies, portfolio valuation,business planning,and custom research designed to make better decisions related to any real estate investment. Zonda and Our Research •Competitive Analysis throughout the Country •Exclusive Access to our Research & Consulting Executives •Metro Analysis & Housing Trends •Apartment Analysis & Forecast •Exclusive Client Events •Presentations & Webinars •Proprietary Surveys Advisory •For-Sale, Apartment, Commercial & Mixed Use •Resort & International Development •Strategic Direction & Planning •Home Builder Operations Assessment •Demand Analysis •Consumer Research & Focus Groups •Custom Economic Analysis & Forecasting •Litigation Support & Expert Witness •Financial Modeling •Project & Product Positioning Consumer and Product Strategy •Consumer and Product Insights •Tactical and Marketing Strategies •Product Design Advisory •Custom Consumer Research •Customer Shop Research APPENDIX Company Experience Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 34 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Thank you! This analysis was prepared by Meyers Research, LLC, a Kennedy Wilson company. Courthouse Shadows Rental Apartments │ Kite Realty Group │ 35 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis June 18, 2019 Page 1 of 3 KRCSA Exhibit VE-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: The Courthouse Shadows project is a developed commercial development. The project currently authorizes up to 165,000 square feet of retail commercial space on 20.35± acres. To date, 147,000 square feet of commercial has been constructed within the project. The growth management plan amendment proposes to retain all of the commercial entitlements and to add a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units within the sub-district. The 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. Potable Water The property is located within the City of Naples potable water service area. Sanitary Sewer The subject project is located within the urban boundary with standards for Sanitary Sewer established in the Capital Improvement Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. Service to this area is provided by the south sewer service area of the Collier County Water and Sewer District. Sewer Demand: Proposed: Multi-family 300 x 100 gpd x 2.4 = 72,000 gpd Multi-family 300 x 100 gpd x 2.4 x 1.5 (max. 3-day) = 108,000 gpd Collier County LOS: 100 gpcd/(0.15) gpd/sf Permitted Capacity: 16 mgd Required Plant Capacity FY26: 16 mgd Data Source: Collier County 2018 AUIR 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis June 18, 2019 Page 2 of 3 KRCSA Exhibit VE-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 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. 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 and will be consistent with basin discharge rates established by Collier County. 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. There are no current capacity issues and none are anticipated through the year 2065. Existing: Retail 165,000 x 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft = 625 lbs/day x 365 = 228,125 lbs/year or 228.12 tons/year Proposed: Retail 165,000 x 5 lbs/1,000 sq ft = 625 lbs/day x 365 = 228,125 lbs/year or 228.12 tons/year Multi-family 400 x 0.54 tons per person x 2.4 = 518.4 tons Current landfill capacity in 2017 is anticipated to be 16,309,943 tons. Available Inventory as of July 2018: 18,710,256 tons Required Inventory as of July 2018: 311,996 tons Available Inventory as of July 2018: 2,916,440 tons Surplus Capacity as of July 2018: 15,477,436 tons Source: Collier County 2018 AUIR Cal Recycle 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003659) Activity Center #16 Exhibit V.E Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis June 18, 2019 Page 3 of 3 KRCSA Exhibit VE-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Parks: Community and Regional The proposed 300 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 creation of the subdistrict. Schools The proposed 300 multi-family dwellings will pay school impact fees to mitigate for their impacts. No adverse impacts to schools result from the creation of the subdistrict. Fire Control and EMS The proposed project lies within the Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District. 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; Greater Naples Fire and Rescue District - Station #22 4375 Bayshore Drive Collier County Sheriff Office 3319 Tamiami Trail E Collier County Sheriff District Three Substation 8075 Lely Cultural Parkway 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 0 4000'2000' SCALE: 1" = 4000' GradyMinor Civil Engineers ●Land Surveyors ●Planners ●Landscape Architects Cert. of Auth. EB 0005151 Cert. of Auth. LB 0005151 Business LC 26000266 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 Bonita Springs: 239.947.1144 www.GradyMinor.com Fort Myers: 239.690.4380 SUBJECT PROPERTY 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) City of Naples UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 295 RIVERSIDE CIRCLE ● NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102 TELEPHONE (239) 213-5051 ● FAX (239) 213-5010 Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do. Page 1 of 2 February 13, 2019 Mr. Richard DuBois, E.I. JR Evans Engineering 9351 Corkscrew Road, Ste 102 Estero, FL 33928 rdubois@jreeng.com Subject: Potable Water Service Availability for Courthouse Shadows Project Folio # 28750000028 – 3390 Tamiami Trail E. Folio # 28750000523 – 3420 Tamiami Trail E. Folio # 28750000769 Folio # 30480040100 – 3260 Tamiami Trail E. Dear Mr. DuBois: In response to the request for a Letter of Availability for potable water service for the proposed Courthouse Shadow’s Project received via email on February 13, 2019, this office has reviewed the subject site for available potable water service. Based on the referenced information and review, this office confirms the following: 1. The subject property is located within the City of Naples potable water service area. 2. The City of Naples has adequate treatment plant capacity for the proposed project. 3. The proposed improvements must meet current City of Naples Utilities Standards and must be submitted to the Utilities Department for review and approval. 4. Should the scope of proposed project change to impact City utility services, the project’s engineer of record shall remain responsible to contact the City for appropriate review s and analysis. This letter does not imply or guarantee that adequate potable water distribution main facilities of sufficient size and capacity exist at the property; such utilities as may be needed for new site development shall remain the developer’s responsibility to design, permit and construct. Based on the above, this office has no objections to this project subject to appropriate reviews by all utility service providers (including the City of Naples), Collier County, and the Fire District. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Ethics above all else ... Service to others before self ... Quality in all that we do. Page 2 of 2 Should you have any questions or require any additional information or action from this office, please do not hesitate to call this office at (239) 213-4713 or email amholland@naplesgov.com. Sincerely, Allyson Holland, PE Deputy Utilities Director C: Denise King, Utilities Permit Coordinator 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 1 Sharon Umpenhour From:Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:53 AM To:Kristina Johnson Cc:Chase Williston; Rob Sucher Subject:RE: Courthouse Shadows - FDOT Safety Audit of 2015 Kristina, In review of the tentative 5-year work program (2020-2024), I show the following project are within the area of your project: 1. Resurfacing project- US 41 from SR 84 (Davis Blvd) to Courthouse Shadows 2. Intersection safety project - US 41 and Peters Street / Airport Pulling Road I can’t provide the exact years as the work program is tentative and has not been adopted yet, but these are the projects I’m showing right now. I would also add, there may be additional off-site improvements on US 41 directly related to this project, this review would occur at the time of permitting, when the department has an opportunity to review the proposed site plan, traffic impact study and intersection analysis. Hope this information is helpful, if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Mark Clark Access Management Specialist FDOT SWIFT SunGuide Center 10041 Daniels Parkway Fort Myers, Florida 33913 mark.clark@dot.state.fl.us (239) 225 -1984 From: Kristina Johnson [mailto:KJohnson@jreeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 12:15 PM To: Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Cc: Chase Williston <cwilliston@johnsondevelopment.net>; Rob Sucher <rsucher@johnsondevelopment.net> Subject: Courthouse Shadows - FDOT Safety Audit of 2015 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 2 EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments. Mark, I hope all is well. If you recall I am working with a multi-family client on re-zoning the Courthouse Shadows property in Naples to include residential. As part of our re-zoning the County asked about any proposed FDOT improvements along US-41 and Peters, specifically from the attached Safety Audit, we need to align with or show. If you recall, you and I discussed some access improvements to the northernmost access from Courthouse Shadows to US-41, see attached email correspondence, which is fairly wide (approximately 130’). Specifically we discussed retrofitting this driveway when the project comes in for permitting. I’m not sure it would be appropriate to show anything in our re-zoning for this access since we haven’t agreed on a design yet and we probably will not submit the FDOT permit until after the zoning is approved. Other than the improvements to the northernmost access can you please let me know if FDOT has any other improvements proposed in this area that would be beneficial to show in our re-zoning? I appreciate your help and feel free to reach out with any questions. Thanks, Kristina M. Johnson, P.E. Director of Land Development J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9351 Corkscrew Road, Suite 102 Estero, Florida 33928 o: 239.405.9148 c: 239.285.6999 www.jrevansengineering.com COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER PROVISION: This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail. The electronic data contained herein may be subject to change without notice. The responsibility for the accuracy of current conditions and/or digital transfers is solely that of the user. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 405 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 406 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 407 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 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 S13,11 n GMP and PUD Amendment Courthouse Shadows CPUD - S12 T50 R25 See attached list See attached list Courthouse Shadows CPUD Courthouse Shadows MPUD 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 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 1/11/2019 See Attached Courthouse Shadows n Sharon Umpenhour 239-947-1144 sumpenhour@gradyminor.com 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ParcelID 28750000028 28750000523 28750000727 28750000743 28750000769 30480040100 00391520008 00391440007 Name1 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP MK REALTY 3440 TAMIAMI TRL LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC CHRISSY'S AT COURTHOUSE SUNSHINE REAL ESTATE HLDS LLLP StreetNumber 3290 3420 3400 3440 3260 3340 3396 FullStreet TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) T A MIA MI T R L EAIRPORT PULLING RD SSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Courthouse Shadows CPUDAerial Location Map SubjectProperty . 590 0 590295 Feet 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 419Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com April 17, 2019 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment Dear Sir or Madam: A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC (Applicant) will be held on: Tuesday, May 7, 2019, 6:00 pm at the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board Meeting, Naples Botanical Garden Buehler Auditorium, 4820 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment and a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment. The GMP amendment proposes to revise language of the Activity Center Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element to allow an additional 12.8 units per acre within 10 acres of the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The CPUD amendment application is a companion application to the GMP amendment and proposes to amend the 20.35+/- acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. The subject property (Courthouse Shadows MPUD) is comprised of approximately 20.35± acres, located the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Airport Road in Sections 11, 12, 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail to: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Sincerely, Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment April 17, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Project Location Map: 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 500' 3/25/2019 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 2947 PETERS AVE INVESTMENT LLC 2210 VANDERBILT RD ATE 1201 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 6 + 7 OR 767 PG 1684 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 9 + 10 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 7 + 8 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34110---1416 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 1-6 INCL 15FT ALLEY LESS R/W DESC IN OR 107 PG 449 3550 SOUTH TRAIL 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13,E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 420FT TO POB, E 286.03FT, SWLY 129.90FT, W ADDORIO, JOHN 3339 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5959 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 39 LESS N 15FT, AND LOT 38 ADELA, ARIEL SOCARRAS 3420 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5932 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 15 OR 544 PG 250 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 4 & 5 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 3 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TRL N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 25 & 26 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TRL N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 27 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 1 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 2 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP, INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 28 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP, INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 29 ASLI, ABBAS AHRABI 98 EAST AVE NAPLES, FL 34108---3420 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 LOT 124 LESS N 1300FT LESS R/W ,ALG WITH BEG AT PT ON NLY R/W US 41, 108.15FT SELY FROM BECK, EDWARD F & BARBARA E 1322 ROUTE 83 CAPE MAY CT HSE, NJ 08210---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 8 BENENATI, JASON D 3324 COLLEE COURT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 E 110FT OF W 220FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL BISSAILLON EST, FAITH 3353 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 S 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 1654 1408 BLACKLIDGE, LISA 3334 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 25 BLACKLIDGE, MICHAEL & ELLEN 486 LAGOON AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34108---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 24 BRAWNER, JAMES C & LEEANN 3097 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5905 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 27 OR 1840 PG 662 BROWN, DONNA 130-04-225TH ST SPRINGFIELD GARD, NY 11413---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 10 BURTON, WILLARD D & PEGGY L 3500 TAMIAMI LN NAPLES, FL 34112---5946 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK C N1/2 OF LOT 5 + ALL LOT 6 OR 631 PG 655 + OR 373 PG 865 CADENHEAD ET UX, ROBERT E 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOTS 10 + 11 OR 334 PG 543 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 9 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 10 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 14 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 13 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 12 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, TARA LEIGH 3434 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 11 CARDILLO, JOHN P DANIEL R MONACO 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4905 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13,E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 706.03FT TO POB, N 89 DEG E 139.60FT, S 38 DEG E CARR, PHILIP R 111 MAHOGANY DR NAPLES, FL 34108---2926 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 9 CARROLL, CINDY PO BOX 990387 NAPLES, FL 34116---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 29 CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF VENICE INC PO BOX 2116 VENICE, FL 34284---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 37-40, LESS THAT PORTION OF LOT 39 AS DESC IN OR 2072 PG 1405 CAZIMIR, YVES 2973 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 32 OR 1851 PG 1825 CHRISSY'S AT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 2412 PINEWOODS CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---2538 12 50 25 OUTPARCEL 1,COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS:COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12,S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG COLEMAN II, JAMES E & RACHEL 3148 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 23 & S 10FT OF LOT 22 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 EASTGATE BLK A S 30 FT OF LOT 23 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 PAR 3 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX DESC AS; COMM SW CNR SEC 12, RUN N ALG W SEC LINE 1858.24 FT, E 70 FT TO E LINE COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 COMM SE CNR SEC 12,N ALG W SEC LI 2162.78FT, N 89 DEG E 654.12FT, N 87 DEG E 873FT, S 750FT, S 87 DEG W COLLIER COUNTY % OFFC OF COUNTY ATTORNEY 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E STE 800 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12,N 89 DEG E 1216.63FT, N 89 DEG E 75FT POB, N 24 DEG E 45FT, S 66 DEG E 80FT, S 24 CONNOLLY, COLLEEN 3501 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 S105FT OF FOLL:PT ON W LI SEC, 865FT S OF NW CNR,E 175FT TO POB, SAID PT ON E LI OF 60FT R/W, CONT E 135FT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS INC % POTEET PROPERTIES PO BOX 10667 NAPLES, FL 34101---667 12 50 25 BEG AT SW COR SEC,RUN N 1213.44FT, S 52 DEG E 167.05FT TO PT OF CURVE, FOLL CURVE 422.10FT TO POB, CONT CRAIG, ROBERT F & KAREN M 131 JORDAN RD EMERSON, NJ 07630---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 16 DENISON, MATTHEW 420 WEBER BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---1638 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 23 DEVARISTE, JEAN E VIERGELENE DEVARISTE 2872 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 5 + 6 OR 1975 PG 363 DEZEGO, TIMOTHY & ROBYN 3367 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 16 OR 1439 PG 1625 DONAUS, ERNEST BERTHUDE FAUGUE 2972 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 11 ELLEN D WERNICK REV TRUST 3388 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 BEG AT A PT 183FT N OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE + W SEC LI E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB, ELLEN D WERNICK REV TRUST 3388 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 FROM PT OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE WITH W SEC LI RUN N 130FT FOR POB, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S FAIRHOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC 10 STATION LN UNIONVILLE L3R 1R4 13 50 25 N100FT OF FOLL: FROM PT ON W LI OF SEC 13- 50-25 DISTANT 865FT S OF NW1/4 CNR OF SEC, RUN E175 FT TO POB, FAWNKY LLC 20533 BISCAYNE BLVD #1238 AVENTURA, FL 33180---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 24 FIRST CHOICE STORAGE LC 4401 GULFSHORE BLVD N # 704 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 1-4,LESS STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING OR 2012 PG 1717 CASE#94-1880-CA PAR 137 FOWLER, JENNIFER C 3422 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 12 GALLOWAY, SCOTT & HEATHER 3416 CALOOSA STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 14 GARCIA, ISAAC MEDRANO LETICIA RAMOS GARCIA 2998 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 12 OR 1185 PG 479 GARCON, JEAN L & MARIE A 2947 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 33 OR 1861 PG 178 GERTRUDE L STURGILL TRUST 2898 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 8 GLAUB, MARYANNE 3064 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S 10FT OF LOT 15, LOT 16 + N 25FT LOT 17 GRACIA, ANTHONY 3160 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 10 GRACIA, ANTHONY P 3160 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 9-PLAT-DB 39-194 HANDELMAN, LUCILE 1527 GULF COAST DR NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 HARVEY, MARIAN D 2897 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5961 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 HERBERT, CHARLES N & ANNA K 3500 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5902 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N 45 FT OF LOT 6 & S 30 FT OF LOT 7 OR 789 PG 238 HOLMES, LILLIE 3412 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 13 HUGHES, SHARON K 3416 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 9 + N 15FT OF LOT 8 OR 764 PG 1825 I E C RENTAL INC 3994 MERCANTILE AVE NAPLES, FL 34104---0 13 50 25 COMM AT NW CNR SEC 13 , E 331.37FT, S 281.88, N 89DEG E 150FT TO POB N 89DEG E 100FT, S 182.72FT, N 89DEG W I E C RENTALS INC 3994 MERCANTILE AVE NAPLES, FL 34104---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 11 OR 1136 PG 2026 INGROSSO, ANGELA MARCO ZANETTI 3124 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5918 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 11, AND COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 21 AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 DESC IN JEAN & VIERGELENE LLC 2848 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 7 JOHNSON JR, ROAN E 3000 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC, E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT TO POB,N 89 DEG E 250FT, S 182.72FT,N 89 DEG W 250FT, N 180FT JONES, GINGER G WILLIAM M JONES EST 3508 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5906 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 16 JONES, MICHAEL E STEVEN J HAMMER 3022 NE 20TH CT FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305---1808 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 11 + N1/2 OF LOT 12 JONES, SHADE 203 TORREY PINES PT NAPLES, FL 34113---7541 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 41 JOSEPH, JEAN & ESTHER 3415 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5933 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 9 KAREN L BEATTY REV LIV TRUST 3113 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 40 + N 15FT LOT 39 OR 1458 PG 336 KATHLEEN JOAN PFEFFER TRUST 28439 DEL LAGO WAY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---2809 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 5 KING II, JAMES D & JANE G 3308 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---5916 13 50 25 LOT 6 UNREC PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 DESC AS:BEG AT A PT 342FT N OF THE KING II, JAMES D & JANE H 3308 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---5916 13 50 25 FROM PT OF N LINE OF ARECA AVE E 115FT, N 395FT TO POB, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT,E 115FT TO POB KRAL, MARIANNE 3416 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 15 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS II LLC 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---0 EASTGATE BLK A THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1-3 AND VACANT ALLEY ADJACENT ALL DESC IN OR 3939 PG 463 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT E KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT A KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT B KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 6 OR 1428 PG 1565 KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 25 KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 26 OR 1604 PG 1126 KYLE, MARK W 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 7 LAGUERRE, MULCAR MARIE ELIE NEPTUNE 2873 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 36 LAMBERT, J C APOLLO LAMBERT MATTHEW LAMBERT 3450 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 33962---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N1/2 OF LOT 7 + S 45FT OF LOT 8 OR 698 PG 294 LARSON, SUSAN BABB 1956 5TH STREET S NAPLES, FL 34102---0 13 50 25 LOT 8 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DES.IN OR 5-66 ALSO FURTHER DESC LARSON, THOMAS G 1956 5TH ST S NAPLES, FL 34102---0 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, S 460FT, E 175FT, N 70FT, E 75.10FT, N 20FT, W 12.50 FT,N 88.12FT, E 72.40FT, S LBD HOLDINGS LLC 27214 JOLLY ROGER LN BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0 13 50 25 LOT 5 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 845 PG 1341 POList_500_PL20180003658.xls 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 500' 3/25/2019 2 LOVE JR, JOHN N PO BOX 9822 NAPLES, FL 34101---9822 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 14 + N 40FT OF LOT 15 OR 1221 PG 1986 LOYOLA, JOSE L 2831 STORTER AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 BEG AT PT ON W LI OF SEC, N 77FT OF ARECA AVE, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB, AKA LOT 2 OR MENDES, ANTONE C 2256 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4706 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 25 OR 1572 PG 560 MK REALTY 3440 TAMIAMI TRL LLC 6685 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114---0 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT D MORENO, GIOBERT PETRONILLA ALAMEIDA 3419 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 8 MORGAN, JOHN MORGAN, RACHEL 3164 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5930 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 24 MORGAN, ROBERT T & FRANCES 3282 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 1 OR 1288 PG 1647 MOTT, DAVID K 3400 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, E 331.37FT, S281.88FT, E250 FT TO POB, E170FT, S184.64 FT,W170FT, N182.72FT TO POB .72 MOXAM, ABDIEL D MARIE S RIVERA 2540 53RD TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---7652 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 34 NAPIER, DONNA M 3317 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 N 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 2611 PG 592 NICHOLS, ARTHUR S & STELLA M 3112 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 17 NKDH CAPITAL LLC 20533 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 1238 MIAMI, FL 33180---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 20, S30FT OF LOT 19 AND N 10FT LOT 21 NUNEZ, JAIME A LORENZA LUCRECIO NICOLAS 3174 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 20 LESS OR 1691 PG 1469, OR 1156 PG 1888 NYGARD, CHRISTOPHER M 3051 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 28 O CONNOR, JOHN & COLLEEN TRACY LARETZ ANGELA LARETZ O'CONNOR 7836 FARGO RD YALE, MI 48097---4819 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 3 PLAT DB 39 PG 190 OR 1087 PG 2100 PAMELA R SIZEMORE TRUST 2996 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S1/2 OF LOT 12 + ALL OF LOT 13 PARLIER, RUTH DARLENE 3502 CALOOSA STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 16 PAUL W BURKE JR LIVING TRUST 107 OAKWOOD PL PARKERSBURG, WV 26104---0 EASTGATE BLK B S 25FT OF LT 17, LT 18, N 20 FT OF LOT 19 PENSCO TRUST PO BOX 173859 DENVER, CO 80217---0 13 50 25 W 115FT OF S 77FT OF N 805FT OF NW1/4 OR 1472 PG 2269 PICKLE, ERIC 458 BURNS RD LULING, TX 78648---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 30-31 PICON, CARLOS MANUEL MARIA TERESA RAMIL 3505 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 7 RAMOS FAMILY LAND TRUST 3122 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34102---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 18 REIF, ROBERT S SUSAN M LIRVAK 454 SADDLEWORTH CIR ORLANDO, FL 32826---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 2-PLAT-DB 40-21 OR 1683 PG 09 ROBERT A FLICK REV TRUST PO BOX 835 NAPLES, FL 34106---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 22 ROBERT A FLICK REV TRUST PO BOX 835 NAPLES, FL 34106---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 18 ROSENDAHL, CHRISTOPHER S MATTHEW S ROSENDAHL 3026 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5904 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 13 ROSENDAHL, VICKI L 11 62ND STREET YANKEETOWN, FL 34498---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 22 AND S 5FT OF LOT 23 RUWE PROPERTIES LLC 4810 LAKEWOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 8 SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 3A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 4A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 8A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 5A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 6A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 7A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOTS 19,20 & 21 SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 1A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 2A SMITH EST, WILLIAM A 3124 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 19 SMITH, ROBERT E & HELEN J 3312 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 E 55FT OF W 110FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 1054 PG 261 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP 11770 CALLA LILLY CT PALM BCH GARDENS, FL 33418---0 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT C SOWERS, CHARLES EDWARD CASSANDRA SOWERS 3501 CHEROKEE STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 7 STATON REVOCABLE TRUST 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 17 OR 1450 PG 1462 STATON REVOCABLE TRUST 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 10 STATON, RAYMOND W 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 EASTGATE BLK B N 40FT OF LOT 22 & S 40FT OF LOT 21 SUNSHINE REAL ESTATE HLDS LLLP 1650 NW 87TH AVE DORAL, FL 33172---0 12 50 25 OUT PARCEL 2 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS:COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12,S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 1891 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34109---2133 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 6 AND 7 OR 1981 PG 856 SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 1891 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34109---2133 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 23 AND 24 OR 1981 PG 856 TIF-FL-B LLC PO BOX 630535 MIAMI, FL 33163---535 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 26 + 27 TIITF /DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 801 NORTH BROADWAY AVE % GREGG BODHE BARTOW, FL 33831---0 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 1, 2 + 3 ALL OF VACANT ALLEY ADJOINING,LESS THAT PORTION LOT 1 AS DESC IN OR 32 PG 478, AND LESS TOWNSEND, RONALD A % ANDREA AYERS 441 14TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34120---0 13 50 25 E 110 OF W 330 FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 1593 PG 172 VADER PROPERTIES III INC 170 E 78TH ST #3F NEW YORK, NY 10075---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 14 +15 OR 1074 PG 1915 VALENCIA, FELIPE VALENCIA, JOSE 3173 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5923 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS SUB N 70FT OF LOT 23 VANDERPOOL, JIMMIE H 3300 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 W 55 FT OF W 110 FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 806 PG 876 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP TAX DEPT PO BOX 8050 MS-0555 STORE #1119 BENTONVILLE, AR 72716---1 12 50 25 THAT PART OF SEC 12 AND 13 DESC IN OR 1766 PG 2234 WASSBERG, PAUL R 3250 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 4 PLAT DB 38-110 OR 1435 PG 2197 POList_500_PL20180003658.xls 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) PROOF O.K.BY:_____________________________O.K.WITH CORRECTIONS BY:___________________________ PLEASE READ CAREFULLY •SUBMIT CORRECTIONS ONLINE ADVERTISER:Q.GRADY MINOR &ASSOCIA PROOF CREATED AT :4/11/2019 12:38 PM SALES PERSON:NDN7103 PROOF DUE:- PUBLICATION:ND-DAILY NEXT RUN DATE:04/18/19 SIZE:3 col X 9.25 in ND-2267929.INDD ND-2267929 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA),Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA),Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D.Wayne Arnold,AICP, of Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.and Richard D.Yo vanovich,Esq. of Coleman,Yo vanovich and Koester,P.A.,representing KRG Courthouse Shadows,LLC (Applicant)will be held on: Tu esday,May 7,2019,6:00 pm at the Bayshore Gateway Tr iangle CRA Advisory Board Meeting,Naples Botanical Garden Buehler Auditorium, 4820 Bayshore Drive,Naples,Florida 34112 KRG Courthouse Shadows,LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County,seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP)Amendment and a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment.The GMP amendment proposes to revise language of the Activity Center Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element to allow an additional 12.8 units per acre within 10 acres of the Courthouse Shadows PUD.The CPUD amendment application is a companion application to the GMP amendment and proposes to amend the 20.35+/-acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. The subject property (Courthouse Shadows MPUD)is comprised of approximately 20.35±acres,located the southeast corner of the intersection of Ta miami Tr ail East (U.S.41)and Airport Road in Sections 11,12,13,To wnship 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,it is not a public hearing.Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor. com/planning.If you have questions or comments,they can be directed by mail,phone,fax or e-mail to:sumpenhour@gradyminor.com,phone 239- 947-1144,fax 239-947-0375,Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.,3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 425Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 426Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 427Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 428Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 429Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 9.A.2.ePacket Pg. 430Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1 ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9 10 11 12· · · COURTHOUSE SHADOWS MPUD NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 13· · · · · · · · PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 14· · · · · · · · · · · · · MAY 7, 2019 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 · YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·(Recorded meeting as follows:) ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Good evening, everybody. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKERS:· Good evening. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Is this working?· Can you hear me? ·5· · · Okay.· I'll try to use it and talk as loud as I can.· We're ·6· · · going to go ahead and get started.· I know the regular CRA ·7· · · advisory board meeting begins at 6:30. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It's not working now?· Maybe I just 10· · · need to talk loud. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I don't think it's on. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The green light is on.· I'll try to 13· · · talk loud and then hopefully it amplifies enough.· I'm Wayne 14· · · Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor & Associates.· I'm 15· · · representing Kite Realty who are the owners of the 16· · · Courthouse Shadows shopping center and I'll make some 17· · · introductions.· This is Sharon Umpenhour who's taping the 18· · · meeting.· She is with our office.· And we're required to 19· · · create an audio-tape or a videotape of the meeting and 20· · · provide those to the planning commission and staff and the 21· · · Board of County Commissioners. 22· · · · · · · ·And with me tonight I have Doug Kirby who's with 23· · · Kite Realty.· Some of you probably know him.· Doug's in the 24· · · back of the room there.· Rob Sucher is with Johnson 25· · · Development.· Johnson is under contract to buy the portion Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 2 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · that will be developed for residential units.· And Christina ·2· · · Johnson from JRE Engineering.· She's the engineer of record ·3· · · for the project.· Rich Yovanovich many of you know, a local ·4· · · attorney.· And Jim Banks is our traffic engineer who's ·5· · · working on the project. ·6· · · · · · · ·So this is -- the property is zoned a planned unit ·7· · · development.· It was zoned many years ago.· It's been ·8· · · developed with obviously the shopping center that's there. ·9· · · Most of the storefronts are vacant except for Wild Wings and 10· · · a couple of the outparcels.· So we're proposing to modify 11· · · the zoning to add an option for residential development. 12· · · And that means that we're not taking away what was formerly 13· · · approved most recently for the Sam's Club, big box type 14· · · store, but we're inserting a new master plan and an option 15· · · for development of up to 300 dwelling units on a good 16· · · portion of the property, a little over 18 acres of the 20 17· · · point something acre project to be developed with 18· · · residential. 19· · · · · · · ·Subject property, I'm sure all of you are familiar 20· · · what that is.· It's just located at the intersection of 21· · · Airport and U.S. 41.· It is in your CRA boundary, which is 22· · · why we thought it would be important to come here tonight to 23· · · talk to you because many of you gather for the CRA.· So we 24· · · wanted you to be aware of something that's going on in your 25· · · redevelopment area.· This is also an activity center number Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 3 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · 16 on the county's future land use map.· The area in pink is ·2· · · the activity center boundary.· It's a unique configuration, ·3· · · but it includes the shopping center as well as the ·4· · · government center and other things along the Airport and ·5· · · U.S. 41 intersection. ·6· · · · · · · ·What we're also proposing to do is a comprehensive ·7· · · plan amendment to this activity center and we are ·8· · · identifying a 10 acre portion.· So we qualify for what's ·9· · · called a small-scale plan amendment so we can add increased 10· · · density to get up to the 300 dwelling units that we need to 11· · · develop the property for the multiple-family apartments 12· · · on-site.· So you can see that in what just popped up like 13· · · that.· The 10 acre area where we're asking for the increased 14· · · density so that we can qualify for simple density is here. 15· · · It takes up a good portion of the site. 16· · · · · · · ·But you have a policy in your comprehensive plan 17· · · that says activity centers where you have areas that are 18· · · subject to coastal high hazard flooding areas can only get 19· · · four dwelling units per acre.· So we're proposing to 20· · · increase the density from four units an acre above that and 21· · · then utilize up to 97 of the bonus pool units that came off 22· · · the botanical garden property to develop up to 300 units 23· · · here.· This is the approved master plan and this one will 24· · · remain in tact.· It shows a large full map retail and 25· · · parking with the outparcels.· And that was developed for Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 4 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · what was going to be a Sam's Club. ·2· · · · · · · ·This is our proposed master plan and we changed it ·3· · · a little bit.· We've taken off the building configuration ·4· · · because Johnson Development is still working through and I'm ·5· · · going to show you some concepts of how the buildings could ·6· · · be arranged, but it is the concept at this point so we're ·7· · · leaving this open.· So areas that are identified thus far on ·8· · · the plan is the areas where residential could be ·9· · · constructed.· Those are areas called C/R you can see here 10· · · and those are parcels that are owned by Kite Realty, 11· · · including the Starbucks on the corner.· That would be 12· · · included in the sale, but obviously Starbucks would stay, 13· · · but we're including as a C/R mixed use parcel, if you will, 14· · · because that would be something that all of the developer 15· · · would control. 16· · · · · · · ·So the access points remain the same onto U.S. 41. 17· · · That's a signalized intersection and then we have a right 18· · · in, right out closer to Airport Road.· And then the other 19· · · access point that's located closer to Haldeman Creek.· One 20· · · access point on Peters that's closed off and then the access 21· · · at Starbucks would remain.· You can see that we've arranged 22· · · water management areas conceptually on the site keeping the 23· · · -- it's very similar to the design that was being used for 24· · · the Sam's Club.· I know the county and everybody is 25· · · concerned about the discharge to Haldeman Creek. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 5 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·If you have questions, Christina Johnson can answer ·2· · · some questions about drainage if you have them.· One of the ·3· · · things because of the residential component that Johnson ·4· · · would like to do is to bring Haldeman Creek into play by ·5· · · putting in probably some sort of kayak launch, a dock or ·6· · · something to activate the waterfront so that the residents ·7· · · would have some option for utilizing the creek.· And the ·8· · · property itself includes Haldeman Creek, so it is within our ·9· · · project boundary.· One small preserve area has been 10· · · indicated as being preserved as an option already in the PUD 11· · · to go off-site to mitigate for that should we need to.· So 12· · · that's kind of a snapshot of what their plan is at least 13· · · from the zoning plan standpoint. 14· · · · · · · ·We are asking for several new deviations.· There 15· · · were several deviations required for the big box club. 16· · · We're asking for other deviations that will allow us to 17· · · navigate and you know, residential on the property.· Some 18· · · relate to signage.· Right now the county doesn't really have 19· · · a standard for having a mixed-use project to have 20· · · residential identification signage, for instance, on what 21· · · otherwise would be a directory sign for the commercial user 22· · · as well.· So for instance, that's one of the deviations 23· · · we've requested. 24· · · · · · · ·All this will be available on-line if anybody wants 25· · · to take a look at it.· And Sharon has business cards up Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 6 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · there.· You can go to our web site.· We have linked a ·2· · · presentation that we show you for our neighborhood ·3· · · information meetings if would like to look at those in more ·4· · · detail.· One of the site plan arrangements that we're ·5· · · looking at is this.· And you can see building footprints, ·6· · · but you know, what remains would be Starbucks.· The other ·7· · · outparcels that are existing, you have the gas station.· You ·8· · · have the Healthy Cafe, Dunkin Donuts and whatever will ·9· · · become of the Burger King would all remain and those are 10· · · separate and apart from the mixed-use proposal. 11· · · · · · · ·But this plan highlights a little bit better. 12· · · These hashed areas become water management areas, for 13· · · instance.· It's likely that they're going to have 14· · · single-story garage parking available for some of the 15· · · buildings.· Some of the amenities will likely be within the 16· · · residential buildings and it wouldn't be just a stand-alone 17· · · clubhouse type building.· Most likely this is going to be 18· · · their sales and leasing office and some of the recreational 19· · · component.· Potential dog park down in here close to 20· · · Haldeman Creek, typical features that you see for a lot of 21· · · multi-family projects now. 22· · · · · · · ·This puts it on an aerial photograph and I know 23· · · it's probably a little more difficult to read, but at least 24· · · it shows you how that's going to relate to the neighborhood. 25· · · We're trying very hard to respect the homes that are on Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 7 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · Collee Court and Peters that are adjacent to us.· With that, ·2· · · that's a very brief overview and I'm happy to answer ·3· · · questions.· Like I said, we have our team here that can ·4· · · answer specific questions you have and I'll try to do that. ·5· · · All I ask is that we take them one at a time and we need to ·6· · · be clear.· They don't like us to talk over each other ·7· · · because it's really hard to hear if somebody wants to listen ·8· · · to the audio tape and it's hard for transcription.· So I'll ·9· · · just start right here in the front row. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there going to be no commercial on 11· · · the bottom? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question was is there not going to 13· · · be commercial on the bottom?· And I don't believe it's the 14· · · intent of Johnson Development to have mixed-use in one 15· · · building.· The residential buildings would be separate. 16· · · They'll obviously be connected by pedestrian access points 17· · · and driveways to the remaining outparcels.· I saw a hand up 18· · · over here.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I see that the plan that you got 20· · · there shows the line going all the way over to the other 21· · · bank across from Bobby Cayden's property.· You own the 22· · · right-of-way all the way across Haldeman Creek? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do.· Haldeman Creek exists as a 24· · · drainage easement across Kite's property. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So they're granted an easement Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 8 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · across the property? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, there's an easement in favor of ·3· · · -- I'm not sure who all the parties are.· I know Collier ·4· · · County is one of the entities for Haldeman Creek, uh-huh. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm sorry.· I didn't hear the last ·7· · · part. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Poley, thank you.· I saw a hand over 10· · · here. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You've indicated that the development 14· · · is 20.35 acres, but there are 2.68 acres which are submerged 15· · · land, Parcel P that is owned by Kite.· Is that subtracted 16· · · from the developable area?· If it is, it only leaves about 17· · · 17 acres on which to site 300 homes and park 450 18· · · automobiles.· That constitutes in one acre 17 homes and 25 19· · · automobiles on one acre of developable land and I think 20· · · that's far too intense. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· I'm not going to dispute 22· · · your numbers, but I think it's a little over 18 acres that 23· · · Johnson Development is buying for the 300 units so the 24· · · density is a little less than you stated.· It's probably 25· · · closer to 16 units per acre overall, just so you know. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 9 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, I'm a car and half off. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Just so you know, activity centers in ·3· · · Collier County are encouraged to be the areas where we have ·4· · · high density residential and more intense commercial uses. ·5· · · And almost everywhere else in the county activity centers ·6· · · are allowed up to 16 units per acre residential density. I ·7· · · know that sounds like a high number, but it is what our ·8· · · comprehensive plan says that you can have.· And then our ·9· · · comprehensive plan will ensure (inaudible).· Yes? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I think better use of that property 11· · · would be as part of the government center and that should be 12· · · explored.· In addition to that, a mix of commercial and 13· · · residential might be more appropriate because of the traffic 14· · · volume at that intersection amongst other problems. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· So noted.· Thanks for the comment. 16· · · Anybody not -- yes, ma'am, back here? 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What types of units and what price 18· · · range? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, they are proposed to be rental 20· · · apartments. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Rental apartments? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, they're rental apartments.· And I 23· · · don't know if we have a price point yet.· I'm sure Rob can 24· · · indicate some of the price ranges that they're looking at, 25· · · but they're expected to be market-rate housing.· And you Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 10 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · know, price points will be commensurate with the market in ·2· · · the area.· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What's the anticipated square footage ·4· · · per unit? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Rob, do you have some thoughts on ·6· · · that? ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, I do.· I'll speak to everything, ·8· · · bounce back and forth.· Good evening, everyone.· This is Rob ·9· · · Sucher with Johnson Development and I'll try and answer your 10· · · specific questions.· We're also going to go stay a little 11· · · bit afterwards with the site plan just kind of on a larger 12· · · scale, larger scale on the site plan -- Did you guys hear 13· · · that?· I'll try to be loud here -- that you can see in a 14· · · little bit more detail if someone wants to take a look at 15· · · the plan after the meeting specifically.· The size of the 16· · · units, so we have not -- we're at an early stage right now 17· · · so we have not moved into full scale design at this point. 18· · · Typically in the market, you're going to see about an 19· · · average of 1,000 square feet.· It's a mix of one bedroom to 20· · · three bedroom units.· So it will be plus or minus 1,000 21· · · square feet, most likely, in the market.· Yeah, go ahead. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The development has over 730 lineal 23· · · feet of frontage on Haldeman Creek and I see you did very 24· · · little to explaining what the development will be there. 25· · · Will there be parking and boat dockage and common areas Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 11 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · along that waterfront property?· And I think it's an asset ·2· · · that should be utilized by the developer. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I could not agree more.· It is one of ·4· · · the most exciting things we have on this project ·5· · · specifically.· There's no existing community within Collier ·6· · · County on the rental side that does have the opportunity for ·7· · · canal activation.· So that is exactly what we look for and ·8· · · hope to be able to achieve.· Unfortunately, it is not just a ·9· · · county approval.· It actually has to go through U.S. Army 10· · · Corp.· So that is a lengthy process that we're going to be 11· · · doing concurrent to zoning application, but it is absolutely 12· · · our intent to activate that canal.· We would be the first 13· · · ones of the incredible disappointment to the project if we 14· · · were not to be able to achieve that.· So it's 100 percent in 15· · · the plans. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It is. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I saw a hand up over there somewhere, 18· · · didn't I?· Okay.· Yes ma'am, go right ahead. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The 300 units, though, it's going to 20· · · take what, 600 cars?· There's already in the winter a 21· · · traffic jam there. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There's a bottle-neck. 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· One at a time, please.· One comment at 24· · · a time. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· In the mornings I live on the creek Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 12 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · so I come out by Seminole.· Actually, by Cardella's Law ·2· · · Offices.· I have to make a u-ie.· They're backed up halfway ·3· · · down Guilford every morning already in the summer.· What's ·4· · · it going to be with 600 more cars? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Right.· Well, I think part of the ·6· · · issue and we have our traffic engineer here, I mean, you ·7· · · have to remember that today they could refill the shopping ·8· · · center with 165,000 square feet retail space that generates ·9· · · far more trips than the residential trips.· So that's how 10· · · the traffic comparison was made and that's how the staff is 11· · · evaluating it based on retail versus residential.· Someone 12· · · who hasn't asked a question.· Sir, in the back? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That is the third busiest 14· · · intersection in Collier County.· There are 90,000 cars at 15· · · peak season on 41 East and 35 -- 55,000 on Airport Road 16· · · going south.· That is a bottle-neck from the four corners 17· · · downtown Naples to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, if not further. 18· · · And adding 600 cars to that mix is going to be a mistake, I 19· · · believe, because currently I have witnessed emergency 20· · · vehicles that are delayed in their response at that 21· · · intersection. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, ma'am?· Oh, it's 23· · · Anita.· I couldn't see because of the light.· Sorry about 24· · · that. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Given that you have a lot of Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 13 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · multi-family here and a large employer, have you had any ·2· · · considerations for pedestrian improvements to help them ·3· · · cross the street at all?· Did staff ask you to consider ·4· · · that, how you move pedestrians around that area? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't think we've gotten quite that ·6· · · far, Anita, talking about all pedestrian interconnections. ·7· · · I mean, I think that's one of the things that attracts ·8· · · Johnson to this site is that you've got a large employment ·9· · · center at the government center next door.· You've got the 10· · · CAT transfer facility that's immediately across the street. 11· · · We have a traffic signalized intersection at both Airport 12· · · and at the entrance on U.S. 41 that does provide at least 13· · · for safe passage for people to cross the street to get to 14· · · and from work and shopping.· So I'm sure we'll be dialoguing 15· · · more with the transportation staff on that.· Yes, ma'am? 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many stories are each unit going 17· · · to be? 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, each unit will probably be a 19· · · single-story unit.· I don't know that they've settled on the 20· · · maximum number of stories for the project.· I can tell you 21· · · what we're asking for, for height for zoning, but I need to 22· · · put my glasses on to see that to make sure I read it 23· · · properly.· So for the multi-family we're asking for a zoned 24· · · height of 65 feet and an actual height of 70 feet.· That 25· · · probably translates into a maximum of five stories, I would Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 14 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · think, Rob, you know, most likely.· So that's what we're ·2· · · proposing.· Stand-alone amenity buildings would be 35 feet ·3· · · zoned, 45 feet actual height.· Yes, ma'am? ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There was a conversation with the ·5· · · previous plans that you had about fire suppression.· So to ·6· · · handle 300 units, plus units, how are you going to implement ·7· · · the same kind of thing with the water?· There was supposed ·8· · · to be some kind of a storage tank.· Does anybody have -- ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Christina, the question relates to 10· · · fire suppression and I don't know the answer to that. 11· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· We had -- Christina Johnson, JRE 12· · · Engineering.· I'm not aware of the specifics of what was 13· · · approved previously for fire suppression.· But I have had 14· · · preliminary conversations with the City of Naples on the 15· · · water supply to the site and we have not seen anything that 16· · · appeared to be an issue.· It is a different use as a 17· · · residential use instead of a big box commercial.· So there 18· · · could perhaps have been a different requirement for the 19· · · commercial building.· So I'm not aware of any issues. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The deviation on that fire 22· · · suppression was that where Starbucks is they were putting in 23· · · a water storage tank with a pump in order to supply water to 24· · · extinguish the fire if the Sam's Club was built there 25· · · because they could not suppress the fire with the water that Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 15 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · was supplied by the city and the size of the line that the ·2· · · city was supplying to that area.· Now you are going to be ·3· · · doing residential areas, too, but only one is going to be ·4· · · going off at a time. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm going to let Doug Kirby try to ·6· · · address that.· He's the owner of the property. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· So the issue with Sam's Club is their ·8· · · occupancy and their building code standard is a high pile ·9· · · storage.· It's got a much denser requirement for fire 10· · · suppression.· Before the CRA provided the funds for the city 11· · · to operate the water system on Collee Court it was 12· · · borderline with Sam's on whether they needed the tank or 13· · · not.· The models that were being drawn at the time when 14· · · Sam's pulled out, excuse me, was that because of the 15· · · improvements funded by the CRA, they weren't going to need 16· · · it.· And the fire demands for residential building are much 17· · · less than a high piled storage calculated. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sir, I'm going to go to somebody else 19· · · who hasn't asked a question yet and I'll come back to you 20· · · gladly.· Yes? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The common areas docks, are the 22· · · residents going to be able to have boats there or just 23· · · kayaks and canoes and things like that? 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No boats. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think the idea is that it would be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 16 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · paddle boards, kayaks, canoes, sort of those types of ·2· · · things.· I don't expect to be motorized transportation ·3· · · there.· I think as Rob mentioned, it's looking to activate ·4· · · that and that would make the most (inaudible).· I saw ·5· · · another hand back here.· Yes, sir? ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are they going to try to clean it up? ·7· · · I grew up there.· When I was a kid we used to swim in there, ·8· · · but I wouldn't wade in there now where we live.· And a lot ·9· · · of it is coming from Sam's, their parking lot and all. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, I think a lot of that does 11· · · filter down from north of U.S. 41, you are correct.· And I'm 12· · · sure that Johnson will be happy to clean it up.· I think 13· · · they want it to be a positive amenity for the community. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Also with the water, I live across 15· · · the street from Bobby Cayden.· When his house burned I 16· · · didn't even have enough water pressure to shoot my hose up 17· · · on my roof. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, I can assure you that Christina 19· · · Johnson, our engineer, will look at that.· I know that the 20· · · city has made some improvements to the water supply system 21· · · over the last couple of years.· And hopefully -- 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I still don't have any water pressure 23· · · where I live. 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Getting back to the density bonus, Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 17 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · you said 96 units or whatever? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The bonus units we're eligible to use ·3· · · up to 97 units in the bonus pool. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is that a pool for the CRA that ·5· · · becomes depleted or is that -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe -- ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· -- just for this site? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think, I'm not the expert, but Sue ·9· · · is here, Sue Faulkner from long-range planing, she may know. 10· · · But I think Mattamy Homes was going to utilize some of the 11· · · bonus pool units, but outside of that I don't know that 12· · · anybody else has utilized any of them.· So these were meant 13· · · to be an incentive to have redevelopment to gain those bonus 14· · · pool units.· So that's what we've applied to do.· Somebody 15· · · else who hasn't asked a question?· I just want to make sure 16· · · because I think the CRA would want to make sure we answer 17· · · all your questions.· I know the CRA has their regular 18· · · meeting following this.· So to the extent that we can get 19· · · through the questions that you ask, anybody who hasn't asked 20· · · a question yet would like to ask a question?· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I totally agree with the colossal 22· · · traffic jam.· But does this increase impervious cover? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question is does this increase 24· · · impervious coverage?· And I guess the question is compared 25· · · to what?· Probably not compared to if Sam's Club were to Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 18 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · have been constructed. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Compared to the Sam's Club? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Uh-huh. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't believe it does.· Christina, I ·6· · · don't know if you know for sure, but it's probably ·7· · · comparable or less. ·8· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· It's negligible. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes? 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The challenge that I see that no one 12· · · has addressed, though, is that the traffic may be the same 13· · · number of cars going in and out of there, but nobody has 14· · · addressed that everyone leaves at nine o'clock in the 15· · · morning and returns at five o'clock in the afternoon.· So it 16· · · might be the same number of cars coming in, but residential 17· · · is going to be the mornings and the evening rush hour. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, the county does make -- the 19· · · question if you didn't hear was about that even though we 20· · · may have less traffic, it all occurs at generally the same 21· · · time in the morning or evening because of the residential 22· · · nature of what's being proposed.· And I think that the 23· · · non-transportation engineer that I am, the answer is that 24· · · the county looks at a.m. peak hours.· They look at p.m. peak 25· · · hours.· And then we're required to analyze how much traffic Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 19 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · is generated during those times and where it's disbursed. ·2· · · And I think part of it is they can easily disburse from the ·3· · · site which makes a lot of sense. ·4· · · · · · · ·You can go north on Airport Road.· You can go east ·5· · · or west on the Trail and that helps disburse that.· And ·6· · · having the traffic signals for volume control is also ·7· · · comparable.· I don't know if the transportation engineer's ·8· · · version of -- you know, the comparison of the residential to ·9· · · the commercial option.· And I think we understand and I 10· · · think the county staff understands that the peak hours are 11· · · still going to be 7 to 9 a.m. in the mornings and 4 to 6 12· · · p.m. in the evenings.· So we have to analyze our situation. 13· · · Anybody else back there?· I'm having a hard time seeing. 14· · · The sun is coming in just below the shade.· Yes? 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I've got an idea for the pedestrian 16· · · crossing.· What about one of those bridges that goes up 17· · · over, across and down, you know, for people walking over to 18· · · that?· I mean, because whenever you're sitting at the light 19· · · and it's 30 seconds for someone to get across the street, 20· · · that increases the time. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It definitely does.· I mean, that's 22· · · one of the challenges we have in Collier County where you 23· · · have large intersections.· You have to give enough green 24· · · time for the pedestrian and it takes away from the green 25· · · time for the motorist.· We get that.· I don't know that it's Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 20 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · an economically feasible option.· The county has explored ·2· · · those at other intersections and they're extremely expensive ·3· · · because they have to be built for ADA compliance.· So they ·4· · · have to have either very long ramps that are circular and ·5· · · they're expensive.· The county doesn't maybe even like what ·6· · · the appearance would be to start having these pedestrian ·7· · · bridges over the roadway, but I understand your point.· It ·8· · · does increase and decrease the capacity. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thinking outside thoughts. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I understand.· Thanks for the comment. 11· · · Anybody else back there?· Yes, sir?· I saw your hand just 12· · · about ready to go up. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You finally got back to me.· I'm 14· · · sorry to give you such a hard time. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· No, you're not.· That's why we're 16· · · here.· I just want to make sure everybody has a chance. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light at Peters and U.S. 41 is a 18· · · very short light when you're on Peters Street.· I timed it 19· · · several times.· The maximum number of vehicles that can get 20· · · through that light before they turn it back to 41 is four 21· · · cars, the maximum and some will get through.· Only three out 22· · · lanes, two of which have to turn right on to 41 and go down 23· · · and make a u-turn to come east or to go west.· There's no 24· · · traffic that is going to have access on Peters Street now 25· · · that Starbucks is there and Wild Buffalo Wings is there, no Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 21 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · traffic can get out. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I can address that after just for the ·3· · · group is this orientation -- ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light has to be lengthened and ·5· · · shorten lights on Airport and -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· When you look at Peters in the ·7· · · specific orientation of Kite, it's very intentional to ·8· · · actually bring traffic away from Peters and away from the ·9· · · intersection.· So our two principal entrances and the exits 10· · · are actually to the south, the southern signal. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, they will be? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· And you see these two where the 13· · · main entrance is actually at the left in, right in, right 14· · · out. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, I see.· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And then we actually have our primary 17· · · entrance and exit where the majority of and that's where 18· · · we're encouraging the circulation of the site to be a big U 19· · · movement that would access the southern signal to move 20· · · traffic away from Peters. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I understand now.· You can turn left 22· · · at that location? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Correct.· And we're trying to minimize 24· · · the same impacts as the complication with Starbucks as well. 25· · · We understand that. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 22 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The other thing is you have that ·2· · · complex is going to use 44 million gallons of water a year ·3· · · if they use the average of 175 gallons per person per year. ·4· · · Is the City of Naples able to supply 44 million gallons of ·5· · · water and accept 44 million gallons of sewage from your ·6· · · facilities?· They have a 10 million gallon a day sewer plan ·7· · · and I don't think they're prepared to attempt it. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If I might, I would just say that ·9· · · we're required to do these utility forms.· Utility staff for 10· · · the county is reviewing that.· We do have city water.· It's 11· · · county sewage supply.· So the county is dealing with the 12· · · sewage.· There's no capacity issues with the county sewer 13· · · plans.· And I'm pretty sure that the City of Naples has 14· · · ample capacity.· Again, comparing what this could be if 15· · · retail users or restaurant users, I think we're pretty 16· · · comfortable.· And I think -- I know Christina has talked to 17· · · both entities and they feel comfortable because they 18· · · certainly have the service capacity for us.· Yes, ma'am? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· On your web site we can go in and 20· · · check all of this information out.· Will it show those 21· · · lights?· I'm still a little bit confused about coming out of 22· · · that area with all of those cars.· And Peters, is Peters 23· · · still going to be existing or no? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, Peters will be existing.· It's 25· · · going to remain an access point for Starbucks that will Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 23 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · remain on Peters.· One of the other access drives that was ·2· · · there if this develops to residential, I should say.· If it ·3· · · became a big box there would actually be one more access ·4· · · point on Peters than there is proposed for the residential. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· Because then the residents are ·6· · · going to turn in.· I live right off of Tamiami and Osceola ·7· · · where we have to do the u-turn to go back towards town.· Is ·8· · · that the only other light you're talking about? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the lights we're talking about 10· · · are existing.· You have the one that services across from 11· · · the government center and then there's the light at Airport 12· · · and Peters.· So those are the two lighted intersections that 13· · · I'm referring to.· But yes, the information we have here if 14· · · you take one of Sharon Umpenhour's cards on the table, you 15· · · can go to our web site at GradyMinor.com and we have a link 16· · · to the application materials as well as a power point. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sure.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I have a concern about the units 20· · · themselves and whether this is going to end up to be a 21· · · basically a dormitory type of housing development.· And the 22· · · question might be resolved by asking what kind of amenities 23· · · are you planning to have in the community in addition to 24· · · just a place to live? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That's probably a good segue to let -- Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 24 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · I'll let Rob tell you a little bit about Johnson ·2· · · Development.· How about that to sort of close out?· I'll let ·3· · · you talk a little bit about that, Rob, and then what you're ·4· · · looking at for amenities here. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Absolutely.· So Johnson Development is ·6· · · a family company based out of Spartanburg, South Carolina. ·7· · · We have multiple offices throughout the country:· D.C., New ·8· · · York, L.A., San Francisco.· All of our southeastern focus is ·9· · · based out of Spartanburg and then we move throughout the 10· · · regions.· So I've been working with Johnson Development for 11· · · about five years now on multiple divisions.· We have 12· · · industrial division, multi-family division, a storage 13· · · division, a commercial division and a community division, 14· · · which is an economic development for the City of 15· · · Spartanburg, South Carolina. 16· · · · · · · ·Specific to the family, we've developed close to 17· · · 10,000 units throughout the country.· Most of those in our 18· · · current pipeline are luxury Class A apartments.· So you're 19· · · going to have really the best thing of the amenities as well 20· · · as finishes that we offer in the market.· So the best in 21· · · classes is really kind of the new competitive vantage.· You 22· · · have to build what's nice, but also what's nicer than the 23· · · newest competition.· So what we're trying to do here is 24· · · create something that's unique based upon what is the huge 25· · · advantage of this site, the adjacency of employment as well Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · as the opportunity to connect to the Bayshore Arts District ·2· · · as well as the amenities of downtown in much closer ·3· · · proximity to competitive projects. ·4· · · · · · · ·The amenities specifically, we have again a luxury ·5· · · pool that's going to be right outside of the first L-shaped ·6· · · building.· A dog park is what we propose.· We see that about ·7· · · 40 percent of customers in apartments today are pet owners. ·8· · · So that's a big thing to have that sense of community ·9· · · on-site is important to us.· The activation of the canal is 10· · · something that we really feel is a special opportunity. 11· · · Like I mentioned before, something that does not exist today 12· · · in the county.· It's something that we have not done, had 13· · · the opportunity to, but to be able to paddle down, actually 14· · · up the creek to 360 Market, to Celebration Park.· A really 15· · · unique advantage that we're hoping to take the opportunity 16· · · to take advantage of, excuse me. 17· · · · · · · ·The other amenity that we're offering here that is 18· · · going to be unique, we've done it in a couple of places. 19· · · One is a project in Tampa that's under construction now as 20· · · well as a project in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, which is 21· · · in Charleston, South Carolina is a we-work concept.· So that 22· · · is going to be a co-work opportunity to where you have the 23· · · opportunity to office and work in the amenities themselves 24· · · to have a home office.· Be outside of your actual home, but 25· · · still be in the community itself.· So you don't have to pay Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 26 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · essentially for space, but we'll have conference spaces. ·2· · · We'll have individual desks there for the community itself. ·3· · · And that's seen across the industry as a huge opportunity to ·4· · · allow people spaces that feel larger, but also connect with ·5· · · the community itself. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are you going to have a fitness ·7· · · center? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· We will, yes, absolutely.· Yeah, ·9· · · fitness is pretty much standard in the business today and 10· · · absolutely we'll have that.· We don't really decide on the 11· · · fitness delivery until just because trends are changing so 12· · · quickly, but it will be top of the market. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Can you give us the names of some of 14· · · the developments that you've done that we could look at to 15· · · see what we might expect here? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, absolutely.· And I'll have my 17· · · card out and I can give you.· It has a link to our web site 18· · · that has all of our projects in our pipeline. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a particular project that 20· · · you either have going on now or had that would be similar to 21· · · what are you proposing here? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· We have a project that just 23· · · delivered in Charleston about nine months ago.· It's called 24· · · The Haven at Indigo Square. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 27 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And that's linked directly from our ·4· · · web site, which is JohnsonDevelopment.net.· And you can go ·5· · · over to the actual site and see all the gallery in itself. ·6· · · The other project that we are hoping to start construction ·7· · · on over the summer is actually in Collier County. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, excuse me.· The other project 10· · · that we have in the pipeline locally is actually here and 11· · · will hopefully start construction early summer which is at 12· · · the intersection of Livingston and Radio Road.· The name of 13· · · that project is called The Lago and that design is currently 14· · · being permitted right now. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Lago. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm sorry. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We didn't get the name of the place. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Say that again. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The Haven at Indigo Square? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And where is it located? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 28 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· That's in Mt. Pleasant, South ·2· · · Carolina, which is in Charleston.· The local project is ·3· · · named Lago, L-a-g-o, and that is at the intersection of ·4· · · Radio and Livingston.· That is currently being permitted, ·5· · · final permits with Collier County.· So unfortunately, we do ·6· · · not have the web site or images available quite yet, but ·7· · · we're hoping to start construction on that early this ·8· · · summer. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, folks? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There used to be in Collier County 11· · · what was called continuity or concurrency, sorry, in which 12· · · the schools had to be adequate, the fire department had to 13· · · be adequate, the sidewalks, the roads had to be adequate for 14· · · development before it could be developed.· Can you meet all 15· · · of these criteria that are required for that kind of -- 16· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I can ask our attorney to respond, but 17· · · I think I can safely say that yes, we will make all the 18· · · concurrency requirements that Collier County has. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The fire department has its ladders 20· · · high enough to get to the sixth floor? 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I hope so.· We have buildings much 22· · · taller than that. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Because my ladder isn't high enough 24· · · to get into a tree. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We have a ladder truck now. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 29 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many units did the county allow ·4· · · you to have now?· Is that 95 more? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, no.· We're asking to utilize -- ·6· · · we're right now allowed to have four dwelling units per acre ·7· · · over the site.· We're asking for the ability to go up to 16 ·8· · · units per acre for the site. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a reason why that we decided 10· · · on four per acre to begin with? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The county did that for it's kind of a 12· · · base density throughout the urban area outside of activity 13· · · centers.· So if you're west of Collier Boulevard, for 14· · · instance, the base density is generally four dwelling units 15· · · per acre. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So we're going to go from four to 16? 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, that's what we're proposing. 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· This is the reason why we all moved 19· · · here from the west coast, Bradenton, all of those areas 20· · · because it didn't do what they did up there and ruin our 21· · · area.· We kept it small.· We kept it less density.· So now 22· · · they're going to go to 16 from four.· So if you just keep it 23· · · the way it's supposed to be, then there's no problem.· And 24· · · that's why we all moved here. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Part of the reason you're in a Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 30 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · redevelopment area is that we're trying to encourage people ·2· · · to redevelop sites like a shopping center that is a failed ·3· · · shopping center.· It's failed a number of times as being a ·4· · · grocery-anchored shopping center.· So we believe that given ·5· · · the location proximity to employment, given the government ·6· · · center location, proximity to the beach, downtown, the CRA, ·7· · · Bayshore Drive that the real opportunity here is for a ·8· · · mixed-use project that includes residential dwellings as ·9· · · well as some retail. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Which is fine.· You can put that in 11· · · there, but just keep the density.· They're asking for more 12· · · than anybody else.· They've already ruined their town so now 13· · · they want to ruin our town by putting in all these people. 14· · · We got enough now. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You're welcome. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes? 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You just mentioned apartments for 19· · · people who are working at the government center or perhaps 20· · · downtown.· Will the price point be something that those 21· · · service industry, for example, can afford who are working 22· · · downtown? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, these will be market rate.· So 24· · · that, I wish we knew what the market was going to be in two 25· · · years from now, but this will be consistent with market rate Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 31 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · apartments. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many years from now? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm hopeful that we can get started ·4· · · construction, you know, sometime next year and deliver our ·5· · · first units within the next two to three years. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions?· Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, on the old neighborhoods that ·8· · · are in the back end, what is the plan to buffer them from ·9· · · this? 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the county has code requirements 11· · · for a buffer between multi-family residential and single 12· · · family.· It requires a certain type of hedge or wall and 13· · · vegetative screening, et cetera. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Well, when they were doing the Sam's 15· · · Club, one of the deviations that they asked for and one of 16· · · the agreements they stipulated and the gentleman in the back 17· · · can probably move forward and answer that question is that 18· · · they agreed to put into a fund to upgrade the right-of-way 19· · · that surrounds that property on that side.· I forgot the 20· · · exact dollar amount, but they agreed to a dollar amount. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It was $50,000 for sidewalk for 22· · · pedestrians. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And that stays within this plan? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe those dollars -- Doug, you 25· · · can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those funds were in Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 32 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · place, were they not? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· Yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· His response was yes. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·6· · · we adjourn and let the CRA get on with their meeting?· Yes, ·7· · · sir? ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I live at that location which is 3312 ·9· · · Collee which is directly adjacent to your property or to 10· · · Kite's property for 38 years on the south side.· We were 11· · · there when it was an open field prior to construction of 12· · · Courthouse Shadows.· We went through a year of hell with the 13· · · construction process, the dust and dirt in our houses and 14· · · our cars.· There was blasting and excavating, earth moving 15· · · that was done that cracked our home.· We need -- the four 16· · · residents that own property directly adjacent to Kite's need 17· · · a telephone number and a contact on-site so that we can call 18· · · to register a problem that we have and hopefully it could be 19· · · resolved. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think that's a very fair comment. 21· · · And I think most of the quality contractors these days have 22· · · an on-site superintendent.· They supply you with a 24-hour 23· · · cell phone number. 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, we would need that because of 25· · · the damage that was done to us over the course of this year Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 33 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · that it took for that Courthouse Shadows to be built. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Understood.· Yes, ma'am? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I just have a question regarding ·4· · · commercial because it appears that most of what is ·5· · · allocating now for commercial is going to be gone.