Loading...
CCPC Agenda 08/20/2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 1 Printed 8/12/2020 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 August 20, 2020 9: 00 AM Edwin Fryer - Chairman Karen Homiak - Vice-Chair Karl Fry - Secretary Patrick Dearborn Paul Shea, 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. August 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 2 Printed 8/12/2020 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call by Secretary 3. Addenda to the Agenda 4. Planning Commission Absences 5. Approval of Minutes A. July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 6. BCC Report - Recaps 7. Chairman's Report 8. Consent Agenda 9. Public Hearings A. Advertised 1. *** This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20190000850-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 Map series by amending the Urban Commercial District to add the Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict to allow development of up to 160 hotel rooms and assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of .45, and up to 400 seats of Restaurant uses. The subject property is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North, and Walkerbilt Road in Section 21, Township 4 8 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.67± acres. (Companion to PL20190000154) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] (Adoption Hearing) August 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 3 Printed 8/12/2020 2. *** This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** CPUD-PL20190000154-An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 13-65, the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development, to increase the maximum number