· Is that ·6· · · kind of what I'm hearing that -- ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, under the residential option if ·8· · · Johnson Development decides to move ahead with this ·9· · · option -- 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- most of the inlying, the shopping 12· · · center building -- 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That we know now. 14· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- that you've known would be 15· · · demolished and in its place would be built this. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So the commercial will really 17· · · be more of the out buildings that we see?· Is that what I'm 18· · · understanding? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That is correct.· The remaining 20· · · commercial under the residential option is largely the 21· · · outparcels. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So this is really what we're 23· · · looking at is this site really is going to move, if you 24· · · will, from a commercial property to primarily residential 25· · · with a few out buildings? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 34 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Under this development scenario that's ·2· · · a correct statement, yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, thank you. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah.· Yes, sir in the back? ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Excuse me.· Regarding the parking ·6· · · spaces that you have outside of the single type family ·7· · · buildings, are those going to be exclusively use for the ·8· · · outparcels or will that be used as parking for, you know, ·9· · · overflow parking for the apartments or guest parking for the 10· · · apartments? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, thank you for asking the 12· · · question.· So our attempt is to really activate the existing 13· · · commercial.· I think anybody can attest as a potential owner 14· · · or just visiting the center itself that it's very 15· · · challenging for businesses to be successful when you have a 16· · · vacant use behind you. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· So this is a real opportunity that we 19· · · see is to activate -- you saw the successful development of 20· · · the Starbucks.· Also activate the remaining four outparcels 21· · · and allow for what hopefully is an increase not only in 22· · · on-site business, but also to have the presence of a new 23· · · expensive development behind them compared to a vacant 24· · · building.· What we're also doing is we're installing new 25· · · parking as mentioned by the question in between the Chevron Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 35 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · as well as the Crooked Shillelagh, excuse me.· And then we ·2· · · also have all the parking just south of the main critical ·3· · · driveway.· Those will also be installed for the betterment ·4· · · and the benefit of the residential and the retail itself. ·5· · · You can see behind the Burger King there's also new ·6· · · increased parking there. ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Right. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· As well as the Dunkin Donuts to the ·9· · · east has new installed spots that will benefit those.· We 10· · · also have a preservation at the parking between the 11· · · Starbucks and the Crooked Shillelagh as well.· Those are 12· · · increased spots from what exists there today.· So all of 13· · · those are newly created spots that will benefit the retail 14· · · upfront. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· But will they be also used as 17· · · overflow for the apartments or -- 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The parking inside of the gates is for 19· · · the residential.· And we also do have some shared parking 20· · · opportunities that would benefit both the residential and 21· · · the retail. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So then you would expect this to be a 23· · · gated community?· You said inside the gate.· So it would be 24· · · a gated community? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am, but that's to be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 36 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · consistent with the market.· I would say definitely ·2· · · predominantly, but if not exclusively all of the new ·3· · · apartment communities are gated. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·5· · · we break up?· Anybody not have a chance to ask a question? ·6· · · Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You have any idea when you go in ·8· · · front of the planning board? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do not have hearing dates set yet. 10· · · This is -- 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And will we be getting a notice same 12· · · as we did? 13· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If you were noticed for this meeting, 14· · · you should get notice from the county next time.· And of 15· · · course, the big 4 x 8 signs get installed, so you'll see 16· · · them.· As a neighborhood resident, you'll see those.· And do 17· · · we post those on our web site, Sharon, the dates? 18· · · · · · · ·MS. UMPENHOUR:· Yes. 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do, yeah.· So on our web site, too, 20· · · if you follow us.· I forgot to introduce a couple of county 21· · · people that are here.· You might want to write down their 22· · · names.· We have Sue Faulkner who's with comprehensive 23· · · planning.· She's sitting back here.· She's one of the 24· · · comprehensive planning staff people.· And James Sabo who's 25· · · one of the zoning staff people, they're here.· It's not Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 37 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1· · · their meeting per se, but they're here to monitor and take ·2· · · notes and make sure they understand what the citizen ·3· · · comments were.· So we appreciate everybody coming out.· If ·4· · · there's no other comments, we'll adjourn the meeting.· Thank ·5· · · you all for coming. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Have a good CRA meeting. ·8· · · · · · · ·(End of the meeting.) ·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 38 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) ·1 ·2 ·3· · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E ·4· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - ·5 ·6 ·7· · · · · · · ·I, Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter and ·8· Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and ·9· did listen to and stenographically transcribe the foregoing 10· recorded meeting and that the transcript is a true record to the 11· best of my professional ability. 12 13 14· · · · · · · ·Dated this 21st day of May, 2019. 15 16 17 18 19· · · · · · · · · ·_______________________ · · · · · · · · · · ·Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 39 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and; PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment May 7, 2019 Neighborhood Information Meeting 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Project Information 2 Existing Zoning:Courthouse Shadows Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Proposed Zoning:Courthouse Shadows Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Existing Future Land Use (FLU):Mixed Use Activity Center #16 Subdistrict Project Acreage:20.35+/-acres 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Proposed Request 3 Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment:proposes to permit increased density on a 10-acre portion of the site.The application proposes a total of 300 multi-family apartments on approximately 18+/-acres of the 20.35 acre PUD.The property plans to utilize up to 97 units from the density,in addition to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre,with the balance of the 300 units resulting from the units permitted by the small-scale amendment. Proposed CPUD Rezone:The applicant proposes to amend the 20.35+/-acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Location Map 49.A.2.e Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Aerial Photograph 59.A.2.e Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Existing Activity Center #16 6 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Proposed Activity Center #16 7 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Approved Master Plan (Exhibit A)8 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Proposed Mixed-Use Option Master Plan (Exhibit B)9 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Approved and Proposed Deviations 10 Deviations 1 through 10 were previously proposed but only deviation 1 through 5,7 and 9 were approved by Ordinance 2016-45 at the December 13,2016 BCC hearing.Deviation 6,8 and 10 were withdrawn at the December 13,2016 BCC hearing and are shown as withdrawn in Ordinance 2016-45. Previously approved Deviation 2 and 7 have been revised as follows to accommodate the Mixed-Use development option. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Proposed Deviations 11 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Proposed Conceptual Site Plan 12 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Proposed Conceptual Site Plan (aerial)13 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) Questions? 14 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: Application_Petition_CPSS-19-1 (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 4saptrs tij Njews PART Of THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 BCC ZONING DEPARTMENT 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E 700 NAPLES, FL 34112 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Vicky Felty who on oath says that she serves as legal clerk of the Naples Daily News, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida; that the attached copy of the advertising was published in said newspaper on dates listed. Affiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County, Florida; distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, each day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida , for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, or corporation any discount , rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. September 4, 2019 t i —r Subscribed and sworn to before on September 4, 2019: Notary, State of WI, County of Brown TARA MON DLUCH Notary Pub121 State of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: $945.00 Ad No: GC10257375 Customer No: 323534 PO#: 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: CCPC Affidavit & Advertisement (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF INTENT TO CONSIDER ORDINANCES Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on September 24, 2019 commencing at 9:00 a.m., in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 Tamiami Trail E., Naples, FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners amending Ordinance 89-05, as amended, the Collier County Growth Management Plan, specifically amending the Future Land Use Element and Map Series to add the Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict to the Urban Mixed -Use District, to allow up to 304 multi family dwelling units, and providing for transmittal of the adopted amendments to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is located on the south side of Veterans -Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 35.571 acres. [PL20170004419] An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida, by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, and a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) known as the Della Rosa RPUD, part of which is within a Special Treatment (ST) overlay, to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as the Allura RPUD, to allow construction of a maximum of 304 multi -family dwelling units on property located on the south side of Veterans -Memorial Boulevard, just east of Livingston Road, in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 35.92± acres; providing for the repeal of Ordinance No. 07-73; and by providing for an effective date [PL20170004385] Veterans Memorial BLVD _ 0 of co c s J PROJECT LOCATION All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S) will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, FL., between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Suite 401, Collier County Government Center, East Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to September 24, 2019 will be read and considered at the public hearing. Any person who decides to appeal any decision of the Collier County Planning Commission will need a record of the proceedings pertaining thereto and therefore, may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. If you are a person with a disability who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entitled, at no cost to you, to the provision of certain assistance. Please contact the Collier County Facilities Management Division, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 101, Naples, FL 34112-5356, (239) 252-8380, at least two days prior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office. isBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA WILLIAM L. MCDANIEL, JR., CHAIRMAN CRYSTAL K. KINZEL CLERK By: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk ND-GG10257375-01 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: CCPC Affidavit & Advertisement (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) TOA I FRIDAY, AUGUST 30, 2O19 I NAPLES DAILY NEWS = E Project Location e o All intErested partigs are invited to appear and b€ heard. Copios oI the proposed OiDlt{ANcES witl be madE ivaitabte for inspectiori;t the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive- Planning d""tion, iaoo N. Ho"eshoe br., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A M and 5:00 PM', Monday tf,-.r"n'friOav iurtftermore, the materials witl be made availablg for inspection at the Collior b"i,ri, ciiiki om"", rourth Floor. col,ier countv Government center, 3299 TamiamiTrall East' irit" Zoi. f'rrifo, o"" we€k prior to the scheduled hoaring. Any quostions p€rlaining to the io"r.rni" "fioria o" olrected to the GMD zoning Dlvision, comprehensive Planning Section' ivrLtr-ii "i-"rrJnt" nrJwittr itre ctert< to the eoard's office prlor ro Septsmber 19, z)19, will be read and conslderod at the public hearing. Anv o€rson who decidos to appealany decision ottho Colller County Planning Commlsslon filii,i# i tii"-'JiiG" i."!!orng" i,tt"intng thereto and therelore' mavnesd to ensure that a ,Jiiliil t"l"-,ii "r tt" froceeaingJis maoe, w-trich record includes the testimonv and evidence upon whlch the apPeal-is based. ll vou are a p€rson wlth a disability who nd€ds any accommodation In order to participate [fi"bffiffi;, il "i"-"r,tttl"6' ,t no "o"t to iou' to the provision of certain-assistance' iil.Jiffiiil tL-; b;lller Countv Facilitles-Mana;omsnt qivision' located at-3335 ramiami iJiiE";l 6r,ti'ior, iraplEs. FL'34112-5C56, (zg-9 zsz-egso' at teast two davs pdor to the ;;;til;'fiil ittilnl oevlces tor ttre nediing impaired are availabl€ ln ths Board ol countv Commissionors Otfice NOTICE OF PUBLIG HEARING Notic€ is hereby given that the Collier Couoty Planning Commlssion will hold a public meeting on September 19,2019, commencing at g:00 A.M. in the Board o, County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor, County Government Center, 3299 TamiamiTrail East, Naples, FL. The purpose ot the hearing is to consider. AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDAAMENDING ORDINANCE NO.89-05, ASAMENDED. THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOB THE UNINCOBPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTAND MIXED USEACTIVIW CENTER #16 MAP BY DESIGNATING lOACRES IN THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS MIXED-USE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MPUD} WITHIN THE BAYSHORE/GATEWAY TRIANGLE REDEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ELIGIBLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UP TO I2.8 UNITS AN ACRE PLUS A BASE DENSITY OF 4 UNITS AN ACRE FOR THE MPUD AND UP TO 97 DENSITY POOL UNITS FOR THE MPUD AS DETERMINED BY A REZONE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41 AND OPPOSITEAIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS II,'I2 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EA!iT, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 10 ACRES OF A 20.35+/- ACRE MPUD; AND BY PROV|DtNG AN EFFECTTVE DATE. [P120180003659] & AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOAFD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNW, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92.08, AS AMENDED, THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY AODING 3OO MULTI- FAMILY RENTAL DWELLING UNITS AS A PERMITTED USE IN ADDITION TO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT; BY ADDING DEVELOPMENT STANDARoS FoR RESIDENTIAL ONLY BUILDINGS; BY ADEING DEVIATIONS RELATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL USES; BY BEVISING DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS AND BY REVISING THE MASTER PUN. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 4'I AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PULLING ROAO IN SECTIONS II, t2 AND t3, TOWNSHTP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EASL COLLTER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTTNG OF 20.35+/- ACRESi AND BY PnOUDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. IPL2oi8{D036581 Mark P Strain, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: CCPC Affidavit & Advertisement (9810 : Courthouse Shadows GMPA) 09/19/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: PL20180003658: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending PL20180003658: Ordinance Number 92-08, as amended, the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development by adding 300 multi-family rental dwelling units as a permitted use in addition to the commercial development; by adding development standards for residential only buildings; by adding deviations related to the residential uses; by revising development commitments and by revising the master plan. The property is located on the south side of US 41 and opposite Airport Pulling Road in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 20.35+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (This is a companion to GMP item number PL20180003659) [Coordinator: James Sabo, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 09/19/2019 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: James Sabo 08/14/2019 4:09 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/14/2019 4:09 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/27/2019 3:28 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 09/05/2019 3:58 PM Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 09/10/2019 9:26 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/10/2019 10:23 AM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 3:55 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 4:07 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/19/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 487 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.39.A.3.aPacket Pg. 488Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 490Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 491Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 492Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 493Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 494Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 495Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 496Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 497Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 498Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 499Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 500Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 501Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 502Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 503Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 504Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 505Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 506Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 507Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.aPacket Pg. 508Attachment: Staff Report 9.13.2019 Revised-ReducedSize-Final (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 514 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 515 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 526Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 527Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 532Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 533Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.bPacket Pg. 534Attachment: Attachment A Ordinance - 081319 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.cPacket Pg. 535Attachment: Attachment B Master Plan (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 1 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review Growth Management Department Zoning Division C O N S IS T E N C Y RE V I E W M E M O RA N D U M To: James Sabo, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: May 21, 2019 Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Planned Unit Development Amendment PETITION NUMBER: PUDA PL20180003658 [REV: 2] PETITION NAME: Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment REQUEST: This petition seeks to amend the Courthouse Shadows PUD to introduce a multi-family residential component that provides for: 1) a mixed-use option that combines 300 multi-family rental dwelling units with 65,000 commercial sq. ft., or 2) a commercial-only option for the 165,000 commercial sq. ft. already allowed. LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of ±20.35 acres, is located south and west of Tamiami Trail East (US 41), north of Haldeman Creek and Collee Court, and east of Peters Avenue, in Sections 11, 12 & 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The Courthouse Shadows PUD amendment petition is contingent upon approval of the companion Growth Management Plan amendment (GMPA) petition PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1. The subject property is currently designated Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center (MUAC) Subdistrict (and is also considered within the Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict for purposes of calculating eligible density), as identified on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and map series within the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The data and analysis required by the FLUE for consideration of a rezone petition within an Activity Center are specified in the Factors to Consider During Review of a Rezone Petition provisions of the Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict. These factors are more relevant to a rezone request to a commercial zoning district and some factors are addressed in other policies, e.g. interconnections, compatibility. Therefore, it is staff ’s opinion that these factors do not need to be addressed for this petition to add residential use to an existing commercial PUD. The property also lies within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) and Coastal High Hazard Area Overlay (CHHA). The B/GTRO encourages development and redevelopment. One means of doing so is through a density bonus incentive. The prior zoning of 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 2 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review the Botanical Gardens PUD site would have allowed 388 dwelling units. Those [unused] units were placed into a density pool that may be allocated by the Board of County Commissioners on a project by project basis, either for a mixed use project or a residential-only project. The subject petition relies upon this density pool, in part, to achieve the requested densi ty of 14.74 DU/A (300 DUs). The B/GTRO provisions for residential-only projects and for density calculations are provided below, with staff analysis following [bracketed in bold]. 5. Properties having frontage on one or more of Bayshore Drive, Davis Boulevard, Airport -Pulling Road (west side only) or US 41 East, may be allowed to redevelop as a residential -only project at a maximum density of 8 residential units per acre via use of the density bonus pool identified in paragraph 11 except that no project may utilize more than 97 units – 25% of the 388 total density pool units available. [The subject site has frontage on US 41 East; this petition proposes a density <8 DU/A (7.77) requesting the use of 97 units from the bonus pool.] The 97 unit cap will terminate when the BCC adopts, by LDC amendment, limitations and a cap on the use of the 388 density pool units for any one project. In order to be eligible for this higher density the redevelopment must comply with the following: a. Project shall be in the form of a PUD. [The project is in the form of a PUD, and the subject request is for a PUD amendment.] b. Project site shall be a minimum of three acres. [The subject site comprises ±18.8 of the 20.35 overall acres.] c. Project shall constitute redevelopment of the site. [The site was previously developed with commercial uses only. This amendment will allow redevelopment of the site with mixed residential and commercial uses.] d. All residential units shall be market rate units. [The project will be developed with market rate units.] 9. For density bonuses provided for in paragraphs #4 and #5 above, base density shall be per the underlying zoning district. The maximum density of 12 or 8 units per acre shall be calculated based upon total project acreage. The bonus density allocation is calculated by deducting the base density of the underlying zoning classification from the maximum density being sought. The difference in units per acre determines the bonus density allocation requested for the project. [The current underlying (Courthouse Shadows PUD) zoning lacks a residential component. This amendment introduces a residential component, and the site will yield 75 DUs (4 DU/A x 18.8 acres). Within this area is the 10-acre residential (sub)component (subject of companion GMPA) that will yield 128 DUs (12.8 DU/A x 10 acres). Combined, this yields 203 DUs. This petition’s proposed 300 DUs total (14.74 DU/A) less the eligible density of 203 DUs yields a request for 97 DUs from the density bonus pool.] Because there is a finite supply of density bonus pool units (388 total, less about 10 bonus units previously utilized, yielding about 378 units) to award as an incentive for redevel opment, careful consideration should be given to each request to use the density bonus pool. In staff’s opinion, this is an appropriate project in which to do so. Aside from complying with the criteria allowing the use of density bonus pool units, staff notes this is one of the few sites within the entire B/GTRO of 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 3 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review considerable size without necessity of aggregating numerous parcels – which can be difficult to achieve. On that note, staff believes it appropriate for this PUD to include a provision for ret urn of any unused density bonus pool units within a specified time period. This insures that any unused units are not permanently attached to the land, rather are returned to the pool so that they can be awarded to incentivize some other development(s) in the B/GTRO. This petition relies, in large part, on a companion small-scale GMP amendment to FLUM Inset Map (MUAC #16) to achieve density consistency. That amendment [ref. PL180003659/CPSS-2019-1] depicts an area of ten (10) acres within Activity Center #16 to coincide with the residential component of Courthouse Shadows PUD, as also depicted on this Mixed-Use Option Master Plan. Relevant FLUE objectives and policies are stated below, followed by staff remarks. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Comprehensive Planning reviewers leave this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. However, the compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include a review of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, and so forth. The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice -making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. The Board of County Commissioners held a workshop earlier in 2019 to revisit these (and other) Smart Growth policies and practices, which resulted with a renewed support for and reemphasis on them. Each Policy is followed by staff analysis and comments [in bold italicized text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [This property fronts, and has direct access to, Tamiami Trail (US 41), classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element. No new connection(s) to Tamiami Trail will be made.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [The property is proposed as a redevelopment project. The introduction of multi-family rental 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 4 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review apartment housing to transform Courthouse Shadows to a mixed-use (commercial and residential) development does not propose changes to the existing configuration of access points onto Tamiami Trail or Peters Street.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [This triangular-shaped property abuts three roads, a creek, and one small (0.32 acres), undeveloped commercial parcel; staff does not believe it feasible to connect to that one parcel. The PUD Master Plan does depict internal interconnections between the proposed 10-acre residential component designated R, Residential and the bordering areas designated C/R, Commercial/Residential and C, Commercial.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The mixed- use development provides numerous opportunities to maintain or improve a walkable arrangement of buildings and spaces, for preserving the existing amount of common open spaces or enhancing their design and functionality , and for ensuring residents can walk to the businesses located in the commercial component, and to the access points with Tamiami Trail and Peters Street. A pedestrian sidewalk is currently found along the frontage of the property, on the near side of Tamiami Trail. The current access to this sidewalk from the commercial development is interrupted, disconnected, or in other ways incomplete – and this project can complete these sidewalk connections, i.e., along the entrance drive to the Espinal Blvd (S) ‒ Tamiami Trail intersection. The County CAT Transit terminal is accessed at this fully signalized intersection. Providing access to the facilities for new tenant residents, as well as improving access for commercial customers, is vitally important in the mixed-use conversion, but is not depicted on the Courthouse Shadows PUD Master Plan or discussed in other submittal materials. Pedestrian-oriented improvements to the Espinal Blvd (N) ‒ Tamiami Trail intersection are not pursued. All of these details may be more specific than is required to be provided on the PUD Master Plan or in the rezone submittal. Staff encourages the petitioner to incorporate these pedestrian-oriented improvements during site development planning. No other deviations are requested pertaining to sidewalks; therefore, the project will be subject to LDC requirements for provision of sidewalks.] CONCLUSION: Based upon the above analysis, this proposed PUDA may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, the petition may be deemed consistent if and when the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. The PUD 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ‒ 5 ‒ 2018 0003658, Courthouse Shadows ::: PUDA Consistency Review Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date consistent with the effective date of the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition. Stipulations: 1. This petition may only be deemed consistent with the FLUE if the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition (PL20180003659/CPSS-2019-1) is adopted and goes into effect. 2. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide for an effective date to be linked to the effective date of the companion small-scale GMP amendment petition. 3. The PUDA Ordinance needs to provide a Planning Commitment stating, to the effect, “A maximum of ninety-seven (97) density bonus pool units, as provided by the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay (B/GTRO) in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP, are available for this RPUD for a period of seven (7) years from the date of approval of this PUDA. If, after seven (7) years any of the bonus units have n ot been utilized, the bonus units shall expire and not be available unless authorized by the Board of Zoning Appeals. cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section Michael Bosi, AICP, Director, Zoning Division G:\Comp\Consistency Reviews\2019\PUDA \\bcc.colliergov.net\data\GMD-LDS\CDES Planning Services\Consistency Reviews\2019\PUDA\PUDA-PL2018-3658 Courthse Shdws R1_FNL.docx 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: Attachment C FLUE Consistency Rev Courthse Shdws R1_FNL (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 1 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Deviations 1 through 10 were previously approved for Exhibit A Master Plan by Ordinance 2016- 45 at the December 13, 2016 BCC Hearing. Deviation 7 is being modified to include residential signage. Deviations 11 through 17 are new and being requested for the residential development option. 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off -street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10’x20’ (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The Sam’s Club currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 s.f. According to the code for this size of a store a total of 7 loading docks would be required. Sam’s currently shows a total of 5 loading docks (12’ wide by 90’ long), based on business knowledge and historical information this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam’s Club operates their own vehicle fleet and controls the timing of all truck deliveries. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet a shared 15’ landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lotsplatted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist betwee n the parent tract and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD, is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an 8’ wide planting area and is even greater in some ar eas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 2 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5’ wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. Justification: The existing water management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional water management system. The water management areas will have planting shelfs along the perimeter to support the required landscaping within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibi ts. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not consistently meet the 20’ wide minimum for activity centers adjacent to roadways. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of park ing spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. Justification: There are existing areas in the shopping center in the n orthern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscaping island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6’ away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. Justification: The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security and safety for nearby residents by creating a barrier from the projects surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. 6. WITHDRAWN 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 3 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with, which permits on-premise directory signs for multi-occupancy parcels with a minimum of 8 independent units containing 20,000 square feet of leasable floor area to allow the existing directory signs to be utilized to identify the residential component of the mixed-use PUD and to have fewer than 8 tenants identified on the signage panels and at the existing height of 25’ to remain. Justification: This deviation is justified as the LDC signage standards do not contain standards for signage where a PUD is developed as a mixed-use project. The applicant would utilize existing sign structures to add residential identification in addition to commercial uses, which have existing use rights to the signage that was rebuilt in 2018 following damage occurring due to Hurricane Irma. The deviation provides for a logical use of the existing signage wherein the Code is otherwise silent on signage for mixed-use. 8. WITHDRAWN 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15’ with an average width of 20’ as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. Justification: The existing project perimeter buffer for the developed portion of the project varies from approximately 13 feet in width to 20 feet, The deviation will permit the property owner to install a buffer more consistent with that immediately adjacent to the 0.28± acre par cel being added to the PUD. Please see Deviation #9 Buffer Exhibit. 10. WITHDRAWN 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 4 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow no buffers on the commercial outparcels adjacent to the internal access road. Justification: The applicant is not proposing changes to the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 with this request. The existing commercial outparcels are platted lots in which many of the outparcels have existing buildings. For reference, the commercial outparcels are highlighted in yellow, the primary access road is highlighted in blue, and the redevelopment area is highlighted in green in the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” located on the following page. The purpose of this request is that the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 could be subject to providing a 10’-Type “D” buffer on their property in the event that they redevelop or modify their site plans. This places an unfair burden on the commercial outparcels that have existing buildings and improvements on their properties. The existing improvements extend up to the primary access road leaving no room for an additional 10’-wide buffer without major impacts. The applicant requests that the existing commercial outparcels shall not be subject to providing a landscape buffer on their properties where adjacent to the primary access road. Since this request is internal to the Mixed Use planned development there are no negative impacts anticipated. Please reference the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” on the following page for more detail on the request. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 5 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 6 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow a 5’-wide Type “D” buffer on the property located on the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing parent tract of the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development either into new commercial or multi-family residential. The redevelopment is proposed for the property located south of the existing primary access road. Both redevelopment options propose to retain the primary access road. The commercial redevelopment option would plan to also retain the existing parking configuration on the south side of the access road. The existing parking configuration includes parking lot drive aisles that intersect with the existing access road only leaving room for a terminal landscape island in the parking area. These existing terminal landscape islands vary in width and are 5’ wide on average. As previously mentioned, the multi-family residential option proposes to retain the existing access road and also add perpendicular parking spaces and a pedestrian sidewalk on the south side of the access road. The intent of retaining the access road is to integrate the residential community with the existing commercial outparcels to create a cohesive community. The code required 10’-wide Type “D” buffer between the existing access road and multi-family residential pushes the residential furth er away from the commercial and would work against the intent to have an integrated, cohesive community. Therefore, the applicant requests to reduce this buffer from 10’-wide to a minimum of a 5’- wide on the property to the south of the primary access road. The location of the requested deviation is internal to the Courthouse Shadows mixed-use development and no negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request. Please reference the “Deviation 12 Exhibit” on the following pages which better i llustrates the request. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 7 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 8 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 548 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 9 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, which requires that Type “D” buffers be located adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow the buffer to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family residential redevelopment option on the property located on the south side of the existing access road. The multi-family redevelopment option seeks to provide perpendicular parking spaces placed directly on the south side of the existing access road that would be accessible by any vehicle utilizing the access road and patrons of the commercial outparcels and residents of the community. The additional parking would be placed perpendicular to the existing access road and a pedestrian sidewalk would be placed along the back of the parking spaces. Standard parking spaces are 18’-deep and pedestrian sidewalks are typically 5’-wide for a total distance of 23’. Please reference the “Deviation 13 Exhibit” for more detail on the request. Code requires that the Type “D’ buffer be placed adjacent to the access road however with the proposed parking and sidewalk this is not attainable. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Type “D” buffer be allowed to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the edge of pavement of the existing access road which is the 23’ as mentioned above plus an extra 2’ to allow some flexibility with the sidewalk width . This request is being made in order to provide additional parking areas for the commercial outparcels along with a pedestrian sidewalk internal to the PUD. There are no negative impacts anticipated as a result of this request. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 10 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 11 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Tab le 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow the multi-family residential portion of the PUD to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards as set forth in this PUD. Justification: The applicant is proposing specific dimensional standards for the development within this planned unit development request. Therefore LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1. shall not apply. 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G Table 17, Parking Space Requirements – Multi-family Dwellings, which allows parking to be provided at 50 percent of normal requirements, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouse, to instead allow the 50 percent reduction of normal requirements for golf courses/ clubhouse uses. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family redevelopment option for the parent property located in the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The multi -family project would include a private clubhouse for the residents to use on the property. Due to confusion on parking requirements for Multi-family clubhouses a Staff Clarification was issued under SC 2005-02. In SC 2005-02, Multi-family Dwellings are required to calculate their clubhouse parking per the requirements of LDC Section 4.05.04 Table 17 for “Golf Course.” It was also determine d in SC 2005-02 that Multi-family clubhouses were not allowed to take a 50 percent reduction from the parking requirements for clubhouses that is a reduction granted for other recreational facilities within Multi-family communities. The Project is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Overlay, which was established to provide incentives to encourage private sector investment into the urban area. Additionally, the multi-family redevelopment project has been designed to provide pedestrian interconnectivity between the commercial and residential uses along with additional parking areas along the access road. The requested parking deviation is consistent with redevelopment projects and with other residential projects that have private clubhouses. The applicant wishes to provide parking for the residential option at the following standards: 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 12 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: Attachment D Deviation Justification with Graphics (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com Agenda item 4a-August 5, 2019 Special Meeting Minutes Bayshore Gateway Triangle Community Redevelopment Agency AGENDA Naples Botanical Garden, FGCU Buehler Auditorium, 4940 Bayshore Dr, Naples, FL 34112 Special Meeting August 05, 2019 6:01 PM Chairman Maurice Gutierrez Karen Beatty, Camille Kielty, Larry Ingram, Steve Main, Al Schantzen, Michael Sherman, Dwight Oakley, Steve Rigsbee 1. Call to order and Roll Call: Advisory Board Members Present: Maurice Gutierrez, Karen Beatty, Steve Main, Mike Sherman, Larry Ingram, Al Schantzen and Dwight Oakley. Excused Absence: Camille Kielty and Steve Rigsbee. CRA Staff Present: Shirley Garcia, Operations Coordinator, CRA; Tami Scott, Project Manager.; Debrah Forester, CRA Director; and Sean Callahan, Executive Director of Corporate Business Operations. Pledge of Allegiance Led by Chairman Maurice Gutierrez 2. Adoption of Agenda Staff requested the following changes to the Agenda, under Old Business 4b add Fire Suppression Phase II. Steve Main made a motion to adopt the Agenda as amended. Second by Al Schantzen. Passed Unanimously. 3. Old Business a. Courthouse Shadows MPUD- Debrah Forester, CRA Director introduced the project and mentioned the request from Mark Strain, Chairman of the Planning Commission that the CRA Board provide a recommendation and comments for the Planning Board. Wayne Arnold, Q Grady Minor and Associates, introduced Rob Sucher – Johnson Development Associates, Rich Yovanovich – Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester Law Firm and Doug Kirby – Kite Realty Group. Mr. Arnold gave a brief description of the proposed redevelopment of the 20-acre site. Two applications have been submitted. One is a small-scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment which proposes to increase density for 10 acres of the site, the other is a PUD amendment adding up to 300 multi-family apartments as on option for the site, 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com while maintaining the big box option. Rob Sucher, representing the potential developer, presented the site plan for the apartment complex and noted they are still in early design phase. The design’s intent is to be consistent of the Bayshore area and offer a rental product they feel is a need in the area specifically with the Government Center being across the street. This is a challenging site plan due to the awkward geometry of the site, but they tried to incorporate the comments they have received from the community. The dominant portion of the density will be centralized within the site and the buildings will be right up front behind the access drive between the existing Commercial Businesses. The intent is to reactivate the businesses up front along the US 41 corridor and provide a shared parking area for everyone. He discussed access from US41 and Peters. The architectural design is coastal contemporary with architectural embellishments and landscaping. They are proposing a business center/shared workspace in the clubhouse that will include some private offices and conference room. Tenants will be able to access the space to encourage live/work opportunities. They also are proposing an area for a kayak and paddle board launch onto Haldeman Creek, a dog walking area, a community pool, and a barbecue area. Advisory Board/Community Comments: Al Schantzen asked how close the buildings are to Peters and Collie Ct. Mr. Sucher gave the approximate closest point(corner) of the buildings to Collie Ct. is 76ft. and 120ft the other building closest to Peters Avenue is 70ft in their current form before the road. The screening will be landscaping buffers on the outside and inside of the fence around all sides that are surrounding the residential neighborhoods. Maurice Gutierrez asked if the structures are all 4 stories or will they change before submittal. Rob Sucher stated they would all remain at 4 stories maximum, they are proposing 300 units on the 20 + acre parcel. Karen Beatty asked if there would be a sidewalk on the residential streets and Mr. Sucher said there was already an existing agreement with the County to pay in lieu of installing a sidewalk. There were discussions if the County requirement would be to install a masonry wall to buffer the residential streets and Rob Sucher explained they would install a fence with landscaping on both sides as a buffer and for aesthetics. Al Schantzen commented about his concerns about noise, and lighting being an issue and that would not be an adequate buffer for the residents on Peters 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com Ave and Collie Ct. Karen Beatty asked if a chain link fence was within the Code requirements because she felt it was not an adequate buffer as well. Some of the public questions were about the price point and Mr. Sucher explained it was market rate and the market driven the price for the 1-3 Bedrooms. Mike Sherman asked what the proposed square footage of the apartments would be. Mr. Sucher noted they would be 760 sq. ft to 1300 sq. ft for a 3 bedroom, 3 bathroom unit. Another public comment was the concern there were not enough parking spaces but Mr. Sucher assured everyone they would have more than what the code required. Al Schantzen asked if they were looking for the Boards blessing on the density and the residential component and Wayne Arnold replied yes if the CRA Board would support both components that would be great. Al Schantzens concern about supporting the density bonus units to be applied to this particular development and the developer never going through with the project and tie up the density units for 7yrs and prevent another great project from being able to use the density because of this project or flipping the property and get something completely different and he also asked why they would need it, there should be a sufficient amount of units without it, Mr. Sucher wanted to reassure the Board that he would not have spent the amount of time and money to just walk away from this and his intention is to complete the project and move forward, he also stated that in order for this project to work, they would need the density units. Mr. Kite wanted to reassure everyone that they stepped back after the Sam’s Club project didn’t work out and looked at what the highest and best use of the site would be and this project fit that criteria. Mr. Schantzen asked about the deviations they were requesting so Mr. Arnold gave a few examples of the deviations and noted that there were existing deviations that were already approved from the previous MPUD project. Larry Ingram wanted to make sure that this could only be a for rent product and never convert to a for sale project in the future, Mr. Sucher wanted to assure 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com everyone the MPUD was specific to a rental project and if they ever changed, they would have to go through this process all over again. Ms. Forester recapped some of the Boards comments for them to take under consideration as they vote on the project: 1. Some concern is the rear fencing some commitment that it is decorative or opaque with landscaping on both sides; 2. Front fence should be some sort of decorative fencing with no solid wall; 3. Maintain the pedestrian connection to reactivate the commercial component 4. Developer’s commitment on the current MPUD for a sidewalk on Peter Street – was that payment in-lieu outstanding or was that to be forthcoming. 5. Haldeman Creek MSTU – verification of the developments impact on the Haldeman Creek MSTU. Steve Main made a motion to support the project as presented with the density and the addition of the Residential component to the project, Karen Beatty second the motion. Al Schantzen wanted to state he would support the project without the density. Passed 6-1. b. Fire Suppression Phase II- Tami Scott, Project Manager gave an update on the status of the project. Procurement Department received all of the bids for the construction of the Fire Suppression project with the lowest bidder being Higgins at $677,000. The Highest bidder was $829,000. This item will be on the Board of County Commissioners Agenda on September 10, 2019. Staff is recommending the Board approve Higgins as the lowest bidder. Al Schantzen wanted to find out if staff was going to do additional projects while the road is being tore up and they won’t have to do it again for another project, Tami Scott noted that staff had no other projects scheduled at this time for this project but in future projects staff will try to coordinate with a stormwater project or a sidewalk project at the same time. Maurice Gutierrez made a motion to approve the lowest contractor, seconded by Steve Main. Passed Unanimously. 4. Public Comment: 5. Staff Comments: No staff comments at this time. 6. Advisory Board Comments: Mike Sherman had asked the status of the Thomasson Drive Project and when they will break ground, Tami Scott gave a brief update on the project, Debrah Forester said realistically it will probably begin in early 2020. Karen 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Offices: 3570 Bayshore Drive, Unit 102, Naples, Florida 34112 Phone: 239-643-1115 Online: www.bayshorecra.com Beatty asked when construction will begin for phase III of fire suppression. Ms. Scott said probably in 9 months. 7. Next meeting date: October 1, 2019 8. Meeting Adjourned: 7:32 PM __________________________________________ Chairman Maurice Gutierrez 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: Attachment E CRA Minutes 8-5-19 (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment PL20180003658 Application and Supporting Documents September 19, 2019 CCPC Hearing November 12, 2019 BCC Hearing 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com February 11, 2019 Mr. James Sabo, AICP Collier County Growth Management Division/ Planning and Regulation Land Development Services Department Comprehensive Planning Section 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment – PL20180003658, Submittal 1 Dear Mr. Sabo: A Collier County application for Public Hearing for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment for properties located at the southeast quadrant of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) is being filed electronically for review. This application proposes to amend the 20.35+/- acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. A companion small-scale amendment (PL20180003659) will be filed simultaneously to address density requirements for the property. The PUD has been revised and is proposed in the latest format for PUD’s. We have retained all existing commercial uses and development standards to insure that property owners not included in the current application submittal retain all existing development entitlements. Documents filed with submittal 1 include the following: 1. Cover Letter 2. Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone 3. Additional Agent Information 4. Evaluation Criteria 5. Pre-application meeting notes 6. Affidavit of Authorization 7. Property Ownership Disclosure Form 8. Covenant of Unified Control 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Mr. James Sabo RE: Collier County Application for Public Hearing, Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment – PL20180003658, Submittal 1 February 11, 2019 Page 2 of 2 9. Completed Addressing Checklist 10. Warranty Deed(s) 11. Aerial Location Map 12. Environmental Data 13. Traffic Impact Study 14. School Impact Analysis 15. PUD Exhibits A-F 16. Deviation Justifications 17. Original PUD Document Please feel free to contact Rich Yovanovich at 435-3535 or me should you have any questions. Sincerely, D. Wayne Arnold, AICP c: Doug Kirby Rob Sucher Richard D. Yovanovich GradyMinor File 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 1 of 11 Application for a Public Hearing for PUD Rezone, Amendment to PUD or PUD to PUD Rezone PETITION NO PROJECT NAME DATE PROCESSED PUD Rezone (PUDZ): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F., Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD (PUDA): LDC subsection 10.02.13 E. and Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone (PUDR): LDC subsection 10.02.13 A.-F. APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Property Owner(s): _________________________________________________________ Name of Applicant if different than owner: _____________________________________________ Address: _________________________City: _______________ State: _________ ZIP: ___________ Telephone: _______________________ Cell: ______________________ Fax: __________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Name of Agent: ____________________________________________________________________ Firm: _____________________________________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________City: _______________ State: _______ ZIP: __________ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: ____________________ Fax: _______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Be aware that Collier County has lobbyist regulations. Guide yourself accordingly and ensure that you are in compliance with these regulations. To be completed by staff KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC and KRG Courthouse Shadows II, LLC KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100 Indianapolis IN 46204 317-578-5165 dkirby@kiterealty.com D. Wayne Arnold AICP (also see Additional Agent Information document) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs FL 34134 239.947.1144 warnold@gradyminor.com 4 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 561 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 2 of 11 REZONE REQUEST This application is requesting a rezone from: _________________________ Zoning district(s) to the ________________________________ zoning district(s). Present Use of the Property: _________________________________________________________ Proposed Use (or range of uses) of the property: _________________________________________ Original PUD Name: ________________________________________________________________ Ordinance No.: ____________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY INFORMATION On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a detailed legal description of the property covered by the application: • If the request involves changes to more than one zoning district, the applicant shall include a separate legal description for property involved in each district; • The applicant shall submit 4 copies of a recent survey (completed within the last six months, maximum 1" to 400' scale), if required to do so at the pre-application meeting; and • The applicant is responsible for supplying the correct legal description. If questions arise concerning the legal description, an engineer's certification or sealed survey may be required. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Size of Property: _______ ft. x _______ ft. = ________ Total Sq. Ft. Acres: _________ Address/ General Location of Subject Property: __________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ PUD District (refer to LDC subsection 2.03.06 C): Commercial Residential Community Facilities Industrial Mixed Use Other: ________________ Portion of 1-3 Ordinance 92-008 and Ordinance 2016-45 CPUD Commercial Residential and commercial Courthouse Shadows 11, 12, 13 50 25 A Eastgate (OR32 Page 478) and Courthouse Shadows See Exhibit 1 Legal Description 29 40-41 28750000028, 28750000523, 28750000769 and 30480040100 Irregular Irregular 886,446+/_20.35+/- Southeast quadrant of Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41). 3290 and 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E. MPUD 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 3 of 11 ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE Zoning Land Use N S E W If the owner of the subject property owns contiguous property please provide a detailed legal description of the entire contiguous property on a separate sheet attached to the application. Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ ASSOCIATIONS Required: List all registered Home Owner Association(s) that could be affected by this petition. Provide additional sheets if necessary. Information can be found on the Board of County Commissioner’s website at http://www.colliergov.net/Index.aspx?page=774. Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Name of Homeowner Association: _________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ____________________________ City: _________ State: ______ ZIP: ______ Collier County Government Complex PUD, C-3 (GTMUD-MXD)Government Offices, Office C-3 (BMUD-R1), RSF-4 (BMUD-R1), RSF-4 & C-3 Vacant, Legal Offices and Residential Collier County Government Complex PUD, C-3 & C-5 Government Offices, Real Estate Office, WalMart Retail Store RMF-6 (BMUD-R1), C-3 (GTMUD-MXD) & RMF-6 (BMUD-R1)Vacant, Offices and Residential N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A.N.A.N.A. N.A. N.A. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 4 of 11 EVALUATION CRITERIA Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. On a separate sheet attached to the application, provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deed Restrictions: The County is legally precluded from enforcing deed restrictions; however, many communities have adopted such restrictions. You may wish to contact the civic or property owners association in the area for which this use is being requested in order to asce rtain whether or not the request is affected by existing deed restrictions. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 5 of 11 Previous land use petitions on the subject property: To your knowledge, has a public hearing been held on this property within the last year? If so, what was the nature of that hearing? __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Official Interpretations or Zoning Verifications: To your knowledge, has there been an official interpretation or zoning verification rendered on this property within the last year? Yes No if so please provide copies. PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS This land use petition requires a Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), pursuant to Chapter 3 E. of the Administrative Code and LDC section 10.03.06. Following the NIM, the applicant will submit a written summary and any commitments that have been made at the meeting. Refer to Chapter 8 B. of the Administrative Code for the NIM procedural requirements. Chapter 8 of the Administrative Code requires that the applicant must remove their public hearing advertising sign(s) after final action is taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Based on the Board's final action on this item, please remove all public hearing advertising sign(s) immediately. RECORDING OF DEVELOPER COMMITMENTS Within 30 days of adoption of the Ordinance, the owner or developer (specify name) at their expense shall record in the Public Records of Collier County a Memorandum of Understanding of Developer Commitments or Notice of Developer Commitments that contains the legal description of the property that is the subject of the land use petition and contains each and every commitment of the owner or developer specified in the Ordinance. The Memorandum or Notice shall be in form acceptable to the County and shall comply with the recording requirements of Chapter 695, FS. A recorded copy of the Memorandum or Notice shall be provided to the Collier County Planned Unit Development Monitoring staff within 15 days of recording of said Memorandum or Notice. LDC subsection 10.02.08 D This application will be considered “open” when the determination of “sufficiency” has been made and the application is assigned a petition processing number. The application will be considered “closed” when the petitioner withdraws the application through written notice or ceases to supply necessary information to continue processing or otherwise actively pursue the rezoning, amendment or change, for a period of 6 months. An application deemed “closed” will not receive further processing and an application “closed” through inactivity shall be deemed withdrawn. An application deemed “closed” may be re-opened by submission of a new application, repayment of all application fees and the grant of a determination of “sufficiency”. Further review of the request will be subject to the then current code. No. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 6 of 11 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ Portion of 1-3 KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100 Indianapolis IN 46204 317-578-5165 dkirby@kiterealty.com 3290 and 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E. 11, 12, 13 50 25 A Eastgate (OR32 Page 478) and Courthouse Shadows See Exhibit 1 Legal Description 29 40-41 28750000028, 28750000523, 28750000769 and 30480040100 X X City of Naples 300 Multi-family units with 65,000 SF Commercial 166,183 GPD 123,098 GPD 123,231 GPD 91,282 GPD Connection Exists 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 7 of 11 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. Sanitary Sewer service exists for the subject property and will be utilized to serve the proposed development. Potable Water is provided by the City of Naples. Please find a Letter of Service availability enclosed for your records The proposed project is located within the boundaries of Collier County's wastewater service area. The existing system is owned by Collier County Utilities and will remain in their ownership. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 8 of 11 COVENANT OF UNIFIED CONTROL The undersigned do hereby swear or affirm that we are the fee simple titleholders and owners of record of property commonly known as ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ (Street address and City, State and Zip Code) and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. The property described herein is the subject of an application for ______________ planned unit development (______________PUD) zoning. We hereby designate___________________, legal representative thereof, as the legal representatives of the property and as such, these individuals are authorized to legally bind all owners of the property in the course of seeking the necessary approvals to develop. This authority includes, but is not limited to, the hiring and authorization of agents to assist in the preparation of applications, plans, surveys, and studies necessary to obtain zoning approval on the site. These representatives will remain the only entity to authorize development activity on the property until such time as a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to Collier County. The undersigned recognize the following and will be guided accordingly in the pursuit of development of the project: 1. The property will be developed and used in conformity with the approved master plan including all conditions placed on the development and all commitments agreed to by the applicant in connection with the planned unit development rezoning. 2. The legal representative identified herein is responsible for compliance with all terms, conditions, safeguards, and stipulations made at the time of approval of the master plan, even if the property is subsequently sold in whole or in part, unless and until a new or amended covenant of unified control is delivered to and recorded by Collier County. 3. A departure from the provisions of the approved plans or a failure to comply with any requirements, conditions, or safeguards provided for in the planned unit development process will constitute a violation of the Land Development Code. 4. All terms and conditions of the planned unit development approval will be incorporated into covenants and restrictions which run with the land so as to provide notice to subsequent owners that all development activity within the planned unit development must be consistent with those terms and conditions. 5. So long as this covenant is in force, Collier County can, upon the discovery of noncompliance with the terms, safeguards, and conditions of the planned unit development, seek equitable relief as necessary to compel compliance. The County will not issue permits, certificates, or licenses to occupy or use any part of the planned unit development and the County may stop ongoing construction activity until the project is brought into compliance with all terms, conditions and safeguards of the planned unit development. ___________________________________ ___________________________________ Owner Owner ____________________________________ ___________________________________ Printed Name Printed Name STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) Sworn to (or affirmed) and subscribed before me this day of , 201__ by ____________________ who is personally known to me or has produced _____________________________ as identification. ____________________________________ Notary Public (Name typed, printed or stamped) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 9 of 11 Final Submittal Requirement Checklist for: PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code Amendment to PUD- Ch. 3 G. 2 of the Administrative Code PUD to PUD Rezone- Ch. 3 G. 1 of the Administrative Code The following Submittal Requirement checklist is to be utilized during the Pre-Application Meeting and at time of application submittal. At final submittal, the checklist is to be completed and submitted with an up-to-date application. Please provide the submittal items in the exact order listed below, with cover sheets attached to each section. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. A Model PUD Document is available online at http://www.colliercountyfl.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=76983. REQUIREMENTS # OF COPIES REQUIRED NOT REQUIRED Cover Letter with Narrative Statement including a detailed description of why amendment is necessary Completed Application with required attachments (download latest version) 1 Pre-application meeting notes 1 Affidavit of Authorization, signed and notarized 1 Property Ownership Disclosure Form 1 Notarized and completed Covenant of Unified Control 1 Completed Addressing Checklist 1 Warranty Deed(s) 1 List Identifying Owner and all parties of corporation 1 Signed and sealed Boundary Survey 1 Architectural Rendering of proposed structures 1 Current Aerial Photographs (available from Property Appraiser) with project boundary and, if vegetated, FLUCFCS Codes with legend included on aerial. 1 Statement of Utility Provisions 1 Environmental Data Requirements pursuant to LDC section 3.08.00 1 Environmental Data Requirements collated into a single Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) packet at time of public hearings. Coordinate with project planner at time of public hearings. Listed or Protected Species survey, less than 12 months old. Include copies of previous surveys. 1 Traffic Impact Study 1 Historical Survey 1 School Impact Analysis Application, if applicable 1 Electronic copy of all required documents 1 Completed Exhibits A-F (see below for additional information)+ List of requested deviations from the LDC with justification for each (this document is separate from Exhibit E) Checklist continues on next page 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 10 of 11 Revised Conceptual Master Site Plan 24” x 36”and One 8 ½” x 11” copy Original PUD document/ordinance, and Master Plan 24” x 36” – Only if Amending the PUD Revised PUD document with changes crossed thru & underlined 1 Copy of Official Interpretation and/or Zoning Verification 1 *If located in Immokalee or seeking affordable housing, include an additional set of each submittal requirement +The following exhibits are to be completed on a separate document and attached to the application packet:  Exhibit A: List of Permitted Uses  Exhibit B: Development Standards  Exhibit C: Master Plan- See Chapter 3 E. 1. of the Administrative Code  Exhibit D: Legal Description  Exhibit E: List of Requested LDC Deviations and justification for each  Exhibit F: List of Development Commitments If located in RFMU (Rural Fringe Mixed Use) Receiving Land Areas Pursuant to LDC subsection 2.03.08.A.2.a.2.(b.)i.c., the applicant must contact the Florida Forest Service at 239- 690-3500 for information regarding “Wildfire Mitigation & Prevention Plan.” PLANNERS – INDICATE IF THE PETITION NEEDS TO BE ROUTED TO THE FOLLOWING REVIEWERS: School District (Residential Components): Amy Lockheart Conservancy of SWFL: Nichole Johnson Utilities Engineering: Eric Fey Parks and Recreation: Barry Williams & David Berra Emergency Management: Dan Summers Immokalee Water/Sewer District: City of Naples: Robin Singer, Planning Director Other: ASSOCIATED FEES FOR APPLICATION  Pre-Application Meeting: $500.00  PUD Rezone: $10,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  PUD to PUD Rezone: $8,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  PUD Amendment: $6,000.00* plus $25.00 an acre or fraction of an acre  Comprehensive Planning Consistency Review: $2,250.00  Environmental Data Requirements-EIS Packet (submittal determined at pre-application meeting): $2,500.00  Listed or Protected Species Review (when an EIS is not required): $1,000.00  Transportation Review Fees: o Methodology Review: $500.00, to be paid directly to Transportation at the Methodology Meeting* *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 X X X 4 4 4 4 4 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 July 30, 2018 Page 11 of 11  Legal Advertising Fees: o CCPC: $1,125.00 o BCC: $500.00  School Concurrency Fee, if applicable: o Mitigation Fees, if application, to be determined by the School District in coordination with the County Fire Code Plans Review Fees are collected at the time of application submission and those fees are set forth by the Authority having jurisdiction. The Land Development Code requires Neighborhood Notification mailers for Applications headed to hearing, and this fee is collected prior to hearing. All checks payable to: Board of County Commissioners. As the authorized agent/applicant for this petition, I attest that all of the information indicated on this checklist is included in this submittal package. I understand that failure to include all necessary submittal information may result in the delay of processing this petition. *Additional fee for the 5th and subsequent re-submittal will be accessed at 20% of the original fee. ___________________________________ _____________ Signature of Petitioner or Agent Date ___________________________________ Printed named of signing party X X X D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 04/16/2019 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Exhibit 1 Legal Description April 16, 2019 Page 1 of 1 Exhibit 1 Legal Description.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE (3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL (US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) April 23, 2019 VIA: E-MAIL Kristina M. Johnson, P.E. KJohnson@jreeng.com Director of Land Development J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9351 Corkscrew Road, Suite 102 Estero, Florida 33928 Subject: Wastewater Service Availability Project: Courthouse Shadows Parcel #: 28750000523, 28750000769, 30480040100 Dear Kristina: The subject project is within the Collier County Water-Sewer District’s (CCWSD) wastewater service area and the City of Naples’ water service area. This property already receives wastewater service from the CCWSD. Adequate capacity for the proposed redevelopment project will be confirmed during the development review process and any system upgrades necessary to support the project will be the responsibility of the developer. Additional connections to the existing 8” gravity sewers along Collee Court and Peters Avenue may be allowed if adequate capacity is confirmed. Connection to the CCWSD’s wastewater collection system will be permitted only in the locations referenced herein, or in a superseding service availability letter, and only after the GMD Development Review Division’s approval of hydraulic calculations prepared by the Developer’s Engineer of Record in accordance with the Design Criteria found in Section 1 of the Collier County Water-Sewer District Utilities Standards Manual. Adequate capacity to this project is not guaranteed until the project receives a commitment for service. A preliminary utility plan must be reviewed and discussed at a pre-submittal conference with representatives of the Public Utilities Department and the Growth Management Department, as required by Sec. 134-58, paragraph (b)(2) of the Code of Ordinances. This conference may be conducted by email at the discretion of the Public Utilities Department. See the attached GIS screen shot and record drawings for approximate utility locations. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) If you have any questions, you may contact me at (239) 252-1037 or Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E., Senior Project Manager CC: Beth Johnssen, Division Director – Wastewater, PUD/WWD; Michael Stevens, Principal Project Manager, PUD/EPMD; Brett Rosenblum, Principal Project Manager, GMD/DRD; Utility Planning Section 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) GIS Screen Shot 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 STATEMENT OF UTILITY PROVISIONS FOR PUD REZONE REQUEST APPLICANT CONTACT INFORMATION Name of Applicant(s): _______________________________________________________________ Address: _________________________________ City: ___________ State: ________ ZIP: _______ Telephone: ____________________ Cell: _____________________ Fax: ______________________ E-Mail Address: ____________________________________________________________________ Address of Subject Property (If available): ______________________________________________ City: _________________ State: ________ ZIP: _________ PROPERTY INFORMATION Section/Township/Range: / / Lot: Block: Subdivision: ___________________________________________________ Metes & Bounds Description: _________________________________________________________ Plat Book: Page #: Property I.D. Number: ____________________________________ TYPE OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Package Treatment Plant (GPD Capacity): _________________________ e. Septic System TYPE OF WATER SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED Check applicable system: a. County Utility System b. City Utility System c. Franchised Utility System Provide Name: __________________________ d. Private System (Well) Total Population to be Served: ________________________________________________________ Peak and Average Daily Demands: A. Water-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ B. Sewer-Peak: _________ Average Daily: __________ If proposing to be connected to Collier County Regional Water System, please provide the date service is expected to be required: ____________________________________________________ 4/15/2015 Page 8 of 16 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Narrative statement: Provide a brief and concise narrative statement and schematic drawing of sewage treatment process to be used as well as a specific statement regarding the method of affluent and sludge disposal. If percolation ponds are to be used, then percolation data and soil involved shall be provided from tests prepared and certified by a professional engineer. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Collier County Utility Dedication Statement: If the project is located within the service boundaries of Collier County’s utility service system, a notarized statement shall be provided agreeing to dedicate the water distribution and sewage collection facilities within the project area to the Collier County Utilities. This shall occur upon completion of the construction of these facilities in accordance with all applicable County ordinances in effect at that time. This statement shall also include an agreement that the applicable system development charges and connection fees will be paid to the County Utilities Division prior to the issuance of building permits by the County. If applicable, the statement shall contain an agreement to dedicate the appropriate utility easements for serving the water and sewer systems. __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ Statement of Availability Capacity from other Providers: Unless waived or otherwise provided for at the pre-application meeting, if the project is to receive sewer or potable water services from any provider other than the County, a statement from that provider indicating adequate capacity to serve the project shall be provided. 4/15/2015 Page 9 of 16 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows PUD Amendment Exhibit 2 Property ID #’s Folio Number: 28750000769 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: NO SITE ADDRESS Folio Number: 28750000523 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3420 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 28750000028 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3390 TAMIAMI TRL E Folio Number: 30480040100 Name: KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC Street# & Name: 3260 TAMIAMI TRL E 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Multi-family 300 250 Wastewater is 250 GPD per unit per Collier County 75,000 101,250 Burger King 92 20 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 1,840 2,484 Dunkin Donuts 19 20 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 380 513 Dunkin Donuts (Office)2,030 0.15 FAC 64.6 Table for Office Building per SF 305 412 Gas Station 1 325 FAC 64.6 Table for Service Station open more than 16 hours per day per water closet 325 439 Chrissy's Café 50 40 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant operating less than 16 hours per day, per seat 2,000 2,700 Starbucks 62 35 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating more than 16 hours per day, per seat 2,170 2,930 Shopping Center 51,083 0.1 FAC 64E-6.008 for Shopping Center without food or laundry 5,108 6,896 87,128 117,624 Notes: 1. Peak Factor = 1.35 2. Conversion to Potable = 1.4 3. The Shopping Center Area is the balance of the 65,000 SF after removing the areas for Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, the gas station, Chrissy's, and Starbucks 4. The Starbucks calculation follows what was submitted under PL20170001359 from Q. Grady Minor with the exception of the GPD per Unit. The Starucks calculation utilized 35 GPD per Unit. Multi-family 300 350 Wastewater is 250 GPD per unit per Collier County 105,000 141,750 Burger King 92 28 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 2,576 3,478 Dunkin Donuts 19 28 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating 16 hours or less per day, per seat 532 718 Dunkin Donuts (Office)2,030 0.21 FAC 64.6 Table for Office Building per SF 426 575 Gas Station 1 455 FAC 64.6 Table for Service Station open more than 16 hours per day per water closet 455 614 Chrissy's Café 50 56 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant operating less than 16 hours per day, per seat 2,800 3,780 Starbucks 62 49 FAC 64E-6.008 for Restaurant using single service articles only and operating more than 16 hours per day, per seat 3,038 4,101 Shopping Center 51,083 0.14 FAC 64E-6.008 for Shopping Center without food or laundry 7,152 9,655 121,979 164,671 Notes: 1. Peak Factor = 1.35 (Used for the Statement of System Capacity Analysis) Total: Estimated Wastewater Demands - Proposed Apartment Complex Use Number of Units GPD per unit GPD Calc Method Average Daily Flow (GPD) Peak Hour Flow (GPD) Total: Estimated Water Demands - Proposed Apartment Complex Use Number of Units GPD per unit GPD Calc Method Average Daily Flow (GPD) Peak Hour Flow (GPD) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING 9351 CORKSCREW ROAD, STE. 102 / ESTERO, FL 33928 / 239.405.9148 (p) / 239.288.2537 (f) WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM Wastewater System Capacity Preliminary Analysis Background: The Courthouse Shadows Planned Development currently consists of mostly built-out commercial outparcels that front US-41 and two (2) large existing commercial strip-center buildings on the south portion of the property. Courthouse Shadows is currently served by an existing 8” gravity main and an existing lift station located onsite. Potable water is provided by the City of Naples. The existing gravity main traverses across the southern portion of the site and serves all of the existing commercial buildings with the exception of the existing Starbucks and existing Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant which are both served by the existing gravity main and lift station located on Peters Street to the west of the property. Request: The Courthouse Shadows Planned Development Amendment is requesting to add multi-family residential to the schedule of uses with a maximum of 300 units. The two (2) large existing commercial strip-center buildings in the south portion of the property have been vacant for some time, and if the Amendment is approved, it is the intent to redevelop these two (2) buildings into multi-family residential buildings. Since multi-family residential uses generate more wastewater compared to commercial uses, it seemed appropriate for this unique redevelopment to complete a preliminary analysis to determine if the existing wastewater infrastructure has capacity to serve the proposed 300 multi-family residential units. A preliminary engineering analysis was completed for the existing wastewater infrastructure with the additional flows generated by multi-family residential. It should be noted that the wastewater flows from Courthouse Shadows ultimately discharge into the South County Water Reclamation Facility which as of April 1st of 2019 has the capacity for an additional 6,400,000± Gallons per Day. Existing System Capacity: Coordination with the Collier County Utility Department and Collier County Records Department was necessary to obtain the existing information for the onsite lift station LS #305.02, the existing wastewater system downstream of LS #305.02, and the existing lift station located at the intersection of Peters Street and US-41 identified as LS #308.05. A “Site Evaluation Report” was prepared by Hole Montes in 2013 for both LS #305.02 and LS #308.05. Information gathered from these reports along with record drawings helped to determine the functionality and capacity of the existing lift stations. Additionally, a WaterCAD model was completed for the existing onsite lift station LS #305.02 to confirm that the existing downstream force main had the capacity to serve the proposed multi-family residential units. It was determined that the existing onsite lift station, LS #305.02, has the capacity for an additional 22± GPM (Peak), the existing downstream force main from LS #305.02 has the capacity for an additional 115± GPM (Peak), and the existing lift station along Peters Street has the capacity for an additional 52± GPM (Peak). 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Proposed Wastewater Flow: The wastewater flows generated from the 300 units of multi-family residential total 208± GPM (Peak). These multi-family residential units will offset 50± GPM (peak) of existing commercial uses for a total of 158± GPM (Peak) of additional wastewater flow. Analysis: Onsite Lift Station #305.02: The existing onsite lift station LS #305.02 only has capacity for approximately 22± GPM (Peak) in its current state whereas the existing downstream force main has capacity for 115± GPM (Peak). In order to provide the additional capacity of 115± GPM in LS #305.02 the existing pumps will need to be exchanged for new, slightly larger, pumps. A WaterCAD model was created to confirm that new, slightly larger, pumps will provide the additional capacity without causing negative impacts to the existing downstream force main and connected private lift stations. Peters Street Lift Station #308.05: The “Site Evaluation Report” prepared by Hole Montes for LS #308.05 was reviewed and it was determined that LS #308.05 has the capacity for an additional 52± GPM (Peak). This “Report” was conducted in May 2013 prior to Starbucks and therefore the additional capacity must be reduced by 7± GPM (Peak) from the Starbucks down to 45± GPM (Peak). Combined: The additional capacity from the onsite LS #305.02 of 115± GPM (Peak) combined with the additional capacity from the Peters Street lift station LS #308.05 of 45± GPM (Peak) totals 160± GPM (peak). Conclusion: The additional wastewater flow from 300 multi-family units is expected to be 158± GPM (Peak) and the additional capacity combined from the two (2) existing lift stations is 160± GPM (Peak). If the southern portion of the Courthouse Shadows Planned Development is developed into 300 multi-family residential units then some of the units will need to connect to the existing gravity main and lift station along Peters Street, LS #308.05, and some of the units will need to connect to the onsite gravity main and onsite lift station, LS #305.02. The existing pumps in the onsite lift station LS #305.02 will need to be replaced with new, slightly larger pumps. Based on the preliminary WaterCAD model created for the new, slightly larger pumps in LS #305.02, the existing downstream wastewater system, including connected private pump stations, is not negatively impacted. A mandatory pre-submittal conference will be held at the time of development permit (SDP or PPL) to determine if any other improvements will be necessary to LS #305.02 or LS #308.05. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Additional Agent Information January 8, 2019 Page 1 of 1 KRCSA Additional Agent Information.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Agent: Name of Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Firm: Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. Address: 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 City: Naples State: FL Zip: 34103 Telephone: 239-435-3535 E-Mail Address: ryovanovich@cyklawfirm.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 1 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Pursuant to LDC subsections 10.02.13 B, 10.02.08 F and Chapter 3 G. of the Administrative Code, staff’s analysis and recommendation to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners shall be based upon consideration of the applicable criteria. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. The Courthouse Shadows Mixed Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) is a 20.35± acre property located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Airport Road. The property is designated Activity Center #16 on the Future Land Use Map. A companion small-scale plan amendment has been submitted which proposes to permit an increase in density for a 10 acre portion of this project located within the activity center as a development option for this PUD. The PUD has been developed to date with approxi mately 150,000 square feet of retail and office commercial uses. This amendment adds development of up to 300 multi -family apartments as an option for the site. An alternative Master Plan (Exhibit C1) option identifies the location of the potential residential dwellings and the area that would remain for commercial uses. Additional deviations have been requested for the residential development option. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. The Courthouse Shadows is an established commercial PUD, which has been substantially developed with a variety of commercial uses. Infrastructure is in place to serve the existing and proposed uses. The residential mixed-use development option if developed will reduce transportation impacts versus that of the approved commercial PUD. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicant controls a majority (approximately 18.8± acres) of the developed land within the Courthouse Shadows PUD. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 2 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives and policies of the Growth Management Plan. (This is to include identifying what Sub-district, policy or other provision allows the requested uses/density, and fully explaining/addressing all criteria or conditions of that Sub-district, policy or other provision.) The Courthouse Shadows PUD is located in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict and the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. The list of permitted uses within the PUD is being modified to add residential dwelling units as a permittd use, along with appropriate development standards. Uses are consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT The project is located within Activity Center #16 on the Future Land Use Map. The project is also located within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle CRA Overlay. Mixed Use Activity Centers are intended to provide for both commercial and residential development. The PUD amendment is accompanied with a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, which proposes to permit increased density on a 10-acre portion of the site. The application proposes a total of 300 multi-family apartments on approximately 18.8 acres of the 20.35 acre PUD. The property plans to utilize up to 97 units from the density pool, in addition to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre, with the balance of the 300 units resulting from the units permitted by the small-scale amendment. The density calculations are as follows: Activity Center 18.8 ac x 4 du/ac = 75 units Bonus Pool Units 97 units Proposed Small-scale 10 ac x 12.8 du/ac = 128 units Total 300 units Net Density for 18.8 acres residential area 16 du/ac Gross Density for PUD (20.35) 14.74 du/ac A map amendment to Activity Center #16 is also included with the small -scale amendment application, which identifies the 10-acre area in which the increased density will be applicable. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 3 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The PUD as proposed is consistent with the Future Land Use Element as revised by the companion small-scale amendment. Policy 5.5 of the FLUE discourages urban sprawl, by confining urban levels of development to the urban designated areas of the County. The subject site is within the urban boundary, and is designated for higher intensity commercial and residential uses. Urban services are available to the site and adequate capacities exist for water, sewer and transportatio n. Policy 5.6 of the FLUE requires that new projects are compatible with and complimentary to surrounding land uses. The proposed mixed-use development will provide shopping and living opportunities for the surrounding area. The conceptual PUD master plan has been designed to insure compatibility with the planned residential communities located to the south and east of this project. The residential options for this PUD will provide buffers meeting the minimum landscape buffer requirements between residential dwellings as required by the Land Development Code, which have been determined to provide a compatible relationship with adjacent projects. The subject PUD will also be installing a vegetative buffer meeting minimum standards per the Land Development Code for buffers separating commercial and residential development. Appropriate development standards have been included in the PUD. Objective 7 and the implementing objectives and policies of the FLUE promote smart growth initiatives and connectivity. The subject PUD application will be a mixed -use planned community and although the residential and commercial will be built on separate building tracts, the residential dwellings will have internal access to the commercial component of the PUD. This interconnectivity will encourage walkability and reduce the necessity to utilize the adjacent arterial roadway for access to commercial needs. A local roadway connection to Peters Avenue will be maintained, which meets the intent of Objective 7. The site is within the City of Naples Water District and the Collier County Sewer District and the development proposed will be served by the City of Naples and Collier County. There is potable water and wasterwater capacity available to serve the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Elements of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) Policy 6.1.1 requires projects to retain a portion of on -site native vegetation. For mixed-use projects greater than 2.5 acres located within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA), 25% of the existing native vegetation is to be retained or mitigated through off -site preservation or payment in lieu of. The Courthouse Shadows PUD was approved and developed prior to adoption of this CCME Policy. At the time of development, no-site vegetation was required. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 4 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The only native vegetation occurring on-site at this time is an area adjacent to Haldeman Creek and consists of approximately 4,000 square feet. The PUD contains language in Section 3.7.14, which identifies that this approximately 4,000 square foot area of native vegetation will be retained or mitigated off-site. CCME Policy 12.1.2 requires land use plan amendments in the Catego ry 1 hurricane vulnerability zone to provide appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts of hurricane evacuation times. A portion of the subject property is located within the Category 1 storm surge area as determined by the Hurricane Evacuation Study prepar ed by the Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council. The applicant will coordinate with the County’s Emergency Management staff to determine appropriate mitigation. For similar small-scale amendments, mitigation has typically been payment toward additional emergency cots, generators, etc. CCME Policy 12.2.6 indicates that the County shall require all new sanitary sewer facilities located in the Coastal High Hazard Area be flood-proofed and designed to reduce leakage to the extent practical. The applicant will coordinate with Public Utilities staff to determine whether new sanitary sewer facilities will be required to serve this PUD, and appropriate flood proofing applicable for those facilities. 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 reque sts for rezoning must meet the requirements for rezoning in the Land Development Code. The subject rezoning is for a Mixed Use Planned Unit Development and therefore is consistent with this criteria. 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. The project currently permits up to 165,000 square feet of commercial uses and approximately 149,000 square feet have been constructed. No additional commercial square feet is proposed. 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. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 5 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The applicant is a seasoned commercial and residential developer. The site is located at a strategic intersection, which provides arterial road access for both north/south and east/west traffic volumes. A market analysis was prepared by an economist, which concludes there is demand for the proposed 300 rental units. d. Existing patterns of land use within the Mixed Use Activity Center and within two (2) radial miles. All quadrants of the Activity Center are developed with commercial land uses. Commercial uses dominate the U.S. 41 and Airport Road frontages within two miles of the site. Established residential neighborhoods are located on local roadways located south, north and east of the property. e. Adequacy of infrastructure capacity, particularly roads. The site has access to water, sewer and other public services, which will have capacity to serve the proposed development. A traffic impact analysis has been prepared which identifies that available roadway capacity exists to serve the proposed development. f. Compatibility of the proposed development with, and adequacy of buffering for, adjoining properties. The residential buildings would displace existing retail space and buffers will be provided to assure compatibility. The residential buildings will comply with architectural standards in the LDC. g. Natural or man-made constraints. There are no man-made or natural constraints that prohibit development of the site as a mixed use PUD. h. Rezoning criteria identified in the Land Development Code. The criteria for rezonings per the LDC have been addressed in Item F of this Evaluation Criteria, Exhibit 3. i. Conformance with Access Management Plan provisions for Mixed Use Activity Centers, as contained in the Land Development Code. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 6 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com LDC Sections 4.04.02 establishes that mixed-use projects must provide internal interconnection among land uses. The Conceptual PUD Master Plan depicts i nternal accessibility between the mixed use and residential development tracts consistent with this LDC provision. The project will maintain an access to the local street, Peter’s Avenue. 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. Existing access points to U.S. 41 will remain. Pedestrian connections currently exist and will be maintained. k. Interconnection(s) for pedestrians, bicycles and motor vehicles with existing and future abutting projects. The existing access to Peter’s Avenue will remain. No additional access to Peter’s Avenue is requested. Sidewalks are available on U.S. 41 and Peter’s Avenue. Internal vehicular and pedestrian access will be available internal to the site. l. Conformance with the architectural design standards as identified in the Land Development Code. The PUD proposes no deviations from the County’s architectural design guidelines for the residential component of the project. Deviations have been approved for the commercial component of the project and no changes are proposed to those deviations . d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. No changes to the commercial permitted uses are proposed. A residential development option has been included. The uses are compatible with surrounding land uses and are permitted under the Growth Management Plan. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 7 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com A minimum of 30% usable open space for mixed use projects will be provided within the PUD as required by the LDC. The applicant may propose to utilize Haldeman Creek for open space and recreation uses such as kayak launch/dock. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The project is subject to concurrency and adequate infrastructure must be in place to support future development on the site. At this time there are no known deficiencies for any public facility. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Courthouse Shadows PUD is an existing PUD, which is surrounded by zoned, developed and undeveloped land. Expansion of the PUD boundary is not proposed. There are no other adjacent properties under control by the applicant available for inclusion in the PUD. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications of justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. The PUD was originally approved and developed before many of the current LDC provisions and standards were established. Appropriate development standards for the residential development option have been included. 10.02.08 - Requirements for Amendments to the Official Zoning Atlas F. Nature of requirements of Planning Commission report. When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners required in LDC section 10.02.08 E shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered the proposed change in relation to the following findi ngs, when applicable: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The MPUD, as proposed, is consistent with the companion small-scale plan amendment, which permits residential and mixed-use projects within the MPUD and increased density on a 10 acre portion of the site as identified in the Activity Center #16 Map exhibit to t he FLU Element. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 8 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 2. The existing land use pattern. The subject property is located at the intersection of two arterial roadways. The properties located to the east, west and north are zoned for commercial development. Properties to the south are zoned residential and are developed with single-family homes. Buffers are proposed consistent with the LDC to insure compatibility of uses. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The MPUD for property permitting the residential development option is under the ownership of the applicant and therefore no isolated district is being created. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The boundaries are not illogically drawn and comprise all of the property under the unified control of the applicant. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The property is currently zoned Courthouse Shadows CPUD, which does not permit the proposed residential and mixed-use project uses. The PUD amendment is necessary to add the residential development option. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The MPUD document includes development standards to insure that it is compatible with the immediately surrounding properties. The MPUD master plan identifies appropriate buffers and open spaces, which will further insure that the development of the mixed-use option will have no adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Access to the project will be from U.S. 41. An existing single access from Peter’s Avenue will remain. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. A traffic impact analysis has been submitted in support of the proposed PUD amendment. No level of service issues have been identified and the site will have access to a signalized 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 9 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com intersection at U.S. 41. The character of traffic will not be discernably different than that historically permitted for the subject property. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The project will be required to obtain an Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) through the South Florida Water Management District. The ERP review evaluates historic surface water flows and controls the off-site discharge of stormwater from the site. The project will hav e internal water management facilities including detention areas to control the drainage for the project. No drainage issues will result from this project. The Project is a redevelopment project located in the Bayshore Gateway Redevelopment Area. The property is currently built as a commercial shopping center with existing commercial outparcels that discharges stormwater runoff into Haldeman Creek, which is a tidally influenced waterway. The Project will be designed to maintain existing drainage patterns and provide the required water quality treatment onsite as outlined in Collier County Ordinance 2017-09. The post development discharge rate will not exceed that of the current predevelopment discharge rate of the commercial shopping center. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. Given the limitation on building heights, setbacks, and buffering, there will be no reduction in light or air for adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. The MPUD rezone proposes to establish a residential development option. The uses are controlled by development standards in the MPUD document, which provide setbacks from adjacent properties. Development subject to the MPUD standards will not adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. All immediately adjacent properties to the south and east are developed and the addition of multi-family residential within this PUD should not be a deterrent to improvement or redevelopment of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 10 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com The MPUD rezone is a companion to a small-scale growth management plan amendment. This process does not grant a special privilege to a property owner and the process is consistent with the process outlined in Chapter 163, F.S. for amendments to growth management plan. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The existing zoning is CPUD, which does not permit residential or mixed-use development. The amendment is necessary to establish residential land use within the MPUD. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed rezone is in scale with the needs of the neighborhood and Collier County. The County has a demand for more multi-family dwelling units. The central location and proximity to the Collier County government complex makes this an ideal mixed-use site. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. It is not impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for residential uses; however, this site has existing infrastructure including roads, water, and sewer available to serve the project, and is located in an Activity Center where mixed-use projects are encouraged. A market analysis was prepared for the small-scale amendment, which concludes that there is demand for the proposed rental apartment option. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. The subject property is a variety of commercial buildings. The area proposed for residential uses has been developed for commercial uses and these buildings would be razed in order to construct the mixed-use development option. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance [Code ch. 106, art. II], as amended. There are adequate roadways and utilities available at the site. There are no public facilities deficiencies at the present time and none will occur as a result of this project. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Evaluation Criteria April 26, 2019 Page 11 of 11 KRCSA Evaluation Criteria-rev1.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. The project is consistent with the proposed small-scale Growth Management Plan for Activity Center #16 and it is compatible with surrounding development. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 611Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 612Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 616Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 617Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 618Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 619Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 620Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 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.3.g Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 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.3.g Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ParcelID 28750000028 28750000523 28750000727 28750000743 28750000769 30480040100 00391520008 00391440007 Name1 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP MK REALTY 3440 TAMIAMI TRL LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC CHRISSY'S AT COURTHOUSE SUNSHINE REAL ESTATE HLDS LLLP StreetNumber 3290 3420 3400 3440 3260 3340 3396 FullStreet TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E TAMIAMI TRL E 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) T A MIA MI T R L EAIRPORT PULLING RD SSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community Courthouse Shadows CPUDAerial Location Map SubjectProperty . 590 0 590295 Feet 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Tami ami TRL EGordon STBamboo DREspinal BLVD Peters AVEAreca AVE Collee CT Airport RD SCaloosa STTami ami LNCanal STCherokee STBasin STOkeechobee STOsc eo l a AV E Captains CV Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Courthouse Shadows MPD Location Map Subject Property . 380 0 380190 Feet 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) COURTHOUSE SHADOWS Environmental Due Diligence P REPARED FOR: J OHNSON D EVELOPMENT A SSOCIATES 100 Dunbar Street, Suite 400 Spartanburg, SC 29306 PREPARED BY: TURRELL, HALL & ASSOCIATES, INC 3584 EXCHANGE AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34104 AMENDED J ANUARY 31, 2019 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Table of Contents 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Site Description .................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 FLUCFCS Codes ......................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Vegetation Associations ............................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Soils .............................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Hydrologic Indicators................................................................................................................ 4 3 Photos .................................................................................................................................................. 5 4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................ 7 5 Jurisdictional Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 9 6 Permitting .......................................................................................................................................... 10 7 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 11 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 1 1 INTRODUCTION Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc. (THA) has conducted a preliminary site evaluation on several parcels located at 3290 Tamiami Trail East, Naples. The parcel folio numbers are 28750000028, 28750000523, 28750000769, and 30480040100. The properties are approximately 18.74 acres combined and located in Sections 11 and 14, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, in Collier County. The purpose of the Due Diligence Report is to review existing environmental conditions relating to the properties and to identify issues that may impact the development potential of the site. Specifically, the field work and research conducted was; • To map and identify existing vegetative communities on the property. • To estimate the extent of state and federal jurisdictional wetlands. • To research the presence or absence of state and federal listed species. • To assess the environmental permitting requirements for construction of residential development. This assessment did not research or consider zoning, deed restrictions, easements, or other encumbrances that might be present and could affect the development of the property. This assessment also did not include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment which can identify potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. This assessment was limited to the wetland and wildlife environmental factors only and is presented solely to assist with the planning process. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 2 2 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is comprised of four parcels, three of which have been cleared and impacted by past and current commercial development and the fourth parcel including the canal and drainage easement at the south end of the site. The site has been developed since the early 1990’s with the current buildings. For the purpose of this report, vegetative communities and other land uses are combined between the parcels. It appears as though there were no wetland impacts associated with the development in the 1990’s. No SFWMD ERP permit could be located for the project. The majority of the soils within the site are mapped as Immokalee Fine Sand with a small area of Basinger Fine Sand in the southeast corner of the site. Basinger Fine Sand is a hydric soil, but Immokalee Fine Sand is not. Vegetative communities are remnant only with the majority of the vegetation present consisting of various planted landscaping components. The perimeter of the site contains moderately heavy exotic vegetation including Brazilian pepper along most of the west and south perimeter and scattered Australian pines, Java plum, and phragmites in the southwest border of the site. There is a mangrove fringe separating the development from Haldeman creek which consists predominately of red mangroves and Brazilian pepper. There is also a drainage easement associated with Haldeman Creek Running along the south boundary of the project site. See attached FLUCFCS map for location within the site of the different habitats. 2.1 FLUCFCS Codes The Florida Land Use, Cover, and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) manual was used to classify all of the vegetative communities occurring within the site boundaries. The attached FLUCFCS exhibit shows the subject property, its vegetative cover, and depicts the approximate limits of the wetland and upland areas. A general description is provided below in Table 1 along with any site-specific nuances that may be relevant to the assessment. Table 1: FLUCFS Codes found on-site FLUCFCS Code Description Acres Jurisdictional Wetlands 141 Retail sales and services 16.07 No 190 Open Lands in Urban Setting 0.54 No 510 Streams and Waterways (Haldeman Creek) 1.08 Yes 612E2 Mangrove Swamp (Fringe) 1.05 Yes Total 18.74 2.2 Vegetation Associations The mangrove fringe habitat along the south boundary is the only natural native habitat remaining on the property. Vegetative communities in Florida designated as Mangrove Swamp typically occur in such a way that red, white, or black mangroves dominate the canopy and 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 3 midstory while very little vegetation is present in the ground cover. This site is situated along the man-made portion of Haldeman Creek and is dominated by red mangroves. This site habitat is becoming slightly overgrown with exotics and has a very limited understory. A list of commonly observed plant species within this community can be found below in Table 2. Table 2: Commonly observed species found within the Mangrove Fringe Community Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Dominant Red mangrove Rhizophora mangle C, M Yes Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia C No Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto M No Leather fern Acrostichum danaeifolium G No Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia V No C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum The remainder of the vegetation outside of the mangrove fringe is all planted vegetation serving as buffer or landscape material throughout the development. A list of commonly observed plant species within this community can be found below in Table 3. Table 3: Commonly observed species found within the landscape and buffer portions of the site Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Location Slash pine Pinus elliottii C Southern perimeter berm Live Oak Quercus virginiana C Throughout site Java Plum Syzygium cumini C, M Southern Perimeter berm, outfall area Cabbage palm Sabal palmetto C, M Throughout site Brazilian pepper Schinus terebinthifolia M, G Western and southern perimeter Coco plum Chysobalanus icaco M Western perimeter Muscadine Vitis rotundifolia V Western and southern perimeter C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum There are two wet detention basins located on the western portion of the site. These basins are interconnected with each other and do maintain wetland vegetation. A list of observed plant species within the basins can be found below in Table 4. Table 4: Commonly observed species found within the dry retention basins Common Name Scientific Name Stratum Location Alligator flag Thalia geniculate G North retention basin Wedelia Sphagneticola trilobata G Both retention basins Maidencane Panicum hemitomon G Both retention basins Pickerelweed Pontedaria cordata G Both retention basins Spikerush Eleocharis cellulose G South retention basin False Buttonweed Spermacoce verticullata G Both retention basins C = canopy stratum, M = midstory stratum, G = ground stratum, V = woody vine stratum 2.3 Soils According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 3 types of soil mapped within the project site. Immokalee Fine Sand, which is a non-hydric soil, is mapped through the majority of the property. A small triangle of the site in the southeast corner is 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 4 mapped Basinger Fine Sand, which is a hydric soil. The mangrove fringe and creek are at the south of the site are mapped as Durbin and Wulfert Mucks which is a hydric soil. Soil plugs were taken in the open habitats of the site to determine if hydric soil characteristics are present. Within the open urban areas, the soils were disturbed and heavily compacted with rock and shell present. No hydric indicators were visible within these areas. The soils at the bottoms of the retention basins both had a shallow much layer indicative of hydric conditions which is to be expected as their design is to hold water. See the attached soils map for the extent of the soil units across the property 2.4 Hydrologic Indicators Hydrologic indicators were only observed on this site within the retention basins and drainage swale. Tidal lines were also observed along Haldeman creek in the mangrove fringe. Water lines and algal matting were both observed within the detention basins. It is clear that water does stand in the retention basins for extended periods of time. See photos in Section 3 for examples of hydrologic indicators. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 5 3 PHOTOS Photo 1: Trees and debris from open lands in northwest corner of the site Photo 2: Non-hydric soil profile from open lands. Photo 3: Depression with Thalia adjacent to outfall structure in north retention basin Photo 4: Overgrown structure connection between north and south retention basins. Photo 5: Outfall structure from parking areas into drainage swale. Photo 6: Drainage swale between south retention basin and overflow structure. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 6 Photo 7: Overflow structure at east end of drainage swale. Only functions at flood stage Photo 8: Outfall pipe from overflow structure and splash wall at rip-rap outfall into creek. Photo 9: Rip-rap outfall from project site into Haldeman Creek along south boundary. Photo 10: Potential Gopher tortoise burrow next to overflow structure at east end of drainage swale. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 7 4 WILDLIFE Endangered Wildlife Species is defined as any species of fish or wildlife naturally occurring in Florida, whose prospects of survival are in jeopardy due to modification or loss of habitat; over- utilization for commercial, sporting, scientific or educational purposes; disease; predation; inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms; or other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence (FS 372.072). Threatened species include any species of fish or wildlife naturally occurring in Florida which may not be in immediate danger of extinction, but which exists in such small populations as to become endangered if it is subjected to increased stress as a result of further modification of its environment. Species of Special Concern are animals that: 1) Have a significant vulnerability to habitat modification, environmental alteration, human disturbance, or human exploitation which, in the foreseeable future, may result in its becoming a threatened species unless appropriate protective or management techniques are initiated or maintained, 2) Data are limited or lacking, 3) May occupy such an unusually vital or essential ecological niche that should it decline significantly in numbers or distribution other species would be adversely affected to a significant degree, 4) Has not sufficiently recovered from a past population depletion. Taking into account the location and condition of the property, and conversations with state and federal agency personnel, listed wildlife species that could potentially be found on or around the site include: A full blown Threatened and Endangered Species survey was not done and should not be required due to the existing conditions of the property and existing surrounding developments. Initial investigations around the property did discover one potential gopher tortoise burrow located along the southern border of the project site in the old perimeter berm close to the stormwater overflow. The burrow is located at coordinates N 26 07.429, W 081 45.924. See Exhibit with burrow location and Photo 10 in Section 3 of this report. It appeared as though this was a relatively new burrow which did show signs of recent activity. If the proposed redevelopment Common Name Scientific Name Status Florida Bonneted Bat Eumops floridanus E Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea T Tri-colored Heron Egretta tricolor T Wood Stork Mycteria americana E Osprey Pandion haliaetus SSC Indigo Snake Drymarchon couperi T Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus T 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 8 of the project impacts this area, a permit from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) will be required to relocate the burrow. During the site visits no other potential listed species presence was observed. It is assumed that wading birds could and do utilize the mangrove shoreline along Haldeman Creek for foraging activities. The proposed redevelopment is not expected to impact the mangrove shoreline and so would not impact this use. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 9 5 JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS The definitions in 33CFR 328.3 state that “waters of the United States” include interstate “wetlands” which are defined as those areas “inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.” Based on Version 2.0 of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, the only portions of the project site which meets the definition of a wetland are the two retention basins and the shoreline fringe along Haldeman Creek. The retention basins are man-made structures which were created out of historically upland habitat and which are an integral part of the surface water management system for the development. Permitting of the redevelopment will require review and authorization from the SFWMD. We believe that the USACE will not assert jurisdiction over the stormwater retention areas due to the fact that they are man-made, they were constructed out of uplands for the stormwater management system, and they are isolated from direct connection to “Waters of the US” by the overflow structure. The USACE will assert jurisdiction over Haldeman Creek and the adjacent shoreline mangroves. A Nationwide Permit will likely be required from the Corps to repair or upgrade the outfall structure from the development into the Creek which currently appears to be in need of maintenance (See Photo 9 in Section 3 above). See the attached FLUCFCS map for the approximate extent of the wetland areas. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 10 6 PERMITTING Based on the document research conducted to date, we could find no evidence of prior SFWMD or USACE permitting for the project. It is assumed that this project was permitted by Collier County back when the County had the delegation of authority to do so for smaller projects with no wetland impacts. No USACE or SFWMD Environmental Resource Permits were found. Environmental / Wetland SFWMD (State review) - The redevelopment plan will impact the existing surface water management system and will require permitting for the proposed changes. The wetland impacts that would potentially require mitigation would be the relocation or improvement of the outfall from the development into the creek. We would anticipate any impacts associated with this to be very minor and could be mitigated through improvements to the remainder of the shoreline. USACE (Federal review) – If the redevelopment does require relocation or improvements to the stormwater outfall into the creek, then a Nationwide permit from the Corps will be required for modifications to the existing stormwater management system (Nationwide #43). There is no direct connection between the existing stormwater detention basins and the Creek. They are separated by the overflow structure. Therefore we do not believe that the Corps will assert jurisdiction over the retention basins and no USACE permitting will be required for the reconfiguration or elimination of the two retention basins. FWS (Federal Listed Species review) – Since this is the redevelopment of an already developed property, no additional impacts to any listed species would occur. A preconstruction nesting survey may be required to insure that no wading bird or osprey nests are present in any trees that may be removed. Docks No mention was made as to whether or not docks would be a part of the redevelopment. Since the project is on Haldeman Creek, docks should be an allowed use. Water depths and the width of the waterway would limit the number and types of vessels that could moor. And docks or water access would require additional permitting with the SFWMD and the Corps. Collier County The County requires preservation of existing native habitat within a PUD to meet the Land Development Code. If the zoning on these parcels is changed to residential, it is anticipated that the County will require preservation of a portion of the existing native habitat. Since this would be a residential or mixed-use development within the Coastal High-Hazard area a minimum of 25% of the existing native habitat will need to be preserved. It is not known if the County will include the native landscape buffer along the southern boundary within native habitat calculations or exactly where the Drainage Easement for Haldeman Creek is in relationship to the vegetation but assuming a worst-case scenario, a minimum of 25% of the shoreline and buffer would need to be preserved to meet the native vegetation retention requirements. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows Site Assessment Report Amended January 31, 2019 11 7 CONCLUSION Based on the preliminary site assessment and document research conducted, we believe that wetland permitting will be limited to the relocation or improvements to the stormwater outfall structure from the development into the Creek. If docks are proposed, then additional state and federal permitting will be required for the docks. A gopher tortoise relocation permit may be required if the burrow observed remains active and the proposed redevelopment impacts the area within 25 feet of where the burrow is located. Redevelopment will likely require native habitat preservation for the County which would result in a conservation easement over at least 25% of the shoreline mangroves (assuming that they are not within the existing drainage easement). Based on current USACE review timeframes, between 4 and 8 months should be allowed for the federal permitting effort for the Nationwide permit (if required). State permitting should be accomplished concurrently with the federal permitting. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) STATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPSTATE OF FLORIDACOUNTY AERIAL VICINITY MAPNOTES:<> THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SUBJECTPROPERTYSUBJECTPROPERTY<> LATITUDE:N 26.124865<> LONGITUDE:W 81.765841SITE ADDRESS:<> 3290 TAMIAMI TRNAPLES, FL 34112Turrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg LOCATION 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERLOCATION MAP50-------------------01 OF 04COLLIER COUNTYCOLLIER COUNTY)7.(1(/':+%1)7.(1(/':+%18588288641MARCOISLANDEVERGLADESCITY9329846NAPLES90908399483783784129292983983992887846951862I-758486431856850846890896NESWKEY WESTTAMPAFT.MYERSMIAMINAPLESSUBJECTPROPERTY9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 645Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg FLUCFCS 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERFLUCFCS MAP50-------------------02 OF 04UPLAND (ACRES):WETLAND (ACRES):PROJECT (ACRES):·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYFLUCFCSDESCRIPTIONAREA(AC)141RETAIL SALES AND SERVICES15.86510DITCH1.08612E2MANGROVE SWAMPS (EXOTICS 25-50%)1.26TOTAL18.20TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUE141190612E2510612E218.2015.861.26WETLAND (ACRES):1.08SUBJECTPROPERTYAPPROXIMATEWETLAND LINE9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 646Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse NESW0150300600SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg SOILS 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERSOILS MAP50-------------------03 OF 04·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.·SOIL DATA PROVIDED BY:1998 UNITED STATES DEPT OF AGRICULTURESOIL SURVEY OF COLLIER COUNTY AREA, FL"NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYCODEDESCRIPTIONHYDRIC7IMMOKALEE FINE SAND17BASINGER FINE SANDYES34URBAN LAND-IMMOKALEE-OLDSMAR,LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM, COMPLEX40DURBIN AND WULFERT MUCKS,FREQUENTLY FLOODEDYES3471740TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUESUBJECTPROPERTY9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 647Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse NESW0100200400SCALE IN FEETTurrell, Hall & Associates, Inc.Email: tuna@turrell-associates.com3584 Exchange Ave. Naples, FL 34104-3732Marine & Environmental ConsultingPhone: (239) 643-0166Fax: (239) 643-6632REV#:CREATED:DRAWN BY:JOB NO.:SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE-DESIGNED:p:\1898.00-courthouse shadows shopping center\CAD\EIA\1898-EIA.dwg SPECIES 1/31/2019THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE.SE1.2.3.4.5.REV BY:DATE:CHK BY:CHANGED:SHEET NO.:THRMJ01-31-191898.00-11-1425COURTHOUSE SHADOWS SHOPPING CENTERLISTED SPECIES MAP50-------------------04 OF 04·SURVEY COURTESY OF:··SURVEY DATED:NOTES:·THESE DRAWINGS ARE FOR PERMITTING PURPOSES ONLY ANDARE NOT INTENDED FOR CONSTRUCTION USE."NO SURVEY DATA AVAILABLE"MM-DD-YYYYTAMIAMI TRAIL EAST (U.S. 41)PETERS AVENUESUBJECTPROPERTYACTIVE GOPHER TORTOISE BURROWACTIVE GOPHERTORTOISEBURROWAPPROXIMATEWETLAND LINE9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 648Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 1 Sharon Umpenhour From:Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Sent:Tuesday, June 11, 2019 10:53 AM To:Kristina Johnson Cc:Chase Williston; Rob Sucher Subject:RE: Courthouse Shadows - FDOT Safety Audit of 2015 Kristina, In review of the tentative 5-year work program (2020-2024), I show the following project are within the area of your project: 1. Resurfacing project- US 41 from SR 84 (Davis Blvd) to Courthouse Shadows 2. Intersection safety project - US 41 and Peters Street / Airport Pulling Road I can’t provide the exact years as the work program is tentative and has not been adopted yet, but these are the projects I’m showing right now. I would also add, there may be additional off-site improvements on US 41 directly related to this project, this review would occur at the time of permitting, when the department has an opportunity to review the proposed site plan, traffic impact study and intersection analysis. Hope this information is helpful, if you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. Mark Clark Access Management Specialist FDOT SWIFT SunGuide Center 10041 Daniels Parkway Fort Myers, Florida 33913 mark.clark@dot.state.fl.us (239) 225 -1984 From: Kristina Johnson [mailto:KJohnson@jreeng.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 12:15 PM To: Clark, Mark <Mark.Clark@dot.state.fl.us> Cc: Chase Williston <cwilliston@johnsondevelopment.net>; Rob Sucher <rsucher@johnsondevelopment.net> Subject: Courthouse Shadows - FDOT Safety Audit of 2015 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 2 EXTERNAL SENDER: Use caution with links and attachments. Mark, I hope all is well. If you recall I am working with a multi-family client on re-zoning the Courthouse Shadows property in Naples to include residential. As part of our re-zoning the County asked about any proposed FDOT improvements along US-41 and Peters, specifically from the attached Safety Audit, we need to align with or show. If you recall, you and I discussed some access improvements to the northernmost access from Courthouse Shadows to US-41, see attached email correspondence, which is fairly wide (approximately 130’). Specifically we discussed retrofitting this driveway when the project comes in for permitting. I’m not sure it would be appropriate to show anything in our re-zoning for this access since we haven’t agreed on a design yet and we probably will not submit the FDOT permit until after the zoning is approved. Other than the improvements to the northernmost access can you please let me know if FDOT has any other improvements proposed in this area that would be beneficial to show in our re-zoning? I appreciate your help and feel free to reach out with any questions. Thanks, Kristina M. Johnson, P.E. Director of Land Development J.R. Evans Engineering, P.A. 9351 Corkscrew Road, Suite 102 Estero, Florida 33928 o: 239.405.9148 c: 239.285.6999 www.jrevansengineering.com COPYRIGHT AND DISCLAIMER PROVISION: This e-mail, along with any files transmitted with it, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is confidential or privileged. If this e-mail is not addressed to you (or if you have any reason to believe that it is not intended for you), please notify the sender by return e-mail. The electronic data contained herein may be subject to change without notice. The responsibility for the accuracy of current conditions and/or digital transfers is solely that of the user. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Collier County School District School Impact Analysis Application Instructions: Submit one copy of completed application and location map for each new residential project requiring a determination of school impact to the Planning Department of the applicable local government. This application will not be deemed complete until all applicable submittal requirements have been submitted. Please be advised that additional documentation/information may be requested during the review process. For information regarding this application process, please contact the Facilities Management Department at 239-377-0267. Please check [√] type of application request (one only): [ ] School Capacity Review [ ] Exemption Letter [ ] Concurrency Determination [ ] Concurrency Determination Amendment For descriptions of the types of review please see page 3, _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I. Project Information: Project Name: ___________________________________________ Municipality: _________________________________ Parcel ID#: (attach separate sheet for multiple parcels): _______________________________________________________ Location/Address of subject property: ____________________________________________________ (Attach location map) Closest Major Intersection: _______________________________________________________________________________ II. Ownership/Agent Information: Owner/Contract Purchaser Name(s): _____________________________________________________________________ Agent/Contact Person: ________________________________________________________________________________ (Please note that if agent or contact inform ation is completed the District will forward all information to that person) Mailing address: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Telephone#: _____________________________ Fax: _________________________Em ail_________________________ I hereby certify the statements and/or information contained in this application with any attachments submitted herewith are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. _____________________________________________________ _____________________________ Owner or Authorized Agent Signature Date _________________________________________________________________________________________ III. Development Information Project Data (Unit Types defined on page 2 of application) Current Land Use Designation: Proposed Land Use Designation: Current Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Project Acreage: Unit Type: SF MF MH C G Total Units Currently Allowed by Type: Total Units Proposed by Type: Is this a phased project: Yes or No If yes, please complete page 2 of this application. Date/time stamp:___________________________ Courthouse Shadows MPUD Collier County 28750000028, 28750000523 and 28750000769 3290 and 3420 Tamiami Trail East Airport Road and Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) KRG Courthouse Shadows LLC D. Wayne Arnold, AICP 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134 239.947.1144 warnold@gradyminor.com January 22, 2019 Activity Center #16 Activity Center #16 Courthouse Shadows CPUD Courthouse Shadows MPUD 0 300 4 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Worksheet is required to be completed by the Applicant only if the project is to be phased: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF MF MH C G Totals by Yr Grand Total Grand Total Insert totals by unit type by years. Unit Types: SF = Single Family MF = Multi-Family/Apartments MH = Mobile Homes C = Condo/Co-Op G = Government EXAMPLE: Unit Type Yr1 Yr2 Yr3 Yr4 Yr5 Yr6 Yr7 Yr8 Yr9 Yr10 Yr 11-20 20+ Years SF 25 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MF 50 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- MH N/A C N/A G N/A Totals by Yr 75 25 25 25 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Grand Total 150 . 2 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Types of Reviews: School Impact Analysis: This review should be divided into two categories: - School Capacity Review (land use and rezonings), and; - Concurrency Determinations (site plans and subdivisions). School Capacity Review is the review of a project in the land use and rezoning stage of development. It is a review of the impact of the development on school capacity and is considered long range planning. This may be a review resulting in mitigation being required. In situations where the applicant may be required to mitigate, capacity may be reserved dependent on the type of mitigation. Concurrency Determination is the review of residential site plans and subdivisions to determine whether there is available capacity. When capacity is determined to be available a School Capacity Determination Letter (SCADL) will be issued verifying available capacity to the applicant and the local government. If a project exceeds the adopted level of service standards, the applicant is afforded the option of a negotiation period that may or may not result in an executed/recorded mitigation agreement Mitigation at this stage is expressed as a Proportionate Share Mitigation Agreement. For those residential developments that may have an impact but are otherwise exempt from concurrency, an exemption letter will be prepared for the applicant upon request. For those residential developments that are determined to not have an impact, a letter of no impact will be prepared for the applicant upon request. Exemption Letter: An applicant may request an Exemption Letter as documentation for the local government. These are projects that would be exempt from school concurrency review or projects that do not impact the public schools. Exemptions from school concurrency are limited to existing single family or mobile home lots of record; amendments to previously approved site plans or plats that do not increase the number of dwelling units or change the dwelling unit type; age restricted communities with no permanent residents under the age of 18; or residential site plans or plats or amendments to site plans or plats that generate less than one student; or are authorized as a Development of Regional Impact (Chapter 380, F.S.) as of July 1, 2005. Concurrency Determination Amendment: An applicant may request an amendment to a previously issued School Concurrency Determination or to an application being processed. This review may require additional staff time beyond the initial concurrency determination review and results in a modified determination being issued. An amendment could result in a negotiation period and/or a mitigation agreement being issued or a previously approved determination being modified and reissued. 3 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Tami ami TRL EGordon STBamboo DREspinal BLVD Peters AVEAreca AVE Collee CT Airport RD SCaloosa STTami ami LNCanal STCherokee STBasin STOkeechobee STOsc eo l a AV E Captains CV Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Courthouse Shadows MPD Location Map Subject Property . 380 0 380190 Feet 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 1 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com Deviations 1 through 10 were previously approved for Exhibit A Master Plan by Ordinance 2016- 45 at the December 13, 2016 BCC Hearing. Deviation 7 is being modified to include residential signage. Deviations 11 through 17 are new and being requested for the residential development option. 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off -street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10’x20’ (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The Sam’s Club currently has a square footage of approximately 143,000 s.f. According to the code for this size of a store a total of 7 loading docks would be required. Sam’s currently shows a total of 5 loading docks (12’ wide by 90’ long), based on business knowledge and historical information this number of loading docks is more than adequate to operate the business. Sam’s Club operates their own vehicle fleet and controls the timing of all truck deliveries. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet a shared 15’ landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lotsplatted tracts as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. Justification: The existing conditions are such that the landscape buffers do not exist betwee n the parent tract and outparcels. The redevelopment plan for this PUD, is to provide the buffers on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the outparcels. This area provides an average of at least an 8’ wide planting area and is even greater in some ar eas, which is an adequate width to permit landscape plantings. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 2 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5’ wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. Justification: The existing water management systems are within the required yard buffers and the redevelopment of this PUD requires additional water management system. The water management areas will have planting shelfs along the perimeter to support the required landscaping within the buffers as depicted on the attached exhibi ts. This will also permit existing mature buffers varying in width, which do not consistently meet the 20’ wide minimum for activity centers adjacent to roadways. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of park ing spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. Justification: There are existing areas in the shopping center in the n orthern part of the site that is not being redeveloped at this time where there are currently more than ten parking spaces in a row without a landscaping island. The development is requesting to leave those areas as is if there are no impacts planned. All new parking areas will provide landscape islands per the current LDC requirements. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6’ away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. Justification: The required fence or wall already exists in many places along the existing property line with established landscaping and buffering. The redevelopment proposes to leave those areas that are established so as not to disturb the existing buffer and supplement areas as needed with additional landscape material so as maximize the water management system area and landscaping buffers on the site. The placement of the fence on the property line will also allow security and safety for nearby residents by creating a barrier from the projects surface water management system. This is depicted on the attached exhibit. 6. WITHDRAWN 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 3 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with, which permits on-premise directory signs for multi-occupancy parcels with a minimum of 8 independent units containing 20,000 square feet of leasable floor area to allow the existing directory signs to be utilized to identify the residential component of the mixed-use PUD and to have fewer than 8 tenants identified on the signage panels and at the existing height of 25’ to remain. Justification: This deviation is justified as the LDC signage standards do not contain standards for signage where a PUD is developed as a mixed-use project. The applicant would utilize existing sign structures to add residential identification in addition to commercial uses, which have existing use rights to the signage that was rebuilt in 2018 following damage occurring due to Hurricane Irma. The deviation provides for a logical use of the existing signage wherein the Code is otherwise silent on signage for mixed-use. 8. WITHDRAWN 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15’ with an average width of 20’ as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. Justification: The existing project perimeter buffer for the developed portion of the project varies from approximately 13 feet in width to 20 feet, The deviation will permit the property owner to install a buffer more consistent with that immediately adjacent to the 0.28± acre par cel being added to the PUD. Please see Deviation #9 Buffer Exhibit. 10. WITHDRAWN 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 4 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 11. Deviation #11 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow no buffers on the commercial outparcels adjacent to the internal access road. Justification: The applicant is not proposing changes to the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 with this request. The existing commercial outparcels are platted lots in which many of the outparcels have existing buildings. For reference, the commercial outparcels are highlighted in yellow, the primary access road is highlighted in blue, and the redevelopment area is highlighted in green in the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” located on the following page. The purpose of this request is that the existing commercial outparcels that front US-41 could be subject to providing a 10’-Type “D” buffer on their property in the event that they redevelop or modify their site plans. This places an unfair burden on the commercial outparcels that have existing buildings and improvements on their properties. The existing improvements extend up to the primary access road leaving no room for an additional 10’-wide buffer without major impacts. The applicant requests that the existing commercial outparcels shall not be subject to providing a landscape buffer on their properties where adjacent to the primary access road. Since this request is internal to the Mixed Use planned development there are no negative impacts anticipated. Please reference the “Deviation 11 Exhibit” on the following page for more detail on the request. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 5 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 6 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 12. Deviation #12 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4., which requires a 10’-wide Type “D” buffer for commercial development adjacent to primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow a 5’-wide Type “D” buffer on the property located on the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing to redevelop the existing parent tract of the Courthouse Shadows Planned Unit Development either into new commercial or multi-family residential. The redevelopment is proposed for the property located south of the existing primary access road. Both redevelopment options propose to retain the primary access road. The commercial redevelopment option would plan to also retain the existing parking configuration on the south side of the access road. The existing parking configuration includes parking lot drive aisles that intersect with the existing access road only leaving room for a terminal landscape island in the parking area. These existing terminal landscape islands vary in width and are 5’ wide on average. As previously mentioned, the multi-family residential option proposes to retain the existing access road and also add perpendicular parking spaces and a pedestrian sidewalk on the south side of the access road. The intent of retaining the access road is to integrate the residential community with the existing commercial outparcels to create a cohesive community. The code required 10’-wide Type “D” buffer between the existing access road and multi-family residential pushes the residential furth er away from the commercial and would work against the intent to have an integrated, cohesive community. Therefore, the applicant requests to reduce this buffer from 10’-wide to a minimum of a 5’- wide on the property to the south of the primary access road. The location of the requested deviation is internal to the Courthouse Shadows mixed-use development and no negative impacts are anticipated as a result of this request. Please reference the “Deviation 12 Exhibit” on the following pages which better i llustrates the request. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 7 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 8 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 9 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 13. Deviation #13 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, which requires that Type “D” buffers be located adjacent to any primary access roads internal to a commercial development to instead allow the buffer to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the south side of the primary access road. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family residential redevelopment option on the property located on the south side of the existing access road. The multi-family redevelopment option seeks to provide perpendicular parking spaces placed directly on the south side of the existing access road that would be accessible by any vehicle utilizing the access road and patrons of the commercial outparcels and residents of the community. The additional parking would be placed perpendicular to the existing access road and a pedestrian sidewalk would be placed along the back of the parking spaces. Standard parking spaces are 18’-deep and pedestrian sidewalks are typically 5’-wide for a total distance of 23’. Please reference the “Deviation 13 Exhibit” for more detail on the request. Code requires that the Type “D’ buffer be placed adjacent to the access road however with the proposed parking and sidewalk this is not attainable. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Type “D” buffer be allowed to be placed a maximum of 25’ from the edge of pavement of the existing access road which is the 23’ as mentioned above plus an extra 2’ to allow some flexibility with the sidewalk width . This request is being made in order to provide additional parking areas for the commercial outparcels along with a pedestrian sidewalk internal to the PUD. There are no negative impacts anticipated as a result of this request. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 10 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 11 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 14. Deviation #14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1, Design Standard in the Bayshore Gateway Triangle Redevelopment area, which requires dimensional standards as shown in Tab le 1, Dimensional Requirements in the BMUD-NC, to allow the multi-family residential portion of the PUD to establish their own residential development types and dimensional standards as set forth in this PUD. Justification: The applicant is proposing specific dimensional standards for the development within this planned unit development request. Therefore LDC Section 4.02.16.A.1. shall not apply. 15. Deviation #15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.05.04.G Table 17, Parking Space Requirements – Multi-family Dwellings, which allows parking to be provided at 50 percent of normal requirements, exclusive of golf courses/clubhouse, to instead allow the 50 percent reduction of normal requirements for golf courses/ clubhouse uses. Justification: The applicant is proposing a multi-family redevelopment option for the parent property located in the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The multi -family project would include a private clubhouse for the residents to use on the property. Due to confusion on parking requirements for Multi-family clubhouses a Staff Clarification was issued under SC 2005-02. In SC 2005-02, Multi-family Dwellings are required to calculate their clubhouse parking per the requirements of LDC Section 4.05.04 Table 17 for “Golf Course.” It was also determine d in SC 2005-02 that Multi-family clubhouses were not allowed to take a 50 percent reduction from the parking requirements for clubhouses that is a reduction granted for other recreational facilities within Multi-family communities. The Project is located within the Bayshore/Gateway Redevelopment Overlay, which was established to provide incentives to encourage private sector investment into the urban area. Additionally, the multi-family redevelopment project has been designed to provide pedestrian interconnectivity between the commercial and residential uses along with additional parking areas along the access road. The requested parking deviation is consistent with redevelopment projects and with other residential projects that have private clubhouses. The applicant wishes to provide parking for the residential option at the following standards: 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows MPUD (PL20180003658) Deviation Justification June 27, 2019 Page 12 of 12 KRCSA Deviation Justification-rev2.docx Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, FL 34134  239-947-1144  engineering@gradyminor.com  www.gradyminor.com 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ORDINANCE NO. 16- 4 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-08, THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY INCREASING THE MAXIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AND OUTPARCELS BY 18,000 SQUARE FEET FOR A TOTAL OF 165,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA; BY AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2004-41, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF AN ADDITIONAL .35+/- ACRES OF LAND ZONED COMMERCIAL INTERMEDIATE DISTRICT IN THE MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT OF THE GATEWAY TRIANGLE MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERLAY (C-3- GTMUD-MXD) TO THE COURTHOUSE SHADOWS PUD; BY ADDING A MEMBERSHIP WAREHOUSE CLUB WITH ASSOCIATED LIQUOR STORE USE AND ANCILLARY FACILITY WITH FUEL PUMPS AS A PERMITTED USE; BY REVISING THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; BY AMENDING THE MASTER PLAN AND ADDING DEVIATIONS. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF US 41 AND OPPOSITE AIRPORT PULLING ROAD IN SECTIONS 11, 12 AND 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONSISTING OF 20.35+/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDZA-PL20120001515] WHEREAS, KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS, LLC represented by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP of Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the PUD and change the zoning classification of the additional herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 1 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 Cq 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) SECTION ONE: ZONING CLASSIFICATION The zoning classification of approximately .35 acres of the herein described real property located in Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida is changed from a Commercial Intermediate District in the Mixed Use Subdistrict of the Gateway Triangle Mixed Use District Overlay (C-3-GTMUD-MXD) to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district and when combined with the existing Courthouse Shadows PUD provides for a 20.35+/- acre project in accordance with Ordinance No. 92-8, as amended by this Ordinance. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 04-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is/are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The Table of Contents of the PUD document attached to Ordinance Number 92-8, PUD is hereby amended as follows: TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE ii STATEMENT OF INTENT iii SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & DESCRIPTION 1-1 SECTION II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS 2-1 SECTION III GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 3-1 EXHIBIT—"A"MASTER PLAN EXHIBIT—"B"LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT—"C"DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS EXHIBIT—"D" BUILDING SIGNAGE Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 2 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 r_,, 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) SECTION THREE: AMENDMENT TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The first paragraph of the Statement of Compliance of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit"A"to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to express the interest of Collier Development Corporation KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC to develop 20.0820.3± acres of land located in Sections 11, 12 and 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. SECTION FOUR: AMENDMENT TO THE STATEMENT OF INTENT OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 The Statement of Intent of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to express the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to commence development of a commercial activity center planned unit of development. It is the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to continue the development of architecturally unified commercial establishments built on the project site and on the concept of planned arrangement and unified management control. The unified development approval under the PUD district designation will ensure that the proieet is aesthetically pleasing and functionally efficient. It will allow an efficient pattern of internal circulation to be established, and limited points of vehicular ingress and egress. These functional and aesthetic advantages, which cannot be provided in the conventional strip commercial development configurations, have been maximized and shall be sustained in the approval of this planned unit of development. This planned unit of development shall be limited to specific commercial uses which are compatible with uses permitted within activity centersand inter related to the business, operations of a shopping center. It is the interest of the developer Collier Development Corporation to continue development in accordance with the regulations of this Planned Unit of Development. It is the purpose of this document to set forth the complete plan, regulations and conditions of development along with other information required in accordance with the PUD ordinance. It is further the intent of the developer Collier Development Corporation to commence development once all necessary permits and approvals have been granted. Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 3 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 fi 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) SECTION FIVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.2 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 1.2 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The subject property is currently under the control of Collier Development Corporation, 3003 North Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida 33944KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC, 30 S. Meridian St., Suite 1100, Indianapolis, IN 46204. SECTION SIX: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD ACREAGE Section 1.3 of the PUD Document, attached as "Exhibit A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced by: See Exhibit B, Legal Description, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION SEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.1 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.1 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: The purpose of this Section is to set forth the regulations for development of the proposed 20.0820.3± acre Planned Unit Development identified on the Master Plan. SECTION EIGHT: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.3 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.3 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.3. USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 4 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) A. Principal Uses: 1. Antique Shops 2. Appliance stores 3. Art studios 4. Art supplies 5. Automobile parts stores 6. Automobile service stations, including facilities with fuel pumps. 7. Bakery shops (including baking incidental to retail or wholesale sales) 8. Banks (branch or main office) and financial institutions 9. Barber and beauty shops 10. Bath supply stores 11. Blueprint shops 12. Bicycle sales and services 13. Book stores 14. Carpet and floor covering sales (including storage and installation) 15. Child care centers 16. Cocktail lounges, commercial recreation (indoor) 17. Clothing stores 18. Commercial schools 19. Confectionery and candy stores 20. Delicatessen; drive-in restaurants, drug stores; dry cleaning shops; dry goods stores and department stores. 21. Electric supply stores 22. Fish stores; florist shops; food markets (including facilities with fuel pumps); furniture stores; furrier shops and fast food restaurants. 23. Gift shops, gourmet shops 24. Hardware stores; health food stores; hobby supply stores; home for the aged 25. Ice cream stores; ice sales; interior decorating showrooms 26. Jewelry stores 27. Laundries, leather goods, and luggage stores; locksmiths and liquor stores 28. Meat market; medical office or clinic for human care; millinery shops; motion picture theater; music stores 29. Membership warehouse club with associated liquor store use and ancillary facility with fuel pumps. The facility with fuel pumps may not be open to the general public and shall be for only members of the membership warehouse club. 2.930. Office (retail or professional); office supply stores 3031. Paint and wallpaper stores; pet shops, pet supply stores; photographic equipment stores; post office 3-1-32. Radio and television sales and service; small appliance stores; shoe sales and repairs; restaurants 3233. Souvenir stores; stationery stores; shopping centers; supermarkets subject to site development plan approval. 3334. Tailor shops; tobacco shops; toy shops; tropical fish stores 3435. Variety stores; veterinary offices and clinics (no outside kenneling) Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 5 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 f 12/14/16 L; 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 3536. Watch and precision instrument sales and repair 3-637. Any other commercial use of professional service normally allowed in C-3 Zoning District with approval of the Zoning Director as determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") or the Hearing Examiner. SECTION NINE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.4 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.4 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.4 MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS F. Minimum internal setback from the additional 0.28± acre FDOT surplus parcel shall be zero (0) feet. SECTION TEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2.8 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 2.8 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 2.8 SIGNS A. Individual Business Signs: Wall, marquee, or hanging sings signs below the canopy of the shopping eenteiprimary retail building, with an area not more than twenty percent (20%) of the total square footage of the front wall or facade area under the canopy, with a maximum of 250 square feet per rental unit, consistent with the locations shown on Exhibit D - Building Signage. SECTION ELEVEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.2A OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.2A of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 6 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 r 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) A. The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative preliminary development plan as prepared by Coastal Engineering Consultants, Inc. Drawing No. 91 223 Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., Exhibit "A" Master Plan. The maximum square footage of the shopping center and outparcels shall not exceed a total of 147,000165,000 square feet. SECTION TWELVE: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.5 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.5 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 3.5 WATER MANAGEMENT A. An adequate access easement shall be provided for access through the shopping center to Haldeman Creek. B. Petitioner shall obtain a right-of-way permit for all construction within the Haldeman Creek easement. C. For purposes of stormwater management, the proposed redevelopment project shall be treated as a new development project; therefore, it will comply with the existing offsite allowable discharge rates and retention/ detention criteria, as the date of this PUD amendment approval. SECTION THIRTEEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.6 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.6 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 3.6 TRAFFIC A. The applicant is advised that future development activities are subject to land use controls consistent with the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as amended. Such controls may, from time to time, preclude the applicant's ability to initiate, continue and/or to complete the project improvements as presently scheduled. B. The owner, its successors, or assigns shall pay for the design and construction of a five foot sidewalk along Peter's Avenue up to the sum of$ 50,000.00, which shall represent its payment in-lieu consistent with LDC Section 6.06.02 for the entire site. Owner shall make payment to County within 30 days of approval of the Site Development Plan for the redevelopment. Words struckgh are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 7 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) C. Upon redevelopment of the site with a single large format retail user such as Sam's Club, the owner shall close the southernmost vehicular access to Peters Avenue. The project shall be permitted to have an emergency vehicle only entrance as shown on the Master Plan. D. The proposed new-revised parking island layout and building configuration shown on the master plan are conceptual and are not part of this zoning petition approval. Review and approval of any proposed site changes including but not limited to access entries, parking islands, and drive aisles shall be done at time of site development order (SDP/SDPA) E. The development is limited to the 662 total net new PM peak hour trips utilized in the Traffic Impact Statement dated March 18, 2016. SECTION FOURTEEN: AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.7 OF THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 Section 3.7 of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended as follows: 3.7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Text break *** *** *** *** *** H. Native vegetation shall be retained or replanted in accordance with SDP 98-75. As an alternative, the developer may also elect to provide offsite preservation of native vegetation in accordance with the LDC. SECTION FIFTEEN: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO REVISE EXHIBIT "A" MASTER PLAN Exhibit "A" Master Plan of the PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit "A", Master Plan, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Words struck through are deleted; words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 8 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) SECTION SIXTEEN: AMENDMENT TO THE PUD DOCUMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 92-8 TO ADD EXHIBIT "C", DEVIATIONS The PUD Document, attached as Exhibit "C" to Ordinance No. 92-8, is hereby amended to add the following: See Exhibit"C", Deviations, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION SEVENTEEN: EFFECTIVE DATE This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 34k—day of 1.2.---y, 2016. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BR K, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA A "1 1.4, i i(Yx: t By: Q By: k Deputy Clerk D NNA FIALA, Chairman St as 0 .K - WN , sign ureonly. ;; t. r 6t a ;R'. Approved as to form and legality: 4A Ci(-- He di Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Master Plan Exhibit B - Legal Description Exhibit C—Deviations including Buffer Exhibit This ordinance filed with the Exhibit D—Building Signage tory of tote s Office thefdoyof G"Y'Y aOl co and acknowledgeme 4,f .dhat fill ree ived this It(-410 day of By .0 Words struck through are deleted;words underlined are added 12-CPS-01190]218 Courthouse Shadows PUD Page 9 of 9 PUDZA-PL20120001515 12/14/16 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) iv -... z0.,..z d z m z ya o oom" Ox on 0- D mNrmmz NG) 3( 1N3AvSb31_ o zOmmay o° Z 2 N Z z w p zl no e3' C' rnOmG m Z0Nn omTr 1, O = TZ D C ma< o nmmm Gl m m O v mp Immym, a„ -, D Om 5 m N v• V) Sm0 20 mC4Or0m o 11z8zPci0mr O zz R ^ i, GO o r qGO / 1moM- 73- cP? Zno Z - iamO 0 73 o Na 3 mXZZmmPI mnr- 71m EY mH wH 0 nzy m n 110Zm r .' II n : gm n0 ' r m oop 4/ \'' o s ' BR 16r pi mm D z g; o L. X N d636 4' '>/ 2 Im o 0 Iz F N 0 ' O I m I' o oo y NI A N& A‘ I D ti.;/ Izmm ©/' Ozc c @ 6 rp El NI Z ZN o i. o ml 1, m O 0. 1 t - mov O x ® 5N li og` ; O D m! yAz AI poo 0 oz ooG \ s I pzW 5r G mA C m i ' i P I d Oz F 11 W C F • m C . & LU! p 6 a yOnZ O N 0 2 37.a' N Q - 01< nr o mZDL? nO - op Once r- m TOm nc, A 0 v x I an r Ea A c1 D) rTi C9m co m o n Sa m A r/ z b c m 0 = mo0 D mz in t e tC c0r 0 m I> b m m nz Fe z I u u u 6, o cm Z' l' qco orno mN C o 0 w A o pover I i r_ OX n D I 1 19 1\ z oo 4/ i s. csmwaomOco- venom anon raNacalGramon, m man. wms loon ma 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Courthouse Shadows PUD Exhibit B Legal Description BEING A PORTION OF LAND LYING IN SECTIONS 11, 12, & 13, TOWNSHIP 50 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGIN AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAT OF COURTHOUSE SHADOWS AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 29 PAGES 40-41 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID PLAT FOR THE FOLLOWING NINE (9) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE S 89° 01' 07" W, A DISTANCE OF 838.57 FEET; 2. THENCE N 00° 15' 36" W, A DISTANCE OF 276.13 FEET; 3. THENCE N 89° 59' 12" W, A DISTANCE OF 331.40 FEET; 4. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 30.00 FEET; 5. THENCE S 89° 28' 37" W, A DISTANCE OF 140.47 FEET; 6. THENCE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 757.17 FEET; 7. THENCE N 89° 15' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.91 FEET; 8. THENCE N 00° 18' 23" W, A DISTANCE OF 100.34 FEET; 9. THENCE S 89° 13' 43" W, A DISTANCE OF 138.71 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF PETERS AVENUE AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 56 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID EAST LINE N 00° 11' 18" W, A DISTANCE OF 116.95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS BOOK 3939, PAGE 463 OF SAID PUBLIC RECORDS; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LANDS FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE 3) COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. THENCE N 38° 02' 06" E, A DISTANCE OF 138.66 FEET; 2. THENCE S 82° 55' 44" E, A DISTANCE OF 23.32 FEET; 3. THENCE S 51° 37' 15" E, A DISTANCE OF 37.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LANDS; THE SAME BEING A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF TAMIAMI TRAIL US 41); THENCE RUN ALONG SAID LINE FOR THE REMAINING COURSES AND DISTANCES: 1. S 52° 02' 35" E, A DISTANCE OF 85.20 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12° 59' 04", A RADIUS OF 1773.76 FEET, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 45° 33' 03" E, 401.11 FEET; THENCE IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION, WITH SAID CURVE TO THE RIGHT, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 401.97 FEET TO THE END OF SAID CURVE; 2. THENCE S 39° 03' 31" E, A DISTANCE OF 1306.74 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 20.35 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Page 1 of 1 n. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C DEVIATIONS FROM LDC REQUIREMENTS 1. Deviation #1 seeks relief from Section 4.05.06.B of the LDC, which requires 3 loading spaces for the first 50,000 SF of each retail store, warehouse, wholesale establishment, industrial activity, terminal, market, restaurant, funeral home, laundry, dry cleaning establishment, or similar use which has an aggregate floor area of 20,000 but not over 50,000 plus one additional off-street loading space for each additional 25,000 SF over 50,000 SF or major fraction thereof which would require 7 loading spaces to instead allow a total of 5 loading spaces measuring 10'x20' (200 s.f.). This deviation applies to the location shown on the Master Plan. 2. Deviation #2 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02, Table 2.4 of the LDC, which allows a shared 15' landscape buffer to be provided between platted commercial building lots with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet, to permit a single 8-foot wide average internal landscape buffer between separately owned lots as shown on the Conceptual Master Plan with each property contributing 4 feet. This deviation applies to the Outlot parcels as shown on the Master Plan. 3. Deviation #3 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.D1 and D2 of the LDC, which requires the water management system to not exceed 50 percent of the square footage of any required side, rear, or front yard landscape buffer and also have a minimum of a 5' wide level planted area, to allow the water management system to encroach 100% into the perimeter landscaping buffer. 4. Deviation #4 seeks relief from Section 4.06.03.B of the LDC, which requires all rows of parking spaces shall contain no more than ten parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscaping island, to allow up to 19 parking spaces uninterrupted by a required landscape island. 5. Deviation #5 seeks relief from Section 5.03.02.H and 5.05.05.D.2 of the LDC, which requires a wall or fence to be 6' away from the property line when a non-residential development lies contiguous to or opposite a residentially zoned district, to allow the wall or fence to be on or adjacent to the property line. 6. WITHDRAWN. 7. Deviation #7 seeks relief from Section 5.06.04.F.3 regarding directory signs to allow the existing directory signs with fewer than 8 tenant panels and at the existing height of 25' to remain. 8. WITHDRAWN 9. Deviation #9 seeks relief from Section 4.06.02.C.4 of the LDC, which requires a perimeter landscape buffer for properties within Activity Centers to be a minimum of 20 feet in width, to permit a minimum width of 15' with an average width of 20' as shown on the Buffer Exhibit for the 0.28 acre parcel located at the intersection of Peters Avenue and U.S. 41 East. The buffer may include traffic control devices and utilities. However, tree plantings shall not be placed over or within six feet of any public water, reclaimed water, or sewer utility lines and Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL20120001515 Last Revised 12/15/2016 Page 1 of 2 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 704 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Courthouse Shadows CPUD EXHIBIT C shall not interfere with any County or state traffic control devices or access to all county or state traffic control equipment and devices and utilities. Whenever plantings obstruct the ingress and/or egress for the purposes of the easement they shall be removed upon request by the City of Naples, county or state, and in the event of failure by the owner to so move them, the city, county or state may do so and the expense of same charged to the property owner. When plantings placed over utility lines cause damage to the utilities systems, the property owner shall bear the cost of repair or replacement of the damaged utilities. 10. WITHDRAWN. Courthouse Shadows PUD, PL201200015/5 Last Revised 12/15/2016 Page 2 of 2 1 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) I 110isiiiiimin am , m, i ' 1, 7 r cu y 0 i ,._.,, 41" ------ 1[\___' ..., a . I Cr i CO o 0p N 00 ......._ -O rom... NI a] L m co r-- f- 44. IIIIII I v h 0 11111 G,,,,,,,,, , i,., y Y f 77.3" r, 1, ' .- DO\-\,,. / /// 44.____„,../ 7;..„ Cn i im, 2-.> / co_ 10 aa/ COCN / - // z.,‘ p 7/ / / d L f h„ A..\ i , , z 7. _ Fes! 1 I N., , wo it f j r a fes. N ? D C 0 C < CD NND n ( D C NFt; CD ( D 9' N O_ rn O 3 m• am3 ° mg ' ,, m 3 s v x o m ° X c,_ 0NS N N N O v a N cc) Cr, D NnmO . . OO V - pN — 51 S a c '= O N S C 2 0 D N O N c0 5' L • O 5. ( D cp1 13” Q gi 4. c., CCD `/ Dy' a-. N co = m , fl co D mX a m IIEILA'nC N o , 0N CD 0 a ' O N ( DD o ,-_ CD N ` . N< O a tQ ? n Z 9; 5' vSt S m o w m mo rA 7 OatB v3m F sm yDIIIS tio- S ? CD CO 0 S 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Q- 0- - 0- 0 g v - 0 - a o CD LA 03c , 74- (,_ 1,). o' DJ n ' O "' c 3 C Q 0 Q- 0.).) o ? 0 < — zx D Q- ch Q_ O D- t N 0 t- n'-' n p 3rt 0 ( ID D t9 ( D n p rr N v C Q h O O rt h n C v Z d p Cm cinD' -•CD AT; rtrta cr nN3 SD- = = 0- D- n m 0 N C) CD C p D - 1 no z i, n. O O e, D i. .- f. N v . r - S O co 00 O S. ( D o' woo' el I r- r v p CD -- CD oil CDD . C N = iii C D V•. z y Tl i O I 7 n o a ` C 0 > ( to 3 ea. 1 _ z v i • y o o Pa' 3n b V 1 r---- \CD C 7 F. Nwttii ,.(,:? i D m Cf) t" and N f Z7 C z trin i n oA i I/ \ / / O D I V V \ v/O z Fri 1:• V il*:. / '...: 1 COC CI b D o Cb ISlbD F O I Z,-- 0) HI 52 O0) O I OGM. LOCAL\ FILES\ PLANNING\ PROJ - PLANNING\ CSPUDA- COURTHOUSE SHADOWS( PL20120001515)\ DRAWINGS\ BUFFER EXHIBIT( REV2). DWG 9/ 26/ 2016 11; 41 AM 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse 0 0 m zp z p n z N N z o u 0fc D O no mO r m g 1 m m 1 i 2 m o m m D K DrTo n1 D Z Z IMO o 1 SI z 0 0z 1 o 0 U1 a N E Q y O s 3 J o CD H 4474 Z S2 Its N 00 2. 0 Cf 00 44/ 440 1 CD o n{ 0IYw r II 0 ro ri I 0 rn 41, 0 v m X an. ' 1, 1 o A7. m D Zp s, OO m m O m m 0 3 1 4 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse ll% 4, .4;.,„, 410 oowe FLORIDA DEPARTMENT Of STATE RICK SCOTT KEN DETZNER Governor Secretary of State December 19, 2016 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101-3044 Attention: Ann Jennejohn, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 16-45, which was filed in this office on December 19, 2016. Sincerely, Ernest L. Reddick Program Administrator ELR/lb R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Telephone: (850) 245-6270 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) C/RRRCCC/RRRCCCRRCCC/RRRC/RCCCFILE DATE:COURTHOUSE SHADOWSSIDEWALK CONNECTIVITYSHEET:J.R. EVANS ENGINEERING, P.A.9351 CORKSCREW ROAD, SUITE 102ESTERO, FLORIDA 33928PHONE: (239) 405-9148FAX: (239) 288-2537WWW.JREVANSENGINEERING.COM104/201900200'100'SCALE: 1" = 200'NQ:\LAND 2017\466. COURTHOUSE SHADOWS APARTMENTS\00466-01 SITE PLAN DESIGN\00-AUTOCAD\EXHIBITS\0046601E03 - MASTER CONCEPT PLAN\0046600E0304.DWG 4/5/2019 3:36 PM J.R.ENGINEERINGEVANSON-SITE SIDEWALKEXISTING OFFSITESIDEWALK (BLUE)ON-SITE SIDEWALKON-SITESIDEWALK9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 710Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 711Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. Ph. 239-947-1144 Fax. 239-947-0375 3800 Via Del Rey EB 0005151 LB 0005151 LC 26000266 Bonita Springs, FL 34134 www.gradyminor.com April 17, 2019 RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment Dear Sir or Madam: A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D. Wayne Arnold, AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. of Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A., representing KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC (Applicant) will be held on: Tuesday, May 7, 2019, 6:00 pm at the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Advisory Board Meeting, Naples Botanical Garden Buehler Auditorium, 4820 Bayshore Drive, Naples, Florida 34112 KRG Courthouse Shadows, LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County, seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP) Amendment and a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment. The GMP amendment proposes to revise language of the Activity Center Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element to allow an additional 12.8 units per acre within 10 acres of the Courthouse Shadows PUD. The CPUD amendment application is a companion application to the GMP amendment and proposes to amend the 20.35+/- acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. The subject property (Courthouse Shadows MPUD) is comprised of approximately 20.35± acres, located the southeast corner of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (U.S. 41) and Airport Road in Sections 11, 12, 13, Township 50 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only, it is not a public hearing. Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor.com/planning. If you have questions or comments, they can be directed by mail, phone, fax or e-mail to: sumpenhour@gradyminor.com, phone 239-947-1144, fax 239-947-0375, Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A., 3800 Via Del Rey, Bonita Springs, Florida 34134. Sincerely, Sharon Umpenhour Senior Planning Technician 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) RE: Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment April 17, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Project Location Map: 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 500' 3/25/2019 1 NAME1 NAME2 NAME3 NAME4 NAME5 NAME6 LEGAL1 LEGAL2 LEGAL3 LEGAL4 2947 PETERS AVE INVESTMENT LLC 2210 VANDERBILT RD ATE 1201 NAPLES, FL 34109---0 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 6 + 7 OR 767 PG 1684 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 9 + 10 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 7 + 8 3230 TAMIAMI LLC 4980 TAMIAMI TRAIL N STE 201 NAPLES, FL 34110---1416 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 1-6 INCL 15FT ALLEY LESS R/W DESC IN OR 107 PG 449 3550 SOUTH TRAIL 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13,E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 420FT TO POB, E 286.03FT, SWLY 129.90FT, W ADDORIO, JOHN 3339 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5959 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 39 LESS N 15FT, AND LOT 38 ADELA, ARIEL SOCARRAS 3420 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5932 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 15 OR 544 PG 250 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 4 & 5 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 3 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TRL N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 25 & 26 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC % AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TRL N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 27 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 1 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 2 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP, INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 28 AREA REALTY FLORIDA TWO LLC %AJS REALTY GROUP, INC 4980 TAMIAMI TR N #201 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOT 29 ASLI, ABBAS AHRABI 98 EAST AVE NAPLES, FL 34108---3420 N G + T C L F NO 2 11 50 25 LOT 124 LESS N 1300FT LESS R/W ,ALG WITH BEG AT PT ON NLY R/W US 41, 108.15FT SELY FROM BECK, EDWARD F & BARBARA E 1322 ROUTE 83 CAPE MAY CT HSE, NJ 08210---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 8 BENENATI, JASON D 3324 COLLEE COURT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 E 110FT OF W 220FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL BISSAILLON EST, FAITH 3353 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 S 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 1654 1408 BLACKLIDGE, LISA 3334 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 25 BLACKLIDGE, MICHAEL & ELLEN 486 LAGOON AVENUE NAPLES, FL 34108---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 24 BRAWNER, JAMES C & LEEANN 3097 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5905 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 27 OR 1840 PG 662 BROWN, DONNA 130-04-225TH ST SPRINGFIELD GARD, NY 11413---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 10 BURTON, WILLARD D & PEGGY L 3500 TAMIAMI LN NAPLES, FL 34112---5946 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK C N1/2 OF LOT 5 + ALL LOT 6 OR 631 PG 655 + OR 373 PG 865 CADENHEAD ET UX, ROBERT E 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOTS 10 + 11 OR 334 PG 543 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 9 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 10 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 14 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 13 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, LYNNE V 3417 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5947 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 12 OR 1185 PG 1438 CADENHEAD, TARA LEIGH 3434 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 11 CARDILLO, JOHN P DANIEL R MONACO 3550 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4905 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC 13,E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT, N 89 DEG E 706.03FT TO POB, N 89 DEG E 139.60FT, S 38 DEG E CARR, PHILIP R 111 MAHOGANY DR NAPLES, FL 34108---2926 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 9 CARROLL, CINDY PO BOX 990387 NAPLES, FL 34116---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 29 CATHOLIC CHARITIES DIOCESE OF VENICE INC PO BOX 2116 VENICE, FL 34284---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 37-40, LESS THAT PORTION OF LOT 39 AS DESC IN OR 2072 PG 1405 CAZIMIR, YVES 2973 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 32 OR 1851 PG 1825 CHRISSY'S AT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 2412 PINEWOODS CIR NAPLES, FL 34105---2538 12 50 25 OUTPARCEL 1,COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS:COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12,S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG COLEMAN II, JAMES E & RACHEL 3148 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 23 & S 10FT OF LOT 22 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 EASTGATE BLK A S 30 FT OF LOT 23 COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 PAR 3 COURTHOUSE COMPLEX DESC AS; COMM SW CNR SEC 12, RUN N ALG W SEC LINE 1858.24 FT, E 70 FT TO E LINE COLLIER CNTY C/O REAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 3335 TAMIAMI TR E, STE 101 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 COMM SE CNR SEC 12,N ALG W SEC LI 2162.78FT, N 89 DEG E 654.12FT, N 87 DEG E 873FT, S 750FT, S 87 DEG W COLLIER COUNTY % OFFC OF COUNTY ATTORNEY 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E STE 800 NAPLES, FL 34112---0 12 50 25 COMM SW CNR SEC 12,N 89 DEG E 1216.63FT, N 89 DEG E 75FT POB, N 24 DEG E 45FT, S 66 DEG E 80FT, S 24 CONNOLLY, COLLEEN 3501 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 S105FT OF FOLL:PT ON W LI SEC, 865FT S OF NW CNR,E 175FT TO POB, SAID PT ON E LI OF 60FT R/W, CONT E 135FT COURTHOUSE SHADOWS CONSOLIDATED HOLDINGS INC % POTEET PROPERTIES PO BOX 10667 NAPLES, FL 34101---667 12 50 25 BEG AT SW COR SEC,RUN N 1213.44FT, S 52 DEG E 167.05FT TO PT OF CURVE, FOLL CURVE 422.10FT TO POB, CONT CRAIG, ROBERT F & KAREN M 131 JORDAN RD EMERSON, NJ 07630---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 16 DENISON, MATTHEW 420 WEBER BLVD N NAPLES, FL 34120---1638 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 23 DEVARISTE, JEAN E VIERGELENE DEVARISTE 2872 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 5 + 6 OR 1975 PG 363 DEZEGO, TIMOTHY & ROBYN 3367 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 16 OR 1439 PG 1625 DONAUS, ERNEST BERTHUDE FAUGUE 2972 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 11 ELLEN D WERNICK REV TRUST 3388 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 BEG AT A PT 183FT N OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE + W SEC LI E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB, ELLEN D WERNICK REV TRUST 3388 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 FROM PT OF INTERSEC OF N LI OF ARECA AVE WITH W SEC LI RUN N 130FT FOR POB, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S FAIRHOMES PEARL PROPERTIES LLC 10 STATION LN UNIONVILLE L3R 1R4 13 50 25 N100FT OF FOLL: FROM PT ON W LI OF SEC 13- 50-25 DISTANT 865FT S OF NW1/4 CNR OF SEC, RUN E175 FT TO POB, FAWNKY LLC 20533 BISCAYNE BLVD #1238 AVENTURA, FL 33180---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 24 FIRST CHOICE STORAGE LC 4401 GULFSHORE BLVD N # 704 NAPLES, FL 34103---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 1-4,LESS STIPULATED ORDER OF TAKING OR 2012 PG 1717 CASE#94-1880-CA PAR 137 FOWLER, JENNIFER C 3422 OSCEOLA AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5936 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 12 GALLOWAY, SCOTT & HEATHER 3416 CALOOSA STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 14 GARCIA, ISAAC MEDRANO LETICIA RAMOS GARCIA 2998 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 12 OR 1185 PG 479 GARCON, JEAN L & MARIE A 2947 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 33 OR 1861 PG 178 GERTRUDE L STURGILL TRUST 2898 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 8 GLAUB, MARYANNE 3064 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S 10FT OF LOT 15, LOT 16 + N 25FT LOT 17 GRACIA, ANTHONY 3160 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 10 GRACIA, ANTHONY P 3160 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 9-PLAT-DB 39-194 HANDELMAN, LUCILE 1527 GULF COAST DR NAPLES, FL 34110---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 HARVEY, MARIAN D 2897 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5961 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS 1/2 INT LOT 35 HERBERT, CHARLES N & ANNA K 3500 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5902 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N 45 FT OF LOT 6 & S 30 FT OF LOT 7 OR 789 PG 238 HOLMES, LILLIE 3412 CALOOSA ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 13 HUGHES, SHARON K 3416 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 9 + N 15FT OF LOT 8 OR 764 PG 1825 I E C RENTAL INC 3994 MERCANTILE AVE NAPLES, FL 34104---0 13 50 25 COMM AT NW CNR SEC 13 , E 331.37FT, S 281.88, N 89DEG E 150FT TO POB N 89DEG E 100FT, S 182.72FT, N 89DEG W I E C RENTALS INC 3994 MERCANTILE AVE NAPLES, FL 34104---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F LOT 11 OR 1136 PG 2026 INGROSSO, ANGELA MARCO ZANETTI 3124 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5918 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 11, AND COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 21 AND THAT PORTION OF LOT 20 DESC IN JEAN & VIERGELENE LLC 2848 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5962 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 7 JOHNSON JR, ROAN E 3000 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5948 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR SEC, E 331.37FT, S 281.88FT TO POB,N 89 DEG E 250FT, S 182.72FT,N 89 DEG W 250FT, N 180FT JONES, GINGER G WILLIAM M JONES EST 3508 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5906 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 16 JONES, MICHAEL E STEVEN J HAMMER 3022 NE 20TH CT FT LAUDERDALE, FL 33305---1808 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 11 + N1/2 OF LOT 12 JONES, SHADE 203 TORREY PINES PT NAPLES, FL 34113---7541 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 41 JOSEPH, JEAN & ESTHER 3415 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5933 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 9 KAREN L BEATTY REV LIV TRUST 3113 BASIN ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 40 + N 15FT LOT 39 OR 1458 PG 336 KATHLEEN JOAN PFEFFER TRUST 28439 DEL LAGO WAY BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---2809 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 5 KING II, JAMES D & JANE G 3308 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---5916 13 50 25 LOT 6 UNREC PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 DESC AS:BEG AT A PT 342FT N OF THE KING II, JAMES D & JANE H 3308 CAPTAINS CV NAPLES, FL 34112---5916 13 50 25 FROM PT OF N LINE OF ARECA AVE E 115FT, N 395FT TO POB, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT,E 115FT TO POB KRAL, MARIANNE 3416 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 15 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS II LLC 30 SOUTH MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---0 EASTGATE BLK A THAT PORTION OF LOTS 1-3 AND VACANT ALLEY ADJACENT ALL DESC IN OR 3939 PG 463 KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT E KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT A KRG COURTHOUSE SHADOWS LLC 30 S MERIDIAN ST STE 1100 INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204---3565 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT B KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 6 OR 1428 PG 1565 KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 25 KYLE, MARK 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 26 OR 1604 PG 1126 KYLE, MARK W 3216 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 7 LAGUERRE, MULCAR MARIE ELIE NEPTUNE 2873 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 36 LAMBERT, J C APOLLO LAMBERT MATTHEW LAMBERT 3450 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 33962---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK F N1/2 OF LOT 7 + S 45FT OF LOT 8 OR 698 PG 294 LARSON, SUSAN BABB 1956 5TH STREET S NAPLES, FL 34102---0 13 50 25 LOT 8 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DES.IN OR 5-66 ALSO FURTHER DESC LARSON, THOMAS G 1956 5TH ST S NAPLES, FL 34102---0 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, S 460FT, E 175FT, N 70FT, E 75.10FT, N 20FT, W 12.50 FT,N 88.12FT, E 72.40FT, S LBD HOLDINGS LLC 27214 JOLLY ROGER LN BONITA SPRINGS, FL 34135---0 13 50 25 LOT 5 UNREC. PLAT OF KINNEY PROPERTY IN W1/2 OF W1/2 OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 AS DESC IN OR 845 PG 1341 POList_500_PL20180003658.xls 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 500' 3/25/2019 2 LOVE JR, JOHN N PO BOX 9822 NAPLES, FL 34101---9822 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 14 + N 40FT OF LOT 15 OR 1221 PG 1986 LOYOLA, JOSE L 2831 STORTER AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---0 13 50 25 BEG AT PT ON W LI OF SEC, N 77FT OF ARECA AVE, E 115FT, N 53FT, W 115FT, S 53FT TO POB, AKA LOT 2 OR MENDES, ANTONE C 2256 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES, FL 34112---4706 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 25 OR 1572 PG 560 MK REALTY 3440 TAMIAMI TRL LLC 6685 COLLIER BLVD NAPLES, FL 34114---0 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT D MORENO, GIOBERT PETRONILLA ALAMEIDA 3419 CHEROKEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 8 MORGAN, JOHN MORGAN, RACHEL 3164 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5930 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 24 MORGAN, ROBERT T & FRANCES 3282 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 1 OR 1288 PG 1647 MOTT, DAVID K 3400 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5934 13 50 25 COMM NW CNR, E 331.37FT, S281.88FT, E250 FT TO POB, E170FT, S184.64 FT,W170FT, N182.72FT TO POB .72 MOXAM, ABDIEL D MARIE S RIVERA 2540 53RD TER SW NAPLES, FL 34116---7652 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 34 NAPIER, DONNA M 3317 CAPTAINS COVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5900 13 50 25 N 100FT OF PROP DES IN OR 2611 PG 592 NICHOLS, ARTHUR S & STELLA M 3112 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 17 NKDH CAPITAL LLC 20533 BISCAYNE BLVD STE 1238 MIAMI, FL 33180---0 EASTGATE BLK B LOT 20, S30FT OF LOT 19 AND N 10FT LOT 21 NUNEZ, JAIME A LORENZA LUCRECIO NICOLAS 3174 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 20 LESS OR 1691 PG 1469, OR 1156 PG 1888 NYGARD, CHRISTOPHER M 3051 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 28 O CONNOR, JOHN & COLLEEN TRACY LARETZ ANGELA LARETZ O'CONNOR 7836 FARGO RD YALE, MI 48097---4819 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 3 PLAT DB 39 PG 190 OR 1087 PG 2100 PAMELA R SIZEMORE TRUST 2996 PETERS AVE NAPLES, FL 34112---5928 EASTGATE BLK B S1/2 OF LOT 12 + ALL OF LOT 13 PARLIER, RUTH DARLENE 3502 CALOOSA STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 16 PAUL W BURKE JR LIVING TRUST 107 OAKWOOD PL PARKERSBURG, WV 26104---0 EASTGATE BLK B S 25FT OF LT 17, LT 18, N 20 FT OF LOT 19 PENSCO TRUST PO BOX 173859 DENVER, CO 80217---0 13 50 25 W 115FT OF S 77FT OF N 805FT OF NW1/4 OR 1472 PG 2269 PICKLE, ERIC 458 BURNS RD LULING, TX 78648---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 30-31 PICON, CARLOS MANUEL MARIA TERESA RAMIL 3505 OKEECHOBEE ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 7 RAMOS FAMILY LAND TRUST 3122 GORDON STREET NAPLES, FL 34102---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 18 REIF, ROBERT S SUSAN M LIRVAK 454 SADDLEWORTH CIR ORLANDO, FL 32826---0 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 2-PLAT-DB 40-21 OR 1683 PG 09 ROBERT A FLICK REV TRUST PO BOX 835 NAPLES, FL 34106---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 22 ROBERT A FLICK REV TRUST PO BOX 835 NAPLES, FL 34106---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 18 ROSENDAHL, CHRISTOPHER S MATTHEW S ROSENDAHL 3026 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5904 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 13 ROSENDAHL, VICKI L 11 62ND STREET YANKEETOWN, FL 34498---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 22 AND S 5FT OF LOT 23 RUWE PROPERTIES LLC 4810 LAKEWOOD BLVD NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 8 SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 3A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 4A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 8A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 5A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 6A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 7A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOTS 19,20 & 21 SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 1A SCHANTZEN, ALLEN M 3321 CANAL STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---5914 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 2A SMITH EST, WILLIAM A 3124 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5924 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOT 19 SMITH, ROBERT E & HELEN J 3312 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 E 55FT OF W 110FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 1054 PG 261 SOUTHERN MANAGEMENT CORP 11770 CALLA LILLY CT PALM BCH GARDENS, FL 33418---0 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS TRACT C SOWERS, CHARLES EDWARD CASSANDRA SOWERS 3501 CHEROKEE STREET NAPLES, FL 34112---0 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK E LOT 7 STATON REVOCABLE TRUST 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 SABAL SHORES OF BLK F LOT 17 OR 1450 PG 1462 STATON REVOCABLE TRUST 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK D LOT 10 STATON, RAYMOND W 2731 13TH ST N NAPLES, FL 34103---4531 EASTGATE BLK B N 40FT OF LOT 22 & S 40FT OF LOT 21 SUNSHINE REAL ESTATE HLDS LLLP 1650 NW 87TH AVE DORAL, FL 33172---0 12 50 25 OUT PARCEL 2 COURTHOUSE SHADOWS DESC AS:COMM AT SW CNR OF SEC 12,S 89 DEG E 331.40FT, N 39 DEG SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 1891 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34109---2133 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 6 AND 7 OR 1981 PG 856 SWIFT OIL CHANGE INC 1891 PINE RIDGE RD NAPLES, FL 34109---2133 SOUTH TAMIAMI HGTS BLK A LOTS 23 AND 24 OR 1981 PG 856 TIF-FL-B LLC PO BOX 630535 MIAMI, FL 33163---535 EASTGATE BLK B LOTS 26 + 27 TIITF /DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 801 NORTH BROADWAY AVE % GREGG BODHE BARTOW, FL 33831---0 EASTGATE BLK A LOTS 1, 2 + 3 ALL OF VACANT ALLEY ADJOINING,LESS THAT PORTION LOT 1 AS DESC IN OR 32 PG 478, AND LESS TOWNSEND, RONALD A % ANDREA AYERS 441 14TH AVE NW NAPLES, FL 34120---0 13 50 25 E 110 OF W 330 FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 1593 PG 172 VADER PROPERTIES III INC 170 E 78TH ST #3F NEW YORK, NY 10075---0 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS LOTS 14 +15 OR 1074 PG 1915 VALENCIA, FELIPE VALENCIA, JOSE 3173 GORDON ST NAPLES, FL 34112---5923 COL-LEE-CO GARDENS SUB N 70FT OF LOT 23 VANDERPOOL, JIMMIE H 3300 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5910 13 50 25 W 55 FT OF W 110 FT OF W1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4 LYING N OF CANAL OR 806 PG 876 WAL-MART STORES EAST LP TAX DEPT PO BOX 8050 MS-0555 STORE #1119 BENTONVILLE, AR 72716---1 12 50 25 THAT PART OF SEC 12 AND 13 DESC IN OR 1766 PG 2234 WASSBERG, PAUL R 3250 COLLEE CT NAPLES, FL 34112---5920 HALDEMAN CANAL HOMESITES LOT 4 PLAT DB 38-110 OR 1435 PG 2197 POList_500_PL20180003658.xls 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) PROOF O.K.BY:_____________________________O.K.WITH CORRECTIONS BY:___________________________ PLEASE READ CAREFULLY •SUBMIT CORRECTIONS ONLINE ADVERTISER:Q.GRADY MINOR &ASSOCIA PROOF CREATED AT :4/11/2019 12:38 PM SALES PERSON:NDN7103 PROOF DUE:- PUBLICATION:ND-DAILY NEXT RUN DATE:04/18/19 SIZE:3 col X 9.25 in ND-2267929.INDD ND-2267929 NOTICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA),Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and PL20180003658 (PUDA),Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment A Neighborhood Information Meeting hosted by D.Wayne Arnold,AICP, of Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.and Richard D.Yo vanovich,Esq. of Coleman,Yo vanovich and Koester,P.A.,representing KRG Courthouse Shadows,LLC (Applicant)will be held on: Tu esday,May 7,2019,6:00 pm at the Bayshore Gateway Tr iangle CRA Advisory Board Meeting,Naples Botanical Garden Buehler Auditorium, 4820 Bayshore Drive,Naples,Florida 34112 KRG Courthouse Shadows,LLC has submitted formal applications to Collier County,seeking approval of a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan (GMP)Amendment and a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment.The GMP amendment proposes to revise language of the Activity Center Subdistrict in the Future Land Use Element to allow an additional 12.8 units per acre within 10 acres of the Courthouse Shadows PUD.The CPUD amendment application is a companion application to the GMP amendment and proposes to amend the 20.35+/-acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. The subject property (Courthouse Shadows MPUD)is comprised of approximately 20.35±acres,located the southeast corner of the intersection of Ta miami Tr ail East (U.S.41)and Airport Road in Sections 11,12,13,To wnship 50 South,Range 25 East,Collier County,Florida. The Neighborhood Information Meeting is for informational purposes only,it is not a public hearing.Project information is posted online at www.gradyminor. com/planning.If you have questions or comments,they can be directed by mail,phone,fax or e-mail to:sumpenhour@gradyminor.com,phone 239- 947-1144,fax 239-947-0375,Q.Grady Minor and Associates,P.A.,3800 Via Del Rey,Bonita Springs,Florida 34134. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 717Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 718Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 719Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 720Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 721Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.gPacket Pg. 722Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1 ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9 10 11 12· · · COURTHOUSE SHADOWS MPUD NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 13· · · · · · · · PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 14· · · · · · · · · · · · · MAY 7, 2019 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 · YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 723 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·(Recorded meeting as follows:) ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Good evening, everybody. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKERS:· Good evening. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Is this working?· Can you hear me? ·5· · · Okay.· I'll try to use it and talk as loud as I can.· We're ·6· · · going to go ahead and get started.· I know the regular CRA ·7· · · advisory board meeting begins at 6:30. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It's not working now?· Maybe I just 10· · · need to talk loud. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I don't think it's on. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The green light is on.· I'll try to 13· · · talk loud and then hopefully it amplifies enough.· I'm Wayne 14· · · Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor & Associates.· I'm 15· · · representing Kite Realty who are the owners of the 16· · · Courthouse Shadows shopping center and I'll make some 17· · · introductions.· This is Sharon Umpenhour who's taping the 18· · · meeting.· She is with our office.· And we're required to 19· · · create an audio-tape or a videotape of the meeting and 20· · · provide those to the planning commission and staff and the 21· · · Board of County Commissioners. 22· · · · · · · ·And with me tonight I have Doug Kirby who's with 23· · · Kite Realty.· Some of you probably know him.· Doug's in the 24· · · back of the room there.· Rob Sucher is with Johnson 25· · · Development.· Johnson is under contract to buy the portion Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 2 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 724 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · that will be developed for residential units.· And Christina ·2· · · Johnson from JRE Engineering.· She's the engineer of record ·3· · · for the project.· Rich Yovanovich many of you know, a local ·4· · · attorney.· And Jim Banks is our traffic engineer who's ·5· · · working on the project. ·6· · · · · · · ·So this is -- the property is zoned a planned unit ·7· · · development.· It was zoned many years ago.· It's been ·8· · · developed with obviously the shopping center that's there. ·9· · · Most of the storefronts are vacant except for Wild Wings and 10· · · a couple of the outparcels.· So we're proposing to modify 11· · · the zoning to add an option for residential development. 12· · · And that means that we're not taking away what was formerly 13· · · approved most recently for the Sam's Club, big box type 14· · · store, but we're inserting a new master plan and an option 15· · · for development of up to 300 dwelling units on a good 16· · · portion of the property, a little over 18 acres of the 20 17· · · point something acre project to be developed with 18· · · residential. 19· · · · · · · ·Subject property, I'm sure all of you are familiar 20· · · what that is.· It's just located at the intersection of 21· · · Airport and U.S. 41.· It is in your CRA boundary, which is 22· · · why we thought it would be important to come here tonight to 23· · · talk to you because many of you gather for the CRA.· So we 24· · · wanted you to be aware of something that's going on in your 25· · · redevelopment area.· This is also an activity center number Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 3 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 725 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · 16 on the county's future land use map.· The area in pink is ·2· · · the activity center boundary.· It's a unique configuration, ·3· · · but it includes the shopping center as well as the ·4· · · government center and other things along the Airport and ·5· · · U.S. 41 intersection. ·6· · · · · · · ·What we're also proposing to do is a comprehensive ·7· · · plan amendment to this activity center and we are ·8· · · identifying a 10 acre portion.· So we qualify for what's ·9· · · called a small-scale plan amendment so we can add increased 10· · · density to get up to the 300 dwelling units that we need to 11· · · develop the property for the multiple-family apartments 12· · · on-site.· So you can see that in what just popped up like 13· · · that.· The 10 acre area where we're asking for the increased 14· · · density so that we can qualify for simple density is here. 15· · · It takes up a good portion of the site. 16· · · · · · · ·But you have a policy in your comprehensive plan 17· · · that says activity centers where you have areas that are 18· · · subject to coastal high hazard flooding areas can only get 19· · · four dwelling units per acre.· So we're proposing to 20· · · increase the density from four units an acre above that and 21· · · then utilize up to 97 of the bonus pool units that came off 22· · · the botanical garden property to develop up to 300 units 23· · · here.· This is the approved master plan and this one will 24· · · remain in tact.· It shows a large full map retail and 25· · · parking with the outparcels.· And that was developed for Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 4 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 726 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · what was going to be a Sam's Club. ·2· · · · · · · ·This is our proposed master plan and we changed it ·3· · · a little bit.· We've taken off the building configuration ·4· · · because Johnson Development is still working through and I'm ·5· · · going to show you some concepts of how the buildings could ·6· · · be arranged, but it is the concept at this point so we're ·7· · · leaving this open.· So areas that are identified thus far on ·8· · · the plan is the areas where residential could be ·9· · · constructed.· Those are areas called C/R you can see here 10· · · and those are parcels that are owned by Kite Realty, 11· · · including the Starbucks on the corner.· That would be 12· · · included in the sale, but obviously Starbucks would stay, 13· · · but we're including as a C/R mixed use parcel, if you will, 14· · · because that would be something that all of the developer 15· · · would control. 16· · · · · · · ·So the access points remain the same onto U.S. 41. 17· · · That's a signalized intersection and then we have a right 18· · · in, right out closer to Airport Road.· And then the other 19· · · access point that's located closer to Haldeman Creek.· One 20· · · access point on Peters that's closed off and then the access 21· · · at Starbucks would remain.· You can see that we've arranged 22· · · water management areas conceptually on the site keeping the 23· · · -- it's very similar to the design that was being used for 24· · · the Sam's Club.· I know the county and everybody is 25· · · concerned about the discharge to Haldeman Creek. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 5 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 727 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·If you have questions, Christina Johnson can answer ·2· · · some questions about drainage if you have them.· One of the ·3· · · things because of the residential component that Johnson ·4· · · would like to do is to bring Haldeman Creek into play by ·5· · · putting in probably some sort of kayak launch, a dock or ·6· · · something to activate the waterfront so that the residents ·7· · · would have some option for utilizing the creek.· And the ·8· · · property itself includes Haldeman Creek, so it is within our ·9· · · project boundary.· One small preserve area has been 10· · · indicated as being preserved as an option already in the PUD 11· · · to go off-site to mitigate for that should we need to.· So 12· · · that's kind of a snapshot of what their plan is at least 13· · · from the zoning plan standpoint. 14· · · · · · · ·We are asking for several new deviations.· There 15· · · were several deviations required for the big box club. 16· · · We're asking for other deviations that will allow us to 17· · · navigate and you know, residential on the property.· Some 18· · · relate to signage.· Right now the county doesn't really have 19· · · a standard for having a mixed-use project to have 20· · · residential identification signage, for instance, on what 21· · · otherwise would be a directory sign for the commercial user 22· · · as well.· So for instance, that's one of the deviations 23· · · we've requested. 24· · · · · · · ·All this will be available on-line if anybody wants 25· · · to take a look at it.· And Sharon has business cards up Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 6 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 728 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · there.· You can go to our web site.· We have linked a ·2· · · presentation that we show you for our neighborhood ·3· · · information meetings if would like to look at those in more ·4· · · detail.· One of the site plan arrangements that we're ·5· · · looking at is this.· And you can see building footprints, ·6· · · but you know, what remains would be Starbucks.· The other ·7· · · outparcels that are existing, you have the gas station.· You ·8· · · have the Healthy Cafe, Dunkin Donuts and whatever will ·9· · · become of the Burger King would all remain and those are 10· · · separate and apart from the mixed-use proposal. 11· · · · · · · ·But this plan highlights a little bit better. 12· · · These hashed areas become water management areas, for 13· · · instance.· It's likely that they're going to have 14· · · single-story garage parking available for some of the 15· · · buildings.· Some of the amenities will likely be within the 16· · · residential buildings and it wouldn't be just a stand-alone 17· · · clubhouse type building.· Most likely this is going to be 18· · · their sales and leasing office and some of the recreational 19· · · component.· Potential dog park down in here close to 20· · · Haldeman Creek, typical features that you see for a lot of 21· · · multi-family projects now. 22· · · · · · · ·This puts it on an aerial photograph and I know 23· · · it's probably a little more difficult to read, but at least 24· · · it shows you how that's going to relate to the neighborhood. 25· · · We're trying very hard to respect the homes that are on Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 7 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 729 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · Collee Court and Peters that are adjacent to us.· With that, ·2· · · that's a very brief overview and I'm happy to answer ·3· · · questions.· Like I said, we have our team here that can ·4· · · answer specific questions you have and I'll try to do that. ·5· · · All I ask is that we take them one at a time and we need to ·6· · · be clear.· They don't like us to talk over each other ·7· · · because it's really hard to hear if somebody wants to listen ·8· · · to the audio tape and it's hard for transcription.· So I'll ·9· · · just start right here in the front row. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there going to be no commercial on 11· · · the bottom? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question was is there not going to 13· · · be commercial on the bottom?· And I don't believe it's the 14· · · intent of Johnson Development to have mixed-use in one 15· · · building.· The residential buildings would be separate. 16· · · They'll obviously be connected by pedestrian access points 17· · · and driveways to the remaining outparcels.· I saw a hand up 18· · · over here.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I see that the plan that you got 20· · · there shows the line going all the way over to the other 21· · · bank across from Bobby Cayden's property.· You own the 22· · · right-of-way all the way across Haldeman Creek? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do.· Haldeman Creek exists as a 24· · · drainage easement across Kite's property. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So they're granted an easement Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 8 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 730 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · across the property? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, there's an easement in favor of ·3· · · -- I'm not sure who all the parties are.· I know Collier ·4· · · County is one of the entities for Haldeman Creek, uh-huh. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm sorry.· I didn't hear the last ·7· · · part. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Poley, thank you.· I saw a hand over 10· · · here. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You've indicated that the development 14· · · is 20.35 acres, but there are 2.68 acres which are submerged 15· · · land, Parcel P that is owned by Kite.· Is that subtracted 16· · · from the developable area?· If it is, it only leaves about 17· · · 17 acres on which to site 300 homes and park 450 18· · · automobiles.· That constitutes in one acre 17 homes and 25 19· · · automobiles on one acre of developable land and I think 20· · · that's far too intense. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· I'm not going to dispute 22· · · your numbers, but I think it's a little over 18 acres that 23· · · Johnson Development is buying for the 300 units so the 24· · · density is a little less than you stated.· It's probably 25· · · closer to 16 units per acre overall, just so you know. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 9 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 731 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, I'm a car and half off. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Just so you know, activity centers in ·3· · · Collier County are encouraged to be the areas where we have ·4· · · high density residential and more intense commercial uses. ·5· · · And almost everywhere else in the county activity centers ·6· · · are allowed up to 16 units per acre residential density. I ·7· · · know that sounds like a high number, but it is what our ·8· · · comprehensive plan says that you can have.· And then our ·9· · · comprehensive plan will ensure (inaudible).· Yes? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I think better use of that property 11· · · would be as part of the government center and that should be 12· · · explored.· In addition to that, a mix of commercial and 13· · · residential might be more appropriate because of the traffic 14· · · volume at that intersection amongst other problems. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· So noted.· Thanks for the comment. 16· · · Anybody not -- yes, ma'am, back here? 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What types of units and what price 18· · · range? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, they are proposed to be rental 20· · · apartments. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Rental apartments? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, they're rental apartments.· And I 23· · · don't know if we have a price point yet.· I'm sure Rob can 24· · · indicate some of the price ranges that they're looking at, 25· · · but they're expected to be market-rate housing.· And you Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 10 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 732 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · know, price points will be commensurate with the market in ·2· · · the area.· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What's the anticipated square footage ·4· · · per unit? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Rob, do you have some thoughts on ·6· · · that? ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, I do.· I'll speak to everything, ·8· · · bounce back and forth.· Good evening, everyone.· This is Rob ·9· · · Sucher with Johnson Development and I'll try and answer your 10· · · specific questions.· We're also going to go stay a little 11· · · bit afterwards with the site plan just kind of on a larger 12· · · scale, larger scale on the site plan -- Did you guys hear 13· · · that?· I'll try to be loud here -- that you can see in a 14· · · little bit more detail if someone wants to take a look at 15· · · the plan after the meeting specifically.· The size of the 16· · · units, so we have not -- we're at an early stage right now 17· · · so we have not moved into full scale design at this point. 18· · · Typically in the market, you're going to see about an 19· · · average of 1,000 square feet.· It's a mix of one bedroom to 20· · · three bedroom units.· So it will be plus or minus 1,000 21· · · square feet, most likely, in the market.· Yeah, go ahead. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The development has over 730 lineal 23· · · feet of frontage on Haldeman Creek and I see you did very 24· · · little to explaining what the development will be there. 25· · · Will there be parking and boat dockage and common areas Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 11 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 733 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · along that waterfront property?· And I think it's an asset ·2· · · that should be utilized by the developer. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I could not agree more.· It is one of ·4· · · the most exciting things we have on this project ·5· · · specifically.· There's no existing community within Collier ·6· · · County on the rental side that does have the opportunity for ·7· · · canal activation.· So that is exactly what we look for and ·8· · · hope to be able to achieve.· Unfortunately, it is not just a ·9· · · county approval.· It actually has to go through U.S. Army 10· · · Corp.· So that is a lengthy process that we're going to be 11· · · doing concurrent to zoning application, but it is absolutely 12· · · our intent to activate that canal.· We would be the first 13· · · ones of the incredible disappointment to the project if we 14· · · were not to be able to achieve that.· So it's 100 percent in 15· · · the plans. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It is. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I saw a hand up over there somewhere, 18· · · didn't I?· Okay.· Yes ma'am, go right ahead. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The 300 units, though, it's going to 20· · · take what, 600 cars?· There's already in the winter a 21· · · traffic jam there. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There's a bottle-neck. 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· One at a time, please.· One comment at 24· · · a time. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· In the mornings I live on the creek Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 12 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 734 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · so I come out by Seminole.· Actually, by Cardella's Law ·2· · · Offices.· I have to make a u-ie.· They're backed up halfway ·3· · · down Guilford every morning already in the summer.· What's ·4· · · it going to be with 600 more cars? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Right.· Well, I think part of the ·6· · · issue and we have our traffic engineer here, I mean, you ·7· · · have to remember that today they could refill the shopping ·8· · · center with 165,000 square feet retail space that generates ·9· · · far more trips than the residential trips.· So that's how 10· · · the traffic comparison was made and that's how the staff is 11· · · evaluating it based on retail versus residential.· Someone 12· · · who hasn't asked a question.· Sir, in the back? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That is the third busiest 14· · · intersection in Collier County.· There are 90,000 cars at 15· · · peak season on 41 East and 35 -- 55,000 on Airport Road 16· · · going south.· That is a bottle-neck from the four corners 17· · · downtown Naples to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, if not further. 18· · · And adding 600 cars to that mix is going to be a mistake, I 19· · · believe, because currently I have witnessed emergency 20· · · vehicles that are delayed in their response at that 21· · · intersection. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, ma'am?· Oh, it's 23· · · Anita.· I couldn't see because of the light.· Sorry about 24· · · that. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Given that you have a lot of Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 13 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 735 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · multi-family here and a large employer, have you had any ·2· · · considerations for pedestrian improvements to help them ·3· · · cross the street at all?· Did staff ask you to consider ·4· · · that, how you move pedestrians around that area? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't think we've gotten quite that ·6· · · far, Anita, talking about all pedestrian interconnections. ·7· · · I mean, I think that's one of the things that attracts ·8· · · Johnson to this site is that you've got a large employment ·9· · · center at the government center next door.· You've got the 10· · · CAT transfer facility that's immediately across the street. 11· · · We have a traffic signalized intersection at both Airport 12· · · and at the entrance on U.S. 41 that does provide at least 13· · · for safe passage for people to cross the street to get to 14· · · and from work and shopping.· So I'm sure we'll be dialoguing 15· · · more with the transportation staff on that.· Yes, ma'am? 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many stories are each unit going 17· · · to be? 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, each unit will probably be a 19· · · single-story unit.· I don't know that they've settled on the 20· · · maximum number of stories for the project.· I can tell you 21· · · what we're asking for, for height for zoning, but I need to 22· · · put my glasses on to see that to make sure I read it 23· · · properly.· So for the multi-family we're asking for a zoned 24· · · height of 65 feet and an actual height of 70 feet.· That 25· · · probably translates into a maximum of five stories, I would Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 14 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 736 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · think, Rob, you know, most likely.· So that's what we're ·2· · · proposing.· Stand-alone amenity buildings would be 35 feet ·3· · · zoned, 45 feet actual height.· Yes, ma'am? ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There was a conversation with the ·5· · · previous plans that you had about fire suppression.· So to ·6· · · handle 300 units, plus units, how are you going to implement ·7· · · the same kind of thing with the water?· There was supposed ·8· · · to be some kind of a storage tank.· Does anybody have -- ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Christina, the question relates to 10· · · fire suppression and I don't know the answer to that. 11· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· We had -- Christina Johnson, JRE 12· · · Engineering.· I'm not aware of the specifics of what was 13· · · approved previously for fire suppression.· But I have had 14· · · preliminary conversations with the City of Naples on the 15· · · water supply to the site and we have not seen anything that 16· · · appeared to be an issue.· It is a different use as a 17· · · residential use instead of a big box commercial.· So there 18· · · could perhaps have been a different requirement for the 19· · · commercial building.· So I'm not aware of any issues. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The deviation on that fire 22· · · suppression was that where Starbucks is they were putting in 23· · · a water storage tank with a pump in order to supply water to 24· · · extinguish the fire if the Sam's Club was built there 25· · · because they could not suppress the fire with the water that Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 15 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 737 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · was supplied by the city and the size of the line that the ·2· · · city was supplying to that area.· Now you are going to be ·3· · · doing residential areas, too, but only one is going to be ·4· · · going off at a time. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm going to let Doug Kirby try to ·6· · · address that.· He's the owner of the property. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· So the issue with Sam's Club is their ·8· · · occupancy and their building code standard is a high pile ·9· · · storage.· It's got a much denser requirement for fire 10· · · suppression.· Before the CRA provided the funds for the city 11· · · to operate the water system on Collee Court it was 12· · · borderline with Sam's on whether they needed the tank or 13· · · not.· The models that were being drawn at the time when 14· · · Sam's pulled out, excuse me, was that because of the 15· · · improvements funded by the CRA, they weren't going to need 16· · · it.· And the fire demands for residential building are much 17· · · less than a high piled storage calculated. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sir, I'm going to go to somebody else 19· · · who hasn't asked a question yet and I'll come back to you 20· · · gladly.· Yes? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The common areas docks, are the 22· · · residents going to be able to have boats there or just 23· · · kayaks and canoes and things like that? 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No boats. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think the idea is that it would be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 16 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 738 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · paddle boards, kayaks, canoes, sort of those types of ·2· · · things.· I don't expect to be motorized transportation ·3· · · there.· I think as Rob mentioned, it's looking to activate ·4· · · that and that would make the most (inaudible).· I saw ·5· · · another hand back here.· Yes, sir? ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are they going to try to clean it up? ·7· · · I grew up there.· When I was a kid we used to swim in there, ·8· · · but I wouldn't wade in there now where we live.· And a lot ·9· · · of it is coming from Sam's, their parking lot and all. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, I think a lot of that does 11· · · filter down from north of U.S. 41, you are correct.· And I'm 12· · · sure that Johnson will be happy to clean it up.· I think 13· · · they want it to be a positive amenity for the community. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Also with the water, I live across 15· · · the street from Bobby Cayden.· When his house burned I 16· · · didn't even have enough water pressure to shoot my hose up 17· · · on my roof. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, I can assure you that Christina 19· · · Johnson, our engineer, will look at that.· I know that the 20· · · city has made some improvements to the water supply system 21· · · over the last couple of years.· And hopefully -- 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I still don't have any water pressure 23· · · where I live. 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Getting back to the density bonus, Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 17 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 739 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · you said 96 units or whatever? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The bonus units we're eligible to use ·3· · · up to 97 units in the bonus pool. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is that a pool for the CRA that ·5· · · becomes depleted or is that -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe -- ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· -- just for this site? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think, I'm not the expert, but Sue ·9· · · is here, Sue Faulkner from long-range planing, she may know. 10· · · But I think Mattamy Homes was going to utilize some of the 11· · · bonus pool units, but outside of that I don't know that 12· · · anybody else has utilized any of them.· So these were meant 13· · · to be an incentive to have redevelopment to gain those bonus 14· · · pool units.· So that's what we've applied to do.· Somebody 15· · · else who hasn't asked a question?· I just want to make sure 16· · · because I think the CRA would want to make sure we answer 17· · · all your questions.· I know the CRA has their regular 18· · · meeting following this.· So to the extent that we can get 19· · · through the questions that you ask, anybody who hasn't asked 20· · · a question yet would like to ask a question?· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I totally agree with the colossal 22· · · traffic jam.· But does this increase impervious cover? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question is does this increase 24· · · impervious coverage?· And I guess the question is compared 25· · · to what?· Probably not compared to if Sam's Club were to Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 18 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 740 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · have been constructed. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Compared to the Sam's Club? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Uh-huh. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't believe it does.· Christina, I ·6· · · don't know if you know for sure, but it's probably ·7· · · comparable or less. ·8· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· It's negligible. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes? 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The challenge that I see that no one 12· · · has addressed, though, is that the traffic may be the same 13· · · number of cars going in and out of there, but nobody has 14· · · addressed that everyone leaves at nine o'clock in the 15· · · morning and returns at five o'clock in the afternoon.· So it 16· · · might be the same number of cars coming in, but residential 17· · · is going to be the mornings and the evening rush hour. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, the county does make -- the 19· · · question if you didn't hear was about that even though we 20· · · may have less traffic, it all occurs at generally the same 21· · · time in the morning or evening because of the residential 22· · · nature of what's being proposed.· And I think that the 23· · · non-transportation engineer that I am, the answer is that 24· · · the county looks at a.m. peak hours.· They look at p.m. peak 25· · · hours.· And then we're required to analyze how much traffic Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 19 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 741 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · is generated during those times and where it's disbursed. ·2· · · And I think part of it is they can easily disburse from the ·3· · · site which makes a lot of sense. ·4· · · · · · · ·You can go north on Airport Road.· You can go east ·5· · · or west on the Trail and that helps disburse that.· And ·6· · · having the traffic signals for volume control is also ·7· · · comparable.· I don't know if the transportation engineer's ·8· · · version of -- you know, the comparison of the residential to ·9· · · the commercial option.· And I think we understand and I 10· · · think the county staff understands that the peak hours are 11· · · still going to be 7 to 9 a.m. in the mornings and 4 to 6 12· · · p.m. in the evenings.· So we have to analyze our situation. 13· · · Anybody else back there?· I'm having a hard time seeing. 14· · · The sun is coming in just below the shade.· Yes? 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I've got an idea for the pedestrian 16· · · crossing.· What about one of those bridges that goes up 17· · · over, across and down, you know, for people walking over to 18· · · that?· I mean, because whenever you're sitting at the light 19· · · and it's 30 seconds for someone to get across the street, 20· · · that increases the time. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It definitely does.· I mean, that's 22· · · one of the challenges we have in Collier County where you 23· · · have large intersections.· You have to give enough green 24· · · time for the pedestrian and it takes away from the green 25· · · time for the motorist.· We get that.· I don't know that it's Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 20 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 742 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · an economically feasible option.· The county has explored ·2· · · those at other intersections and they're extremely expensive ·3· · · because they have to be built for ADA compliance.· So they ·4· · · have to have either very long ramps that are circular and ·5· · · they're expensive.· The county doesn't maybe even like what ·6· · · the appearance would be to start having these pedestrian ·7· · · bridges over the roadway, but I understand your point.· It ·8· · · does increase and decrease the capacity. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thinking outside thoughts. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I understand.· Thanks for the comment. 11· · · Anybody else back there?· Yes, sir?· I saw your hand just 12· · · about ready to go up. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You finally got back to me.· I'm 14· · · sorry to give you such a hard time. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· No, you're not.· That's why we're 16· · · here.· I just want to make sure everybody has a chance. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light at Peters and U.S. 41 is a 18· · · very short light when you're on Peters Street.· I timed it 19· · · several times.· The maximum number of vehicles that can get 20· · · through that light before they turn it back to 41 is four 21· · · cars, the maximum and some will get through.· Only three out 22· · · lanes, two of which have to turn right on to 41 and go down 23· · · and make a u-turn to come east or to go west.· There's no 24· · · traffic that is going to have access on Peters Street now 25· · · that Starbucks is there and Wild Buffalo Wings is there, no Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 21 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 743 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · traffic can get out. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I can address that after just for the ·3· · · group is this orientation -- ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light has to be lengthened and ·5· · · shorten lights on Airport and -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· When you look at Peters in the ·7· · · specific orientation of Kite, it's very intentional to ·8· · · actually bring traffic away from Peters and away from the ·9· · · intersection.· So our two principal entrances and the exits 10· · · are actually to the south, the southern signal. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, they will be? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· And you see these two where the 13· · · main entrance is actually at the left in, right in, right 14· · · out. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, I see.· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And then we actually have our primary 17· · · entrance and exit where the majority of and that's where 18· · · we're encouraging the circulation of the site to be a big U 19· · · movement that would access the southern signal to move 20· · · traffic away from Peters. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I understand now.· You can turn left 22· · · at that location? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Correct.· And we're trying to minimize 24· · · the same impacts as the complication with Starbucks as well. 25· · · We understand that. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 22 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 744 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The other thing is you have that ·2· · · complex is going to use 44 million gallons of water a year ·3· · · if they use the average of 175 gallons per person per year. ·4· · · Is the City of Naples able to supply 44 million gallons of ·5· · · water and accept 44 million gallons of sewage from your ·6· · · facilities?· They have a 10 million gallon a day sewer plan ·7· · · and I don't think they're prepared to attempt it. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If I might, I would just say that ·9· · · we're required to do these utility forms.· Utility staff for 10· · · the county is reviewing that.· We do have city water.· It's 11· · · county sewage supply.· So the county is dealing with the 12· · · sewage.· There's no capacity issues with the county sewer 13· · · plans.· And I'm pretty sure that the City of Naples has 14· · · ample capacity.· Again, comparing what this could be if 15· · · retail users or restaurant users, I think we're pretty 16· · · comfortable.· And I think -- I know Christina has talked to 17· · · both entities and they feel comfortable because they 18· · · certainly have the service capacity for us.· Yes, ma'am? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· On your web site we can go in and 20· · · check all of this information out.· Will it show those 21· · · lights?· I'm still a little bit confused about coming out of 22· · · that area with all of those cars.· And Peters, is Peters 23· · · still going to be existing or no? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, Peters will be existing.· It's 25· · · going to remain an access point for Starbucks that will Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 23 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 745 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · remain on Peters.· One of the other access drives that was ·2· · · there if this develops to residential, I should say.· If it ·3· · · became a big box there would actually be one more access ·4· · · point on Peters than there is proposed for the residential. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· Because then the residents are ·6· · · going to turn in.· I live right off of Tamiami and Osceola ·7· · · where we have to do the u-turn to go back towards town.· Is ·8· · · that the only other light you're talking about? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the lights we're talking about 10· · · are existing.· You have the one that services across from 11· · · the government center and then there's the light at Airport 12· · · and Peters.· So those are the two lighted intersections that 13· · · I'm referring to.· But yes, the information we have here if 14· · · you take one of Sharon Umpenhour's cards on the table, you 15· · · can go to our web site at GradyMinor.com and we have a link 16· · · to the application materials as well as a power point. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sure.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I have a concern about the units 20· · · themselves and whether this is going to end up to be a 21· · · basically a dormitory type of housing development.· And the 22· · · question might be resolved by asking what kind of amenities 23· · · are you planning to have in the community in addition to 24· · · just a place to live? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That's probably a good segue to let -- Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 24 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 746 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · I'll let Rob tell you a little bit about Johnson ·2· · · Development.· How about that to sort of close out?· I'll let ·3· · · you talk a little bit about that, Rob, and then what you're ·4· · · looking at for amenities here. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Absolutely.· So Johnson Development is ·6· · · a family company based out of Spartanburg, South Carolina. ·7· · · We have multiple offices throughout the country:· D.C., New ·8· · · York, L.A., San Francisco.· All of our southeastern focus is ·9· · · based out of Spartanburg and then we move throughout the 10· · · regions.· So I've been working with Johnson Development for 11· · · about five years now on multiple divisions.· We have 12· · · industrial division, multi-family division, a storage 13· · · division, a commercial division and a community division, 14· · · which is an economic development for the City of 15· · · Spartanburg, South Carolina. 16· · · · · · · ·Specific to the family, we've developed close to 17· · · 10,000 units throughout the country.· Most of those in our 18· · · current pipeline are luxury Class A apartments.· So you're 19· · · going to have really the best thing of the amenities as well 20· · · as finishes that we offer in the market.· So the best in 21· · · classes is really kind of the new competitive vantage.· You 22· · · have to build what's nice, but also what's nicer than the 23· · · newest competition.· So what we're trying to do here is 24· · · create something that's unique based upon what is the huge 25· · · advantage of this site, the adjacency of employment as well Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 747 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · as the opportunity to connect to the Bayshore Arts District ·2· · · as well as the amenities of downtown in much closer ·3· · · proximity to competitive projects. ·4· · · · · · · ·The amenities specifically, we have again a luxury ·5· · · pool that's going to be right outside of the first L-shaped ·6· · · building.· A dog park is what we propose.· We see that about ·7· · · 40 percent of customers in apartments today are pet owners. ·8· · · So that's a big thing to have that sense of community ·9· · · on-site is important to us.· The activation of the canal is 10· · · something that we really feel is a special opportunity. 11· · · Like I mentioned before, something that does not exist today 12· · · in the county.· It's something that we have not done, had 13· · · the opportunity to, but to be able to paddle down, actually 14· · · up the creek to 360 Market, to Celebration Park.· A really 15· · · unique advantage that we're hoping to take the opportunity 16· · · to take advantage of, excuse me. 17· · · · · · · ·The other amenity that we're offering here that is 18· · · going to be unique, we've done it in a couple of places. 19· · · One is a project in Tampa that's under construction now as 20· · · well as a project in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, which is 21· · · in Charleston, South Carolina is a we-work concept.· So that 22· · · is going to be a co-work opportunity to where you have the 23· · · opportunity to office and work in the amenities themselves 24· · · to have a home office.· Be outside of your actual home, but 25· · · still be in the community itself.· So you don't have to pay Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 26 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 748 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · essentially for space, but we'll have conference spaces. ·2· · · We'll have individual desks there for the community itself. ·3· · · And that's seen across the industry as a huge opportunity to ·4· · · allow people spaces that feel larger, but also connect with ·5· · · the community itself. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are you going to have a fitness ·7· · · center? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· We will, yes, absolutely.· Yeah, ·9· · · fitness is pretty much standard in the business today and 10· · · absolutely we'll have that.· We don't really decide on the 11· · · fitness delivery until just because trends are changing so 12· · · quickly, but it will be top of the market. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Can you give us the names of some of 14· · · the developments that you've done that we could look at to 15· · · see what we might expect here? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, absolutely.· And I'll have my 17· · · card out and I can give you.· It has a link to our web site 18· · · that has all of our projects in our pipeline. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a particular project that 20· · · you either have going on now or had that would be similar to 21· · · what are you proposing here? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· We have a project that just 23· · · delivered in Charleston about nine months ago.· It's called 24· · · The Haven at Indigo Square. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 27 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 749 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And that's linked directly from our ·4· · · web site, which is JohnsonDevelopment.net.· And you can go ·5· · · over to the actual site and see all the gallery in itself. ·6· · · The other project that we are hoping to start construction ·7· · · on over the summer is actually in Collier County. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, excuse me.· The other project 10· · · that we have in the pipeline locally is actually here and 11· · · will hopefully start construction early summer which is at 12· · · the intersection of Livingston and Radio Road.· The name of 13· · · that project is called The Lago and that design is currently 14· · · being permitted right now. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Lago. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm sorry. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We didn't get the name of the place. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Say that again. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The Haven at Indigo Square? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And where is it located? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 28 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 750 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· That's in Mt. Pleasant, South ·2· · · Carolina, which is in Charleston.· The local project is ·3· · · named Lago, L-a-g-o, and that is at the intersection of ·4· · · Radio and Livingston.· That is currently being permitted, ·5· · · final permits with Collier County.· So unfortunately, we do ·6· · · not have the web site or images available quite yet, but ·7· · · we're hoping to start construction on that early this ·8· · · summer. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, folks? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There used to be in Collier County 11· · · what was called continuity or concurrency, sorry, in which 12· · · the schools had to be adequate, the fire department had to 13· · · be adequate, the sidewalks, the roads had to be adequate for 14· · · development before it could be developed.· Can you meet all 15· · · of these criteria that are required for that kind of -- 16· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I can ask our attorney to respond, but 17· · · I think I can safely say that yes, we will make all the 18· · · concurrency requirements that Collier County has. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The fire department has its ladders 20· · · high enough to get to the sixth floor? 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I hope so.· We have buildings much 22· · · taller than that. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Because my ladder isn't high enough 24· · · to get into a tree. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We have a ladder truck now. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 29 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 751 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many units did the county allow ·4· · · you to have now?· Is that 95 more? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, no.· We're asking to utilize -- ·6· · · we're right now allowed to have four dwelling units per acre ·7· · · over the site.· We're asking for the ability to go up to 16 ·8· · · units per acre for the site. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a reason why that we decided 10· · · on four per acre to begin with? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The county did that for it's kind of a 12· · · base density throughout the urban area outside of activity 13· · · centers.· So if you're west of Collier Boulevard, for 14· · · instance, the base density is generally four dwelling units 15· · · per acre. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So we're going to go from four to 16? 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, that's what we're proposing. 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· This is the reason why we all moved 19· · · here from the west coast, Bradenton, all of those areas 20· · · because it didn't do what they did up there and ruin our 21· · · area.· We kept it small.· We kept it less density.· So now 22· · · they're going to go to 16 from four.· So if you just keep it 23· · · the way it's supposed to be, then there's no problem.· And 24· · · that's why we all moved here. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Part of the reason you're in a Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 30 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 752 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · redevelopment area is that we're trying to encourage people ·2· · · to redevelop sites like a shopping center that is a failed ·3· · · shopping center.· It's failed a number of times as being a ·4· · · grocery-anchored shopping center.· So we believe that given ·5· · · the location proximity to employment, given the government ·6· · · center location, proximity to the beach, downtown, the CRA, ·7· · · Bayshore Drive that the real opportunity here is for a ·8· · · mixed-use project that includes residential dwellings as ·9· · · well as some retail. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Which is fine.· You can put that in 11· · · there, but just keep the density.· They're asking for more 12· · · than anybody else.· They've already ruined their town so now 13· · · they want to ruin our town by putting in all these people. 14· · · We got enough now. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You're welcome. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes? 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You just mentioned apartments for 19· · · people who are working at the government center or perhaps 20· · · downtown.· Will the price point be something that those 21· · · service industry, for example, can afford who are working 22· · · downtown? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, these will be market rate.· So 24· · · that, I wish we knew what the market was going to be in two 25· · · years from now, but this will be consistent with market rate Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 31 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 753 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · apartments. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many years from now? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm hopeful that we can get started ·4· · · construction, you know, sometime next year and deliver our ·5· · · first units within the next two to three years. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions?· Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, on the old neighborhoods that ·8· · · are in the back end, what is the plan to buffer them from ·9· · · this? 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the county has code requirements 11· · · for a buffer between multi-family residential and single 12· · · family.· It requires a certain type of hedge or wall and 13· · · vegetative screening, et cetera. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Well, when they were doing the Sam's 15· · · Club, one of the deviations that they asked for and one of 16· · · the agreements they stipulated and the gentleman in the back 17· · · can probably move forward and answer that question is that 18· · · they agreed to put into a fund to upgrade the right-of-way 19· · · that surrounds that property on that side.· I forgot the 20· · · exact dollar amount, but they agreed to a dollar amount. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It was $50,000 for sidewalk for 22· · · pedestrians. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And that stays within this plan? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe those dollars -- Doug, you 25· · · can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those funds were in Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 32 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 754 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · place, were they not? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· Yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· His response was yes. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·6· · · we adjourn and let the CRA get on with their meeting?· Yes, ·7· · · sir? ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I live at that location which is 3312 ·9· · · Collee which is directly adjacent to your property or to 10· · · Kite's property for 38 years on the south side.· We were 11· · · there when it was an open field prior to construction of 12· · · Courthouse Shadows.· We went through a year of hell with the 13· · · construction process, the dust and dirt in our houses and 14· · · our cars.· There was blasting and excavating, earth moving 15· · · that was done that cracked our home.· We need -- the four 16· · · residents that own property directly adjacent to Kite's need 17· · · a telephone number and a contact on-site so that we can call 18· · · to register a problem that we have and hopefully it could be 19· · · resolved. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think that's a very fair comment. 21· · · And I think most of the quality contractors these days have 22· · · an on-site superintendent.· They supply you with a 24-hour 23· · · cell phone number. 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, we would need that because of 25· · · the damage that was done to us over the course of this year Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 33 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 755 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · that it took for that Courthouse Shadows to be built. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Understood.· Yes, ma'am? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I just have a question regarding ·4· · · commercial because it appears that most of what is ·5· · · allocating now for commercial is going to be gone.· Is that ·6· · · kind of what I'm hearing that -- ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, under the residential option if ·8· · · Johnson Development decides to move ahead with this ·9· · · option -- 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- most of the inlying, the shopping 12· · · center building -- 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That we know now. 14· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- that you've known would be 15· · · demolished and in its place would be built this. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So the commercial will really 17· · · be more of the out buildings that we see?· Is that what I'm 18· · · understanding? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That is correct.· The remaining 20· · · commercial under the residential option is largely the 21· · · outparcels. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So this is really what we're 23· · · looking at is this site really is going to move, if you 24· · · will, from a commercial property to primarily residential 25· · · with a few out buildings? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 34 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 756 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Under this development scenario that's ·2· · · a correct statement, yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, thank you. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah.· Yes, sir in the back? ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Excuse me.· Regarding the parking ·6· · · spaces that you have outside of the single type family ·7· · · buildings, are those going to be exclusively use for the ·8· · · outparcels or will that be used as parking for, you know, ·9· · · overflow parking for the apartments or guest parking for the 10· · · apartments? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, thank you for asking the 12· · · question.· So our attempt is to really activate the existing 13· · · commercial.· I think anybody can attest as a potential owner 14· · · or just visiting the center itself that it's very 15· · · challenging for businesses to be successful when you have a 16· · · vacant use behind you. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· So this is a real opportunity that we 19· · · see is to activate -- you saw the successful development of 20· · · the Starbucks.· Also activate the remaining four outparcels 21· · · and allow for what hopefully is an increase not only in 22· · · on-site business, but also to have the presence of a new 23· · · expensive development behind them compared to a vacant 24· · · building.· What we're also doing is we're installing new 25· · · parking as mentioned by the question in between the Chevron Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 35 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 757 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · as well as the Crooked Shillelagh, excuse me.· And then we ·2· · · also have all the parking just south of the main critical ·3· · · driveway.· Those will also be installed for the betterment ·4· · · and the benefit of the residential and the retail itself. ·5· · · You can see behind the Burger King there's also new ·6· · · increased parking there. ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Right. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· As well as the Dunkin Donuts to the ·9· · · east has new installed spots that will benefit those.· We 10· · · also have a preservation at the parking between the 11· · · Starbucks and the Crooked Shillelagh as well.· Those are 12· · · increased spots from what exists there today.· So all of 13· · · those are newly created spots that will benefit the retail 14· · · upfront. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· But will they be also used as 17· · · overflow for the apartments or -- 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The parking inside of the gates is for 19· · · the residential.· And we also do have some shared parking 20· · · opportunities that would benefit both the residential and 21· · · the retail. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So then you would expect this to be a 23· · · gated community?· You said inside the gate.· So it would be 24· · · a gated community? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am, but that's to be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 36 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 758 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · consistent with the market.· I would say definitely ·2· · · predominantly, but if not exclusively all of the new ·3· · · apartment communities are gated. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·5· · · we break up?· Anybody not have a chance to ask a question? ·6· · · Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You have any idea when you go in ·8· · · front of the planning board? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do not have hearing dates set yet. 10· · · This is -- 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And will we be getting a notice same 12· · · as we did? 13· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If you were noticed for this meeting, 14· · · you should get notice from the county next time.· And of 15· · · course, the big 4 x 8 signs get installed, so you'll see 16· · · them.· As a neighborhood resident, you'll see those.· And do 17· · · we post those on our web site, Sharon, the dates? 18· · · · · · · ·MS. UMPENHOUR:· Yes. 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do, yeah.· So on our web site, too, 20· · · if you follow us.· I forgot to introduce a couple of county 21· · · people that are here.· You might want to write down their 22· · · names.· We have Sue Faulkner who's with comprehensive 23· · · planning.· She's sitting back here.· She's one of the 24· · · comprehensive planning staff people.· And James Sabo who's 25· · · one of the zoning staff people, they're here.· It's not Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 37 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 759 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · their meeting per se, but they're here to monitor and take ·2· · · notes and make sure they understand what the citizen ·3· · · comments were.· So we appreciate everybody coming out.· If ·4· · · there's no other comments, we'll adjourn the meeting.· Thank ·5· · · you all for coming. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Have a good CRA meeting. ·8· · · · · · · ·(End of the meeting.) ·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 38 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 760 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1 ·2 ·3· · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E ·4· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - ·5 ·6 ·7· · · · · · · ·I, Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter and ·8· Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and ·9· did listen to and stenographically transcribe the foregoing 10· recorded meeting and that the transcript is a true record to the 11· best of my professional ability. 12 13 14· · · · · · · ·Dated this 21st day of May, 2019. 15 16 17 18 19· · · · · · · · · ·_______________________ · · · · · · · · · · ·Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 39 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 761 Attachment: Attachment F Backup Material Courthouse (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 762 Attachment: Attachment G Affidavit of Posting Sign (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 09/03/2019 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 763 Attachment: Attachment G Affidavit of Posting Sign (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 09/03/2019 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 764 Attachment: Attachment G Affidavit of Posting Sign (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) 09/03/2019 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 765 Attachment: Attachment G Affidavit of Posting Sign (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1 ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9 10 11 12· · · COURTHOUSE SHADOWS MPUD NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 13· · · · · · · · PL20180003658 and PL20180003659 14· · · · · · · · · · · · · MAY 7, 2019 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 · YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 766 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·(Recorded meeting as follows:) ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Good evening, everybody. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKERS:· Good evening. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Is this working?· Can you hear me? ·5· · · Okay.· I'll try to use it and talk as loud as I can.· We're ·6· · · going to go ahead and get started.· I know the regular CRA ·7· · · advisory board meeting begins at 6:30. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It's not working now?· Maybe I just 10· · · need to talk loud. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I don't think it's on. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The green light is on.· I'll try to 13· · · talk loud and then hopefully it amplifies enough.· I'm Wayne 14· · · Arnold and I'm with Grady Minor & Associates.· I'm 15· · · representing Kite Realty who are the owners of the 16· · · Courthouse Shadows shopping center and I'll make some 17· · · introductions.· This is Sharon Umpenhour who's taping the 18· · · meeting.· She is with our office.· And we're required to 19· · · create an audio-tape or a videotape of the meeting and 20· · · provide those to the planning commission and staff and the 21· · · Board of County Commissioners. 22· · · · · · · ·And with me tonight I have Doug Kirby who's with 23· · · Kite Realty.· Some of you probably know him.· Doug's in the 24· · · back of the room there.· Rob Sucher is with Johnson 25· · · Development.· Johnson is under contract to buy the portion Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 2 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 767 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · that will be developed for residential units.· And Christina ·2· · · Johnson from JRE Engineering.· She's the engineer of record ·3· · · for the project.· Rich Yovanovich many of you know, a local ·4· · · attorney.· And Jim Banks is our traffic engineer who's ·5· · · working on the project. ·6· · · · · · · ·So this is -- the property is zoned a planned unit ·7· · · development.· It was zoned many years ago.· It's been ·8· · · developed with obviously the shopping center that's there. ·9· · · Most of the storefronts are vacant except for Wild Wings and 10· · · a couple of the outparcels.· So we're proposing to modify 11· · · the zoning to add an option for residential development. 12· · · And that means that we're not taking away what was formerly 13· · · approved most recently for the Sam's Club, big box type 14· · · store, but we're inserting a new master plan and an option 15· · · for development of up to 300 dwelling units on a good 16· · · portion of the property, a little over 18 acres of the 20 17· · · point something acre project to be developed with 18· · · residential. 19· · · · · · · ·Subject property, I'm sure all of you are familiar 20· · · what that is.· It's just located at the intersection of 21· · · Airport and U.S. 41.· It is in your CRA boundary, which is 22· · · why we thought it would be important to come here tonight to 23· · · talk to you because many of you gather for the CRA.· So we 24· · · wanted you to be aware of something that's going on in your 25· · · redevelopment area.· This is also an activity center number Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 3 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 768 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · 16 on the county's future land use map.· The area in pink is ·2· · · the activity center boundary.· It's a unique configuration, ·3· · · but it includes the shopping center as well as the ·4· · · government center and other things along the Airport and ·5· · · U.S. 41 intersection. ·6· · · · · · · ·What we're also proposing to do is a comprehensive ·7· · · plan amendment to this activity center and we are ·8· · · identifying a 10 acre portion.· So we qualify for what's ·9· · · called a small-scale plan amendment so we can add increased 10· · · density to get up to the 300 dwelling units that we need to 11· · · develop the property for the multiple-family apartments 12· · · on-site.· So you can see that in what just popped up like 13· · · that.· The 10 acre area where we're asking for the increased 14· · · density so that we can qualify for simple density is here. 15· · · It takes up a good portion of the site. 16· · · · · · · ·But you have a policy in your comprehensive plan 17· · · that says activity centers where you have areas that are 18· · · subject to coastal high hazard flooding areas can only get 19· · · four dwelling units per acre.· So we're proposing to 20· · · increase the density from four units an acre above that and 21· · · then utilize up to 97 of the bonus pool units that came off 22· · · the botanical garden property to develop up to 300 units 23· · · here.· This is the approved master plan and this one will 24· · · remain in tact.· It shows a large full map retail and 25· · · parking with the outparcels.· And that was developed for Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 4 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 769 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · what was going to be a Sam's Club. ·2· · · · · · · ·This is our proposed master plan and we changed it ·3· · · a little bit.· We've taken off the building configuration ·4· · · because Johnson Development is still working through and I'm ·5· · · going to show you some concepts of how the buildings could ·6· · · be arranged, but it is the concept at this point so we're ·7· · · leaving this open.· So areas that are identified thus far on ·8· · · the plan is the areas where residential could be ·9· · · constructed.· Those are areas called C/R you can see here 10· · · and those are parcels that are owned by Kite Realty, 11· · · including the Starbucks on the corner.· That would be 12· · · included in the sale, but obviously Starbucks would stay, 13· · · but we're including as a C/R mixed use parcel, if you will, 14· · · because that would be something that all of the developer 15· · · would control. 16· · · · · · · ·So the access points remain the same onto U.S. 41. 17· · · That's a signalized intersection and then we have a right 18· · · in, right out closer to Airport Road.· And then the other 19· · · access point that's located closer to Haldeman Creek.· One 20· · · access point on Peters that's closed off and then the access 21· · · at Starbucks would remain.· You can see that we've arranged 22· · · water management areas conceptually on the site keeping the 23· · · -- it's very similar to the design that was being used for 24· · · the Sam's Club.· I know the county and everybody is 25· · · concerned about the discharge to Haldeman Creek. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 5 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 770 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·If you have questions, Christina Johnson can answer ·2· · · some questions about drainage if you have them.· One of the ·3· · · things because of the residential component that Johnson ·4· · · would like to do is to bring Haldeman Creek into play by ·5· · · putting in probably some sort of kayak launch, a dock or ·6· · · something to activate the waterfront so that the residents ·7· · · would have some option for utilizing the creek.· And the ·8· · · property itself includes Haldeman Creek, so it is within our ·9· · · project boundary.· One small preserve area has been 10· · · indicated as being preserved as an option already in the PUD 11· · · to go off-site to mitigate for that should we need to.· So 12· · · that's kind of a snapshot of what their plan is at least 13· · · from the zoning plan standpoint. 14· · · · · · · ·We are asking for several new deviations.· There 15· · · were several deviations required for the big box club. 16· · · We're asking for other deviations that will allow us to 17· · · navigate and you know, residential on the property.· Some 18· · · relate to signage.· Right now the county doesn't really have 19· · · a standard for having a mixed-use project to have 20· · · residential identification signage, for instance, on what 21· · · otherwise would be a directory sign for the commercial user 22· · · as well.· So for instance, that's one of the deviations 23· · · we've requested. 24· · · · · · · ·All this will be available on-line if anybody wants 25· · · to take a look at it.· And Sharon has business cards up Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 6 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 771 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · there.· You can go to our web site.· We have linked a ·2· · · presentation that we show you for our neighborhood ·3· · · information meetings if would like to look at those in more ·4· · · detail.· One of the site plan arrangements that we're ·5· · · looking at is this.· And you can see building footprints, ·6· · · but you know, what remains would be Starbucks.· The other ·7· · · outparcels that are existing, you have the gas station.· You ·8· · · have the Healthy Cafe, Dunkin Donuts and whatever will ·9· · · become of the Burger King would all remain and those are 10· · · separate and apart from the mixed-use proposal. 11· · · · · · · ·But this plan highlights a little bit better. 12· · · These hashed areas become water management areas, for 13· · · instance.· It's likely that they're going to have 14· · · single-story garage parking available for some of the 15· · · buildings.· Some of the amenities will likely be within the 16· · · residential buildings and it wouldn't be just a stand-alone 17· · · clubhouse type building.· Most likely this is going to be 18· · · their sales and leasing office and some of the recreational 19· · · component.· Potential dog park down in here close to 20· · · Haldeman Creek, typical features that you see for a lot of 21· · · multi-family projects now. 22· · · · · · · ·This puts it on an aerial photograph and I know 23· · · it's probably a little more difficult to read, but at least 24· · · it shows you how that's going to relate to the neighborhood. 25· · · We're trying very hard to respect the homes that are on Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 7 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 772 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · Collee Court and Peters that are adjacent to us.· With that, ·2· · · that's a very brief overview and I'm happy to answer ·3· · · questions.· Like I said, we have our team here that can ·4· · · answer specific questions you have and I'll try to do that. ·5· · · All I ask is that we take them one at a time and we need to ·6· · · be clear.· They don't like us to talk over each other ·7· · · because it's really hard to hear if somebody wants to listen ·8· · · to the audio tape and it's hard for transcription.· So I'll ·9· · · just start right here in the front row. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there going to be no commercial on 11· · · the bottom? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question was is there not going to 13· · · be commercial on the bottom?· And I don't believe it's the 14· · · intent of Johnson Development to have mixed-use in one 15· · · building.· The residential buildings would be separate. 16· · · They'll obviously be connected by pedestrian access points 17· · · and driveways to the remaining outparcels.· I saw a hand up 18· · · over here.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I see that the plan that you got 20· · · there shows the line going all the way over to the other 21· · · bank across from Bobby Cayden's property.· You own the 22· · · right-of-way all the way across Haldeman Creek? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do.· Haldeman Creek exists as a 24· · · drainage easement across Kite's property. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So they're granted an easement Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 8 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 773 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · across the property? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, there's an easement in favor of ·3· · · -- I'm not sure who all the parties are.· I know Collier ·4· · · County is one of the entities for Haldeman Creek, uh-huh. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm sorry.· I didn't hear the last ·7· · · part. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That would be Poley. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Poley, thank you.· I saw a hand over 10· · · here. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah. 12· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You've indicated that the development 14· · · is 20.35 acres, but there are 2.68 acres which are submerged 15· · · land, Parcel P that is owned by Kite.· Is that subtracted 16· · · from the developable area?· If it is, it only leaves about 17· · · 17 acres on which to site 300 homes and park 450 18· · · automobiles.· That constitutes in one acre 17 homes and 25 19· · · automobiles on one acre of developable land and I think 20· · · that's far too intense. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· I'm not going to dispute 22· · · your numbers, but I think it's a little over 18 acres that 23· · · Johnson Development is buying for the 300 units so the 24· · · density is a little less than you stated.· It's probably 25· · · closer to 16 units per acre overall, just so you know. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 9 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 774 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, I'm a car and half off. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Just so you know, activity centers in ·3· · · Collier County are encouraged to be the areas where we have ·4· · · high density residential and more intense commercial uses. ·5· · · And almost everywhere else in the county activity centers ·6· · · are allowed up to 16 units per acre residential density. I ·7· · · know that sounds like a high number, but it is what our ·8· · · comprehensive plan says that you can have.· And then our ·9· · · comprehensive plan will ensure (inaudible).· Yes? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I think better use of that property 11· · · would be as part of the government center and that should be 12· · · explored.· In addition to that, a mix of commercial and 13· · · residential might be more appropriate because of the traffic 14· · · volume at that intersection amongst other problems. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· So noted.· Thanks for the comment. 16· · · Anybody not -- yes, ma'am, back here? 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What types of units and what price 18· · · range? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, they are proposed to be rental 20· · · apartments. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Rental apartments? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, they're rental apartments.· And I 23· · · don't know if we have a price point yet.· I'm sure Rob can 24· · · indicate some of the price ranges that they're looking at, 25· · · but they're expected to be market-rate housing.· And you Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 10 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 775 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · know, price points will be commensurate with the market in ·2· · · the area.· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· What's the anticipated square footage ·4· · · per unit? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Rob, do you have some thoughts on ·6· · · that? ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, I do.· I'll speak to everything, ·8· · · bounce back and forth.· Good evening, everyone.· This is Rob ·9· · · Sucher with Johnson Development and I'll try and answer your 10· · · specific questions.· We're also going to go stay a little 11· · · bit afterwards with the site plan just kind of on a larger 12· · · scale, larger scale on the site plan -- Did you guys hear 13· · · that?· I'll try to be loud here -- that you can see in a 14· · · little bit more detail if someone wants to take a look at 15· · · the plan after the meeting specifically.· The size of the 16· · · units, so we have not -- we're at an early stage right now 17· · · so we have not moved into full scale design at this point. 18· · · Typically in the market, you're going to see about an 19· · · average of 1,000 square feet.· It's a mix of one bedroom to 20· · · three bedroom units.· So it will be plus or minus 1,000 21· · · square feet, most likely, in the market.· Yeah, go ahead. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The development has over 730 lineal 23· · · feet of frontage on Haldeman Creek and I see you did very 24· · · little to explaining what the development will be there. 25· · · Will there be parking and boat dockage and common areas Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 11 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 776 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · along that waterfront property?· And I think it's an asset ·2· · · that should be utilized by the developer. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I could not agree more.· It is one of ·4· · · the most exciting things we have on this project ·5· · · specifically.· There's no existing community within Collier ·6· · · County on the rental side that does have the opportunity for ·7· · · canal activation.· So that is exactly what we look for and ·8· · · hope to be able to achieve.· Unfortunately, it is not just a ·9· · · county approval.· It actually has to go through U.S. Army 10· · · Corp.· So that is a lengthy process that we're going to be 11· · · doing concurrent to zoning application, but it is absolutely 12· · · our intent to activate that canal.· We would be the first 13· · · ones of the incredible disappointment to the project if we 14· · · were not to be able to achieve that.· So it's 100 percent in 15· · · the plans. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It is. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I saw a hand up over there somewhere, 18· · · didn't I?· Okay.· Yes ma'am, go right ahead. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The 300 units, though, it's going to 20· · · take what, 600 cars?· There's already in the winter a 21· · · traffic jam there. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There's a bottle-neck. 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· One at a time, please.· One comment at 24· · · a time. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· In the mornings I live on the creek Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 12 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 777 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · so I come out by Seminole.· Actually, by Cardella's Law ·2· · · Offices.· I have to make a u-ie.· They're backed up halfway ·3· · · down Guilford every morning already in the summer.· What's ·4· · · it going to be with 600 more cars? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Right.· Well, I think part of the ·6· · · issue and we have our traffic engineer here, I mean, you ·7· · · have to remember that today they could refill the shopping ·8· · · center with 165,000 square feet retail space that generates ·9· · · far more trips than the residential trips.· So that's how 10· · · the traffic comparison was made and that's how the staff is 11· · · evaluating it based on retail versus residential.· Someone 12· · · who hasn't asked a question.· Sir, in the back? 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That is the third busiest 14· · · intersection in Collier County.· There are 90,000 cars at 15· · · peak season on 41 East and 35 -- 55,000 on Airport Road 16· · · going south.· That is a bottle-neck from the four corners 17· · · downtown Naples to Rattlesnake Hammock Road, if not further. 18· · · And adding 600 cars to that mix is going to be a mistake, I 19· · · believe, because currently I have witnessed emergency 20· · · vehicles that are delayed in their response at that 21· · · intersection. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, ma'am?· Oh, it's 23· · · Anita.· I couldn't see because of the light.· Sorry about 24· · · that. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Given that you have a lot of Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 13 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 778 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · multi-family here and a large employer, have you had any ·2· · · considerations for pedestrian improvements to help them ·3· · · cross the street at all?· Did staff ask you to consider ·4· · · that, how you move pedestrians around that area? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't think we've gotten quite that ·6· · · far, Anita, talking about all pedestrian interconnections. ·7· · · I mean, I think that's one of the things that attracts ·8· · · Johnson to this site is that you've got a large employment ·9· · · center at the government center next door.· You've got the 10· · · CAT transfer facility that's immediately across the street. 11· · · We have a traffic signalized intersection at both Airport 12· · · and at the entrance on U.S. 41 that does provide at least 13· · · for safe passage for people to cross the street to get to 14· · · and from work and shopping.· So I'm sure we'll be dialoguing 15· · · more with the transportation staff on that.· Yes, ma'am? 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many stories are each unit going 17· · · to be? 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, each unit will probably be a 19· · · single-story unit.· I don't know that they've settled on the 20· · · maximum number of stories for the project.· I can tell you 21· · · what we're asking for, for height for zoning, but I need to 22· · · put my glasses on to see that to make sure I read it 23· · · properly.· So for the multi-family we're asking for a zoned 24· · · height of 65 feet and an actual height of 70 feet.· That 25· · · probably translates into a maximum of five stories, I would Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 14 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 779 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · think, Rob, you know, most likely.· So that's what we're ·2· · · proposing.· Stand-alone amenity buildings would be 35 feet ·3· · · zoned, 45 feet actual height.· Yes, ma'am? ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There was a conversation with the ·5· · · previous plans that you had about fire suppression.· So to ·6· · · handle 300 units, plus units, how are you going to implement ·7· · · the same kind of thing with the water?· There was supposed ·8· · · to be some kind of a storage tank.· Does anybody have -- ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Christina, the question relates to 10· · · fire suppression and I don't know the answer to that. 11· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· We had -- Christina Johnson, JRE 12· · · Engineering.· I'm not aware of the specifics of what was 13· · · approved previously for fire suppression.· But I have had 14· · · preliminary conversations with the City of Naples on the 15· · · water supply to the site and we have not seen anything that 16· · · appeared to be an issue.· It is a different use as a 17· · · residential use instead of a big box commercial.· So there 18· · · could perhaps have been a different requirement for the 19· · · commercial building.· So I'm not aware of any issues. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The deviation on that fire 22· · · suppression was that where Starbucks is they were putting in 23· · · a water storage tank with a pump in order to supply water to 24· · · extinguish the fire if the Sam's Club was built there 25· · · because they could not suppress the fire with the water that Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 15 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 780 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · was supplied by the city and the size of the line that the ·2· · · city was supplying to that area.· Now you are going to be ·3· · · doing residential areas, too, but only one is going to be ·4· · · going off at a time. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I'm going to let Doug Kirby try to ·6· · · address that.· He's the owner of the property. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· So the issue with Sam's Club is their ·8· · · occupancy and their building code standard is a high pile ·9· · · storage.· It's got a much denser requirement for fire 10· · · suppression.· Before the CRA provided the funds for the city 11· · · to operate the water system on Collee Court it was 12· · · borderline with Sam's on whether they needed the tank or 13· · · not.· The models that were being drawn at the time when 14· · · Sam's pulled out, excuse me, was that because of the 15· · · improvements funded by the CRA, they weren't going to need 16· · · it.· And the fire demands for residential building are much 17· · · less than a high piled storage calculated. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sir, I'm going to go to somebody else 19· · · who hasn't asked a question yet and I'll come back to you 20· · · gladly.· Yes? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The common areas docks, are the 22· · · residents going to be able to have boats there or just 23· · · kayaks and canoes and things like that? 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No boats. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think the idea is that it would be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 16 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 781 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · paddle boards, kayaks, canoes, sort of those types of ·2· · · things.· I don't expect to be motorized transportation ·3· · · there.· I think as Rob mentioned, it's looking to activate ·4· · · that and that would make the most (inaudible).· I saw ·5· · · another hand back here.· Yes, sir? ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are they going to try to clean it up? ·7· · · I grew up there.· When I was a kid we used to swim in there, ·8· · · but I wouldn't wade in there now where we live.· And a lot ·9· · · of it is coming from Sam's, their parking lot and all. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, I think a lot of that does 11· · · filter down from north of U.S. 41, you are correct.· And I'm 12· · · sure that Johnson will be happy to clean it up.· I think 13· · · they want it to be a positive amenity for the community. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Also with the water, I live across 15· · · the street from Bobby Cayden.· When his house burned I 16· · · didn't even have enough water pressure to shoot my hose up 17· · · on my roof. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, I can assure you that Christina 19· · · Johnson, our engineer, will look at that.· I know that the 20· · · city has made some improvements to the water supply system 21· · · over the last couple of years.· And hopefully -- 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I still don't have any water pressure 23· · · where I live. 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Getting back to the density bonus, Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 17 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 782 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · you said 96 units or whatever? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The bonus units we're eligible to use ·3· · · up to 97 units in the bonus pool. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is that a pool for the CRA that ·5· · · becomes depleted or is that -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe -- ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· -- just for this site? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think, I'm not the expert, but Sue ·9· · · is here, Sue Faulkner from long-range planing, she may know. 10· · · But I think Mattamy Homes was going to utilize some of the 11· · · bonus pool units, but outside of that I don't know that 12· · · anybody else has utilized any of them.· So these were meant 13· · · to be an incentive to have redevelopment to gain those bonus 14· · · pool units.· So that's what we've applied to do.· Somebody 15· · · else who hasn't asked a question?· I just want to make sure 16· · · because I think the CRA would want to make sure we answer 17· · · all your questions.· I know the CRA has their regular 18· · · meeting following this.· So to the extent that we can get 19· · · through the questions that you ask, anybody who hasn't asked 20· · · a question yet would like to ask a question?· Yes, sir? 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I totally agree with the colossal 22· · · traffic jam.· But does this increase impervious cover? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The question is does this increase 24· · · impervious coverage?· And I guess the question is compared 25· · · to what?· Probably not compared to if Sam's Club were to Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 18 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 783 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · have been constructed. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Compared to the Sam's Club? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Uh-huh. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· No? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I don't believe it does.· Christina, I ·6· · · don't know if you know for sure, but it's probably ·7· · · comparable or less. ·8· · · · · · · ·MS. JOHNSON:· It's negligible. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you.· Yes? 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The challenge that I see that no one 12· · · has addressed, though, is that the traffic may be the same 13· · · number of cars going in and out of there, but nobody has 14· · · addressed that everyone leaves at nine o'clock in the 15· · · morning and returns at five o'clock in the afternoon.· So it 16· · · might be the same number of cars coming in, but residential 17· · · is going to be the mornings and the evening rush hour. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, the county does make -- the 19· · · question if you didn't hear was about that even though we 20· · · may have less traffic, it all occurs at generally the same 21· · · time in the morning or evening because of the residential 22· · · nature of what's being proposed.· And I think that the 23· · · non-transportation engineer that I am, the answer is that 24· · · the county looks at a.m. peak hours.· They look at p.m. peak 25· · · hours.· And then we're required to analyze how much traffic Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 19 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 784 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · is generated during those times and where it's disbursed. ·2· · · And I think part of it is they can easily disburse from the ·3· · · site which makes a lot of sense. ·4· · · · · · · ·You can go north on Airport Road.· You can go east ·5· · · or west on the Trail and that helps disburse that.· And ·6· · · having the traffic signals for volume control is also ·7· · · comparable.· I don't know if the transportation engineer's ·8· · · version of -- you know, the comparison of the residential to ·9· · · the commercial option.· And I think we understand and I 10· · · think the county staff understands that the peak hours are 11· · · still going to be 7 to 9 a.m. in the mornings and 4 to 6 12· · · p.m. in the evenings.· So we have to analyze our situation. 13· · · Anybody else back there?· I'm having a hard time seeing. 14· · · The sun is coming in just below the shade.· Yes? 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I've got an idea for the pedestrian 16· · · crossing.· What about one of those bridges that goes up 17· · · over, across and down, you know, for people walking over to 18· · · that?· I mean, because whenever you're sitting at the light 19· · · and it's 30 seconds for someone to get across the street, 20· · · that increases the time. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It definitely does.· I mean, that's 22· · · one of the challenges we have in Collier County where you 23· · · have large intersections.· You have to give enough green 24· · · time for the pedestrian and it takes away from the green 25· · · time for the motorist.· We get that.· I don't know that it's Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 20 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 785 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · an economically feasible option.· The county has explored ·2· · · those at other intersections and they're extremely expensive ·3· · · because they have to be built for ADA compliance.· So they ·4· · · have to have either very long ramps that are circular and ·5· · · they're expensive.· The county doesn't maybe even like what ·6· · · the appearance would be to start having these pedestrian ·7· · · bridges over the roadway, but I understand your point.· It ·8· · · does increase and decrease the capacity. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thinking outside thoughts. 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I understand.· Thanks for the comment. 11· · · Anybody else back there?· Yes, sir?· I saw your hand just 12· · · about ready to go up. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You finally got back to me.· I'm 14· · · sorry to give you such a hard time. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· No, you're not.· That's why we're 16· · · here.· I just want to make sure everybody has a chance. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light at Peters and U.S. 41 is a 18· · · very short light when you're on Peters Street.· I timed it 19· · · several times.· The maximum number of vehicles that can get 20· · · through that light before they turn it back to 41 is four 21· · · cars, the maximum and some will get through.· Only three out 22· · · lanes, two of which have to turn right on to 41 and go down 23· · · and make a u-turn to come east or to go west.· There's no 24· · · traffic that is going to have access on Peters Street now 25· · · that Starbucks is there and Wild Buffalo Wings is there, no Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 21 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 786 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · traffic can get out. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I can address that after just for the ·3· · · group is this orientation -- ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That light has to be lengthened and ·5· · · shorten lights on Airport and -- ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· When you look at Peters in the ·7· · · specific orientation of Kite, it's very intentional to ·8· · · actually bring traffic away from Peters and away from the ·9· · · intersection.· So our two principal entrances and the exits 10· · · are actually to the south, the southern signal. 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, they will be? 12· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· And you see these two where the 13· · · main entrance is actually at the left in, right in, right 14· · · out. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Oh, I see.· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And then we actually have our primary 17· · · entrance and exit where the majority of and that's where 18· · · we're encouraging the circulation of the site to be a big U 19· · · movement that would access the southern signal to move 20· · · traffic away from Peters. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I understand now.· You can turn left 22· · · at that location? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Correct.· And we're trying to minimize 24· · · the same impacts as the complication with Starbucks as well. 25· · · We understand that. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 22 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 787 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The other thing is you have that ·2· · · complex is going to use 44 million gallons of water a year ·3· · · if they use the average of 175 gallons per person per year. ·4· · · Is the City of Naples able to supply 44 million gallons of ·5· · · water and accept 44 million gallons of sewage from your ·6· · · facilities?· They have a 10 million gallon a day sewer plan ·7· · · and I don't think they're prepared to attempt it. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If I might, I would just say that ·9· · · we're required to do these utility forms.· Utility staff for 10· · · the county is reviewing that.· We do have city water.· It's 11· · · county sewage supply.· So the county is dealing with the 12· · · sewage.· There's no capacity issues with the county sewer 13· · · plans.· And I'm pretty sure that the City of Naples has 14· · · ample capacity.· Again, comparing what this could be if 15· · · retail users or restaurant users, I think we're pretty 16· · · comfortable.· And I think -- I know Christina has talked to 17· · · both entities and they feel comfortable because they 18· · · certainly have the service capacity for us.· Yes, ma'am? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· On your web site we can go in and 20· · · check all of this information out.· Will it show those 21· · · lights?· I'm still a little bit confused about coming out of 22· · · that area with all of those cars.· And Peters, is Peters 23· · · still going to be existing or no? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, Peters will be existing.· It's 25· · · going to remain an access point for Starbucks that will Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 23 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 788 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · remain on Peters.· One of the other access drives that was ·2· · · there if this develops to residential, I should say.· If it ·3· · · became a big box there would actually be one more access ·4· · · point on Peters than there is proposed for the residential. ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· Because then the residents are ·6· · · going to turn in.· I live right off of Tamiami and Osceola ·7· · · where we have to do the u-turn to go back towards town.· Is ·8· · · that the only other light you're talking about? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the lights we're talking about 10· · · are existing.· You have the one that services across from 11· · · the government center and then there's the light at Airport 12· · · and Peters.· So those are the two lighted intersections that 13· · · I'm referring to.· But yes, the information we have here if 14· · · you take one of Sharon Umpenhour's cards on the table, you 15· · · can go to our web site at GradyMinor.com and we have a link 16· · · to the application materials as well as a power point. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Sure.· Yes, sir? 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I have a concern about the units 20· · · themselves and whether this is going to end up to be a 21· · · basically a dormitory type of housing development.· And the 22· · · question might be resolved by asking what kind of amenities 23· · · are you planning to have in the community in addition to 24· · · just a place to live? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That's probably a good segue to let -- Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 24 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 789 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · I'll let Rob tell you a little bit about Johnson ·2· · · Development.· How about that to sort of close out?· I'll let ·3· · · you talk a little bit about that, Rob, and then what you're ·4· · · looking at for amenities here. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Absolutely.· So Johnson Development is ·6· · · a family company based out of Spartanburg, South Carolina. ·7· · · We have multiple offices throughout the country:· D.C., New ·8· · · York, L.A., San Francisco.· All of our southeastern focus is ·9· · · based out of Spartanburg and then we move throughout the 10· · · regions.· So I've been working with Johnson Development for 11· · · about five years now on multiple divisions.· We have 12· · · industrial division, multi-family division, a storage 13· · · division, a commercial division and a community division, 14· · · which is an economic development for the City of 15· · · Spartanburg, South Carolina. 16· · · · · · · ·Specific to the family, we've developed close to 17· · · 10,000 units throughout the country.· Most of those in our 18· · · current pipeline are luxury Class A apartments.· So you're 19· · · going to have really the best thing of the amenities as well 20· · · as finishes that we offer in the market.· So the best in 21· · · classes is really kind of the new competitive vantage.· You 22· · · have to build what's nice, but also what's nicer than the 23· · · newest competition.· So what we're trying to do here is 24· · · create something that's unique based upon what is the huge 25· · · advantage of this site, the adjacency of employment as well Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 25 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 790 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · as the opportunity to connect to the Bayshore Arts District ·2· · · as well as the amenities of downtown in much closer ·3· · · proximity to competitive projects. ·4· · · · · · · ·The amenities specifically, we have again a luxury ·5· · · pool that's going to be right outside of the first L-shaped ·6· · · building.· A dog park is what we propose.· We see that about ·7· · · 40 percent of customers in apartments today are pet owners. ·8· · · So that's a big thing to have that sense of community ·9· · · on-site is important to us.· The activation of the canal is 10· · · something that we really feel is a special opportunity. 11· · · Like I mentioned before, something that does not exist today 12· · · in the county.· It's something that we have not done, had 13· · · the opportunity to, but to be able to paddle down, actually 14· · · up the creek to 360 Market, to Celebration Park.· A really 15· · · unique advantage that we're hoping to take the opportunity 16· · · to take advantage of, excuse me. 17· · · · · · · ·The other amenity that we're offering here that is 18· · · going to be unique, we've done it in a couple of places. 19· · · One is a project in Tampa that's under construction now as 20· · · well as a project in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina, which is 21· · · in Charleston, South Carolina is a we-work concept.· So that 22· · · is going to be a co-work opportunity to where you have the 23· · · opportunity to office and work in the amenities themselves 24· · · to have a home office.· Be outside of your actual home, but 25· · · still be in the community itself.· So you don't have to pay Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 26 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 791 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · essentially for space, but we'll have conference spaces. ·2· · · We'll have individual desks there for the community itself. ·3· · · And that's seen across the industry as a huge opportunity to ·4· · · allow people spaces that feel larger, but also connect with ·5· · · the community itself. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Are you going to have a fitness ·7· · · center? ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· We will, yes, absolutely.· Yeah, ·9· · · fitness is pretty much standard in the business today and 10· · · absolutely we'll have that.· We don't really decide on the 11· · · fitness delivery until just because trends are changing so 12· · · quickly, but it will be top of the market. 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Can you give us the names of some of 14· · · the developments that you've done that we could look at to 15· · · see what we might expect here? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, absolutely.· And I'll have my 17· · · card out and I can give you.· It has a link to our web site 18· · · that has all of our projects in our pipeline. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a particular project that 20· · · you either have going on now or had that would be similar to 21· · · what are you proposing here? 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes.· We have a project that just 23· · · delivered in Charleston about nine months ago.· It's called 24· · · The Haven at Indigo Square. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 27 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 792 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· And that's linked directly from our ·4· · · web site, which is JohnsonDevelopment.net.· And you can go ·5· · · over to the actual site and see all the gallery in itself. ·6· · · The other project that we are hoping to start construction ·7· · · on over the summer is actually in Collier County. ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear you. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, excuse me.· The other project 10· · · that we have in the pipeline locally is actually here and 11· · · will hopefully start construction early summer which is at 12· · · the intersection of Livingston and Radio Road.· The name of 13· · · that project is called The Lago and that design is currently 14· · · being permitted right now. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· It's called what? 16· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Lago. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We can't hear. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm sorry. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We didn't get the name of the place. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 21· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Say that again. 22· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The Haven at Indigo Square. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The Haven at Indigo Square? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And where is it located? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 28 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 793 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· That's in Mt. Pleasant, South ·2· · · Carolina, which is in Charleston.· The local project is ·3· · · named Lago, L-a-g-o, and that is at the intersection of ·4· · · Radio and Livingston.· That is currently being permitted, ·5· · · final permits with Collier County.· So unfortunately, we do ·6· · · not have the web site or images available quite yet, but ·7· · · we're hoping to start construction on that early this ·8· · · summer. ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, folks? 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· There used to be in Collier County 11· · · what was called continuity or concurrency, sorry, in which 12· · · the schools had to be adequate, the fire department had to 13· · · be adequate, the sidewalks, the roads had to be adequate for 14· · · development before it could be developed.· Can you meet all 15· · · of these criteria that are required for that kind of -- 16· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I can ask our attorney to respond, but 17· · · I think I can safely say that yes, we will make all the 18· · · concurrency requirements that Collier County has. 19· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· The fire department has its ladders 20· · · high enough to get to the sixth floor? 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I hope so.· We have buildings much 22· · · taller than that. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Because my ladder isn't high enough 24· · · to get into a tree. 25· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· We have a ladder truck now. Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 29 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 794 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, sir? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many units did the county allow ·4· · · you to have now?· Is that 95 more? ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, no.· We're asking to utilize -- ·6· · · we're right now allowed to have four dwelling units per acre ·7· · · over the site.· We're asking for the ability to go up to 16 ·8· · · units per acre for the site. ·9· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Is there a reason why that we decided 10· · · on four per acre to begin with? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· The county did that for it's kind of a 12· · · base density throughout the urban area outside of activity 13· · · centers.· So if you're west of Collier Boulevard, for 14· · · instance, the base density is generally four dwelling units 15· · · per acre. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So we're going to go from four to 16? 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah, that's what we're proposing. 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· This is the reason why we all moved 19· · · here from the west coast, Bradenton, all of those areas 20· · · because it didn't do what they did up there and ruin our 21· · · area.· We kept it small.· We kept it less density.· So now 22· · · they're going to go to 16 from four.· So if you just keep it 23· · · the way it's supposed to be, then there's no problem.· And 24· · · that's why we all moved here. 25· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Part of the reason you're in a Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 30 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 795 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · redevelopment area is that we're trying to encourage people ·2· · · to redevelop sites like a shopping center that is a failed ·3· · · shopping center.· It's failed a number of times as being a ·4· · · grocery-anchored shopping center.· So we believe that given ·5· · · the location proximity to employment, given the government ·6· · · center location, proximity to the beach, downtown, the CRA, ·7· · · Bayshore Drive that the real opportunity here is for a ·8· · · mixed-use project that includes residential dwellings as ·9· · · well as some retail. 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Which is fine.· You can put that in 11· · · there, but just keep the density.· They're asking for more 12· · · than anybody else.· They've already ruined their town so now 13· · · they want to ruin our town by putting in all these people. 14· · · We got enough now. 15· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Thank you. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You're welcome. 17· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes? 18· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You just mentioned apartments for 19· · · people who are working at the government center or perhaps 20· · · downtown.· Will the price point be something that those 21· · · service industry, for example, can afford who are working 22· · · downtown? 23· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, these will be market rate.· So 24· · · that, I wish we knew what the market was going to be in two 25· · · years from now, but this will be consistent with market rate Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 31 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 796 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · apartments. ·2· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· How many years from now? ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· I'm hopeful that we can get started ·4· · · construction, you know, sometime next year and deliver our ·5· · · first units within the next two to three years. ·6· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions?· Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, on the old neighborhoods that ·8· · · are in the back end, what is the plan to buffer them from ·9· · · this? 10· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Well, the county has code requirements 11· · · for a buffer between multi-family residential and single 12· · · family.· It requires a certain type of hedge or wall and 13· · · vegetative screening, et cetera. 14· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Well, when they were doing the Sam's 15· · · Club, one of the deviations that they asked for and one of 16· · · the agreements they stipulated and the gentleman in the back 17· · · can probably move forward and answer that question is that 18· · · they agreed to put into a fund to upgrade the right-of-way 19· · · that surrounds that property on that side.· I forgot the 20· · · exact dollar amount, but they agreed to a dollar amount. 21· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· It was $50,000 for sidewalk for 22· · · pedestrians. 23· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And that stays within this plan? 24· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I believe those dollars -- Doug, you 25· · · can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think those funds were in Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 32 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 797 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · place, were they not? ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. KIRBY:· Yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· His response was yes. ·4· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·5· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·6· · · we adjourn and let the CRA get on with their meeting?· Yes, ·7· · · sir? ·8· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I live at that location which is 3312 ·9· · · Collee which is directly adjacent to your property or to 10· · · Kite's property for 38 years on the south side.· We were 11· · · there when it was an open field prior to construction of 12· · · Courthouse Shadows.· We went through a year of hell with the 13· · · construction process, the dust and dirt in our houses and 14· · · our cars.· There was blasting and excavating, earth moving 15· · · that was done that cracked our home.· We need -- the four 16· · · residents that own property directly adjacent to Kite's need 17· · · a telephone number and a contact on-site so that we can call 18· · · to register a problem that we have and hopefully it could be 19· · · resolved. 20· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· I think that's a very fair comment. 21· · · And I think most of the quality contractors these days have 22· · · an on-site superintendent.· They supply you with a 24-hour 23· · · cell phone number. 24· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Yeah, we would need that because of 25· · · the damage that was done to us over the course of this year Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 33 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 798 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · that it took for that Courthouse Shadows to be built. ·2· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Understood.· Yes, ma'am? ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· I just have a question regarding ·4· · · commercial because it appears that most of what is ·5· · · allocating now for commercial is going to be gone.· Is that ·6· · · kind of what I'm hearing that -- ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yes, under the residential option if ·8· · · Johnson Development decides to move ahead with this ·9· · · option -- 10· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 11· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- most of the inlying, the shopping 12· · · center building -- 13· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· That we know now. 14· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· -- that you've known would be 15· · · demolished and in its place would be built this. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So the commercial will really 17· · · be more of the out buildings that we see?· Is that what I'm 18· · · understanding? 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· That is correct.· The remaining 20· · · commercial under the residential option is largely the 21· · · outparcels. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay.· So this is really what we're 23· · · looking at is this site really is going to move, if you 24· · · will, from a commercial property to primarily residential 25· · · with a few out buildings? Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 34 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 799 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Under this development scenario that's ·2· · · a correct statement, yes. ·3· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay, thank you. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Yeah.· Yes, sir in the back? ·5· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Excuse me.· Regarding the parking ·6· · · spaces that you have outside of the single type family ·7· · · buildings, are those going to be exclusively use for the ·8· · · outparcels or will that be used as parking for, you know, ·9· · · overflow parking for the apartments or guest parking for the 10· · · apartments? 11· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yeah, thank you for asking the 12· · · question.· So our attempt is to really activate the existing 13· · · commercial.· I think anybody can attest as a potential owner 14· · · or just visiting the center itself that it's very 15· · · challenging for businesses to be successful when you have a 16· · · vacant use behind you. 17· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Correct. 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· So this is a real opportunity that we 19· · · see is to activate -- you saw the successful development of 20· · · the Starbucks.· Also activate the remaining four outparcels 21· · · and allow for what hopefully is an increase not only in 22· · · on-site business, but also to have the presence of a new 23· · · expensive development behind them compared to a vacant 24· · · building.· What we're also doing is we're installing new 25· · · parking as mentioned by the question in between the Chevron Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 35 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 800 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · as well as the Crooked Shillelagh, excuse me.· And then we ·2· · · also have all the parking just south of the main critical ·3· · · driveway.· Those will also be installed for the betterment ·4· · · and the benefit of the residential and the retail itself. ·5· · · You can see behind the Burger King there's also new ·6· · · increased parking there. ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Right. ·8· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· As well as the Dunkin Donuts to the ·9· · · east has new installed spots that will benefit those.· We 10· · · also have a preservation at the parking between the 11· · · Starbucks and the Crooked Shillelagh as well.· Those are 12· · · increased spots from what exists there today.· So all of 13· · · those are newly created spots that will benefit the retail 14· · · upfront. 15· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Okay. 16· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· But will they be also used as 17· · · overflow for the apartments or -- 18· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· The parking inside of the gates is for 19· · · the residential.· And we also do have some shared parking 20· · · opportunities that would benefit both the residential and 21· · · the retail. 22· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· So then you would expect this to be a 23· · · gated community?· You said inside the gate.· So it would be 24· · · a gated community? 25· · · · · · · ·MR. SUCHER:· Yes, ma'am, but that's to be Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 36 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 801 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · consistent with the market.· I would say definitely ·2· · · predominantly, but if not exclusively all of the new ·3· · · apartment communities are gated. ·4· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Any other questions, comments before ·5· · · we break up?· Anybody not have a chance to ask a question? ·6· · · Yes, sir? ·7· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· You have any idea when you go in ·8· · · front of the planning board? ·9· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do not have hearing dates set yet. 10· · · This is -- 11· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· And will we be getting a notice same 12· · · as we did? 13· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· If you were noticed for this meeting, 14· · · you should get notice from the county next time.· And of 15· · · course, the big 4 x 8 signs get installed, so you'll see 16· · · them.· As a neighborhood resident, you'll see those.· And do 17· · · we post those on our web site, Sharon, the dates? 18· · · · · · · ·MS. UMPENHOUR:· Yes. 19· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· We do, yeah.· So on our web site, too, 20· · · if you follow us.· I forgot to introduce a couple of county 21· · · people that are here.· You might want to write down their 22· · · names.· We have Sue Faulkner who's with comprehensive 23· · · planning.· She's sitting back here.· She's one of the 24· · · comprehensive planning staff people.· And James Sabo who's 25· · · one of the zoning staff people, they're here.· It's not Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 37 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 802 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1· · · their meeting per se, but they're here to monitor and take ·2· · · notes and make sure they understand what the citizen ·3· · · comments were.· So we appreciate everybody coming out.· If ·4· · · there's no other comments, we'll adjourn the meeting.· Thank ·5· · · you all for coming. ·6· · · · · · · ·THE SPEAKER:· Thank you. ·7· · · · · · · ·MR. ARNOLD:· Have a good CRA meeting. ·8· · · · · · · ·(End of the meeting.) ·9· · · · · · · · · · · · · · - - - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 38 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 YVer1f 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 803 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) ·1 ·2 ·3· · · · · · · · ·C E R T I F I C A T E ·4· · · · · · · · · · · · ·- - - ·5 ·6 ·7· · · · · · · ·I, Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter and ·8· Transcriptionist, do hereby certify that I was authorized to and ·9· did listen to and stenographically transcribe the foregoing 10· recorded meeting and that the transcript is a true record to the 11· best of my professional ability. 12 13 14· · · · · · · ·Dated this 21st day of May, 2019. 15 16 17 18 19· · · · · · · · · ·_______________________ · · · · · · · · · · ·Vicki Woodham, Court Reporter 20 21 22 23 24 25 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 Courthouse Shadows MPUD Neighborhood May 07, 2019 39 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT 866-339-2608 9.A.3.i Packet Pg. 804 Attachment: NIM Transcript May 7 2019 NIM (1) (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Shadows) Petitions PL20180003659 (GMPA), Courthouse Shadows GMP Amendment and; PL20180003658 (PUDA), Courthouse Shadows CPUD Amendment May 7, 2019 Neighborhood Information Meeting 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 805 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Project Information 2 Existing Zoning:Courthouse Shadows Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Proposed Zoning:Courthouse Shadows Mixed-Use Planned Unit Development (MPUD) Existing Future Land Use (FLU):Mixed Use Activity Center #16 Subdistrict Project Acreage:20.35+/-acres 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 806 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Proposed Request 3 Proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment:proposes to permit increased density on a 10-acre portion of the site.The application proposes a total of 300 multi-family apartments on approximately 18+/-acres of the 20.35 acre PUD.The property plans to utilize up to 97 units from the density,in addition to the base density of 4 dwelling units per acre,with the balance of the 300 units resulting from the units permitted by the small-scale amendment. Proposed CPUD Rezone:The applicant proposes to amend the 20.35+/-acre Courthouse Shadows PUD to add a development option to construct a maximum of 300 multi-family dwelling units. 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 807 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Location Map 49.A.3.j Packet Pg. 808 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Aerial Photograph 59.A.3.j Packet Pg. 809 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Existing Activity Center #16 6 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 810 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Proposed Activity Center #16 7 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 811 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Approved Master Plan (Exhibit A)8 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 812 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Proposed Mixed-Use Option Master Plan (Exhibit B)9 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 813 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Approved and Proposed Deviations 10 Deviations 1 through 10 were previously proposed but only deviation 1 through 5,7 and 9 were approved by Ordinance 2016-45 at the December 13,2016 BCC hearing.Deviation 6,8 and 10 were withdrawn at the December 13,2016 BCC hearing and are shown as withdrawn in Ordinance 2016-45. Previously approved Deviation 2 and 7 have been revised as follows to accommodate the Mixed-Use development option. 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 814 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Proposed Deviations 11 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 815 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Proposed Conceptual Site Plan 12 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 816 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Proposed Conceptual Site Plan (aerial)13 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 817 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse Questions? 14 9.A.3.j Packet Pg. 818 Attachment: NIM Presentation May 7 2019 NIM (9785 : PUDA PL20180003658 Courthouse 09/19/2019 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: PL20190000044: A Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.96 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area, which will allow development of a maximum of 2,500 residential dwelling units; a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center and a minimum of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center; a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities subject to a floor area ratio of 0.45 in place of a maximum square footage; and an 18 hole golf course; all subject to a maximum PM peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area and establishing that 5877.44 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area. The subject property is located south of 45th Avenue NE and north of 26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principal Planner, AICP, PLA] Meeting Date: 09/19/2019 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 09/03/2019 3:15 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 09/03/2019 3:15 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Camden Smith Review Item Completed 09/04/2019 2:32 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig Review item Completed 09/05/2019 10:44 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/05/2019 2:27 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 09/09/2019 4:33 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 3:54 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 09/11/2019 4:08 PM Planning Commission Mark Strain Meeting Pending 09/19/2019 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 819 RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 1 of 40 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2019 SUBJECT: SRA-PL20190000044, RIVERGRASS VILLAGE STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREA (SRA) _______________________________________________________________________________ APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNERS/AGENTS: Applicant: Mr. Patrick L. Utter, Vice President Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Property Owners: Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC 2550 Goodlette Road North, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34103 Agents: Robert J. Mulhere, FAICP Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Hole Montes, Inc. Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. 950 Encore Way 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34103 AGENDA ITEM 9.A.4 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 820 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 2 of 40 9.A.4.aPacket Pg. 821Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 3 of 40 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 822 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 4 of 40 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider a Resolution of the Collier County Board of County Commissioners designating 999.96 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as a Stewardship Receiving Area, to be known as the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA), which will allow development of a maximum of 2,500 residential dwelling units; a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center and a minimum of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial in the village center; a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; senior housing including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities subject to a floor area ratio of 0.45 in place of a maximum square footage; and an 18 hole golf course; all subject to a maximum PM peak hour trip cap; and approving the Stewardship Receiving Area credit agreement for Rivergrass Village SRA and establishing that 5877.44 stewardship credits are being utilized by the designation of the Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 999.96 acres, is located south of 45th Avenue NE and north of 26th Avenue NE, all east of Desoto Boulevard in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48 South, Range 28 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay District (RLSA) was developed in order to protect natural resource areas and agricultural lands. The RLSA encourages property owners to voluntarily protect environmentally valuable land as a public benefit. The mechanism to achieve the protection of environmentally valuable land is the designation of Stewardship Sending Area (SSA) in exchange for Stewardship Credits, which are used to entitle Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). One of the components of the SRA designation application is the Natural Resource Index Assessment, which documents the relative natural resource values of land within an SRA. The Natural Resource Index Assessment documents the existing conditions and Natural Resource Index (NRI) scores within the proposed SRA for Rivergrass Village SRA. It should be noted that the NRI scores demonstrate that Rivergrass Village SRA meets the Suitability Criteria contained in the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). Please see the Environmental Review Section of this Staff Report for further information. The Rivergrass Village SRA is one of four SRAs that have either been submitted to Collier County or have had pre-application meetings for an SRA designation. The other three SRA Villages located within the vicinity of Rivergrass Village SRA along the future Big Cypress Parkway are Hyde Park Village (PL20180000622) which is currently under review and Longwater Village (PL20190001836) and Belmar Village (PL20190001837) both of which held pre-application meetings in August 2019. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 823 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 5 of 40 The Rivergrass Village SRA consists of two context zones which are required per the SRA Overlay regulations: Neighborhood General and mixed-use Village Center. Approximately 45% of the Village acreage is located north of Oil Well Road, and the remaining 55% is located south of Oil Well Road. A long perimeter lake system runs along the eastern boundary of the Village, both north and south of Oil Well Road. The lake system serves as part of the Village stormwater system and acts as a deterrent to wildlife. The proposed Big Cypress Parkway is located along the western boundary of the Village. This SRA application for Rivergrass Village SRA will include approximately: • 2,500 residential dwelling units with a density of 2.5 units per acre; o a minimum of 250 multi-family dwelling units; • a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial; • a minimum of 60,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial; • a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses; and • senior housing, including adult living facilities and continuing care retirement communities subject to a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.45 in place of a maximum square footage area. The Village will also have other uses such as a Golf Club and Amenity Center, an 18-hole golf course, and park and community green space. The required minimum of 35% open space is 349.99 acres, and 65% open space or 615.27 acres has been provided. For further information, please see Attachment A-Proposed SRA Resolution. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) and a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) East: Undeveloped land and farmland with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) and a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) South: Undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Collier Land Holdings and Collier Development Corporation (A-MHO-RLSAO) West: Undeveloped land and developed residential land with a zoning designation of Estates (E), and developed land with excavation ponds with a zoning designation of Agriculture-Mobile Home Overlay-Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (A-MHO-RLSAO) 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 824 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 6 of 40 AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed SRA. Please see Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review along with the Findings, Conclusions, and Conditions of Approval below: Consistency Review Findings: 1. The Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application (revised to 8/08/2019, from 6/07/2016) for SSA number 15 [originally prepared for SSA number 17 (and 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 825 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 7 of 40 others) and the now-defunct Rural Lands West SRA application]; and, the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement (revised to 8/08/2019, from 6/04/2016) have been reconciled and updated, and may be found internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials. The Applicant has elected to consume credits for public benefit use areas and count the acreage toward the maximum acreage limits of the SRA. 2. The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document (revised to 8/15/2019, from 8/09/2019) proposes Deviations and departures from Development Standards for this SRA project that do not conform to fundamental Village design characteristics required by the LDC, and are not consistent with the intent of the RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, as follows: Section VII, DEVIATIONS: • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 1., Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.v), re: Village Center design, resulting in a project that does not serve the daily needs and community-wide needs. [distances to goods and services are too great given its location.] • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 2., Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii), re: parking locations, resulting in a project that allows for off-street parking arrangements discouraged in Villages. • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 3., Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), re: parking locations, same as above. • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 4., Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, re: parking structure requirements, NO COMMENT. • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1. 5., Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, re: multi-family residential lot sizes, resulting with a project that allows for exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages, • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2. 1., Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.a), re: the mix of uses in Neighborhood General areas, resulting in a project that does not serve the daily needs and community-wide needs. • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2. 2., Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), re: non-residential use building sizes, NO COMMENT. • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2. 3., Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), re: multi-family residential yard setbacks, NO COMMENT. • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2. 4., Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i), re: multi-family residential lot sizes, resulting with a project that allows for exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages. • Proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.3. 1., Transportation Standards, requests deviation from [multiple] LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b. cross-section figures, re: sidewalk designs along collector streets and local streets in Neighborhood General areas, 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 826 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 8 of 40 may result with an interrupted sidewalk system; this Deviation will benefit from additional language stating, “…may be allowed where a fully interconnected sidewalk and pathway system is maintained.” (No further remarks regarding additional proposed Deviations) 3. Other proposed departures from Development Standards can be determined to be uncharacteristic of a “Village,” as follows: Section V, CONTEXT ZONES: • Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.1.1.A., Neighborhood General Permitted Uses and Structures: list incomplete, as it does not allow the mix of uses in Neighborhood General areas; • Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.1.2.A., Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards, Required Minimum Yards & Maximum Building Heights, including table and footnotes: front setbacks too shallow; most measures reflect conventional standards, not Village design; list too exclusive, omitting the allowed mix of uses in Neighborhood General areas; • Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.2.1.A. and B., Village Center Permitted Uses and Accessory Uses: list that includes uses such as “retail nurseries” does not reflect Village design; the “comparable and compatible” listing directs determinations back to a standard LDC reference, when additional direction to consider Village characteristics of being compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient (and other aspects) would make this listing internally consistent within the SRA; • Proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.2.2.A., Village Center Development and Design Standards, Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) & Maximum Building Heights, including table and footnotes: lot width too wide; distance between structures is unnecessary; most measures reflect conventional standards, not Village design; Supportable Deviations and Development Standards from the LDC are those where: a. The Deviation or Development Standard is consistent with the RLSA Overlay (or where mitigation practices are pursued to reach consistency); and b. It can be demonstrated that the proposed Deviation or Development Standard further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as outlined in RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District. Collier County RLSA regulations are based on the principles of innovative planning and development strategies in Florida Statute. 4. Review the SRA materials throughout, to find related entries requiring related and similar changes, including, in particular, the proposed SRA Document, SRA Statement of Suitability Criteria per LDC. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 827 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 9 of 40 Substantive Review Findings: The requisite credits are sufficient number from approved or pending SSAs to enable the development of the SRA. The approved Stewardship Credits must be submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. The proposed density and uses may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. However, a number of other design and development characteristics for the project may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as follows: This essentially thousand-acre project is not proposed with a meaningful mix between single- family and multi-family residential dwelling units as the ratio is 90% single-family and 10% multi-family residential dwelling units. By comparison, the County as a whole has a ratio of approximately 50% single-family to multi-family. (reference RLSA Policy 4.7.2, in the attached Exhibit B- FLUE Consistency Review). A significant number of Deviations from the LDC are requested, the preponderance of which remove the proposed project from consistency with the RLSA Overlay. The relevant Deviations and departures from Development Standards proposed for this SRA project do not conform to fundamental Village design characteristics required by the LDC and are not consistent with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District. Collier County RLSA regulations are based on the principals established to enhance the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies. Conclusions: Where the proposed SRA lacks consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC, it may not be considered consistent with the FLUE. Where the proposed SRA does not conform to fundamental Vi llage design characteristics as identified in the Substantive Review Findings above, it is not supported by a recom mendation for approval. Based upon the above analysis, this proposed SRA may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, the application may be deemed consistent if and when the Conditions of Approval below are met. Conditions of Approval: 1. All formal SSAs have been approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. 2. Those Deviations, Development Standards, SRA Statement of Suitability Criteria, etc., listed under Consistency Review Findings, above, are removed or revised as discussed above. 3. The ratio of multi-family to single-family dwelling units is increased to a meaningful level. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 828 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 10 of 40 For further information, please see Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition and recommends the following: Policy 3.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP: “The County shall acquire a sufficient amount of right-of-way to facilitate arterial and collector roads as appropriate to meet the needs of the Long Range Transportation Plan or other adopted transportation studies, plan or programs, appropriate turn lanes, medians, bicycle and pedestrian features, drainage canals, a shoulder sufficient for pull offs, and landscaping areas. Exceptions to the right-of-way standard may be considered when it can demonstrated, through a traffic capacity analysis, that the maximum number of lanes at build-out will be less than the standard.” Staff finding: On October 28, 2003, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved a Resolution related to the creation of the Big Cypress Stewardship District. A requirement of the Resolution and the enabling legislation for the District required the District and Collier County to enter into an Interlocal Service Delivery Agreement. The Agreement provided a fair share capital construction funding contribution for the long-range traffic capacity improvements of county arterial and collector roads, within and proximate to the District, within 90 days of the Act taking effect. At the October 26, 2004, BCC meeting, Agenda Item 10C, the Board entertained the approval of the Interlocal Service Delivery Agreement with the Big Cypress Stewardship District. In this specific agenda item, County staff pursued a right-of-way reservation for a “bypass” road between Oil Well Road to Randall Boulevard among other right-of-way reservations. It was acknowledged during the meeting by both the County and representatives of Collier Enterprises, that there was disagreement as it related to the “bypass” road. During the meeting, Tom Conrecode, representing Collier Enterprises stated, “We understand the constraints at Oil Well and Immokalee Road. We understand how they need to be addressed and aligned with the needs of Randall. It’s just not appropriate to be in this agreement. …Now, the County will have plenty of opportunities to do that in the future. We’re not doing anything with the land but farming it today. At some point in the future when we come back with a zoning action before this county commission, staff will have the opportunity again to go after that road and many, many more to serve the needs of the area.” Mr. Conrecode went on to say, “What we haven’t been able to agree on is the connection between Randall and Oil Well Road. The reason is is that nobody has been able to study it….If we take the time and agree to work together, work on a solution that solves that interconnection, we’re going to come up with a better solution that serves all the transportation public in Collier County.” Mr. Conrecode finished by stating, “The appropriate time is when there’s a zoning change requested of the county. The county has all the power and the authority; that’s the appropriate time to enter into this. And we’re willing to work with the county and talk with the county on that and many other corridors that the county puts into its long-range plan. We’ve identified many of those.” The Board approved the Agreement, with staff’s proposed language; however, the District did not act on it. Ultimately, the District did enter in a Land Donation Agreement with the County as it pertains to Oil Well Road, but not the remaining items. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 829 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 11 of 40 In 2016, Collier County began the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study. This study evaluated several corridor alternatives to enhance traffic operations and safety conditions based on current and future travel demands. While the County was studying the corridor, the Collier Metropolitan Planning Organization adopted an amendment (May 25, 2018) to the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan that added a new needed roadway that became known as Big Cypress Parkway between Golden Gate Boulevard and Immokalee Road. The County continued forward with the Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study, which included coordination with Collier Enterprises as it related to their SRA development at the time (Rural Lands West SRA). In May 2019, the Board adopted Viable Alternative 2+, which included the following improvements: • Randall Boulevard (8th Street NE to Everglades Boulevard – 6 lanes) • Randall Boulevard (Everglades Boulevard to Big Cypress Parkway – 4 lanes) • Oil Well Road (Everglades Boulevard to Oil Well Grade Road – 6 lanes) • Everglades Boulevard (Randall Boulevard to Oil Well Road – 4 lanes) • Additional regional roadway needs to enhance access, safety, and mobility: o Vanderbilt Beach Road (16th Street NE to Big Cypress Parkway) o Everglades Boulevard (Vanderbilt Beach Road Ext. to Randall Boulevard) o Big Cypress Parkway (Golden Gate Boulevard to Immokalee Road) Consistent with the commitments previously made by Collier Enterprises for the Stewardship District, staff is requiring a right-of-way reservation for Big Cypress Parkway within the limits of the Stewardship District. The companion Developer Agreement contains the rights-of-way necessary to accommodate the right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway within the Stewardship District. This reservation is consistent with the Long Range Transportation Plan, Randall Boulevard and Oil Well Road Corridor Study final alignment network, and the commitments made to address the regional roadway network at the time of rezoning. Collier Enterprises, Inc., has not fulfilled the commitments made at the time of support of the redistricting, specifically, the requirement to donate 100-feet of right-of-way for Immokalee Road and the necessary stormwater management for the said roadway. This donation should be completed immediately, without regard to this petition. However, it has been included in the companion Developer Agreement. Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 830 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 12 of 40 operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links, the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: In evaluating the Rivergrass Village SRA, staff reviewed the applicant’s Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) dated August 5, 2019, for consistency using the applicable 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). According to the SRA document and noted above, the applicant is requesting a maximum of 2,250 single-family residential dwelling units and up to 250 multi-family residential dwelling units, up to 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental and institutional uses. The TIS provided with the petition outlines a potential development scenario for 1,414 single-family residential dwelling units, 1,086 multi-family dwelling units, up to 25,000 square feet of governmental and institutional uses, 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and an 18-hole golf course. Staff has evaluated the TIS and has found that the scenario presents an accurate trip generation calculation, reasonable trip distribution on the surrounding network, and reflects a reasonable development potential with the proposed SRA. The SRA document establishes the total trip cap commitment in Section VIII Developer Commitments, 8.3.A. Transportation. According to the TIS, the project impacts the following County roadways: Existing Roadway Conditions: Link # Roadway Link Location 2018 AUIR Existing LOS P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2018 AUIR Remaining Capacity Projected P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic1 121.2 Oil Well Road Oil Well Grade to Ave Maria Blvd B 2,000/West 1,464 186 121.1 Oil Well Road Desoto Blvd to Oil Well Grade B 1,1002/West 564 655 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 831 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 13 of 40 120.0 Oil Well Road Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd B 1,1002/West 541 530 119.0 Oil Well Road Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd C 2,000/East 863 633 136.0 Everglades Blvd Oil Well Road to Immokalee Road C 800/North 350 39 135 Everglades Blvd Golden Gate Blvd to Oil Well Road B 800/North 445 133 118.0 Wilson Blvd Immokalee Road to Golden Gate Blvd B 900/South 560 103 133.0 Randal Blvd Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd C 900/East 261 60 132.0 Randal Blvd Immokalee Road to Everglades Blvd E 9003/East 40 60 112.0 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd C 3,000/East 1,052 106 111.2 Vanderbilt Beach Rd Livingston Rd to Logan Blvd C 3,000/East 859 53 17.0 Golden Gate Blvd Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd C 2,300/East 590 106 123.0 Golden Gate Blvd Wilson Blvd to 18th Street NE/SE B 2,300/East 1,095 166 123.1 Golden Gate Blvd 18th Street NE/SE to Everglades Blvd B 2,300/East 1,105 166 124.0 Golden Gate Blvd Everglades Blvd to Desoto Blvd B 1,010/East 783 113 46.0 Immokalee Road Oil Well Road to SR 29 C 900/East 322 14 45.0 Immokalee Road Wilson Blvd to Oil Well Road C 3,300/East 891 606 44.0 Immokalee Road Collier Blvd to Wilson Blvd D 3,300/East 681 386 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 832 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 14 of 40 43.2 Immokalee Road Logan Blvd to Collier Blvd D 3,200/East 188 265 43.1 Immokalee Road I-75 to Logan Blvd D 3,500/East 530 159 42.2 Immokalee Road Livingston Road to I-75 D 3,500/East 871 53 30.1 Collier Blvd Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road C 3,000/North 773 53 30.2 Collier Blvd Vanderbilt Beach Road to Golden Gate Blvd B 3,000/South 1,662 32 31.1 Collier Blvd Golden Gate Blvd to Pine Ridge Road C 3,000/North 1,142 106 31.2 Collier Blvd Pine Ridge Road to Green Blvd C 3,000/North 1,160 53 50.0 Logan Blvd Immokalee Road to Vanderbilt Beach Road C 1,000/North 371 53 1. Source for P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction Project Traffic is August 5, 20 19; Traffic Impact Statement provided by the petitioner. 2. P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume does not consider a committed improvement (subject to an approved developer agreement). The committed project will increase the service volume to 2,000. 3. A portion of this link is committed for widening; Immokalee Road to 8th Street; P.M. Peak Hour Peak Direction service volume will increase to 2,000. The remainder of the link’s service volume will remain unchanged. The companion Developer Agreement fulfills the mitigation necessary to comply with the Growth Management Plan Transportation Element Policy 5.1. Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. Policy 7.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “Collier County shall apply the standards and criteria of the Access Management Policy as adopted by Resolution and as may be amended to ensure the protection of the arterial and collector system’s capacity and integrity.” Staff finding: The Rivergrass Village SRA is proposing several access points on Oil Well Road and the future Big Cypress Parkway. Staff recommends approval of the proposed access points shown on the master plan for this petition, nothing in this development order will vest the developer to anything more than a right in/right out at the locations. Directional and full median openings may be contemplated at the time of Site Development Plan or Plat and Plan. To be 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 833 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 15 of 40 explicit regarding a future signalized intersection, a provision of the companion Developer Agreement includes a commitment from the developer that they will not seek a traffic signal along Big Cypress Parkway within one-half mile of the intersections of Randall Boulevard or Oil Well Road. Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states: “The County shall require, wherever feasible, the interconnection of local streets between developments to facilitate convenient movement throughout the road network. The LDC shall identify the circumstances and conditions that would require the interconnection of neighboring developments and shall also develop standards and criteria for the safe interconnection of such local streets.” Staff finding: The proposed Rivergrass Village SRA’s Master Plan shows potential-future interconnections to adjacent roadways along the future Big Cypress Parkway. The Collier County Master Mobility Plan tested sub-area road connectivity (Section 4) specific to the RLSA area, and noted benefits of interconnected roadways such as reduction of vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle hours traveled within the sub-area. Therefore, staff recommends the establishment of potential interconnections (north, east, and south) with the knowledge that other Stewardship Receiving Area’s (SRAs) are anticipated. Condition of approval: The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. Staff Recommendation: Tr ansportation Planning staff finds this petition consistent with the GMP subject to the following Conditions of Approval below. Conditions of Approval: 4. The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. 5. Provide for potential interconnections (north, east, and south) on the Master Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) and FLUE related to Environmental Planning: Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME and FLUE. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this SRA petition and the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based. The listed criteria are noted explicitly in the LDC and require staff evaluation and comment, and shall be used as the basis for a recommendation of approval or 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 834 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 16 of 40 denial by the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC). Notwithstanding the above, staff reviewed the determinants for adequate findings to support the proposed SRA application as follows: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval subject to the condition of approval below. Site Description: The subject property consists of 999.96 acres of predominately intensive agriculture acreage. Land use consists of row crops, improved, and unimproved pasture and other agriculture-related uses with a small area of native vegetation. A FLUCFCS map detailing land use is contained in Listed Species Survey (Appendix B). The natural area is 0.13 acres, which is classified as disturbed Hydric Pine. This area is impacted by exotic vegetation and would not meet the LDC definition of native vegetation for preservation purposes. The property contains 1.30 acres of disturbed wetlands; wetland mitigation for impacts to these areas are addressed through South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Conceptual Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) 11-03949-P. Listed Species: The Rivergrass Village SRA project is located within the boundary of previously proposed Rural Lands West SRA. Protected Species surveys have been conducted throughout the area in various years between 2007 and 2017. The surveys were conducted for wildlife species listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as endangered, threatened or species of special concern and plants listed by Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) and USFWS as endangered, threatened or commercially exploited. Eagles and their nests were also included as part of wildlife survey observations. Surveys conducted between 2007 and 2009 and 2014 through 2017 indicate the following species have been present in the boundary for the Rivergrass SRA: American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Florida sandhill crane (Grus canadensis pratensis), Crested caracara (Caracara cheriway), Bald eagle (Haliaeetu leucocephalus), Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus), Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi) and Florida black bear (Ursus americanus floridanus). The current wildlife survey conducted in 2019 revealed the following species were observed onsite: wood stork (Mycteria americana), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), tri-colored heron (Egretta tricolor), and American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis; see Appendix H). There are five protected plants listed in LDC as “Less Rare Plants” that may occur on the project site: butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis), giant wild pine air plant (Tillandsia utriclata), inflated wild pine air plant (Tillandsia balbisiana), stiff-leaved wild pine air plant (Tillandsia fasciculata), and twisted air plant (Tillandsia flexuosa). Additionally, there are five protected plants listed in the LDC as “Rare Plants” that may be found on-site, including: Cowhorn orchid (Cyrtopodium punctatum), Ghost orchid (Polyrrhiza lindenii), Curtiss’ milkweed (Asclepias curtissii), clamshell orchid (Encyclia cochleate) and West Coast prickly- apple (Harrisia gracilis). Environmental Planning staff also reviewed this petition per LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.d., which requires Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRA) with lands greater than one acre and a Natural 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 835 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 17 of 40 Resource Index (NRI) value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. There are no areas within the proposed SRA that contain acreages with an NRI score above 1.2. The majority of the Rivergrass Village SRA has been historically agricultural and cleared for crops. Pursuant to the Growth Management Plan Future Land Use Element, preservation of listed species habitat and other native areas in the Rural Lands Stewardship Area is addressed by the creation of the required Stewardship Sending Areas (SSA). SSA 15 has been approved for the petitioner to obtain credits for the development of the SRA. Evaluation of Suitability criteria in LDC section 4.08.07. A: • Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive an NRI value of greater than 1.2 (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.b). There are no areas having an NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses may be sited on such lands. • Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives an NRI value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.c). There are no areas having NRI value greater than 1.2; therefore, conditional use essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, and governmental essential services may be sited on such lands. • Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.d). There are no areas having NRI value greater than 1.2. • An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to or encompass, a WRA (LDC section 4.08.07.A.1.g). The project does not encroach into an FSA or HSA; it provides the required buffers as indicated on the SRA Master Plan. SSA credits required for SRA designation: Environmental Planning staff reviewed this petition in conjunction with GIS staff who provided the following information regarding the generation of stewardship credits: The Stewardship Credits for Rivergrass Village SRA are created from SSA 15 located on properties within and adjoining the Camp Keais Strand, a major flow way system connecting Corkscrew Marsh at its northern end and adjoining the Okaloacoochee Slough. The credit calculation is based on the total acreage of Rivergrass, which is 999.96 acres. The minimum open space requirement is 349.99 acres; the applicant has proposed 615.27 acres of open space. Therefore, the total acreage that consumes credits is 734.68 acres. In addition, approximately 104.81 acres are being reserved for future County Arterial Road Rights-of-Way for the expansion of Oil Well Road. The petitioner has elected to consume credits for the benefit use areas and count the acreage toward the maximum acreage limits of the SRA. Therefore, Rivergrass Village requires 5,877.44 Stewardship credits. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 836 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 18 of 40 Of the six Natural Resources Index Factors on the Stewardship Credit Worksheet, only Land Use – Land Cover (FLUCCS) and Listed Species Habitat are prone to change over time. In this SRA application, minor changes to the Land Use – Land Cover Classifications have not occurred as a result of detailed onsite FLUC FCS mapping conducted in May 2015. No changes have occurred to the Listed Species Habitat factor that affects index scoring for the SRA. A comparison of the detailed 2015 FLUCFCS map with the proposal’s 2019 FLUCFCS map revealed the total acreage under agriculture did not change; some conversion between different agricultural uses did occur. The remaining acreage, comprised of previously disturbed vegetated areas, required minor changes to FLUCCS classifications. These changes reflected the more detailed onsite FLUCFCS mapping recently performed for state permitting efforts, as opposed to the comprehensive planning level of the Study FLUCCS mapping. These minor classification changes do not produce any significant overall changes to the SRA Natural Resources Index (NRI) Value scores. Rivergrass Village SRA credits are generated from Stewardship Sending Area 15 which has 7,261.8 total available credits. Environmental Planning staff recommends the following Condition of Approval: 6. Prior to issuance of the first development order, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther and all other listed species. Public Utilities Review: The Rivergrass Village SRA lies within the regional potable water and northeast wastewater service areas of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water, wastewater, and irrigation quality (I.Q.) water services will be extended to the project from the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site located at 825 39th Avenue NE (adjacent to the Collier County fairgrounds). The CCWSD will extend transmission mains to a point of connection at the northeast corner of the adjacent Hyde Park Village SRA (pending approval, PL20180000622). The pipelines will be designed to provide a minimum service pressure of 60 PSI at the point of connection. Additionally, the CCWSD will construct an interim 1.5 MGD wastewater treatment facility at the NEUF site to serve the project. Utility services are scheduled to be provided by September 30, 2020, pending Board approval of the interlocal agreement that accompanies this petition. The developer will be responsible for design, permitting, construction, and conveyance of utility system infrastructure internal to the SRA pursuant to the Collier County Utilities Standards and Procedures Ordinance (Ordinance Number 2004-31, as amended). Residents and businesses will receive individually metered irrigation services and will pay standard I.Q. rates. Per the interlocal agreement, the golf course may be irrigated from onsite water sources. Additionally, the developer has agreed to reserve a 5-acre utility site in support of future developments anticipated south of Rivergrass Village. The site will revert back to the developer if the site is deemed unnecessary. The Public Utilities Department supports this petition subject to the following conditions of approval: 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 837 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 19 of 40 7. The SRA document identifies a minimum of 62,500 to a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses for a total of 105,000 square feet of non- residential uses. Yet, the demand tables provided in the Public Facilities Impact Assessment and in the Economic Assessment report 200,000 square feet of commercial floor space. The text and table in each document should be revised for consistency with the allowable uses. 8. The SRA Local Street R.O.W. Section shall be revised to properly show minimum setbacks and separation distances, which should be designated by "MIN." rather than "+/-," which would imply the actual measurement could be less than that shown. The detail shows the HDPE force main 4.6 feet from the edge-of-pavement/gutter. This is less than the minimum 5-foot setback required by the Design Criteria (CCWSD Utilities Standards Manual, Section 1), and no reduction of this setback has been approved by utility deviation. The detail should also show the 5-foot minimum setback distance between pressure mains and street trees. Lastly, a footnote identifying standards reduced via the utility deviation approved on 6/25/2019 should be added for documentation and to avoid confusion at the development permit application stage. Staff reviewed and approved a revised detail sent via email by the engineer on 8/26/2019. 9. The SRA document should incorporate the following deviation language to avoid a conflict between the interlocal agreement and the LDC: A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, “Potable Water System,” which states ‘separate potable water and reuse waterlines…shall be provided…by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments’ and ‘Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County,’” to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County. 10. The negotiated interlocal agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Big Cypress Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA ordinance. Collier County Public Schools (CCPS) District Review: CCPS staff has reviewed the petition and has determined there is existing or planned capacity within the next five years at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Therefore, there are no requirements for the applicant. At the time of Site Development Plan or Plat, the development will be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located in or in adjacent concurrency service areas. Architectural Review: Architectural staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Archeology and Historic Preservation Review: Archeology and Historic Preservation Review staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Landscape Review: Landscape staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Fire Review: Fire staff has reviewed this petition and recommends approval. Community and Human Services Review (Housing) Review: Housing staff has reviewed this petition and has found that the proposed SRA does not address housing affordability. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 838 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 20 of 40 The first submittal of the Rivergrass Village SRA proposes to comply with FLUE Policy 4.7.2 that villages be, “…Primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village,” by stating that, “Rivergrass allows for up to 2,500 dwelling units, a minimum of 62,500square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood-scaled retail and office uses, and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses.” The Economic Assessment provided with the submission offers some details as to the types and proposed sales pricing of the housing units: The assessment states: “the average assessed value for Rivergrass single-family homes is $370,000, which is 41% higher than the County’s median value.” The assessment also states that of the 2500 residential units, 1086 units will be built as “condo, duplex, or single-family attached,” with an average sales value of $272,000 per unit. The balance of the 1414 residential units is planned as single-family detached with an average sales value of $394,000 per unit. The Rivergrass Village SRA submission offers no details as to how many residential units will meet the County’s affordability standards for various income levels. It also offers no detail on the number of affordable units or price points that will be included to accommodate the need for affordable units created by the Village. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 839 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 21 of 40 Without such details, it is not possible to evaluate the submittal to determine if it meets Goal #1 of the Housing Element: “TO CREATE AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF DECENT, SAFE, SANITARY, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ALL RESIDENTS OF COLLIER COUNTY.” Furthermore, no details are given as to how the submittal will comply with Objective 1 of the Housing Element to: “Provide new affordable housing units in order to meet the current and future housing needs of legal residents with very-low, low, moderate and affordable workforce incomes, including households with special needs such as rural and farmworker housing in rural Collier County.” The documentation provided indicates the residential units proposed will exceed the County’s median value by 41%, offering no accommodation for affordability to Very-low, Low, Moderate, or Gap income residents. Housing staff recommends the following Condition of Approval: 11. A Housing Needs Analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand and to create a plan to address the supply of affordable housing units for the Rivergrass Village SRA. Economic Assessment Review: Section 4.08.07 (L) of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) provides the requirements for the preparation and submittal of the Economic Assessment for a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA). The Economic Assessment, at a minimum, is required to demonstrate fiscal neutrality for the development, as a whole, for the following units of government: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and school. In the event the Assessment identifies a negative fiscal impact of the project, several options are identified to address the funding shortfalls, including impositions of special assessments, use of community development districts (CDD), Municipal Service Benefit Units (MSBU), Municipal Service Taxing Units (MSTU), etc. As detailed in the information above, the petitioner is requesting consideration for designating 999.96 acres within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Zoning Overlay District as an SRA, to be known as the Rivergrass Village SRA (Rivergrass), allowing for the development of residential, commercial, civic, governmental, institutional and senior housing land use components. Rivergrass submitted an Economic Assessment, prepared by Development Planning and Financial Group, Inc, (DPFG) in accordance with the requirements of the LDC, which allows the use of an alternative fiscal impact model, approved by Collier County. DPFG measured the fiscal neutrality at the horizon year (2042 buildout) using a “marginal/average cost hybrid methodology” to determine the project’s impacts on capital and operating costs. DPFG also incorporated the County’s adopted impact fee methodology and rates to estimate the demand and impact fee contributions related to the project. The assessment model is static and does not include the cost of future infrastructure financing, which cannot be determined at this time, or provide for positive or negative adjustments in costs, fees, tax rates, etc. but does assume a constant rate of development for the project. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 840 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 22 of 40 DPFG conducted meetings with representatives from the various public facilities to capture information on both capital needs as well as operating impacts related to the proposed project. As part of this process, the need for new facility sites and other capital items, specifically related to the proposed project were also analyzed. An outside peer review was conducted by Jacobs (formerly CH2M-Hill) to provide an independent, evaluation of the report. See Attachment E: Peer Review. The Jacobs report concluded that the DPFG’s analysis is reasonable and confirms the project’s fiscal neutrality, as defined. Jacobs further stated: “It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Rivergrass development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Rivergrass Village SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District.” Jacobs noted that the companion Developer Agreements for the project are important elements in the overall fiscal neutrality objectives. The following is a brief overview of the analysis by facility. Several of the categories were also reviewed individually and are included with the review comments for their respective facility. This is noted below. The project impact fee revenue assumed for this assessment is based on the current, adopted rates, and as previously stated, does not include any projections for impact fee increases or decreases. Any staff comments that affect the anticipated impact fee revenue is provided below, otherwise, the assumptions are considered acceptable for the proposed types of residential and commercial land uses and square footages, for the purpose of this analysis. The same approach, to note any comments or observations that may affect the anticipated revenue, was used for the information related to millage rates and other governmental revenue sources used for the purpose of this analysis. Transportation – Fiscally Neutral. See Transportation Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: The applicant’s fiscal analysis and public facilities impact assessment should be updated to reflect the latest traffic impact statement, intersection analysis, and fair share mitigation reports as provided by the applicant on August 5, 2019, and August 19, 2019, respectively. Based on staff’s review of the Traffic Impact Statement, intersection analysis, and fair share mitigation reports, the projected deficiencies exist both without and with the project. The adopted level of service standard for roadway capacity would be exceeded by the existing, committed and vested trips, plus additional project background trips from sources other than the development project under review. The project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the projected deficiency be cured by the development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. In addition, the applicant has analyzed multiple intersections within the area of significant impact and will be paying a proportionate share toward operational improvements necessary to accommodate the development. This proportionate share is included in the companion developer agreement. Law Enforcement – Fiscally Neutral. DPFG worked directly with Collier County Sheriff’s Office representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) th at would be created by the 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 841 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 23 of 40 proposed development. At this time, there is not a need for a specific land site within the proposed development. However, a substation may be required in the future to serve this and other proposed developments in the area. As such, impact fees and other capital funding may be available to fund a portion of a substation and/or other capital items, as necessitated by growth in the future. This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated deficiency be cured by the development. As stated above, the applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Emergency Medical Services (EMS) – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Emergency Medical Services representatives regarding any specific needs (land, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. EMS provided locations in the area that will service the proposed development, with additional planned, co-located facilities in the area. Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. This infrastructure category currently has an identified deficiency between the adopted and achieved level of service. However, the project is not causing the deficiency, nor can the calculated deficiency be cured by the development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. Additionally, proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding for certain EMS capital construction needs. Regional Parks – Fiscally Neutral. The DPFG analysis for Regional Parks utilizes an adjusted achieved level of service, consistent with the methodology provided in the current, adopted Impact Fee Study. This calculation is provided to ensure that new development is not required to pay impact fees based on the inclusion of one-time or specialty facilities (Naples Zoo, Sports Tourism Park, etc.) and eliminates the likelihood of over-charging new development. This method is generally acceptable with the following condition: The analysis uses the 2018 Peak season population combined with the inventory for the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. This method generates a calculated level of service that is lower than any used for the Impact Fee Study or Annual Update and Inventory Report. The population year and the inventory year should be the same. Therefore, based on the 2015 Impact Fee Study (current) the adjusted achieved level of service should be 1.82 acres per 1,000 population verses the 1.68 acres per 1,000 population which then, based on the Rivergrass proposed population, requires 9.32 acres of Regional Parks attributable to the proposed development. At the current full cost per acre, there is a calculated negative fiscal impact of $89,763 based on the estimated impact fees and other capital revenues anticipated to be generated by the project. Staff concludes that the project can still be considered fiscally neutral based on the minimal estimated revenue shortfall, as it is primarily based on 2015 rates, which may increase in the future, especially as this area develops and land prices in Eastern Collier County continue to 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 842 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 24 of 40 increase; the shortfall in acres is less than 1 acre (0.7) and the future Regional Parks Impact Fees paid related to this development will likely contribute to funding the construction of the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park which is located in close proximity to the proposed project. Additionally, proceeds from the One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax were identified to provide funding for the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Community Parks – Fiscally Neutral. There are no sites identified for a Community Park within the boundaries of the proposed development. However, the estimated impact fees and other capital funding anticipated, related to the project, are reasonable and adequate to establish fiscal neutrality related to Community Parks. Public Utilities (Water, Wastewater, Irrigation Water and Solid Waste) – Fiscally Neutral. See Public Utilities Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Collier County Public Utilities representatives regarding the future needs of the project. As provided by the representatives: Utilities service will not trigger above-average service delivery costs. “The infrastructure being installed to serve the Rivergrass Village SRA development and several other potential developments is no different than what has been done in the past to serve an expanding service area. The current construction project is the first phase of establishing regional treatment facilities in the northeast region of the County. When complete, these facilities will serve Rivergrass Village SRA as well as growing areas currently being served by the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant and the North County Water Reclamation Facility. The northeast treatment facilities will increase the reliability of the existing systems as the population expands. As an additional comment, all user rates are consistent throughout the CCWSD.” The proposed development will be required to pay User Fees, Impact Fees and Special Assessments (Solid Waste) which will provide funding for both capital and operating costs attributable to the project. With respect to Irrigation Water, there is no responsibility or cost to Collier County. Stormwater Management – Fiscally Neutral. See Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: Collier County does not assess impact fees or other special assessments to fund the Stormwater Management Capital and Maintenance Programs. Funding for these areas is typically provided by a combination of funding appropriations from the General Fund (001) and the Unincorporated Area General Fund (111). The Big Cypress Stewardship District, which includes the Rivergrass Village SRA, is responsible for the management of all designated flowways, which are also governed by the provisions of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). The project water management system will be fully permitted through the South Florida Water M anagement District and Collier County. Collier County will have no responsibility for the capital construction or maintenance of the Rivergrass water management system. Therefore, the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 843 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 25 of 40 North Collier Fire & Rescue District – Fiscally Neutral. See Fire Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with North Collier Fire & Rescue District representatives regarding any specific needs (land, capital equipment, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. As provided by North Collier, there are locations in the area that will service the proposed development, with an additional planned, co-located facility with EMS in the area. Therefore, currently, there is not a need for a specific land site within this proposed development. The applicant will be paying impact fees for the proposed land uses to off-set their growth-related demand for infrastructure. The current operating millage for the fire district is estimated to adequately address the potential operational needs. Collier County Public Schools – Fiscally Neutral. See Collier County Public Schools District Review Section of this Staff Report and Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment, to be read in combination with the following: DPFG worked directly with Collier County Public Schools representatives regarding any specific needs (school sites, etc.) that would be created specifically by the proposed development. As provided by School representatives, “the new students from Rivergrass are not expected to trigger level of service issues given existing and planned schools.” School capital costs are provided by a combination of funding sources including impact fees and a capital millage. The estimated revenue generated by the project through these funding sources provides adequate funding for the future capital needs, attributable to growth, generated by the proposed development. The analysis also concludes that adequate revenue will be generated by the proposed project, through millage, to fund the attributable increase in operating costs attributable to the development. At this time, the total student population is unknown. However, a portion of the proposed project is anticipated to generate a very-low student per household number. Therefore, the assumptions used are conservative and support the determination of fiscal neutrality. The DPFG report also provided analysis related to Correctional Facilities, Government Buildings, and Libraries. While these are not required elements of the Economic Assessment or the Public Facilities Impact Assessment, the same framework was used as that for the required facilities, the analysis is fairly consistent with the impact fee methodology, and thus the determination of fiscal neutrality is reasonable. As stated above, the Economic Assessment provides a fiscal snapshot that is projected to buildout. Based on these assumptions and making no predictions on changes, positive or negative, that may affect project revenue, the conclusion of fiscal neutrality is supported by the analysis. The analysis concludes adequate funding will be generated by the project to fund the capital and operating needs of the specified public facilities. Further, the specified public facilities do not have projected deficiencies as a result of the demand created by the proposed development. Therefore, overall, the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement has been satisfied. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 844 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 26 of 40 Zoning Services Review: The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document sets forth the design standards for the Village. According to LDC Section 4.08.07C.2., “Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village…Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods…” As previously stated, the Village consists of two context zones, Neighborhood General and Village Center. The Neighborhood General context zone is approximately 979.18 acres and allows for residential development consisting of single-family and multi-family residential dwelling units. Senior/group housing including but not limited to Adult Living Facilities (ALF) and Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC) are permissible. A 5-acre Utility pump/tank station for water and sewer is also allowed in the Neighborhood General context zone. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 62 feet. The Village Center context zone is approximately 20.78 acres and is mixed-use, allowing for multi-family development, commercial, office, civic, governmental, and institutional uses. As previously stated, a minimum of 60,000 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial uses, and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be provided. The maximum zoned and actual building heights are 50 and 60 feet. The Village Center is located along the northern edge of the southern half of the SRA along Oil Well Road, a minor arterial road and freight route. The Village Center is disconnected from the northern half of the SRA Village by Oil Well Road resulting in a less walkable community. Some of the deviations contained in the Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document Town decrease walkability of the SRA Village. The result is a compact suburban-style development similar to many of the Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) located in the Urban Area of Collier County. Staff believes that five of the proposed deviations are not consistent with the development standards of the RLSA Zoning Overlay Regulations contained in the LDC. As previously stated in the GMP Consistency Review, “Where proposed SRA lacks conformity with the LDC….it may not be considered consistent with the FLUE.” The LDC prohibition of “No Parking Lots in Front of Buildings,” a key element of a walkable community, has been eliminated. The LDC prescribed maximum lot size of 4 acres has also been eliminated, creating the potential for “superblocks,” areas which destroy vehicular and pedestrian connectivity. For further information, please see the Deviation Discussion section of this Staff Report below. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 845 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 27 of 40 DEVIATION DISCUSSION: The petitioner is seeking 19 deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are directly extracted from SRA Document Section VII. Deviations. The petitioner’s rationale and staff analysis/recommendation are outlined below. SRA Document Section 7.1. Village Center Standards: Deviation # 1 (SRA Document Section 7.1. 1): “A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.v.: ‘Village Design Criteria,’ which requires that the Village Center be developed in a progressive rural to urban continuum with the greatest density, intensity and diversity occurring within the Village Center, to the least density intensity and diversity occurring within the Neighborhood General, to instead allow the Village Center to be located as depicted on the SRA Master Plan.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village Center is located in the southeast corner of Oil Well and future Big Cypress Parkway. This is more or less in the center of the Village, with about half of the Village located north of Oil Well Road and half located south. Locating the Village Center at the intersection of Oil Well Road is the only location that makes sense to ensure a viable market condition for these uses. Easy access for nearby residents from the surrounding neighborhood and for pass- by traffic on Oil Well Road is critical. Moreover, this is the best location for maximizing use of transit. Staff Analysis and Recomm endation: Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that the deviation results in a project that does not serve the daily needs and community-wide needs as the distance to goods and services are too great given the location of the Village Center. The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 2 (SRA Document Section 7.1. 2): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii) ‘General Parking Criteria,’ which states, ‘The majority of parking spaces shall be provided off-street in the rear of buildings or along the side secondary streets. Parking is prohibited in front of buildings,’ to instead allow parking in front of buildings in the Village Center. A Type ‘D’ buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village Center fronts on Oil Well Road and is separated from Oil Well by a 25-foot wide Type D Buffer. To be viable in the market place, the Village Center commercial uses need to be both accessible and convenient to motorists from Oil Well Road. This may warrant parking in 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 846 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 28 of 40 what may be determined to be a front yard: however, with a 25- foot wide Type D buffer along Oil Well Road, such parking will be adequately screened from view. Without direct access (and exposure) to and from Oil Well Road, the commercial enterprises will not be viable in the market place. The request is to eliminate the restriction on the amount of parking that may be located within any yard. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that the deviation encourages an off-street parking arrangement discouraged in Villages. Furthermore, staff is constrained from approving a prohibition such as this. The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 3 (SRA Document Section 7.1. 3): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that the majority of parking be located in the rear of buildings and prohibits parking in the front of buildings except on-street parking within the right-of-way to instead allow parking in the front, side and rear yards. A Type ‘D’ buffer per LDC at time of permitting will be required when parking is adjacent to or abutting a road.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation is requested to allow parking in front, side or rear yards in the Village Center in order provide for maximum design flexibility for what will be a relatively small amount of commercial uses providing neighborhood goods and services. Also see Justification for #2, above. Convenience and easy access are critical for achieving market viability for the nonresidential uses in the Village center, particularly for the pass by traffic, which is absolutely necessary for the viability of the commercial elements. Design flexibility is also necessary. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that the deviation encourages an off-street parking arrangement discouraged in Villages. The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 4 (SRA Document Section 7.1. 4): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), which requires that ‘parking structures fronting on a primary street shall include ground-floor retail’ to instead require ground-floor retail in parking structures supporting non-residential or mixed-use development only, and not in the case of parking structures supporting only residential development.” 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 847 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 29 of 40 Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The SRA provisions allow multi-family dwellings in the mixed-use Village Center Contact Zone. Within the Village Center Context Zone, such dwellings may be located in a structure that is mixed-use (i.e., retail on the ground floor and residential above) or may be located in a structure that is all residential. Such residential-only buildings may have accessory parking structures which may not be suited or located to support retail type uses on the ground floor. While this makes sense in the case of parking structures supporting commercial only or mixed- use buildings, it does not make sense in the case of a parking structure supporting residential only. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 5 (SRA Document Section 7.1. 5): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e).i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, ‘Maximum Multi-family lot size,’ which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family to exceed 4 acres. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Village Center is not based on any recognizable beneficial outcome. Presumably, it is applied to maintain a “Village” scale. However, a larger lot can also maintain the “Village” scale by use of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and through design. For example, a 300 unit multi-family development consisting of multiple buildings may exceed 4 acres in the Village Center but would still be required to meet all other applicable development and design standards and would provide an excellent buffer between the surrounding lower density Neighborhood General development to the south and east. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that the deviation encourages exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages. The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.2. Neighborhood General Standards: Note: LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii requires that Neighborhood General design standards in a Village be the same as those required in a Town for a Neighborhood General Context Zone. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 848 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 30 of 40 Therefore, the following deviations are requested from Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii. a) through i) on the basis of how such standards apply to Neighborhood Center in a Village. Deviation # 6 (SRA Document Section 7.2. 1): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.a) ‘Neighborhood General’ Context Zone, which requires the inclusion of ‘residential, neighborhood-scale goods and services, civic, institutional, parks, schools and accessory uses’ within the Neighborhood General Context Zone, to instead not require neighborhood-scale goods and services or schools as permitted uses within the Neighborhood General Context Zone. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Village does not have sufficient size or density to generate demand for additional neighborhood goods and service beyond what is proposed for the Village Center. It makes no sense to move any of the required neighborhoo d goods, and services use from the Village Center Context Zone. Schools are not needed based upon student population projection s. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that the deviation results in a project that does not serve the daily needs and community-wide needs as the distance to goods and services are too great given the location of the Village Center. The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 7 (SRA Document Section 7.2. 2): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), ‘Non-residential uses,’ which states ‘the maximum square footage per [non-residential] use shall be 3,000 square feet and per location shall be 15,000 square feet,’ to instead allow the Golf Club and Amenity Center sites and related uses to be a maximum of 50,000 square feet each.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Community Centers, both north and south of Oil Well Road will provide multiple amenities and uses for Village residents (and guests). This effectively reduces external trips. This also requires flexibility in size in order to be sufficient to meet market demands. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 849 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 31 of 40 Deviation # 8 (SRA Document Section 7.2. 3): “A Deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07J.d.iii.e)ii), which states that in the case of ‘Multi-Family residential,’ ‘side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet and rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 20 feet for the primary structure…’ to instead allow for a side yard setback of 0 or 5 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet for zero lot line and townhome development, as set forth in Table 1: Neighborhood General - Required Minimum Yards and Maximum Building Height.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The RLSA encourages a diversity of housing types. Allowing for Townhome and Villa type development in the Neighborhood General Context Zone promotes such diversity. To build such units effectively and efficiently, they must be consistent with design used in other similar developments where the market has responded favorably. There are many approved P UDs that allow for such setbacks for villas and townhomes. We have maintained the required minimum 10-foot side and 20-foot rear yard setbacks for traditional multi-family product, and this deviation is limited to the Villa Townhome product. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 9 (SRA Document Section 7.2. 4): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i) and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, ‘Maximum Multi-family lot size,’ which requires that multi-family residential lots be limited to a maximum of 4 acres, to instead allow lot sizes for multi-family to exceed 4 acres. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: Limiting a multi-family lot size in the Neighborhood General is not based on any recognizable beneficial outcome. Presumably, it is applied to maintain a “Village” scale. However, a larger lot can also maintain the “Village” scale by use of multiple buildings (on larger parcel), and through design. There is no discernible benefit to limiting Zero Lot Line or Townhome style development to parcels of 4 acres or less. For that matter, more traditional multi-family buildings may also be feasible on parcel greater than 4 acres in Neighborhood General adjacent to or near the Village Center. There is no reason to arbitrarily limit the maximum parcel size to 4 acres, as all of these types of housing styles are consistent with the Village definition, which is as follows: Villages are a form of S RA and are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages are comprised of residential neighbo rhoods and shall include a mixed- use village center to serve as the focal point for the community's support services and facilities. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 850 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 32 of 40 Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Review staff recommends DENIAL, finding that the deviation encourages exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages. The deviation is not in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), and the petitioner has not demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has not demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.3. Transportation Standards: Deviation # 10 (SRA Document Section 7.3. 1): “A deviation from LDC Section: 6.06.01.J, ‘Street System Requirements,’ which states that ‘Cul-de- sacs in excess of 1,000 feet shall not be permitted unless existing topographical conditions or other natural features preclude a street layout to avoid longer cul-de-sacs,’ to instead allow the maximum permanent cul-de-sac length to be 1,200 feet as measured along the centerline of the right-of-way from the intersecting right-of-way centerline to the end of the cul-de-sac right-of-way.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The Master Plan design has minimized the occurrence and maximum length of cul-de-sacs. The longest cul-de-sac depicted on the SRA Master Plan is now 1,050± feet. However, this deviation (to allow cul-de-sacs up to 1200 feet) is to allow for design flexibility. This deviation has been approved and utilized throughout Collier County (including in other SRAs). Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 11 (SRA Document Section 7.3. 2): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b. ‘Figure(s) 5, 6, and 7, Local Street |Neighborhood General’ for cross-sections requiring 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of a local street, to instead allow for a 10-foot-wide sidewalk or multi-use pathway on only one side of such street only where residential development is located on only one side of the street.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This option of allowing a 10-foot-wide pathway rather than 5 or 6-foot sidewalks on both sides of a street provides for flexibility without reducing pedestrian mobility. This will only occur where residential development is located on only one side of the street. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 851 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 33 of 40 Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 12 (SRA Document Section 7.3. 3): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b(6), ‘Figures 5, 6, and 7, Local Street Neighborhood General,’ which requires a 6-foot-wide planting area between the travel lane and the sidewalk, to instead allow for a 5-foot-wide planting area in the same location for local roads within the project in Neighborhood General. In such cases, either a root barrier or structural soil shall be utilized. If the option of structural soil is utili zed, a minimum of 2 c.f. of structural soil per square feet of mature tree crown projection shall be provided.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This is a minimal reduction and is required to ensure the necessary (LDC required) 23 feet, measured from the back of the sidewalk to the garage, to allow room to park a vehicle on the driveway without parking over the sidewalk. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.4. Sign Standards: Deviation # 13 (SRA Document Section 7.4. 1): “A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, ‘On-premises directional signs within residential districts,’ which requires on-premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, to instead allow a minimum setback of 5 feet from the edge of the roadway, paved surface or back of the curb, limited to signs internal to the SRA only. This excludes signage along County owned roadways. Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This deviation will allow more flexibility for directional signage internal to the project. A unified design theme will be utilized for all signage throughout the community. All roads and drives will be privately owned and maintained. This deviation is typical of master-planned residential developments in Collier County. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 852 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 34 of 40 Deviation # 14 (SRA Document Section 7.4. 2): “A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, ‘On-premises signs within residential districts,’ which allows ‘two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet at each entrance to a multi-family or single- family development,’ to instead allow a maximum height of 12 feet for such signs, limited to the two primary project entrances from Oil Well Road (not inc luding access points to the Village Center Tract).” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The increased height of signage at the project entries will allow the project to feature a more pronounced, grand entrance, and will result in a recognizable entry for pedestrians and motorists. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.5. Landscape Standards: Deviation # 15 (SRA Document Section 7.5. 1): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C., Buffer Requirements, ‘Types of buffers,’ Table 2.4 Information, Footnote (3) which requires ‘Buffer areas between commercial outparcels located within a shopping center, Business Park, or similar commercial development may have a shared buffer 15 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 7.5 feet,’ to instead allow a shared buffer 10 feet wide with each abutting property contributing 5 feet.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The combined 10-foot shared buffer will provide for sufficient separation and “breaking up” of parking areas within the Village Center. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” SRA Document Section 7.6. Other Deviations: Deviation # 16 (SRA Document Section 7.6. 1): “A deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.G, ‘Parking Space Requirements,’ which requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet for recreation facilities (indoor) sports, exercise, fitness, a erobics, or health 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 853 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 35 of 40 clubs to instead allow for parking for the Golf Club and Amenity Center sites to be calculated at 1 space per 200 square feet of indoor square footage, excluding kitchen or storage space.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The project will have a complete system of interconnected sidewalks, pathways, and bike lanes throughout, allowing residents to travel to the amenity center without using a car. Additionally, the centrally located Golf and Amenity Centers (both north and south) are restricted for use by only Village residents and guests and are not open to the general public. The one space per 100 square feet for these “community” amenity centers is excessive. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Deviation # 17 (SRA Document Section 7.6. 2): “A deviation from LDC Section 3.05.10.A.2. – ‘Location Criteria,’ which requires that ‘LSPA [littoral shelf planting areas] shall be concentrated in one location of the lake(s), preferably adjacent to a preserve area,’ to instead allow for required littoral shelf planting areas to be aggregated in certain specific development lakes, including the development lake and WRA system that runs along the eastern perimeter of the SRA.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: These areas will be designed to create, enhance, or restore wading bird/waterfowl habitat and foraging areas. They will be designed to recreate wetland function, maximize its habitat value and minimize maintenance efforts. They will enhance survivability of the littoral area plant species, as there is a lower survivability r ate in littoral planting areas along larger lakes subject to more variable water levels and wind and wave action , which negatively affects these littoral planting areas. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the deviation and has found the concentration of littoral plantings in lakes and waters along the eastern edge of the proposed project will meet the intent of the littoral planting requirement, which is to improve water quality and provide habitat for a variety of aquatic species and birds. Therefore, it is reasonable to allow for some flexibility in the design and locations of the required littoral planting areas. Environmental Planning staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 854 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 36 of 40 Deviation # 18 (SRA Document Section 7.6. 3): “A deviation from LDC Section 5.03.02.D.1, “Fences and Walls, Commercial or Industrial Zoning Districts,” which states that fences or walls in commercial or industrial areas are limited to a maximum height of 8 feet, to instead allow a maximum height of 10 feet.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: The requested additional fence/wall height allows for better screening between residential and commercial uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” Note: Deviation below has not been added to 8-15-19 SRA Resolution and will be added to a future revised SRA Resolution: Deviation # 19 (SRA Document Section 7.6. 4): “A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, ‘Potable Water System,’ which states ‘separate potable water and reuse waterlines…shall be provided…by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments’ and ‘Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County,’ to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County.” Petitioner’s Justification: The petitioner states the following in support of the deviation: This Deviation was requested to be included in the SRA by Collier County Utilities in order to allow flexibility in terms of the provision and/or maintenance of such facilities and/or appurtenances (i.e., the provision and/or maintenance by Collier County). The Deviation is support by Utilities staff. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that in compliance with LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(a), the petitioner has demonstrated that “the deviations are consistent with the RLSA Overlay” and LDC Section 4.08.07.J.8(b), the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation(s) “further enhances the tools, techniques, and strategies based on principles of innovative planning and development strategies, as set forth in §§ 163.3177 (11), F.S.” NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The agent/applicant duly noticed and held the required NIM on June 6, 20189 at 5:30 p.m. at Collier County UF/IFAS Extension, 14700 Immokalee Road, Naples, Florida. For further information, please see Attachment D: NIM Summary. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 855 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 37 of 40 COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s office reviewed the staff report for Petition Number PL20190000044, Rivergrass Village SRA on September 9, 2019. The following criteria applies to the creation of an SRA: 1. Consider: Compatibility with adjacent land uses. 2. Consider: An SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development. 3. Consider: Residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within an SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. 4. Consider: Conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall not be sited on land that receives a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2, regardless of the size of the land or parcel. 5. Consider: Lands or parcels that are greater than one acre and have an Index Value greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space and maintained in a predominantly natural vegetated state. 6. Consider: Open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 100 acres. Gross acreage includes only that area of development within the SRA that requires the consumption of Stewardship Credits. 7. Consider: As an incentive to encourage open space, open space on lands within an SRA located outside of the ACSC that exceeds the required thirty-five percent retained open space shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. 8. Consider: An SRA may be contiguous to an FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in LDC Section 4.08.07 J.6. An SRA may be contiguous to, or encompass a WRA. 9. Consider: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. 10. Consider: Conformity of the proposed SRA with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 856 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 38 of 40 11. Consider: Suitability criteria described in Items 2 through 9 above [LDC Section 4.08.07 A.1.] and other standards of LDC Section 4.08.07. 12. Consider: SRA master plan compliance with all applicable policies of the RLSA District Regulations, and demonstration that incompatible land uses are directed away from FSAs, HSAs, WRAs, and Conservation Lands. 13. Consider: Assurance that applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement SRA uses. 14. Consider: Impacts, including environmental and public infrastructure impacts. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is constrained from recommending that the Collier County Planning Commission, acting as the local planning agency and the Environmental Advisory Council, forward Petition SRA- PL20190000044, Rivergrass Village SRA, to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval. However, staff could recommend approval subject to the following Conditions of Approval: 1. All formal SSAs have been approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. 2. Those Deviations, Development Standards, SRA Statement of Suitability Criteria, etc., listed under Consistency Review Findings, above, are removed or revised as discussed above. 3. The ratio of multi-family to single-family dwelling units is increased to a meaningful level. 4. The companion Developer Agreement is required to be approved with this SRA request. 5. Provide for potential interconnections (north, east, and south) on the master plan. 6. Prior to issuance of the first development order, a listed species management plan must be provided for review, with approval from FWCC and/or USFWS for management of the Florida panther and all other listed species. 7. The SRA document identifies 62,500 (min.) to 80,000 (max.) SF of neighborhood-scale commercial and office uses and a minimum of 25,000 SF of civic, governmental, and institutional uses for a total of 105,000 SF of non-residential uses. Yet, the demand tables provided in the Public Facilities Impact Assessment and in the Economic Assessment report 200,000 SF of commercial floor space. The text and table in each document should be revised for consistency with the allowable uses. 8. The SRA Local Street R.O.W. section should be revised to properly show minimum setbacks and separation distances, which should be designated by "MIN." rather than "+/-," which would imply the actual measurement could be less than that shown. The detail shows the HDPE force main 4.6 feet from the edge-of-pavement/gutter. This is less than the minimum 5' setback required by the Design Criteria (CCWSD Utilities Standards Manual, Section 1), and no reduction of this setback has been approved by utility deviation. The detail should also show the 5' min. setback distance between pressure mains and street trees. Lastly, a footnote identifying standards reduced via the utility deviation approved on 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 857 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) RIVERGRASS VILLAGE SRA, SRA-PL20190000044 September 10, 2019 Page 39 of 40 6/25/2019 should be added for documentation and to avoid confusion at the development permit application stage. Staff reviewed and approved a revised detail sent via email by the engineer on 8/26/2019. 9. The SRA document should incorporate the following deviation language to avoid a conflict between the interlocal agreement and the LDC: A Deviation from LDC Section 4.03.08.C, “Potable Water System,” which states “separate potable water and reuse waterlines…shall be provided…by the applicant at no cost to Collier County for all subdivisions and developments” and “Reuse water lines, pumps, and other appurtenances will not be maintained by Collier County,” to instead allow for such facilities and/or appurtenances to be conveyed to and maintained by Collier County. 10. The negotiated interlocal agreement between Collier County Water-Sewer District and the Big Cypress Stewardship District must be adopted concurrently with the SRA ordinance. 11. A Housing Needs Analysis be performed to estimate the affordable housing demand and to create a plan to address the supply of affordable housing units for the Rivergrass Village SRA. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed SRA Resolution Attachemnt B: SRA Credit Use and Reconcilliation Application Attachment C: FLUE Consistency Review Attachment C-1: DRAFT Developer Agreement Attachment D: NIM Summary Attachment D-1: Peer Review Attachment E: Public Facilities Impact Assessment Attachment F: Letters of Objection/Support Attachment G: Application 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 858 Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.aPacket Pg. 859Attachment: Staff Report Rivergrass Village 9-10-19B (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 860 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 861 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 862 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 863Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 864Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 865 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 866 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 867 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 868Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 869Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 870 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 871 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 872 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 873 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 874 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 875 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 876 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 877 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 878 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 879 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 880 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 881 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 882 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 883 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 884 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 885 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 886 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 887 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 888 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 889 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 890 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 891 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 892Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 893Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 894Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 895 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 896 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 897 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 898Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 899Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 900 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 901 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 902 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 903Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 904 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 905 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 906 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 907 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 908 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 909 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 910 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 911 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 912 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 913 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 914 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 915 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 916 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 917 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 918 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 919 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 920 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 921 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 922 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 923 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 924 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 925 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 926 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 927 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 928 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 929 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 930 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 931 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 932 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 933 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 934 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 935 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 936 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 937 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 938 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 939 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 940 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 941 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 942 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 943 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 944 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 945 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 946 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 947 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 948 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 949 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 950 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Resolution - 081919 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 951Attachment: Attachment B-SRA Credit Use Reconciliation App 8-8-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 952Attachment: Attachment B-SRA Credit Use Reconciliation App 8-8-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.cPacket Pg. 953Attachment: Attachment B-SRA Credit Use Reconciliation App 8-8-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 1 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA Growth Management Department Zoning Division CO N S I S T E N C Y RE V I E W M E M O RA N D U M To: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section From: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: September 10, 2019 (from August 29, 2019) Subject: Future Land Use Element Consistency Review of Proposed Stewardship Receiving Area PETITION NUMBER: SRA PL20190000044 PETITION NAME: Rivergrass Village [REV: 3.3.1] REQUEST: This petition seeks to establish a Steward Receiving Area (SRA) to develop the Rivergrass Village project [the project] on an approximate 999.9-acre site in accordance with provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) of Collier County, as contained in the Collier County Growth Management Plan’s Future Land Use Element and the Collier County Land Development Code. The proposed project entails a maximum of 2,250 single-family and up to 250 multi-family residential units, up to 80,000 square feet of retail/office uses, and 25,000 square feet of civic, government and institutional uses. No areas are designated for public benefit use. LOCATION: The property is located east of DeSoto Boulevard, extending north from Oil Well Road to 56th Avenue NE and south from Oil Well Road to 18th Avenue NE; and lies within Sections 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 26, 27, 34 and 35, Township 48 South, Range 28 East. Golden Gate Estates is adjacent to the west; the proposed Hyde Park SRA project is also immediately adjacent to the west and on the north side of Oil Well Road. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 5.6 requires new development to be compatible with, and complementary to, surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to the Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, giving special consideration to the specific policies and provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay District (also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District) found in the LDC. The compatibility analysis is encouraged to be comprehensive and include review s of both the subject property and surrounding or nearby properties regarding allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location, traffic generation/attraction, etc. These reviews are extraordinarily important; like the subject property, surrounding or nearby properties are under active review for SRA projects (or eligible for future SRAs) – that must be reviewed as an interrelated, inseparable set of projects, each of which affects the others. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 954 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 2 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA The County recognizes Smart Growth policies and practices in its consideration of future land use arrangements and choice-making options. FLUE Objective 7 and Policies 7.1 through 7.4 promote Smart Growth policies for new development and redevelopment projects pertaining to access, interconnections, open space, and walkable communities. Each Policy is followed by staff analysis [in italicized text]. Objective 7: Promote smart growth policies, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and adhere to the existing development character of the Collier County, where applicable, and as follows: Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [This property fronts Oil Well Road (CR 858), classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element. Connections to Oil Well Road are made at access points from the northerly and southerly portions of the project. This property also fronts the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. Connections to the future Big Cypress Parkway are made at access points from the northerly and southerly portions of the project. The project must also meet the RSLA Overlay, Group 4 Policies specific to Stewardship Receiving Areas. The pertinent Policies are addressed under the Overview of Rural Land Stewardship Area Policies and Provisions and General Observations section below.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Internal accesses are provided for the proposed development, including direct accesses into the northerly and southerly residential areas from Oil Well Road, and indirect access into the southerly residential area through the commercial tract. The project is proposed as a “Village”. Design parameters for villages differ, and this project must meet the RSLA Overlay, Group 4 Policies specific to Stewardship Receiving Areas. The pertinent Policies are addressed under the Overview of Rural Land Stewardship Area Policies and Provisions and General Observations section below.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [This property fronts the future N‒S Big Cypress Parkway, classified as a future collector road in the Transportation Element. The proposed Hyde Park SRA is located across the future Parkway, west of [the northerly portion of] this site. Only “potential future interconnection” points appear along Big Cypress Parkway to interconnect to the Hyde Park SRA and other existing roadways to the west.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The Rural Land 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 955 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 3 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA Stewardship Area presents incentives to develop projects in accordance with RLSA-specific design parameters. Design parameters for villages differ, and this project must meet the [FLUE] Attachment C, Characteristic Land Uses and Threshold Requirements, and Group 4 Policies specific to RLSA Overlay, Stewardship Receiving Areas. The pertinent Policies are addressed under the Overview of Rural Land Stewardship Area Policies and Provisions and General Observations section below.] Collier County RLSA regulations are based on the principles of innovative planning and development strategies in Florida Statute. OVERVIEW OF RURAL LAND STEWARDSHIP AREA POLICIES AND PROVISIONS AND GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: The Growth Management Plan (GMP) together with the Land Development Code (LDC) are used in determining the consistency of the request. To determine consistency with the more-general Policies and provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay found in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP, the specific policies and provisions of the Rural Land Stewardship Area Overlay District (also referred to as the LDC Stewardship District) found in the LDC are taken into consideration. Where the proposed project is in consistency with one area [the LDC], it reaches the ability to be found consistent with the other [the GMP]. Likewise, where the proposed SRA lacks consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC, it may be found inconsistent with the GMP. This memo will explain to what extent the SRA petition for the project achieves consistency as a “Village”. The subject property is designated Agricultural/Rural (Agricultural/Rural Mixed Use District) and is within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay (RLSAO) as depicted in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the GMP. This future land use designation (District) limits development to such uses as agriculture and related uses, essential services, residential (maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres), parks and open space, earth mining, etc. The RLSAO provides for the designation of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs) using Stewardship Credits generated by designation of Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs). SRAs may vary in size and must contain a mixture of uses, as provided for in the RLSAO policies contained in the FLUE. Within the RLSA Overlay, the conversion of rural and agricultural lands to urban villages, new towns and satellite communities is based on area-based allocations, clustering and open space provisions, mixed- use development, and other planning strategies and techniques, while protecting environmentally sensitive areas, maintaining the economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and providing for the cost-efficient delivery of public facilities and services. Specifically, the Overlay allows development in the form of towns, villages, hamlets, and compact rural developments (CRD), subject to certain criteria and development parameters, as a Stewardship Receiving Area, and allows “public benefit uses” such as public schools and public or private post- secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreages required, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities. This application proposes the Rivergrass development using the Rural Land Stewardship Credit System, as provided for under Policy 1.4 of the RLSAO. The SRA application further proposes that Stewardship Credits, enabling this SRA to be developed as a Village, will be obtained from permanent restrictions on the use of environmentally sensitive land (from approved SSAs). The SRA procedures and standards are 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 956 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 4 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA outlined in Section 4.08.07 of the LDC. Specifically, the SSAs to be used to enable the project to proceed as an SRA are subject to County review and approval at the SRA submittal stage. The SSA documents submitted for review include the Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application (revised to 8/08/2019, from 6/07/2016) for SSA no. 15 [originally prepared for SSA no. 17 (and others) and the now-defunct Rural Lands West SRA application]; and, the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement (revised to 8/08/2019, from 6/04/2016) have been reconciled and updated, and may found internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials . The applicant has elected to consume credits for public benefit use areas and count the acreage toward the maximum acreage limits of the SRA. All formal SSAs must be approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. The project must meet the Collier County RSLA Overlay Stewardship Receiving Area Characteristics as identified for Villages in the table below. The table lists characteristic land uses and threshold requirements from the RLSA Overlay, [FLUE] Attachment C, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. Underlined uses in the table are not required uses. After the table, the relevant RLSA Overlay Policies (Group 4 Policies) are listed, followed by staff comments/analysis [in italics]. Size (Gross Acres) 100 ‒ 1,000 acres; The SRA is ±999.96 acres total. Residential Units (DUs) per gross acre base density 1 ‒ 4 DUs per gross acre; 2,500 DU/ ±999.96 acres = ±2.50 DU/ac. Residential Housing Styles Diversity of single-family and multi-family housing types, styles, [and] lot sizes; The “Village” includes up to 2,250 single-family and up to 250 multi- family residential units. Housing types include at least four single- family styles and multi-family residential buildings. However, the project is not proposed with a meaningful mix between single family and multi-family housing, as the ratio is 90% single family and 10% multi-family. By comparison, the County as a whole has a ratio of approximately 50% single family to 45% multi-family.* (reference RLSA Policy 4.7.2, below) * [Note: remainder is mobile home and other unit types.] Maximum Floor Area Ratio or Intensity Retail and Office ‒ 0.5; These uses are provided for in the mixed-use “Village Center”. FAR figures as shown. Civic/Governmental/Institution ‒ 0.6; These uses are provided for in the mixed-use “Village Center”. FAR figures as shown. Group Housing ‒ 0.45; not required – ALFs and CCRCs proposed (with equivalency ratio). FAR is provided. Transient Lodging ‒ 26 units/ac. net; not required – not proposed. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 957 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 5 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA Goods and Services Village Center with Neighborhood Goods and Services in Village Centers ‒ Minimum 25 sq. ft. gross building area per DU; (2,500 DUs x 25 sq. ft./DU) = 62,500 sq. ft. is required. The project includes between 62,500 and 80,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial uses. Water and Wastewater Centralized or decentralized community treatment system; Served by centralized County facilities. Interim Well and Septic; not required – not proposed. Recreation and Open Spaces Parks and Public Green Spaces within Neighborhoods (minimum 1% of gross acres); 9.99 acres are required (999.9 ac. x 1%), and 9.99 acres are provided. Active Recreation/Golf Courses; not required – 156.66 acres are provided. Lakes; provided, covering more than 218 acres. Open Space – minimum 35% of SRA ; 350 acres of Recreation and Open Spaces required ‒ 615.27 provided. Civic, Governmental and Institutional Services Moderate Range of Services ‒ minimum 10 sq. ft./DU; 25,000 sq. ft. required (2,500 DUs x 10 sq. ft./DU); 25,000 sq. ft. proposed. Full Range of Schools; not required – not proposed. Transportation Auto-interconnected system of collector and local roads; required connection to collector or arterial; An interconnected road system is provided; The SRA connects to Oil Well Road (CR 858), a rural major collector road as classified in the Transportation Element, and the future north-south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway; additional potential future interconnections are provided, (crossing the future north-south thoroughfare of Big Cypress Parkway), to connect with 43rd Avenue NE and Randall Blvd. Interconnected sidewalk and pathway system; provided. Equestrian Trails; not required – not proposed. County Transit Access; not required – transit stop proposed. Group 4 ‒ Policies to enable conversion of rural lands to other uses in appropriate locations, while discouraging urban sprawl, and encouraging development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas. Po licy 4.1: Collier County will encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA. Collier County will also encourage development that utilizes creative land use planning techniques and facilitates a compact form of development to accommodate population growth by the establishment of Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs). Incentives to encourage 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 958 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 6 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA and support the diversification and vitality of the rural economy such as flexible development regulations, expedited permitting review, and targeted capital improvements shall be incorporated into the LDC Stewardship District. The subject petition is for an SRA. Policy 4.2: All privately owned lands within the RLSA which meet the criteria set forth herein are eligible for designation as a SRA, except land delineated as a FSA, HSA, WRA or land that has been designated as a Stewardship Sending Area. Land proposed for SRA designation shall meet the suitability criteria and other standards described in Group 4 Policies. Due to the long-term vision of the RLSA Overlay… and in accordance with the guidelines [previously] established in Chapter 163.3177(11) F.S. [now: 163.3248] the specific location, size and composition of each SRA cannot and need not be predetermined in the GMP. In the RLSA Overlay, lands that are eligible to be designated as SRAs generally have similar physical attributes as they consist predominately of agr iculture lands which have been cleared or otherwise altered for this purpose. Lands shown on the Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation include approximately 74,500 acres outside of the ACSC (and 18,300 acres within the ACSC). Approximately 2% of these lands achieve an Index score greater than 1.2. Because the Overlay requires SRAs to be compact, mixed-use and self-sufficient in the provision of services, facilities and infrastructure, traditional locational standards normally applied to determine d evelopment suitability are not relevant or applicable to SRAs. Therefore the process for designating a SRA follows the principles of the Rural Lands Stewardship Act as further described herein. Land proposed for the SRA designation meets the suitability criteria and other standards described in RLSA Overlay Group 4 Policies. The subject site is designated on the RLSA Overlay Map as eligible for SRA designation. Policy 4.3: Land becomes designated as a SRA upon petition by a property owner to Collier County seeking such designation and the adoption of a resolution by the BCC granting the designation. The petition shall include a SRA master plan as described in Policy 4.5. The basis for approval shall be a finding of consistency with the policies of the Overlay, including required suitability criteria set forth herein, consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, and assurance that the applicant has acquired or will acquire sufficient Stewardship Credits to implement the SRA uses. The County has adopted LDC amendments to establish the procedures and submittal requirements for designation as a SRA, providing for consideration of impacts, including environ mental and public infrastructure impacts, and for public notice of and the opportunity for public participation in any consideration by the BCC of such a designation. The property owner has submitted the required SRA application along with an SRA Master Pl an as described in Policy 4.5. The total Stewardship Credits available are those to be transferred from SSA no. 15 (5,877.44). These Stewardship credits derive from ‘Base’ and ‘Early Entry Bonus’ credits. Consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the “LDC Stewardship District” (RLSA zoning overlay) is addressed later herein. Policy 4.4 is not directed toward individual applications. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 959 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 7 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA Policy 4.5: To address the specifics of each SRA, a master plan of each SRA will be prepared and submitted to Collier County as a part of the petition for designation as a SRA. The master plan will demonstrate that the SRA complies with all applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District and is designed so that incompatible land uses are directed away from wetlands and critical habitat identified as FSAs and HSAs on the Overlay Map. The applicant has submitted a master plan with their petition intended to demonstrate the SRA complies with the applicable policies of the Overlay and the LDC Stewardship District. Matters of compliance or noncompliance with applicable policies of the Overlay are addressed throughout this memo. Compliance with applicable policies of the LDC is reviewed and determined by the Zoning Services Section, Comprehensive Planning Section, and other sections and divisions of the Growth Management Department. Matters of noncompliance with the LDC Stewardship District are also matters of noncompliance with this Overlay. Policy 4.6 is not directed toward individual applications. Policy 4.7: There are four specific forms of SRA permitted within the Overlay. These are Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and Compact Rural Development (CRD). The Characteristics of Towns, Villages, Hamlets, and CRD are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C and are generally described in Policies 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3 and 4.7.4. Collier County shall establish more specific regulations, guidelines and standards within the LDC Stewardship District to guide the design and development of SRAs to include innovative planning and development strategies as set forth [previously] in Chapter 163.3177 (11), F.S. [now: 163.3248] and 9J- 5.006(5)(l). The size and base density of each form shall be consistent with the standards set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C. The maximum base residential density as set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C may only be exceeded through the density blending process as set forth in density and intensity blending provision of the Immokalee Area Master Plan or through the affordable housing density bonus as referenced in the Density Rating System of the Future Land Use Element. The base residential density is calculated by dividing the total number of residential units in a SRA by the overall area therein. The base residential density does not restrict net residential density of parcels within a SRA. The location, size and density of each SRA will be determined on an individual basis during the SRA designation review and approval process. The SRA size, density, and uses are consistent with those set forth on [FLUE] Attachment C. Policy 4.7.1 does not apply to this application. Policy 4.7.2: Villages are primarily residential communities with a diversity of housing types and mix of uses appropriate to the scale and character of the particular village. Villages shall be not less than 100 acres or more than 1,000 acres. Villages are comprised of residential neighborhoods and shall include a mixed-use village center to serve as the focal point for the community’s support services and facilities. Villages shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle circulation by including an interconnected sidewalk and pathway system serving all residential neighborhoods. Villages shall have parks or public green spaces within neighborhoods. Villages shall include neighborhood scaled retail and office uses, in a ratio as provided in Policy 4.15. Villages are an appropriate location for a full 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 960 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 8 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA range of schools. To the extent possible, schools and parks shall be located adjacent to each other to allow for the sharing of recreational facilities. Design criteria for Villages shall be included in the LDC Stewardship District. From the direction this Policy provides, one would expect smaller Villages (nearer 100 acres) to represent the lower end of the scale for diversity of housing types and mix of uses; while larger Villages (nearer 1,000 acres) would be expected to provide the greatest diversity of housing types and fullest range of uses – much in the same way the store with more floor area would provide a bigger variety of merchandise – or the paper with more pages would provide more news articles. However, this essentially thousand-acre project is not proposed with a meaningful mix between single family and multi-family ‒ as the ratio is 90% single family and 10% multi-family. By comparison, the County as a whole has a ratio of approximately 50% single family to 45% multi-family (remainder is mobile home and other unit types). Policies 4.7.3 and 4.7.4 do not apply to this application. Policy 4.8: An SRA may be contiguous to a FSA or HSA, but shall not encroach into such areas, and shall buffer such areas as described in Policy 4.13. A SRA may be contiguous to and served by a WRA without requiring the WRA to be designated as a SRA in accordance with Policy 3.12 and 3.13. The SRA is contiguous to lands designated FSA and HSA but does not encroach into FSA or HSA areas; and, development properly buffers such areas. Policy 4.9: A SRA must contain sufficient suitable land to accommodate the planned development in an environmentally acceptable manner. The primary means of directing development away from wetlands and critical habitat is the prohibition of locating SRAs in FSAs, HSA s, and WRAs. To further direct development away from wetlands and critical habitat, residential, commercial, manufacturing/light industrial, group housing, and transient housing, institutional, civic and community service uses within a SRA shall not be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. In addition, conditional use essential services and governmental essential services, with the exception of those necessary to serve permitted uses and for public safety, shall n ot be sited on lands that receive a Natural Resource Index value of greater than 1.2. The Index value of greater than 1.2 represents those areas that have a high natural resource value as measured pursuant to Policy 1.8. Less than 2% of potential SRA land achieves an Index score of greater than 1.2. Staff defers review and comment pertaining to the Natural Resource Index value within the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division. Policy 4.10: Within the RLSA Overlay, open space, which by definition shall include public and private conservation lands, underdeveloped areas of designated SSAs, agriculture, water retention and management areas and recreation uses, will continue to be the dominant land use. Therefore, open space adequate to serve the forecasted population and uses within the SRA is provided. To ensure that SRA residents have such [open space] areas proximate to their homes, open space shall also comprise a minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage of an individual SRA Town, Village, or those CRDs exceeding 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 961 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 9 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA 100 acres. Lands within a SRA greater than one acre with Index values of greater than 1.2 shall be retained as open space. As an incentive to encourage open space, such uses within a SRA, located outside of the ACSC, exceeding the required thirty-five percent shall not be required to consume Stewardship Credits. Open space exceeds the minimum of thirty-five percent of the gross acreage. ±350 acres are required (±999.9 ac. x 35%), and additional acres are provided. A 5-acre utility site on acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use” and, no lands are reported to have Index values of greater than 1.2. The forecasted population for the project is 4,269 (permanent). Policy 4.11: The perimeter of each SRA shall be designed to provide a transition from higher density and intensity uses within the SRA to lower density and intensity uses on adjoining property. The edges of SRAs shall be well defined and designed to be compatible with the character of adjoining property. Techniques such as, but not limited to setbacks, landscape buffers, and recreation/open space placement may be used for this purpose. Where existing agricultural activity adjoins a SRA, the design of the SRA must take this activity into account to allow for the continuation of the agricultural activity and to minimize any conflict between agriculture and SRA uses. Comprehensive Planning staff observes that some of the above-mentioned design principles have been employed, but defers the determination of compatibility with surrounding land uses to Zoning Services Section reviewers based on the totality of the project. Policy 4.12: Where a SRA adjoins a FSA, HSA, WRA or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map, best management and planning practices shall be applied to minimize adverse impacts to such lands. SRA design shall demonstrate that ground water table draw down or diversion will not adversely impact the adjacent FSA, HSA, WRA or conservation land. Detention and control elevations shall be established to protect such natural areas and be consistent with surrounding land and project control elevations and water tables. Staff defers review and comment pertaining to these aspects of the SRA to specialists of the Environmental Planning Section of the County’s Development Review Division. Policy 4.13: Open space within or contiguous to a SRA shall be used to provide a buffer between the SRA and any adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land delineated on the Overlay Map. Open space contiguous to or within 300 feet of the boundary of a FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land may include: natural preserves, lakes, golf courses provided no fairways or other turf areas are allowed within the first 200 feet, passive recreational areas and parks, required yard and set-back areas, and other natural or man-made open space. Along the west boundary of the FSAs and HSAs that comprise Camp Keais Strand, i.e., the area south of Immokalee Road, this open space buffer shall be 500 feet wide and shall preclude golf course fairways and other turf areas within the first 300 feet. Open space located within or contiguous to a SRA are used to provide a buffer between the SRA and adjoining FSA, HSA, or existing public or private conservation land. The subject site is located within land 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 962 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 10 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA designated as “open” on the RLSA Stewardship Map. Where it adjoins an HSA, appropriate buffering is provided. (Master Plan) Policy 4.14: The SRA must have either direct access to a County collector or arterial road or indirect access via a road provided by the developer that has adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with accepted transportation planning standards. No SRA shall be approved unless the capacity of County collector or arterial road(s) serving the SRA is demonstrated to be adequate in accordance with the Collier County Concurrency Management System in effect at the time of SRA designation. A transportation impact assessment meeting the requirements of Section 2.7.3 of the LDC, or its successor regulation shall be prepared for each proposed SRA to provide the necessary data and analysis. County collector or arterial roads serving the SRA are continuing under evaluation. Application materials propose access to and from Oil Well Road (CR 858), a rural major collector road as classified in the Transportation Element. Concurrency is determined at the time of subsequent development orders. Transportation Planning staff will review this project for its transportation impact, and Comprehensive Planners defer comments relative to these aspects of the review to the Transportation Planning Section. Policy 4.15.1: SRAs are intended to be mixed use and shall be allowed the full range of uses permitted by the Urban Designation of the FLUE, as modified by Policies 4.7, 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4 and [FLUE] Attachment C. An appropriate mix of retail, office, recreational, civic, governmental, and institutional uses will be available to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of residents of the RLSA. Depending on the size, scale, and character of a SRA, such uses may be provided either within the specific SRA, within other SRAs in the RLSA or within the Immokalee Urban Area. By example, each Village or CRD shall provide for neighborhood retail/office uses to serve its population as well as appropriate civic and institutional uses, however, the combined population of several Villages and Hamlets may be required to support community scaled retail or office uses in a nearby CRD. Standards for the minimum amount of non-residential uses in each category are set forth in [FLUE] Attachment C, and shall be also included in the Stewardship LDC District. From the direction this Policy provides, one would expect smaller Villages (nearer 100 acres) to represent the lower end of the scale for diversity of housing types, mix of uses, etc.; while larger Villages (nearer 1,000 acres) would be expected to provide the greatest diversity of housing types, fullest range of uses – much in the same way the store with more floor area would provide a bigger variety of merchandise – or the paper with more pages would provide more news articles. However, this essentially thousand-acre project is not proposed with the mix of uses to serve the daily needs and community wide needs of the forecasted population of 4,269 residents. Application materials address some of the above issues and requirements within their Statement of Compliance, Rivergrass Village Master Plan, and its component Village Center and Neighborhood General context zones. Specific requirements are contained in other Policies, and staff analysis is provided there. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 963 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 11 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA The size and population of this project would support ‒ and could benefit from providing corporate office and light industrial land use areas/context zones for job opportunities ‒ as part of an overall transportation mitigation strategy. Policy 4.15.2: The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) may, as a condition of approval and adoption of an SRA development, require that suitable areas for parks, schools and other public facilities be set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use. When the BCC requires such a set aside for one or more public facilities, the set aside shall be subject to the same provisions of the LDC as are applicable to public facility dedications required as a condition for PUD rezoning. A 5-acre utility site on acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use”. Policy 4.15.3: Applicants for SRA designation shall coordinate with Collier County School Board staff to allow planning to occur to accommodate any impacts to the public schools as a result of the SRA. As part of the SRA application, the following information shall be provided: 1. Number of residential units by type; 2. An estimate of the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school); and, 3. The potential for locating a public educational facility or facilities within the SRA, and the size of any sites that may be dedicated, or otherwise made available for a public educational facility. Project development is planned in a single phase. School sites are not set aside, improved, and/or dedicated for public use in the development. The School Impact Analysis projects 600 new students to be generated from the 2,500 residences. This overall student figure, however, is not allocated to the number of school-aged children for each type of school impacted (elementary, middle, high school. Staff defers review and comment on the adequacy and accuracy of data submitted with this application to School District personnel. Policy 4.16: A SRA shall have adequate infrastructure available to serve the proposed development, or such infrastructure must be provided concurrently with the demand. The level of infrastructure provided will depend on the form of SRA development, accepted civil engineering practices, and LDC requirements. The capacity of infrastructure necessary to serve the SRA at build-out must be demonstrated during the SRA designation process. Infrastructure to be analyzed includes transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, and solid waste. Transportation infrastructure is discussed in Policy 4.14. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities are required in Towns, Villages, and those CRDs exceedi ng one hundred (100) acres in size, and may be required in CRDs that are one hundred (100) acres or less in size, depending upon the permitted uses approved within the CRD. Centralized or decentralized community water and wastewater utilities shall be constructed, owned, operated and maintained by a private utility service, the developer, a Community Development District, the Immokalee Water Sewer Service District, Collier County, or other governmental entity. Innovative alternative water and wastewater treatment systems such as 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 964 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 12 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA decentralized community treatment systems shall not be prohibited by this Policy provided that they meet all applicable regulatory criteria. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems, limited to a maximum of 100 acres of any Town, Village or CRD of 100 acres are permitted on an interim basis until services from a centralized/decentralized community system are available. Individual potable water supply wells and septic systems are permitted in Hamlets and may be permitted in CRDs of 100 acres or less in size. The demand for potable water will be approximately 1.03 million gallons per day (average) and 1.33 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Sanitary sewers must be designed to accommodate approximately 0.78 million gallons per day (average) and 1.16 million gallons per day (3-day maximum). Adequate infrastructure to develop the project is planned with centralized water supply facilities and wastewater collection and treatment services provided by Collier County. As an alternative, the developer proposes that on-site treatment facilities will be constructed (including formation of an independent utility company). Golf course and landscape areas do not use the same waters. The project requires irrigation of the golf course and landscape areas for approximately 1.4 million gallons per day (annual average-based) and 2.1 million gallons per day (monthly maximum-based). A privately-owned and maintained system will withdraw irrigation waters from the project’s own lake system and distribute them throughout the development. The lake system will be replenished by recharge wells that tap into the Lower Tamiami Aquifer. Collier County expanded its jurisdictional Water-Sewer District service area boundary in September 2018, encompassing this area (FKA Big Cypress). The Capital Improvements Element of the Growth Management Plan identifies phased construction of a new regional water treatment plant ($82.5M) and a new water reclamation facility ($106M) at the Northeast Utility Facilities (NEUF) site to support this (and other) development. Staff also defers to other departments, agencies and public vetting of this project. Policy 4.17: The BCC will review and approve SRA designation applications in accordance with the provisions of Policy 1.1.2 [now Policy 1.2] of the Capital Improvement Element (CIE) of the GMP for Category A public facilities. Final local development orders will be approved within a SRA designated by the BCC in accordance with the Concurrency Management System of the GMP and LDC in effect at the time of local development order approval. This project does not create a significant impact on countywide population as defined in Policy 1.1.2 of the CIE. Staff defers to the departments and agencies identified above involved directly with Concurrency Management. Policy 4.18: The SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year based on a public facilities impact assessment, as identified in LDC 4.08.07.K. The BCC may grant exceptions to this Policy to accommodate affordable housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the assessment shall consider the following public facilities and services: 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 965 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 13 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to ado pted levels of service standards. The applicant asserts the development will be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County in the analysis provided in the Economic Assessment Report. Staff defers to the other County staff involved in the review of the Economic Assessment Report. Policy 4.19: Eight (8) credits shall be required for each acre of land included in a SRA, except for open space in excess of the required thirty-five percent as described in Policy 4.10 or for land that is designated for a public benefit use described in Policy 4.19. In order to promote compact, mixed use development and provide the necessary support facilities and services to residents of rural areas, the SRA designation entitles a full range of uses, accessory uses and associated uses that provide a mix of services to and are supportive to the residential population of a SRA, as provided for in [FLUE] Policies 4.7, 4.15 and [FLUE] Attachment C. Such uses shall be identified, located and quantified in the SRA master plan. The proposed SRA comprises ±999.9 acres; of those, ±734 acres require ±5,877 credits, and this 1:8 ratio is met. Sufficient Stewardship Credits are available from approved or pending SSAs to enable development of the project (see Policy 4.3 comments). The size and population of this project would support ‒ and could benefit from providing ‒ corporate office and light industrial land use areas/context zones for job opportunities as part of an overall transportation mitigation strategy. Policy 4.20: The acreage of a public benefit use shall not count toward the maximum acreage limits described in Policy 4.7. For the purpose of this Policy, public benefit uses include: public schools (preK-12) and public or private post-secondary institutions, including ancillary uses; community parks exceeding the minimum acreage requirements of [FLUE] Attachment C, municipal golf courses; regional parks; and governmental facilities excluding essential services as defined in the LDC. The location of public schools shall be coordinated with the Collier County School Board, based on the interlocal agreement, 163.3177 F.S. and in a manner consistent with 235.193 F.S. Schools and related ancillary uses shall be encouraged to locate in or proximate to Towns, Villages, and Hamlets subject to applicable zoning and permitting requirements. A 5-acre utility site on acreage exceeding the minimum acreage requirements is proposed for “public benefit use”. However, the petitioner has chosen not to deduct this acreage (the proposed “Village” is less than the 1,000-acre maximum). Policy 4.21 does not apply, as this site is not within the ACSC. BASED UPON THE ABOVE ANALYSIS, STAFF FINDS: CONSISTENCY REVIEW FINDINGS: 1. The Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) Credit Use and Reconciliation Application (revised to 8/08/2019, from 6/07/2016) for SSA no. 15 [originally prepared for SSA no. 17 (and others) and the now-defunct 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 966 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 14 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA Rural Lands West SRA application]; and, the Stewardship Receiving Area Credit Agreement (revised to 8/08/2019, from 6/04/2016) have been reconciled and updated, and may be found internally consistent with other proposed SRA materials. The applicant has elected to consume credits for public benefit use areas and count the acreage toward the maximum acreage limits of the SRA. 2. The Rivergrass Village SRA Development Document (revised to 8/15/2019, from 8/9/2019) proposes Deviations and departures from Development Standards for this SRA project that do not demonstrate the fundamental Village design characteristics required by the LDC, and are not consistent with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District, as follows: Section VII, DEVIATIONS: ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1, Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.a.v), re: Village Center design, resulting with a project that does not serve the daily needs and community wide needs. [distances to goods & services too great given its location.] ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1, Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.p)ii), re: parking locations, resulting with a project that allows for off-street parking arrangements discouraged in Villages. ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1, Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.ii.q), re: parking locations, SAA. ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1, Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, re: parking structure requirements, NO COMMENT. ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.1, Village Center Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.3.d.iii, re: multi -family residential lot sizes, resulting with a project that allows for exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages, ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2, Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.a), re: the mix of uses in Ne ighborhood General areas, resulting with a project that does not serve the daily needs and community wide needs. ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2, Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.f)iv), re: non-residential use building sizes, NO COMMENT. ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2, Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)ii), re: multi-family residential yard setbacks, NO COMMENT. ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.2, Neighborhood General Standards, requests deviation from LDC Section 4.08.07.J.2.d.iii.e)i), re: multi-family residential lot sizes, resulting with a project that allows for exceedingly large lot sizes discouraged in Villages. ▪ proposed SRA document, Deviations, Subsection 7.3, Transportation Standards, requests deviation from [multiple] LDC Section 4.08.07.J.1.b. cross-section figures, re: sidewalk designs along collector streets and local streets in Neighborhood General areas, may result with an 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 967 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 15 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA interrupted sidewalk system; this Deviation will benefit from additional language stating, “…may be allowed where a fully interconnected sidewalk and pathway system is maintained”. (No further remarks re: additional proposed Deviations) 3. Other proposed departures from Development Standards can be determined to be uncharacteristic of a “Village”, as follows: Section V, CONTEXT ZONES: ▪ proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.1.1.A., Neighborhood General Permitted Uses and Structures: list incomplete, as does not allow the mix of uses in Neighborhood General areas; ▪ proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.1.2.A., Neighborhood General Development and Design Standards, Required Minimum Yards & Maximum Building Heights, including table and footnotes: front setbacks too shallow; most measures reflect conventional standards, not Village design; list too exclusive, omitting the allowed mix of uses in Neighborhood General areas; ▪ proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.2.1.A. & B., Village Center Permitted Uses and Accessory Uses: list that includes uses such as “retail nurseries” does not reflect Village design; the “comparable and compatible” listing directs determinations back to a standard LDC reference, when additional direction to consider Village characteristics of being compact, mixed- use and self-sufficient (and other aspects) would make this listing internally consistent within the SRA ; ▪ proposed SRA document, Context Zones, Subsection 5.2.2.A., Village Center Development and Design Standards, Required Minimum Yards (Setbacks) & Maximum Building Heights, including table and footnotes: lot width too wide; distance between structures unnecessary; most measures reflect conventional standards, not Village design; Supportable Deviations and Development Standards from the LDC are those where: a. The Deviation or Development Standard is consistent with the RLSA Overlay (or where mitigation practices are pursued to reach consistency); and b. It can be demonstrated that the proposed Deviation or Development Standard further enhance s the tools, techniques and strategies, as set forth in RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District. Collier County RLSA regulations are based on the principles of innovative planning and development strategies. 4. Review the SRA materials throughout, to find related entries requiring related and similar changes, including, in particular, the proposed SRA Document, SRA Statement of Suitability Criteria per LDC. SUBSTANTIVE REVIEW FINDINGS: The requisite credits are sufficient number from approved or pending SSAs to enable development of the SRA. The approved Stewardship Credits must be submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 968 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) ‒ 16 ‒ PL20190000044, Rivergrass SRA The proposed density and uses may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay. However, a number of other design and development characteristics for the project may not be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element, Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay, as follows: This essentially thousand-acre project is not proposed with a meaningful mix between single family and multi-family as the ratio is 90% single family and 10% multi-family. By comparison, the County as a whole has a ratio of approximately 50% single family to multi-family. (reference RLSA Policy 4.7.2, above) A significant number of Deviations from the LDC are requested, the preponderance of which remove the proposed project from consistency with the RLSA Overlay. The relevant Deviations and departures from Development Standards proposed for this SRA project do not demonstrate the fundamental Village design characteristics required by the LDC, and are not consistent with the tools, techniques and strategies set forth in RLSA provisions in the LDC Stewardship District. Collier County RLSA regulations are based on the principles of innovative planning and development strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Where the proposed SRA lacks consistency with the intent of RLSA provisions in the LDC, it may not be considered consistent with the FLUE. Where the proposed SRA does not demonstrate the fundamental Village design characteristics as identified in the Substantive Review Findings above, it is not supported by a recommendation fo r approval. Based upon the above analysis, this proposed SRA may not be deemed consistent with the FLUE. However, the application may be deemed consistent if and when the stipulations below are met. Stipulations: 1. All formal SSAs have been approved and Stewardship Credits submitted before or concurrent with this SRA. 2. Those Deviations, Development Standards, SRA Statement of Suitability Criteria, etc., listed under Consistency Review Findings, above, are removed or revised as discussed above. 3. The ratio of multi-family to single family dwelling units is increased to a meaningful level. cc: Ray Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Services Section David Weeks, AICP, Growth Management Manager, Comprehensive Planning Section G:\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\ Rivergrass Village SRA\SRA-2019-44 Con Rvws G:\CDES Planning Services\Comprehensive\RLSA SSAs SRAs\STEWARDSHIP RECEIVING AREAS\Rivergrass Village SRA\SRA-2019-44 Con Rvws\PL19-44 Rivergrass Village Con Rev memo_REV3 FNL.3.1.docx 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 969 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 1 DEVELOPER AGREEMENT Rivergrass Village THIS DEVELOPER AGREEMENT (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) is made and entered into this ______ of _________, 2019, by and among COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD and CDC LAND DEVELOPMENT, LLC (collectively referred to as the “Landowner”), whose address is 2550 Goodlette Road North, Naples, Florida 34103, and THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA (hereinafter referred to as the “County”). RECITALS: WHEREAS, on October 28, 2003, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners was presented with a proposal relating to the creation of the Big Cypress Stewardship District (District), an independent special district, within the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA). At the request of the sponsors of the District, and as a precursor to the introduction of the special act which created the District, following a public hearing with numerous commitments relating to this matter, the Board found no objection to the creation and establishment of the District, and adopted Resolution No. 2003-380; and WHEREAS, among other things the Resolution was conditioned on the County receiving the fee simple donation of road right-of-way, to supplement County-owned right-of-way, sufficient to accommodate a six-lane cross section on Immokalee Road and Oil Well Road, and acceptance of stormwater retention along Immokalee Road and Oil well Road, with no road impact fee credits granted by the County in exchange for donated right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the Big Cypress Stewardship Community District (“District”) was created and established on June 17, 2004, by Chapter 2004-423, Laws of Florida, effective June 17, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Landowner has submitted a petition to establish the Rivergrass Village within the Rural Land Stewardship Area; and WHEREAS, Landowner has (1) previously dedicated right-of-way to Collier County for Oil Well Road, (2) will convey additional right-of-way for Immokalee Road, (3) will convey right- of-way to Collier County for Big Cypress Parkway, and (4) will provide stormwater treatment for Big Cypress Parkway, and (5) will pay $_______ towards intersection improvements to Collier County; and WHEREAS, it is determined that this Agreement provides the specific mitigation stipulations necessary to comply with Growth Management Plan (GMP) Transportation Element Policy 5.1 to make the project consistent with the GMP. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 970 Attachment: Attachment C-1-DRAFT Developer Agreement 9-9-2019 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 2 WITNESSETH NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars (10.00) and other good and valuable consideration exchanged amongst the parties, and in consideration of the covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. All of the above RECITALS are true and correct and are hereby expressly incorporated herein by reference as if set forth fully below. 2. This Agreement shall become effective upon approval of the Rivergrass Village SRA and expiration of all appeal periods related to same and issuance of all necessary final and non-appeal development orders, permits or other discretionary approvals to construct Rivergrass Village. 3. Within 30 days from the effective date of this Agreement, Landowner will convey the right-of-way legally described and graphically depicted in Composite Exhibit A (“Additional Donated Land”) to the County for the widening of Immokalee Road and the associated stormwater. This Additional Donated Land will be sufficient to provide both a two hundred (200’) foot wide corridor and sufficient stormwater drainage for this road segment. Landowner shall convey to the County (1) the right-of-way to the County in fee simple, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by statutory warranty deed, and (2) drainage easements for stormwater management, the forms of which are attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Landowner will be responsible for paying any and all costs of any title work and searches and shall be responsible for all costs for promptly removing or curing any liens, encumbrances on deficiencies revealed in any title work. Landowner will promptly provide the Office of the County Attorney with an executed deed, suitable for recording. Upon receipt, the County shall record the deed and drainage easements in the Public Records of the County. The Landowner shall assume all costs associated with the recordation of the deeds and drainage easements. As previously set forth, the Landowner shall not receive impact fee credits from its donation of land for Immokalee Road and the associated drainage acreage. 4. The Landowner or designee shall permit, construct and install at it s sole cost and expense a traffic signal on Oil Well Road at the primary residential access point for the Village of Rivergrass within one year from when requested to do so by the Collier County Transportation Department, which request will be dependent upon if and when the signal is warranted. Following completion, the traffic signal will be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. The Landowner, its successors and assigns, shall not seek a traffic signal along Big Cypress Parkway within one half mile of the intersections of Randall Boulevard or Oil Well Road. 5. Within 180 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Landowner will convey to Collier County right-of-way for Big Cypress Parkway depicted in Exhibit C. The right-of-way is approximately ________ acres and will be conveyed to the County by statutory warranty deed. The County shall provide the legal description with final acreage and sketch to the Landowner within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement. The Landowner will be responsible for paying any and all costs of any title work and searches and shall be responsible for all costs for promptly removing or curing any liens, encumbrances on deficiencies revealed in any title work. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 971 Attachment: Attachment C-1-DRAFT Developer Agreement 9-9-2019 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 3 Landowner will promptly provide the Office of the County Attorney with an executed deed, suitable for recording. The Landowner shall assume all costs associated with the recordation of the deed. At the time of the conveyance the Landowner shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits for this acreage less that necessary for site related turn lanes calculated as set forth in paragraph 8 below. No further compensating right-of-way shall be necessary for site related left turn lanes on Oil Well Road or Big Cypress Parkway. 6. Landowner will be permitted to construct a commercial access road at their own expense with no impact fee credits to serve the Village Center within Rivergrass Village in the event the County has not already constructed Big Cypress Parkway. Design, construction and construction engineering and inspection must be completed by FDOT prequalified firms at full expense of the landowner. 7. The Landowner shall at its sole cost and expense design, permit and construct the Rivergrass Village water management system to accept the run off from the portion of Big Cypress Parkway constructed adjacent to Rivergrass Village. The Landowner will provide at least ACREAGE TO BE ADDED acres within its lake system to accommodate the water management for the Big Cypress Parkway improvements. Upon completion of the construction, the Landowner shall receive Road Impact Fee Credits for this acreage as calculated by paragraph 8 below. 8. The value of the land indicated in paragraphs 5 and 7 above shall be determined by two accredited appraisers who are mutually agreed upon by the parties. The purchase price shall be based on the market value of the land as set aside just prior to the SRA action and shall be equal to the average of the two appraisals. The parties shall share equally in the appraisal costs. 9. To allow for the future connection by the County of the stormwater generated by Big Cypress Parkway and Immokalee Road, Landowner shall install stormwater discharge points for Big Cypress Parkway at the earlier of the County notifying the Landowner that it will commence construction of Big Cypress Parkway or at time it constructs its stormwater management system in the vicinity of Big Cypress Parkway. Discharge points, pipe sizes and required elevations will be finalized during the Developer’s SFWMD ERP process. For this portion of the project, Collier County will require two easements. The first is an easement to allow for the ultimate connection of the stormwater pipes from the roadway into the manholes. The second is for a drainage and maintenance easement along the conveyance pipes from the manholes to the stormwater lake and discharge. Within the earlier of 90 days of the first plat approval for the Development or at County’s written request, the Landowner will grant County both easements, the forms of which are attached as Exhibit D. All costs associated with these easements (title work, doc stamps, recording, etc.) will be paid by the Landowner. No Certificates of Occupancy for Rivergrass Village shall be issued until the easements are recorded. 10. The County will notify the Landowner following completion construction of the stormwater lake and discharge system identified above. Every five years thereafter, the Landowner shall perform an inspection by a certified engineer to assess the condition of the stormwater system. The inspection report shall be forwarded to the County for monitoring. The Landowner and its successors in interest, including any homeowner associations, will be solely responsible for the perpetual operation and maintenance of the shared stormwater management 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 972 Attachment: Attachment C-1-DRAFT Developer Agreement 9-9-2019 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 4 system, which includes everything from the manholes, to the conveyance pipes, to the stormwater lakes, to the ultimate permitted discharge. Notwithstanding the sole maintenance responsibility, the parties acknowledge that due to the importance of the drainage from roadway projects, the above drainage easement will include a maintenance easement to allow Collier County to do whatever it deems necessary to repair or maintain the drainage system. If, after reasonable written notice to the Landowner of a repair or maintenance issue concerning the shared stormwater management system goes unheeded, the County may enter the Development for the purpose of repairing or maintaining the system, and the Landowner will pay the County its full cost incurred in conducting such repair and maintenance. 11. Within 90 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Landowner shall pay $XXXXX, which is their proportionate share of operational improvements as identified in the Transportation Impact Statement and related documents submitted with the SRA application. 12. Depending upon the final agreed upon cross-section immediately adjacent to Rivergrass, there may be additional maintenance necessary for the slope on the “Estates” side (south of Oil Well Road). 13. The Landowner, on behalf of itself, its successors and assigns (including any and all future owners and tenants, both commercial and residential, within the Development), will give all successors, assigns, tenants and buyers, both residential and commercial, who purchase or lease land from the Landowner a separate written notice of the planned roadway improvements with the statement that the County will not construct any sound wall or other barrier of any kind to reduce the impact, noise, etc. It is intended by the parties that any such sound wall or other barrier, if constructed, would be at the sole cost of the Landowner or the Big Cypress Stewardship Community District. 14. All Road Impact Fee credits identified herein shall run with the Development and shall be automatically reduced by the entire amount of each Road Impact Fee due for each Building Permit issued thereon until the Development is either completed or the credits are exhausted or otherwise assigned. Any assignments of Road Impact Fees shall be governed by the Collier County Consolidated Impact Fee Ordinance, as amended from time to time. Legal Matters 15. This Agreement shall not be constructed or characterized as a development agreement under the Florida Local Government Development Agreement Act. 13. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all assigns successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. The term “Landowner” shall include all of Landowner’s assigns and successors in interest, including homeowner associations and commercial tenants. 14. In the event state or federal laws are enacted after the execution of this Agreement, which are applicable to and preclude in whole or in part the parties’ compliance with the terms of 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 973 Attachment: Attachment C-1-DRAFT Developer Agreement 9-9-2019 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 5 this Agreement, then in such event this Agreement shall be modified or revoked as is necessary to comply with such laws, in a many which best reflects the intent of this Agreement. 15. The Landowner shall execute this Agreement prior to it being submitted for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. This Agreement shall be recorded by the County in the Official Records of Collier County, Florida, within fourteen (14) days after the Effective Date. The Landowner shall pay all costs of recording this Agreement. The County shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Landowner upon request. 16. In the event of any dispute under this Agreement, the parties shall attempt to resolve such dispute first by means of the County’s then-current Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedure, if any. Following the conclusion of such procedure, if any, either party may file an action for injunctive relief in the Circuit Court of Collier County to enforce the terms of this Agreement, and remedy being cumulative with any and all other remedies available to the parties for the enforcement of the Agreement. 17. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement shall only be amended by mutual written consent of the parties hereto or by their successors in interest. All notices and other communications required or permitted hereunder (including County’s option) shall be in writing and shall be sent by Certified Mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service, and addressed as follows: To County: Collier County Manager's Office 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 202 Naples, FL 34112-5746 To Landowner: 18. This Agreement (which include the references set forth in the Recitals) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the activities noted herein and supersedes and takes the place of any and all previous agreements entered into between the parties hereto relating to the transactions contemplated herein. All prior representations, undertakings, and agreements by or between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement are merged into, and expressed in, this Agreement, and any and all prior representations, undertakings, and agreements by and between such parties with respect thereto hereby are canceled. 19. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed or construed to create between or among any of the parties any joint venture or partnership nor otherwise grant to one another the right, authority or power to bind any other party hereto to any agreement whatsoever. REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 974 Attachment: Attachment C-1-DRAFT Developer Agreement 9-9-2019 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first above written. AS TO COUNTY: ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: ___________________________ By: _____________________________ , Deputy Clerk William L. McDaniel, Jr., Chairman AS TO DEVELOPER: WITNESS: COLLIER LAND HOLDINGS, LTD. A Florida Limited Partnership By: Collier Enterprises, Inc. a (Signature) Florida Corporation, It’s General Partner (Print full name) By: ___________________________ Printed Name: __________________ Title: _________________________ (Signature) (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______day of ________, 2019, by _________________, as _____________________of Collier Enterprise, Inc., its general partner of Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. He is [ ] personally known to me, or [ ] has produced driver’s license number___________________ as identification. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Name: ____________________________ My Commission Expires: ____________ 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 975 Attachment: Attachment C-1-DRAFT Developer Agreement 9-9-2019 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 7 CDC Land Investments, LLC a Florida Limited Liability Company ______________________________ (Signature) By: CDC Land Investments, Inc., its manager ______________________________ (Print full name) By: ___________________________ Printed Name: __________________ ______________________________ Title: _________________________ (Signature) ______________________________ (Print full name) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______day of ________, 2019, by _________________, as _____________________of CDC Land Investments, Inc., manager of CDC Land Investments, LLC. He is [ ] personally known to me, or [ ] has produced driver’s license number___________________ as identification. _________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC Name: ____________________________ My Commission Expires: ____________ Approved as to form and legality: _______________________________ Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 976 Attachment: Attachment C-1-DRAFT Developer Agreement 9-9-2019 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 1 of 2 C:\Users\BobMulhere\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\5EG8Z8W1\NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm.docx NIM SUMMARY Rivergrass Village SRA (PL-20190000044) Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. Collier County UF/IFAS Extension 14700 Immokalee Road, Multi-Purpose Room, Naples, FL 34120 The NIM was held for the above referenced petition. The petition is described as follows: 1) To establish a Stewardship Receiving Area (SRA) in the form of a Village consisting of 999.969± acres of land located in eastern Collier County, in Sections 10, 14, 15, 22, 23, and 27, Township 48 South, and Range 25 East. The SRA is to be known as Rivergrass Village. Rivergrass Village is proposed to allow up to 2,500 dwelling units, of which a maximum of 250 dwelling units will be multi-family; a minimum of 62,500 square feet and a maximum of 80,000 square feet of neighborhood scaled retail and office use; and a minimum of 25,000 square feet of civic, government, and institutional uses; and, one 18-hole golf course. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. A video recording can also be provided upon request. Attendees: On behalf of Applicants: Patrick Utter, Vice President, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. Valerie Pike, Project Manager, Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes, Inc. Richard Yovanovich, Esq., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A. County Staff: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, RLA, Principal Planner, Zoning Services Section Approximately 15 members of the public attended. Mr. Mulhere started the presentation by introducing himself, the other consultants, and County Staff. He explained the NIM process, the process for approval, provided a brief history of the Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program, and an overview of the project. Following Mr. Mulhere’s presentation, there was approximately twenty minutes of questions from the public in attendance. The members of the public who attended identified themselves (primarily) as residents of the Estates. April Olson, a Senior Environmental Planning Specialist from the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, also attended. The following issues were raised: Timing Questions were asked regarding the timing of the project. Mr. Mulhere explained that once County Staff finds the application sufficient, the project will need to go through the public hearing process. Mr. Mulhere estimated that the process will be complete by the end of the year. Mr. Utter explained that there is still environmental permitting required and estimated construction may begin in a year. Mrs. Olson asked if the proposed development was a phase of a larger plan for the area. The applicant is considering additional phases for the area, but there is no additional information at this time. 9.A.4.f Packet Pg. 977 Attachment: Attachment D-NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 2 of 2 C:\Users\BobMulhere\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\INetCache\Content.Outlook\5EG8Z8W1\NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm.docx Environmental Questions were raised regarding panther habitat. This will be analyzed during the permitting process and applicable mitigation, if any, will be determined. Additional questions were asked regarding wetlands. There will be a mitigation plan for wetlands within the project, as they are impacted with exotics. Wetlands and significant habitat area will be also preserved offsite via Sending Lands, per RLSA requirements. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:00 PM. 9.A.4.f Packet Pg. 978 Attachment: Attachment D-NIM Summary (6-10-2019)rjm (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 28906 1 M E M O R A N D U M Collier County GMD – Peer Review of Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment for Financial Neutrality [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] PREPARED FOR: Amy Patterson, Collier County Trinity Scott, Collier County Nancy Gundlach, Collier County Ray Bellows, Collier County James French, Collier County Kenneth Kovensky, Collier County COPY TO: Bill Gramer, Jacobs PREPARED BY: Dave Green, Jacobs Darren Betts, Jacobs Dennis Jackson, Jacobs DATE: September 11, 2019 Introduction Collier County, Florida (the County) Growth Management Division (GMD) engaged CH2M-HILL (hereinafter referred to as Jacobs) to conduct a peer review of the “Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment” (Report) prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group (DPFG) on behalf of Collier Enterprises Management, Inc. (the Applicant), revised July 24, 2019. The purpose of the peer review was to assess: • The reasonableness of the assumptions in the assessment. • The consistency of the assessment with the underlying assumptions. • The reasonableness of the anticipated future revenue from ad valorem taxes, impact fees, and other sources for the appropriate forecast period; and reasonableness of expenditures (capital and operating) for the appropriate forecast period. • The consistency of the recommendations and findings with generally-accepted governmental accounting and finance conventions, financial forecasting, impact-fee-setting practices, balanced development concepts (growth pays for growth), and/or applicable County policies (such as the Collier County Land Development Code). Our procedures in reviewing the Report included sample verification of significant calculations, testing of consistency among underlying assumptions, data and calculation methods, and reviewing the consistency of results with the County’s current plans and forecasts. Jacobs did not replicate or develop an independent Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (FIAM), but reviewed DPFG’s alternative fiscal impact 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 979 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 2 28906 model and tested significant and sensitive variables. A record of our verification of sources and assumptions is provided in Appendix A. In preparing this peer review Jacobs relied, in whole or in part, on data and information provided by the County and third parties, which has not been independently verified by Jacobs and which Jacobs has assumed to be accurate, complete, reliable, and current. Therefore, while Jacobs has utilized its best efforts in preparing the peer review and providing comments and recommendations to the County, Jacobs does not warrant or guarantee the conclusions set forth herein or in the DPFG Report or its fiscal impact model, which are dependent and/or based upon data, information, or statements supplied by the County or third parties. Qualifications and Consultant Team Jacobs is one of the largest and most diverse providers of technical, professional and construction services, including all aspects of architecture, engineering and construction, operations and maintenance, as well as specialty and strategic consulting. Our 80,000+ employees in 400+ locations around the world serve a broad range of companies and organizations, including industrial, commercial, and government clients across multiple markets and geographies. Jacobs’ economics consulting group provides planning and financial consulting services for a range of public sector clients around the globe. Guided by strategic thinking and an interactive process, we help clients achieve their goals and objectives and prepare for future change. Our experience is comprehensive and diverse, with involvement in various aspects of planning – from the conceptual stages, to the technical, operational and financial elements. We rely on a relationship-based approach and value strong partnerships within the team. Relevant fiscal impact analysis work for key municipal and local government clients has included: • Palm Beach County, Florida – Comprehensive planning focused on the economics and land use elements of the County's comprehensive plan. The project required analysis of trends in population, employment, and land use patterns, to project land use needs by type of use for the next 25 years. The fiscal impact analysis required modeling county government revenues and expenditures to provide projections of the effect different economic growth scenarios would have on the County's budget. Jacobs also evaluated a proposed traffic performance standard to determine the impact the proposed standard would have on the County's economy. • City of Phoenix, Arizona – Impact fees peer review for water and wastewater infrastructure improvements and development impact fee calculations following passage of Senate Bill 1525 (SB 1525) amending the impact fee section of the Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS §9-463.05), which tightened the standards for demonstrating compliance with the State’s impact fee law. • Broward County, Florida – Peer reviewer for the preparation of a fiscal impact analysis related to the construction of a new Florida Power and Light (FPL) Sunrise Energy Center. • Various Municipal and Local Government Clients – Providing peer review and preparation of fiscal impact analyses related to economic development options, impact fee studies, master planning, and infrastructure project development for utilities and general government services. The Jacobs consultants responsible for this peer review are: 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 980 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 3 • Bill Gramer, PE – Client Liaison • Dave Green – Economist, and Project Manager • Dennis Jackson, PE – QA/QC Reviewer • Darren Betts, MBA – Financial Analyst Legal Basis Collier County’s Rural Lands Stewardship Area (RLSA) program “was established under the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Its objective is the creation of an incentive- based land use overlay system based on the principles of rural land stewardship found in Florida Statutes, Section 163.3177(11), including environmental preservation, agricultural preservation and smart growth development. Through the RLSA program, Stewardship Sending Areas (SSAs) can be approved for preservation purposes, creating credits to entitle Stewardship Receiving Areas (SRAs), typically towns, villages, hamlets and compact rural developments (CRDs). The credit system is designed to incentivize preservation of the most important environmental lands, including large, connected wetland systems and significant habitat for listed species, by awarding higher credit values for high value preservation areas.”1 Pursuant to the GMP RLSA, Policy 4.18 states “the SRA will be planned and designed to be fiscally neutral or positive to Collier County at the horizon year [emphasis added] based on a cost/benefit fiscal impact analysis model acceptable to or as may be adopted by the County. The [Board of County Commissioners] BCC may grant exceptions to this policy to accommodate affordable-workforce housing, as it deems appropriate. Techniques that may promote fiscal neutrality such as Community Development Districts, and other special districts, shall be encouraged. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, and schools. Development phasing, developer contributions and mitigation, and other public/private partnerships shall address any potential adverse impacts to adopted levels of service standards.” Further, the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Section 4.08.07 defines the requirements for SRA Designation, which “is intended to encourage and facilitate uses that enable economic prosperity and diversification of the economic base of the RLSA District….]. One of several preconditions for the SRA designation is an economic assessment, per Section 4.08.07 L. of the LDC, as follows: L. SRA Economic Assessment. An Economic Assessment meeting the requirements of this Section shall be prepared and submitted as part of the SRA Designation Application Package. At a minimum, the analysis shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools. Development phasing and funding mechanisms shall address any adverse impacts to adopted minimum levels of service pursuant to Chapter 6 of the LDC. 1. Demonstration of Fiscal Neutrality. Each SRA must demonstrate that its development, as a whole, [emphasis added] will be fiscally neutral or positive to the Collier County tax base. 1 https://www.colliercountyfl.gov/your-government/divisions-a-e/comprehensive-planning/rural-land-stewardship-area-rlsa-overlay-program 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 981 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 4 28906 This demonstration will be made for each unit of government responsible for the services listed above, using one of the following methodologies: a. Collier County Fiscal Impact Model. The fiscal impact model officially adopted and maintained by Collier County. b. Alternative Fiscal Impact Model. If Collier County has not adopted a fiscal impact model as indicated above, the applicant may develop an alternative fiscal impact model using a methodology approved by Collier County. The BCC may grant exceptions to this policy of fiscal neutrality to accommodate affordable or workforce housing. DPFG was retained to prepare an economic assessment for Rivergrass Village (Rivergrass) to demonstrate fiscal neutrality using an Alternative Fiscal Impact Model, as defined by the LDC Section 4.08.07 L.1.b. Although the fiscal impact requirements are specified in the LDC, there remains a considerable amount of flexibility in both the interpretation and application of the law. DPFG measured fiscal neutrality “at the project’s horizon year (buildout 2042)” after a 21-year buildout period (from 2022 to 2042). The overall assessment is underpinned by this fundamental assumption, and DPFG’s analysis is consistent with this assumption throughout the assessment. It is important to recognize that fiscal impact analysis is not a cash flow analysis, and therefore does not include a year-by-year examination of the County’s sources and uses of funds. New development may or may not achieve fiscal neutrality in the early stages of new development. The County must make initial investments to accommodate growth – prior to a compensatory public revenue stream from a new development to fund the necessary infrastructure and services. This lag effect is inherent in any new development plan, but its annualized impacts are beyond the scope of this peer review and are beyond the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality. There are also inherent limitations of fiscal impact modeling. While we determined that DPFG’s analysis largely fulfills the fiscal impact analysis requirement, the following caveats and shortcomings are noted: • Fiscal impact modeling is static and not dynamic. It is a snapshot in time, and therefore known variables (e.g., the costs of construction, the state of the US economy, the pace and mix of the development plan, etc.) are assumed constant. As such, substantial changes to these variables could render the analysis obsolete. • The cost of future financing is not included in the analysis.2 This factor can add substantially to the overall costs of infrastructure development and thereby could negatively affect any findings of positive or neutral fiscal impacts should financing be employed by the County, the Fire Rescue District, or School District. The County or Districts may employ various funding and financing options to construct such facilities, which are unknown at this time. • Fiscal impact analysis assumes an average and/or marginal cost basis. Compensatory revenues whether in the form of impact fees or ad valorem, sales, or other taxes may over recover (subject to economies of scale) or under recover (subject to dis-economies of scale) actual costs for any given development. • While fiscal impact analysis is intended to measure project-specific revenue and cost drivers, certain obligations are subject to the analyst’s discretion. 2 We note that the cost of financing is included in the County’s impact fees for schools and correctional facilities. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 982 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 5 The County recognizes and has acknowledged that there is a possibility that the Rivergrass development plan will change, which introduces factors beyond the County’s control, and beyond the constraints of fiscal impact analysis, generally. DPFG’s methodology and assumptions are described in detail in the following sections. Methodology DPFG’s approach to “the fiscal impact analysis of Rivergrass uses a marginal/average cost hybrid methodology to determine the project’s impact on capital and operating costs,”3 which is customary for fiscal analyses. A marginal approach is used to estimate ad valorem tax revenues. To estimate certain marginal costs, DPFG applied the case study approach for the capital analyses of the: • Sheriff Department • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Department • North Collier Fire & Rescue District • School District The case study approach is based on the analyst’s determination that other standard approaches have material limitations, and as such a case study approach is a more appropriate application for the particular use. DPFG’s approach also included an analysis of the fiscal impacts to the Unincorporated Area General Fund Municipal Service Taxing Unit (MSTU). Overall, Jacobs agrees with the marginal/average cost hybrid approach taken in this analysis, and the case study approach applied to the referenced departments and districts. Key Assumptions Jacobs was provided with DPFG’s Report and their corresponding fiscal analysis Microsoft Excel model (filename: Rivergrass EA 2019.05.31 LOCKED.xlsx). DPFG also spent a significant amount of time answering Jacobs’ questions, providing source documentation, and facilitating our understanding of their methodology and assumptions. Inflation All costs (whether historical or future) were adjusted to reflect year 2018 dollars, unless otherwise noted. Inflation is typically excluded from fiscal neutrality analysis (constant dollar approach), which enables comparisons across years and across projects. 3 DPFG Report, page 8 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 983 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 6 28906 Impact Fees Impact fee calculations utilized the County’s Residential Imp[act Fee Schedule, effective February 8, 2018 and Commercial Impact Fee Schedule, effective July 24, 2017.4 Taxable Real Estate Values To estimate potential tax revenues, DPFG based taxable values for residential (per unit) and non- residential (per sq. ft.) land uses. Taxable values for residential units were applied as provided by the Applicant. Eligible homestead exemptions were applied based on County averages. Taxable values for non-residential uses were based on R.S. Means construction cost data and/or comparable properties from the County appraiser’s database. Land and Improvement Conversion Factor To calculate the market value per square foot for retail development, the applicable 2019 square foot costs from R.S. Means were multiplied by a construction cost index of 84% to arrive at adjusted square foot costs, which was then divided by a land and improvement conversion factor of 85%. Unlike residential real estate, there is no rule-of-thumb for commercial properties. DPFG indicates this percentage has been applied in other economic assessment models they have prepared. Population “2018 population estimates were used in the EA. The population estimates in the 2017 Annual Update and Inventory Report on Public Facilities (AUIR) were used for consistency with the Hyde Park Village EA as the 2018 AUIR report was not available for that study.”5 Annual Absorption by Use Not applicable. Millage Rates DPFG utilized fiscal year 2018 millage (mil) rates as follows to determine annual ad valorem (property) tax revenues over the forecast period: • 3.5645 County General Fund • 0.8069 MSTD General Fund • 0.0293 Water Pollution Control Mil rates were held constant (i.e., flat). Per capita estimates for various state and other local revenues sources are also based on the County’s 2018 General Fund budget. Direct Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs) DPFG applied a 0.8897602 FTE Conversion Factor to Collier Countywide employment to derive countywide FTEs, based on its 2017 IMPLAN conversion assumptions. The purpose of this calculation is to convert total jobs to FTEs. Per DPFG Principal Lucy Gallo, a difference, if any, using 2018 source data would be immaterial. DPFG provided the industry detail in the Excel file “Collier County IMPLAN Conversion.xls” to support this assumption. 4 Golf Course Bundled impact fees were applied in the economic assessment model. Bundled refers to communities where the golf club membership is included with the home purchase. As such, the bundled impact fees used in the economic assessment are appreciably lower than non-bundled impact fees and are a conservative revenue assumption. 5 DPFG Email Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 984 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 7 Employment generation for commercial space factors apply per square foot of employment guidelines, realizing that actual employment density may vary by specific project details. • Retail: 400 square feet per employee The Rivergrass employment coefficient was based on the square foot per employee assumptions in the 2016 Collier County EMS Impact Fee study, which was the most recent study available when the DPFG Report was prepared. Home-based employment was not specifically addressed. Rivergrass Population Growth Forecasts DPFG used residents per housing unit data published in the Collier County Emergency Medical Services Impact Fee Update Study, dated October 10, 2016 to estimate residential seasonal population growth due to Rivergrass. The population per unit assumptions utilized were: • Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached: 1.26 • Single Family Detached: 2.65 Vacancy Rates Vacancy rates for determining occupied housing and commercial space assume a stabilized occupancy, consistent with best practices.6 Overall, Jacobs agrees with DPFG’s key assumptions described above. Structure of Funds For the purposes of fiscal impact analysis, three taxing authorities were evaluated: Collier County (through its General Fund), the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District (“School District”). Each has separate taxing authority and the Collier County School Board levies its own taxes and receives part of its funding from the State of Florida. The DPFG Report tests the project’s fiscal neutrality for County operating impacts, County capital impacts, Fire operating impacts, Fire capital impacts, Schools operating impacts, and Schools capital impacts. General Fund The General Fund pays for those services benefiting residents and visitors of Collier County. These services include maintenance and operation of the various regional recreational facilities; governmental facilities; social services; animal services; libraries; transportation system and general administrative services. The largest source of revenue for the General Fund is Ad Valorem – or property tax revenue. Municipal Service Taxing Units exist in various locations and are intended to provide extra-ordinary services within a specific district funded by a separate ad valorem property tax. North Collier Fire & Rescue District “Most of the North Collier District’s revenue is generated by property taxes. Each year, the Collier County Property Appraiser establishes the taxable value for property located within the District. The Board of Fire Commissioners establishes the millage (or taxing) rate which, according to the District’s Enabling Act, can be no higher than 1 mil, or $1.00 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the North Naples 6 Planners Estimating Guide: Projecting Land Use and Facility Needs by Arthur C. Nelson, FAICP, Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2004 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 985 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 8 28906 Service Delivery Area or no higher than 3.75, or $3.75 for every $1,000 of taxable value in the Big Corkscrew Island Service Delivery Area. As fire and rescue are labor intensive services, the majority of the District’s expenses are personnel related. In order to sufficiently protect and serve the District’s residents and the billions of dollars of property located within the District, it must maintain highly trained professional firefighters and paramedics and the necessary equipment to handle a myriad of emergency situations.”7 Collier County School District School districts in Florida utilize a State mandated accounting method which separates revenues and expenses into specific funds. Each fund is earmarked for a specified purpose or activity and carries specific requirements, restrictions, or limitations. Accordingly, the School District maintains and reports the following segregated major funds: general, debt service, capital projects, special revenue, and internal service. The General Fund covers the day-to-day operations of the School District and accounts for the majority of operational expenses that are incurred. The Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) provides equalized per student funding for school districts. This concept guarantees that the availability of educational programs and services will be substantially equal for all students, regardless of geography and/or local economic factors. Funding for the FEFP includes required local effort property taxes that districts must levy, state taxes, and some local discretionary tax mills recommended by the State. For fiscal year 2018, federal sources provided 8.98% of the School District’s total revenue, state sources provided 14.75%, and local sources provided 76.27% of the School District’s total revenue.8 Enterprise Funds Collier County maintains two different types of proprietary funds: enterprise and internal service. Enterprise funds report, with more detail, the same functions presented as business-type activities in the government-wide financial statements for water and sewer, solid waste disposal, emergency medical services, transit, and the airport authority. The Collier County Water and Sewer District Fund, the Solid Waste Disposal Fund, and the Emergency Medical Services Fund are tracked individually as major funds. The County also maintains two other (non-major) enterprise funds: Airport Authority Fund and the Collier Area Transit Fund. “Table 8 and Appendix Table 16 reflect the impact of the annual general fund contributions to Fund 426 CAT Mass Transit and Fund 427 Transportation Disadvantaged, which are enterprise funds. There are no other impacts to consider with respect to transit enterprise funds in the Economic Assessment.”9 Internal service funds are primarily maintained to allocate and accumulate costs internally for Collier County. The County uses internal service funds to account for health insurance, workers compensation insurance, property and casualty insurance, fleet operations, and information technology. Fiscal impacts on County enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self- supporting through user rates and fees. 7 https://www.northcollierfire.com/finance/ 8 https://www.collierschools.com/cms/lib/FL01903251/Centricity/domain/86/budget%20dept%20main%20page/Budget%20Summary%20Final% 20FY%2018.pdf 9 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 986 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 9 Jacobs finds DPFG’s exclusion of enterprise funds to be an acceptable and reasonable approach. Fiscal Impacts Recall that the fiscal impact analysis, at a minimum, “shall consider the following public facilities and services: transportation, potable water, wastewater, irrigation water, stormwater management, solid waste, parks, law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire, and schools,” each of which is reviewed in the following sections. This peer review is presented in order of services listed in the LDC. County Operating Impacts Operating impacts are reflected in DPFG’s analyses of both the General Fund and MSTU General Fund groupings. These analyses cover transportation, parks, law enforcement, EMS, correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Based on the analysis, at buildout, Rivergrass’ annual total general fund operating expenditures are projected at approximately $2,909,000 against revenues of approximately $3,707,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $798,000. Rivergrass’ annual total MSTU operating expenditures are projected at approximately $448,000 against revenues of approximately $694,000, resulting in a fiscal surplus of $246,000. Transportation (Roads) Operating Impacts Transportation Services is a special revenue fund within the County’s budget. This fund was established for the maintenance of roads and bridges countywide. The principal funding source for Transportation Services is a subsidy from the General Fund (for fiscal year 2018 the transfer from the General Fund amounted to $21.7 million of Transportation Services’ total funding of $26.0 million). Capital Impacts The County imposes road impact fees on new development to fund the construction of growth-related improvements. Consistent with impact fee statutory requirements, these fees place a fair share of the cost burden on new development for transportation-related expansions and improvements which are necessitated by such development. DPFG treats road impacts from a perspective that the Developer will pay road impact fees according to the number of units (residential) or square footage (non-residential) in the development plan and the corresponding fee schedule established by the County. Using DPFG’s approach, Rivergrass will generate approximately $17.1 million in Road Impact Fee revenues to the County, based on the development parameters and current road impact fee rate table. Transportation capital impacts are based on a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) associated with the zoning application for the development, in addition to a Fair-Share Mitigation Report prepared by Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA. Based on the TIS, the following improvements may be necessary to maintain acceptable LOS: • Oil Well Rd and DeSoto Blvd intersection: add WB left-turn lane median directional; restrict DeSoto Blvd connection into Oil Well Rd to a right-in/right out only access • Oil Well Rd and Immokalee Rd intersection: add NB right-turn lane 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 987 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 10 28906 • Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection – at grade improvements as illustrated in the FDOT District One, Project Development and Environment (PD&E) study of the intersection of Immokalee Rd at Randall Blvd – Financial Project ID 435368-1-22-01 – Phase 1 • Immokalee Rd and Wilson Blvd intersection – add WB left-turn lane; add NB left-turn lane and restripe to provide a dual left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane; reconfigure SB approach to provide dedicated left-turn lane and a shared through and right-turn lane. Per the Fair-Share Mitigation Report, the Immokalee Rd and Randall Blvd intersection improvements are approved to be funded from the Collier One-Cent Sales Tax revenue and are not included in the fair- share mitigation cost evaluation. Therefore, Rivergrass will make a $440,000 fair-share mitigation contribution to the County, in addition to the Transportation impact fees. Comparing the calculated Road Impact Fee Revenues to the calculated Proportionate Fair Share costs of the project at buildout indicates that Rivergrass’ fair share costs towards area-wide transportation improvements will be fully funded via its road impact fees and fair-share mitigation contribution.10 Following discussions with the County, Jacobs understands that the complete TIS has not been provided to and reviewed by the County. As such, the fiscal impact of transportation cannot be determined until the complete TIS has been reviewed. It should be noted that there is no delineation between urban and rural in the County’s transportation impact fee schedule (i.e. no tiered methodology for impact fees), meaning the current impact fees may be deficient for Rivergrass, which will have longer than average trip lengths. The potential for higher transportation impacts should be carefully evaluated when the TIS becomes available. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for transportation (road) impacts to be incomplete at this time, pending the County’s review of the TIS and intersection analysis. Potable Water and Wastewater Potable water and wastewater services for Rivergrass will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings LTD., CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Fiscal impacts on the County, if any, would be on the County Water and Sewer District Fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Recall that enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. It should be noted that there are nuances in the fiscal neutrality determination for water and wastewater. For example, if existing pipe sizes are inadequate and need to be replaced, the extent of such rework could render the development fiscally deficient. However, Jacobs’ review is not intended to analyze to that level of detail. Per Collier County Principal Project Manager – Utilities Expansion, Craig Pajer, Rivergrass’ utilities service will not trigger above-average service delivery costs. “The infrastructure being installed to serve the Rivergrass development and several other potential developments is no different than what has been done in the past to serve an expanding service area. The current construction project is the first phase of 10 From the Collier County Transportation Impact Fee Update Study – note that the trip length used for the single-family land use (5.88 miles) is based on local studies conducted in 1999. More recent studies conducted in Collier County suggested an average of 7.28 miles, with a range of 3.05 miles to 11.29 miles. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 988 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 11 establishing regional treatment facilities in the northeast region of the County. When complete, these facilities will serve Rivergrass as well as growing areas currently being served by the North County Regional Water Treatment Plant and the North County Water Reclamation Facility. The northeast treatment facilities will increase the reliability of the existing systems as the population expands. As an additional comment, all user rates are consistent throughout the CCWSD.”11 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for potable water and wastewater public facilities and services to be reasonable, subject to the negotiation of an interlocal agreement between the parties.12 Irrigation Water Residential and Commercial irrigation water services for Rivergrass will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per an MOU that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings LTD., CDC Land Investments, LLC, and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The proposed change in land use, as a result of the development, will result in a net reduction of irrigation water usage of 75% on a maximum monthly basis and 58% on an average annual basis. As part of their development of water resources to meet both irrigation and potable demands throughout the County service area, the Collier County Water and Sewer District may seek use of some of the residual water supply, available after conversion of agricultural land uses in the Rivergrass Village service area to residential use, for other purposes. Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Rivergrass irrigation system, therefore the fiscal impact to the County is neutral. Impacts associated with the Rivergrass irrigation system should be self-contained within the County Water and Sewer District Enterprise, as described in this review. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of irrigation water as fiscally neutral to be reasonable, subject to the negotiation of an interlocal agreement between the parties.13 Stormwater Management Collier County will bear no responsibility for or cost associated with the Rivergrass water management system. “The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the South Florida Water Management District (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan were based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between the County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would 11 Collier County Email RE: Rivergrass Follow Up Items, dated August 19, 2019. 12 The MOU “commits the parties to negotiate an interlocal agreement, providing for the timely initiation of water and wastewater services by CCWSD to all of the lands and property within the political boundaries of the District…” 13 The MOU “commits the parties to negotiate an interlocal agreement, providing for the timely initiation of water and wastewater services by CCWSD to all of the lands and property within the political boundaries of the District…” 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 989 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 12 28906 be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. The County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future.”14 Jacobs reviewed Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) No. #11-03949-P, which was originally issued for the Rural Lands West development on April 3, 2018. Per Valerie Pike, Project Manager at Collier Enterprises, this conceptual ERP is applicable to Rivergrass as well, as Rivergrass is a subset of the larger parcel. Valerie Pike also indicated that Collier Enterprises is currently preparing a Construct and Operate Permit Application.15 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for stormwater management public facilities and services to be reasonable. Solid Waste Solid waste capital and operational costs are accounted for in the County’s Solid Waste Fund, a self- supporting enterprise fund. Enterprise funds are inherently fiscally neutral because they are created for a specific purpose and intended to be self-supporting through user rates and fees. Again, enterprise funds were excluded from DPFG’s analysis. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fiscal neutrality for solid waste facilities and services to be reasonable. Parks Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the current level of service (LOS) for all county-owned and maintained community and regional parks is a combined 3.15 acres per 1,000 residents. The County’s LOS (per 1,000 residents) by type is compared to DPFG’s assumptions, as follows: • Community parks: achieved 1.47 acres • Community Parks: adopted 1.20 acres • Regional Parks: achieved 1.68 acres • Regional Parks: adopted 2.70 acres It is noted that the DPFG value for Regional Parks achieved of 1.68 acres is based on application of 2018 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. This compares to an achieved value of 1.82 acres that would be calculated assuming the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population to the 2015 adjusted achieved level of service. Adjusting the achieved level of service for regional parks to reflect 2015 Peak Seasonal Population affects the required number of acres for Regional Parks to 9.32 acres. Capital Impacts The County imposes separate impact fees for community and regional parks. Impact fee revenues of community parks were calculated at $1,817,000 (plus other capital revenues of $29,000) and regional parks were $5,144,000 (plus other capital revenues of $270,000 for a total of $5,414,000). 14 DPFG Report, page 27 15 DPFG Email FW: Rivergrass Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 990 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 13 The cost of estimated acreage ($282,573 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for community parks forms the basis for capital impacts – estimated at $1,737,000. The cost of estimated acreage ($590,288 per acre) required to achieve the County LOS for regional parks forms the basis for capital impacts, which DPFG estimated at $5,089,000. With the proposed adjustment to reflect the 2015 Peak Seasonal Population, the cost of the additional acreage for Regional Parks would amount to $5,503,000. This is in excess of the estimated impact fee and other capital revenues of $5,414,000 by $89,000. The 2018 parks cost per acre used in the economic assessment is the same as the 2017 cost per acre used in the Hyde Park Village Economic Assessment. “Both reports reflect the most recent Indexed Impact Fee Costs which are considered representative. Based on recent discussions with Amy Patterson (Impact Fee Director), only minor changes are expected from the Parks Impact Fee study which is currently underway.”16 DPFG’s assumption that regional park acreage costs will reflect average costs is a conservative assumption that increases the cost of inland acreage. If inland acreage costs less, on average, than the blended County average, then capital fiscal surplus for parks would be higher than DPFG’s calculations. Based on conversations with the County, it is understood that developer contribution agreements will ultimately form the basis for balancing between developer dedications, County regional planning requirements, and payment of impact fees. In addition, a portion of the proceeds of a One-Cent Infrastructure Surtax is slated for use to fund the Big Corkscrew Island Regional Park. Based on the adjustment to the 2015 Seasonal Population discussed above, Jacobs finds that the parks will be fiscally neutral, as opposed to DPFG’s determination of parks as fiscally positive. Law Enforcement (Sheriff Department) Per the County’s 2018 AUIR, the County’s current achieved LOS for law enforcement is 1.77 officers per 1,000 peak population, and the adopted LOS is 1.84. Capital Impacts The capital needs for law enforcement were established using the case study approach. The law enforcement impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction and expansion of law enforcement related facilities and assets. DPFG estimated impact fee revenue at $1,219,000 and other capital revenues at $221,000. Based on discussions with Lucy Gallo, law enforcement officials indicated that there is less need for physical stations because patrol vehicles have become mobile offices in which officers can write reports, so there is less of a need to travel to a central station for routine operations. As such, no satellite office is needed to service Rivergrass, at this time. The County currently has a deficiency between the adopted versus achieved LOS for law enforcement infrastructure. This deficiency is not due to the proposed Rivergrass Development and cannot be resolved by this development. Capital costs are included to equip the required number of officers, amounting to a total of $961,000. The estimated revenues exceed the forecasted direct capital costs and result in a fiscal surplus in the amount of $479,000. This surplus will likely be expended on indirect capital costs and future law enforcement infrastructure needs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. 16 DPFG Email Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 991 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 14 28906 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of law enforcement as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Emergency Medical Services Capital Impacts The capital needs for EMS were established using the case study approach. DPFG projects total capital revenues of $296,000. According to EMS management, these capital revenues will be used to partially fund a new EMS facility planned that would likely serve Rivergrass. The new station will also be funded from the County’s One-Cent Infrastructure surtax, approved in November 2018. The cost of the new facility is $2,117,634, which was obtained from the 2018 AUIR. Rivergrass’ allocated share of the new facility is $264,000, which is less than the capital revenues the project will generate. The remainder will likely be applied to the direct capital costs. Therefore, the impact is neutral. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of emergency medical services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Fire & Rescue Operating Impacts “Because the current operating millage of the Big Corkscrew Island SDA is geared to much lower density development, Rivergrass is currently projected to generate significant operating surpluses.”17 The millage rate and the projected tax base of Rivergrass results in annual ad valorem revenues of $2,637,000. The annual operating expenses to serve Rivergrass’ population, based on an average of the fire district’s existing stations and population served, are $899,000. Thus, there is a projected operating fiscal surplus. Capital Impacts The capital needs for fire & rescue were established using the case study approach. Rivergrass will generate total capital revenues of $1,400,000 for the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, with matching levels of capital costs. “Based on discussions with Fire & Rescue District personnel, Rivergrass is within 1.6 miles of a planned fire and EMS facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District.”18 “The narrative should have stated that land for the planned facility is already owned by the NCFR District. The facility is yet to be constructed. Table 29 reflects Rivergrass’ proportionate cost of the new facility.”19 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of fire & rescue as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Schools The analysis uses student generation rates (SGRs) as follows: • Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached: 0.11 • Single Family Detached: 0.34 17 DPFG Report, page 32 18 DPFG Report, page 31 19 DPFG Email Rivergrass Peer Review Response, dated August 6, 2019. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 992 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 15 The blended rate over these residential unit types is 0.225, which is comparable to similar blended or weighted SGRs used for other recent Florida developments. Operating Impacts Based on projections of school enrollment by type, as well as the operating revenue and costs impacts, the calculations estimating the fiscal impacts on the County School District indicate that Rivergrass is fiscally neutral. DPFG estimates ad valorem local millage revenues at buildout of $2,803,000, with matching levels of operating expenditures. Capital Impacts The capital needs for schools were established using the case study approach. The analysis uses the current impact fee structure defined in the Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study, Final Report, dated July 23, 2015 to determine the appropriate application of the fees, and the revenues derived from fees. The fees are being phased-in in stages per Section 74-307 of the school impact fee ordinance. There are no impact fees levied on non-residential units, as these units do not contribute students to the school system. DPFG uses adopted residential impact fees as of February 8, 2018 as follows: • Condo, Duplex, or Single-Family Attached: $2,844.19 • Single Family Detached: $8,789.54 Revenues to pay for growth related capital expenditures are derived not only from impact fees on residential-only units, but also a capital outlay millage of 1.48 mills on both residential and non- residential units. As a result, the mix of residential and non-residential development will affect the determination of fiscal neutrality. In this case, the revenue from the Rivergrass development program results in a fiscal capital surplus. The Report uses the 2018 Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to estimate the available school seats in 2022-23. Jacobs reviewed the 2019 Collier County Public Schools CIP. Based on the 2019 CIP, the available elementary seats are not sufficient for Rivergrass. “During the meeting with Collier County Schools on January 17, 2019, they indicated that between available capacity, redistricting opportunities, and existing/planned sites, that there were no additional needs for Rivergrass. They indicated the School District has been very successful in their long-range planning and capital funding strategy. The FY 2020 – FY 2039 CIP confirms this conclusion.”20 Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of schools as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Additional Public Services The following additional public services were evaluated by DPFG for fiscal neutrality: correctional facilities, government buildings, and libraries. Jacobs categorizes these service types as additional services because they are not required by the minimum requirements defined in the Collier County LDC. While these additional public services are not required elements of the economic assessment, DPFG did include them in their analysis. Correctional Facilities Capital Impacts 20 DPFG Email Rivergrass Village Economic Assessment Peer Review, dated July 12, 2019. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 993 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 16 28906 The correctional facilities impact fee is intended to recover the cost of capital construction for jail facilities (both land and building) and related equipment. Impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the capital costs for correctional facilities. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG estimates capital revenues of $1,100,000, with matching levels of indirect capital costs. Government Buildings Capital Impacts The government buildings impact fee is intended to recover the cost of remaining non-enterprise County land, buildings, information technology assets, and vehicles. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s current LOS was used to calculate the capital costs for government buildings. DPFG applied the impact fee study coefficients for population and employment to calculate functional population. This methodology considers demand from commercial land uses. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal neutrality. DPFG estimates capital revenues of $1,972,000 against indirect capital costs of $1,974,000. Libraries Capital Impacts The libraries impact fee is intended to recover the cost of land, buildings, furnishings, and collection materials to serve the entire County. The impact fees are charged based on units for residential and square footage for non-residential. The County’s adopted LOS, per the 2018 AUIR, was used to calculate the capital costs for libraries. Based on the analysis, there is an estimated fiscal surplus of approximately $136,000. Jacobs finds DPFG’s determination of additional public services as fiscally neutral to be reasonable. Conclusions and Recommendations Through this independent analysis and peer review, Jacobs confirms the reasonableness of DPFG’s analysis and in the project’s fiscal neutrality, as defined, but with the noted exceptions. It is our opinion that the Applicant fulfilled the intent of the fiscal neutrality requirement and that the proposed Rivergrass development is fiscally neutral, as defined, for Rivergrass SRA for Collier County, the North Collier Fire & Rescue District, and the Collier County School District. It is important to recognize that fiscal neutrality relies on accurate projections – often 20 years or more into the future. A significant deviation from the development plan will require an adjustment or new analysis to capture changes to this fiscal neutrality determination, which may involve, for example, adjusting the mix of uses or other mechanisms that will impact the future revenue and expense streams. In addition, fiscal impact analysis is only one step in the development program and the County- Developer relationship framework. This fiscal impact analysis will be supplemented and augmented by several developer contribution agreements (DCAs) and/or interlocal agreements. Careful negotiation, execution, and administration of DCAs and/or interlocal agreements is required to ensure that the County continues to achieve its fiscal neutrality objectives. Based upon DPFG’s analysis and this peer review of that analysis, Jacobs concurs that Rivergrass qualifies as fiscally neutral, as defined, with respect to County capital and operating impacts, with the 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 994 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) COLLIER COUNTY GMD – PEER REVIEW OF RIVERGRASS VILLAGE ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT FOR FINANCIAL NEUTRALITY [DRAFT PENDING COUNTY’S REVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT, INTERSECTION ANALYSIS, AND FAIR SHARE MITIGATION REPORT] 28906 17 noted exceptions. Pending these changes, the DPFG analysis, which in Jacobs’ opinion is professionally prepared and thorough in its treatment of revenues and expenses, is accurate in its determination that the Rivergrass development would meet the County’s requirements for fiscal neutrality. 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 995 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) APPENDIX A Sources and Assumptions 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 996 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Assumption/Calculation Source Model Tab Comment Collier County millage rates Collier County County Inputs Checked Road developer contribution requirement cost Trebilcock Consulting Solutions Executive Summary Checked Water, wastewater, and irrigation water services Memorandum of Understanding N/A Checked Stormwater management permit #11-03949-P SFWMD N/A Checked Golf value per square foot Collier County Property Appraiser Golf Checked Fire impact fees Fire Impact Fee Schedule Fire Impact Fee Rev Checked Big Corkscrew Island SDA millage rate Fire Resolution 18-024 Fire Operating Checked Collier fire total expenditures North Collier Fire Budget Fire Operating Checked Functional population Fire Impact Fee Schedule Functional Population Checked Functional population coefficient Fire Impact Fee Study Functional Population Checked School impact fees Collier County Impact Fee Summary Checked School operating millage Collier County School District Budget SCHOOL INPUTS Checked School enrollment 2019 Collier County School District Budget SCHOOL INPUTS Checked Eligible homestead percentage Shimberg Center for Housing Studies County Inputs Checked Collier County impact fee schedule Collier County Impact Fee Schedule Checked School capital improvement millage rate Collier County School District Budget School Capital Rev Checked State revenue sharing Florida Department of Revenue General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Half cent sales tax revenue Collier County Government Budget General Fund Rev Demand Units Checked Construction cost index RSMeans RS Means Checked Construction costs per square foot RSMeans RS Means Checked Collier county permanent population Collier County AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier countywide employment EMS Impact Fee Study County Inputs Checked FTE conversion IMPLAN County Inputs Checked Collier County peak tourist population Collier County CVB March 2018 County Inputs Checked Collier unincorporated county permanent population Collier County AUIR County Inputs Checked Collier unincorporated county peak population Collier County AUIR County Inputs Checked Unincorporated general fund expenditures Collier County Government Budget General Fund Grouping Matrix Checked County operating budget Collier County Government Budget Operating Budget Recap Checked Peak seasonal persons per unit EMS Impact Fee Study Persons per Unit Checked Employment coefficient EMS Impact Fee Study Development Program Checked Student generation rate (SGR)School Impact Fee Study SCHOOL INPUTS Checked General fund transfers Collier County Government Budget 001 General Fund Transfers Checked CIP sources/uses Collier County Government Budget CIP Capital Outlay Checked Law enforcement level of service Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study Prop Share Law Enforce Capital Checked Law enforcement land and building cost Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study LAW Impact Cost per Res Checked Law enforcement equipment total cost Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study LAW Inventory Checked Law enforcement impact cost Law Enforcement Impact Fee Study LAW Net Impact Cost per FuncRes Checked Correctional facility level of service Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Impact Cost per Res Checked Correctional facility cost Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Asset Inventory Checked Correctional facility impact cost Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Study CF Net Impact Cost per Func Res Checked EMS net impact cost EMS Impact Fee Study EMS Net Impact Cost per Res Checked EMS capital costs Collier County AUIR Prop Share EMS Capital Checked Number of owned stations Collier County AUIR EMS Current LOS Checked Library level of service Library Impact Fee Study LIB Current LOS Checked Library cost per square foot Library Impact Fee Study LIB Impact Cost per Res Checked Library unit cost per capita Library Impact Fee Study LIB Impact Cost per Res Checked Library net impact cost Library Impact Fee Study LIB Net Impact Cost Checked Parks cost per acre Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Study Parks Impact per Res Checked Government buildings capital cost Collier County AUIR GOV Impact Cost per Res Checked Government buildings level of service Government Building Impact Fee Study GOV Impact Cost per Res Checked Government buildings net impact cost Government Building Impact Fee Study GOV Net Impact Cost Checked Fire net impact cost Fire Impact Fee Study Fire Impact Fee Rev Checked Fire operating costs North Collier Fire Budget Fire Operating Checked Percentage of students per school type School Impact Fee Study Enrollment by School Type Checked School capacity School Capital Improvement Plan School Inventory Checked School cost per student station School Impact Fee Study Cost per Station Checked School transportation/ancillary cost per student School Impact Fee Study Cost per Station Checked Net impact cost per student School Impact Fee Study Net Cost per Student Checked 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 997 Attachment: Attachment D-1-Peer Review 9-10-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 1 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx RIVERGRASS SRA PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENT 8-9-2019 Solid Waste A solid waste assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall identify the means and methods for handling, transporting and disposal of all solid waste generated including but not limited to the collection, handling and disposal of recyclables and horticultural waste products. The applicant shall identify the location and remaining disposal capacity available at the disposal site. Collier County’s contractor hauler, Waste Management Inc. of Florida, will collect solid waste generated within Rivergrass. Recycled materials will be collected from curbside recycling containers through contract haulers. Residential recyclables and horticultural waste will be collected at the curb on a weekly basis. Construction debris will be collected and processed by a local business specializing in the recycling of construction products. Commercial and institutional facilities will utilize dumpster containers for the storage of garbage and rubbish. Recycling containers will be used to store recyclables in the commercial and institutional areas. Solid waste collected within Rivergrass will be hauled to the Immokalee Solid Waste Transfer Station and from there transported to Waste Management’s Okeechobee Landfill. According to Waste Management the Okeechobee Landfill has adequate capacity for the next 25 years. TIF for any reason it is necessary, the Collier County Naples landfill is available and according to the Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report, there is also capacity at this facility. Stormwater Management A stormwater management impact assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as a part of an SRA Designation Application Package. The stormwater management impact assessment shall, at a minimum, provide the following information: a. An exhibit showing the boundary of the proposed SRA including the following information: (1) The location of any WRA delineated within the SRA; No WRA areas are included within the village SRA area. (2) A generalized representation of the existing stormwater flow patterns across the site including the location(s) of discharge from the site to the downstream receiving waters. 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 998 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 2 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx The project’s stormwater management system has received a Conceptual Approval permit from the SFWMD (#11-03949-P). The criteria used in the preparation of this plan was based on the predevelopment agricultural stormwater management system currently in place. Stormwater discharges from the lands in question are equal or less pre versus post on both a peak rate and total volume perspective. As such, the discharges mimic that of undeveloped lands. Therefore, in the event of a change to the agreement between Collier County and the Big Cypress Basin concerning the lands to the south of I-75, no impact on any downstream system above and beyond that of undeveloped land would be realized and thus there is no impact on County stormwater facilities caused by the development of this property above and beyond undeveloped land. Collier County currently maintains no onsite stormwater infrastructure and will not in the future. (3) The land uses of adjoining properties and, if applicable, the locations of stormwater discharge into the site of the proposed SRA from the adjoining properties. No adjacent properties drain through this site. b. A narrative component to the report including the following information: (1) The name of the receiving water or, if applicable, FSA or WRA to which the stormwater discharge from the site will ultimately outfall; The receiving water of the stormwater discharges from Rivergrass is the existing agricultural water management system aka Water Retention Area (WRA), which ultimately discharges to the Merrit Canal via Camp Keais Strand. (2) The peak allowable discharge rate (in cfs/acre) allowed for the SRA per Collier County Ordinance 90-10 or its successor regulation; The peak allowable discharge rate in Collier County applicable to this project based on ord. 90-10 is 0.15 cfs/acre. The proposed surface water management system will be based on the permitted agricultural system currently in place and operational. The peak discharge rate of 0.03 cfs/ac will be used to match that of the agricultural system in an effort to maintain the hydrological regime that has existed for many years on this site. The evaluation of offsite discharge rate shall be made at the outfalls of the agricultural system in accordance with the Conceptual Approval permit (11- 03949-P) issued by SFWMD for this and its surrounding applicant owned property. (3) If applicable, a description of the provisions to be made to accept stormwater flows from surrounding properties into, around, or through the constructed surface water management system of the proposed development; The flowways within this project are natural wetland systems. The capacity that exists prior to development will exist after development and will not be increased nor decreased. No surrounding properties currently flow through the SRA area of this project. The same predevelopment drainage basin boundaries will be maintained by the proposed design. 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 999 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 3 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx (4) The types of stormwater detention areas to be constructed as part of the surface water management system of the proposed development and water quality treatment to be provided prior to discharge of the runoff from the site; and Stormwater water quality treatment within this SRA will be predominantly accomplished by wet detention (lakes) located within the SRA and overlapping into the WRA areas as permitted by SFWMD. Commercial areas will also utilize dry detention pretreatment areas in accordance with SFWMD requirements. Discharges from the SRA water management system to natural WRA areas will occur only after water quality volumes have been achieved and will be by permitted control structures and facilities. Initial phases of development may pump stormwater after treatment consistent with the pre-development drainage of the land. The provided water quality treatment volume of this SRA will be in accordance with the approved SFWMD ERP, inclusive of an additional 50% of water quality to be provided in excess of the calculated base water quality volume for compliance with the interim watershed management plan. Water quantity treatment will occur in both the SRA sited lake system and the WRA areas in concert. (5) If a WRA has been incorporated into the stormwater management system of an SRA, the report shall demonstrate compliance with provisions of Section 4.08.04A.4.b. Several alterations to the WRA areas adjacent to the Village were proposed and approved by SFWMD with the Conceptual Approval Permit. Stormwater management/buffer lakes and their associated containment berms have been permitted in select locations in the existing WRA’s. These modifications were confined to areas of the WRA that exhibited heavy exotic infestation and had little to no habitat function. All of these alterations have mitigation identified in the permit which will be made upon implementation of the impact. The water management concept for Rivergrass involves the use of the existing agricultural water management system. The proposed system design will use permitted control elevations, discharge rates and discharge locations. The plan as proposed has received a Conceptual Approval Permit issued by SFWMD. All discharges to the WRA (wetland) areas from development will be made only after water quality volumes have been provided in the development area. Areas of the WRA will be excavated to form parts of the internal buffer lake system. Areas to be excavated are low quality exotic impacted areas and will be mitigated for through the SFWMD process. The only fill areas within WRA’s will be berms associated with the surface water management system. which will be mitigated through the SFWMD process. No impacts are proposed to Camp Keais Strand by this project. Potable Water A potable water assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Florida Administrative Code for private and limited use water systems, or for Public Water Systems. In addition to the standard requirements of the analyses required above, the potable water assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products, if any, generated 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 1000 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 4 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx by the proposed treatment process. The applicant shall identify the sources of water proposed for potable water supply. The following table is a calculation of the Rivergrass potable water demands and wastewater generation with all factors and assumptions: Rivergrass Water and Wastewater Demands Wastewater Potable Water Wastewater to water conversion = 1.4 Residential 2,500 DU @ 250 gpd = 625,000 gpd 2,500 DU @ 350 gpd = 875,000 gpd Commercial 105,000 sf @ 0.15 gpd = 15,750 gpd 105,000 sf @ 0.21 gpd = 22,050 gpd Golf 536 members @ 25 gpd = 13,400 gpd 536 members @ 35 gpd = 18,760 gpd 42 employees @ 15 gpd = 630 gpd 42 employees @ 21 gpd = 882 gpd 669,030 gpd 936,642 gpd 654,780 gpd = 0.66 mgd ADF 916,692 gpd = 0.92 mgd ADF M3D Factor = 1.5 M3D Factor = 1.3 M3D Flow = 0.98 mgd M3D Flow = 1.19 mgd Potable water services for the Rivergrass project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. The estimated potable water demand for residential development at the project is based on 350 gpd per D.U. (residential), and 2,500 residences. Potable water demand for commercial development is based on 21 gpd per 100 feet square or 0.21 gpd/sf. Potable water demand for golf is based on 35 gpd per member and an additional 21 gpd per employee. Using these assumptions, potable water demand for the Rivergrass development at buildout is projected to be approximately 0.92 MGD average daily demand and 1.19 MGD maximum 3-day demand. 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 1001 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 5 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx Irrigation Water Residential and Commercial irrigation water services for the Rivergrass project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. This is shown in the following table: Land Use Acreage % Irrigated Irrigated Acreage % Total Category Onsite Source Neighborhood 421 40 168 45 Residential ROW 111 25 28 7 Residential Golf Course 148 95 141 38 Commercial X Golf Club 6 40 2 1 Commercial X Lakes 219 0 0 0 N/A Open Space 62 40 25 7 Commercial Village Center 19 25 5 1 Commercial Buffers 13 25 3 1 Residential 999 372 Rivergrass will require irrigation for approximately 372 acres. The golf course will be irrigated from onsite sources. The projected irrigation demands for the Rivergrass project are 0.8 MGD for golf and 1.3 MGD for other on a maximum monthly basis and 0.5 MGD for golf and 0.9 MGD for other on an annual average basis. The project site has a long history of permitted agricultural withdrawals from the Lower Tamiami Aquifers that has not resulted in adverse impacts to natural environments. The agricultural water use allocations currently permitted and used within the Rivergrass area that will be absorbed through the transition from agriculture to residential and commercial land use are approximately 8.8 MGD on a maximum monthly basis and 3.3 MGD on an annual average basis. Therefore, the proposed change in land use will result in a net reduction of irrigation water usage of 75% on a maximum monthly basis and 58% on an average annual basis. As part of their development of water resources to meet both irrigation and potable demands throughout the County service area, the Collier County Water and Sewer District may seek use of some of the residual water supply that may remain on the Rivergrass parcels upon conversion of agricultural land uses. Wastewater A wastewater assessment shall be prepared by the applicant as a component of an Impact Assessment Report that is submitted as part of an SRA Designation Application package. The assessment shall illustrate how the applicant will conform to either Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, contained in Florida Administrative Code for systems having a capacity not exceeding 10,000 gallons per day or for wastewater treatment systems having a capacity greater than 10,000 gallons per day. In addition to the standard requirements of the 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 1002 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 6 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx analyses required above, the wastewater assessment shall specifically consider, to the extent applicable, the disposal of waste products generated by the proposed treatment process. Wastewater services for the Rivergrass project will be provided by the Collier County Water and Sewer District from existing and planned facilities per a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines commitments from Collier Land Holdings, Ltd. and CDC Land Investments, LLC and the Big Cypress Stewardship District. Anticipated wastewater generated by the development is based on a per capita daily volume of 250 gpd per D.U. for 2,500 residences. Wastewater demand for amenities is based on 25 gpd per member and an additional 15 gpd per employee. Wastewater demand for golf is based on 25 gpd per member and an additional 15 gpd per employee. This results in build out wastewater flows of 0.66 MGD on an average daily basis and 0.98 MGD on a maximum 3-day basis. School Concurrency The adopted level of service for schools is based upon permanent FISH capacity: 100% for high school Concurrency Service Areas (CSAs); 95% for elementary CSAs; and 95% for middle school CSAs. The subject site is within the E10 North Central Area CSA for elementary schools, the M3 North Central Area CSA for middle schools, and the H3 North Central Area CSA for high schools. The FISH capacity and enrollment data below is per the Collier County Public Schools Capital Improvement Plan, for fiscal years 2019 through 2038. The E10 CSA includes two elementary schools, Corkscrew and Estates. They have a combined FISH capacity of 1,499 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 1,220 students, and a projected 2022/2023 enrollment of 1,195 students (80% capacity). The M3 CSA includes three middle schools, Corkscrew, Golden Gate, and Cypress Palm. They have a combined FISH capacity of 3,219 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 2,606 students, and a projected 2022/2023 enrollment of 2,537 students (79% capacity). The H3 CSA includes two high schools, Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge. They have a combined FISH capacity of 3,995 students, a 2017/2018 peak enrollment of 3,822 students, and a projected 2022/2023 enrollment of 3,995 (100% capacity). According to the Collier County Public Schools CIP, enrollment at Golden Gate and Palmetto Ridge is being monitored. The proposed development consists of up to 2,500 dwelling units, broken down by type in the table below, in accordance with Collier County Impact Fee Ordinance(s) methodology and terminology and applying the student generation rates established in the 2015 Collier County School Impact Fee Study, the project is anticipated to generate 600 new students at build out. 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 1003 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 7 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx As the total projected number of students will be distributed between the E10, M3, and H3 CSAs, the proposed development will not generate enough students to cause a substantial change in the level of service. The proposed SRA will result in a permanent population of approximately 4,269 people. We have contacted the Collier County School District staff (Amy Lockhart and Tom Eastman) and received an email (dated May 14, 2019 and attached to his Report) from Tom Eastman indicating the following: “At this time, there is existing or planned capacity within the next 5 years for the purposed development at the elementary, middle and high school levels. Therefore, there are no requirements from the applicant. At the time of site plan or plat, the development would be reviewed to ensure there is capacity either within the concurrency service area the development is located within or adjacent concurrency service areas.” Fire and EMS The subject site is located within the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. Fire station # 10 (with Collier County EMS) is located at 13240 Immokalee Road, approximately 6.2 miles west of the property. Additionally, based on discussions with North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District personnel, Rivergrass is within 1.6 miles of a planned fire and EMS facility which is already owned by the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District. The location of this planned fire and EMS facility, as described in the Economic Assessment, was discussed in live meetings with the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District on January 16, 2019 and April 8, 2019, and in a conference call on March 20, 2019. Chief Ricardo’s approval of the fiscal analysis and related narrative, which has been included in the resubmittal of the Economic Assessment, is shown below. 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 1004 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) Page 8 of 8 /var/folders/8x/7ht745wj4mq7v65k_4dsjczw0000gn/T/com.microsoft.Outlook/Outlook Temp/Public Facilities Report 2019_08-09 - Rivergrass[3].docx No three- or four-story condominium buildings will be constructed in Rivergrass unless and until the North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District agrees in writing to allow structures greater than two stories. Additionally, please see requested maps depicting the subject site and existing North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District and Collier County EMS stations, which illustrates travel routes from those locations to the subject site. Response time data, requested by staff, has been provided by North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District, and is included with this Report. Transportation Impacts See attached the attached Traffic Analysis for transportation impacts. 9.A.4.h Packet Pg. 1005 Attachment: Attachment E-Public Facilities Impact Assessment (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1006 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1007 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1008 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1009 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1010 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1011 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1012 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1013 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1014 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1015 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1016 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1017 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1018 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1019 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1020 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1021 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1022 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1023 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1024 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1025 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1026 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1027 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1028 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.i Packet Pg. 1029 Attachment: Attachment F-Letters of Objection 9-4-19 (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1030Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1031Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1032Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1033Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1034Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1035Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1036Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1037Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1038Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1039Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1040Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1041Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1042Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1043Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1044Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1045Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1046Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1047Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1048Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1049Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1050Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1051Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1052Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1053Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1054Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1055Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1056Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1057Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1058Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1059Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1060Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1061Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1062Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1063Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1064Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1065Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1066Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1067Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1068Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1069Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1070Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1071Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1072Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1073Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1074 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1075Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1076Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1077Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1078Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1079Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1080Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1081Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1082Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1083Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1084Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1085Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1086Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1087Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1088Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1089Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1090Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1091Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1092Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1093Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1094Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1095Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1096Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1097Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1098Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1099Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1100Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1101Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1102Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1103Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1104Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1105Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1106Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1107Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1108Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1109Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1110Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1111Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1112Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1113Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1114Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1115Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1116Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1117Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1118Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1119Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1120Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1121Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1122Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1123Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1124Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1125 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1126Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1127 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1128 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1129 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1130 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1131Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1132Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1133Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1134Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1135Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1136Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1137Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1138Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1139Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1140Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1141Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1142Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1143Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1144Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1145Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1146Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1147Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1148Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1149Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1150Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1151Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1152Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1153Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1154Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1155Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1156Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1157Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1158Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1159Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1160Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1161Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1162Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1163Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1164Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1165Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1166Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1167Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1168Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1169Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1170Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1171Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1172Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1173Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1174Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1175Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1176Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1177Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1178Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1179Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1180Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1181Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1182Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1183Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1184Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1185Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1186Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1187Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1188Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1189Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1190Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1191Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1192Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1193Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1194Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1195Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1196Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1197Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1198Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1199Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1200Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1201Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1202Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1203Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1204Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1205Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1206Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1207Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1208Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1209 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1210 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1211Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1212Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1213Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1214Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1215Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1216Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1217Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1218Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1219Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1220Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1221Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1222Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1223Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1224Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1225Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1226Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1227Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1228Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1229Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1230Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1231 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1232Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1233Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1234Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1235Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1236Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1237Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1238Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1239Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1240Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1241Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1242Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1243Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1244Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1245Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1246Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1247Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1248Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1249Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1250Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1251Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1252Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1253Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1254 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1255 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1256 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1257 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1258Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1259 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1260Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1261 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1262 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1263Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1264Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1265Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1266Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1267Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1268Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1269Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1270Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1272Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1273Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1274Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1275Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1276Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1277Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1278Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1279Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1280Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1281Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1282Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1283Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1284Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1285Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1286Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1287Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1288Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1289Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1290Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1291Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1292Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1293Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1294Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1295Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1296Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1297Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1298Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1299Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1300Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1301Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1302Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1303Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1304Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1305Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1306Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1307Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1308Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1309Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1310Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1311Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1312Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1313Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1314Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1315Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1316Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1317Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1318Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1319Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1320Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1321Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1322Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1323Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1324Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1325Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1326Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1327Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1328Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1329Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1330Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1331Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1332Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1333Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1334Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1335Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1336Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1337Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1338Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1339Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1340Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1341Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1342Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1343Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1344Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1345Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1346Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1347Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1348Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1349Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1350Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1351Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1352Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1353Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1354Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1355Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1356Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1357Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1358Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1359Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1360Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1361Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1362Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1363Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1364Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1365Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1366Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1367Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1368Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1369Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1370Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1371Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1372Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1373Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1374Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1375Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1376Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1377Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1378Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1379Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1380Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1381Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1382Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1383Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1384Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1385Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1386Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1387Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1388Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1389Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1390Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1391Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1392Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1393Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1394Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1395Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1396Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1397Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1398Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1399Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1400Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1401Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1402Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1403Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1404Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1405Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1406Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1407Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1408Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1409Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1410Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1411Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1412Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1413Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1414Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1415Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1416Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1417Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1418Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1419Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1420Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1421Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1422Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1423Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1424Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1425Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1426Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1427Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1428Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1429Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1430Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1431Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1432Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1433Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1435Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1436Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1437Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1438Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1439Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1440Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1441Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1442Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1443Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1444Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1445Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1446Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1447Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1448Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1449Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1450Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1451Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1452Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1453Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1454Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1455Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1456Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1457Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1458Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1459Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1460Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1461Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1462Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1463Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1464Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1465Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1466Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1467Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1468Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1469Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1470Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1471Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1472Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1473Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1474Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1475Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1476Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1477Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1478Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1479Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1480Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1481Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1482Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1483Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1484Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1485Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1486Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1487Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1488Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1489Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1490Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1491Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1492Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1493Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1494Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1495Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1496Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1497Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1498Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1499Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1500Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1501Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1502Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1503Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1504Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1505Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1506 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1507 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1508Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1509Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1510Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1511Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1512Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1513Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1514Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1515Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1516Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1517Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1518Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1519Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1520Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1521Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1522Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1523Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1524Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1525Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1526Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1527Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1528Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1529Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1530Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1531Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1532Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1533Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1534Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1535Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1536Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1537Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1538Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1539Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1540Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1541Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1542Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1543Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1544Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1545Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1546Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1547Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1548Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1549Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1550Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1551Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1552Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1553Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1554Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1555Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1556Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1557Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1558Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1559Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1560Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1561Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1562Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1563Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1564Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1565Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1566Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1567Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1568Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1569Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1570Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1571Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1572Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1573Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1574Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1575Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1576Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1577Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1578Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1579Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1580Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1581Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1582Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1583Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1584Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1585 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1586 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1587 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1588 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1589 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1590 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1591 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1592 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1593 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1594 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1595 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1596 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1597 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1598 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1599 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1600 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1601 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1602 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1603 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1604 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1605 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1606 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1607 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1608 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1609 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1610 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1611 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1612 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1613 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1614 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1615 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1616 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1617 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1618 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1619 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1620 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1621 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1622 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1623 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1624 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1625 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1626 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.jPacket Pg. 1627Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship Receiving Area) 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1628 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1629 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1630 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1631 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1632 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1633 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1634 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship 9.A.4.j Packet Pg. 1635 Attachment: Attachment G-Application (1) (10034 : PL20190000044 Rivergrass Village Stewardship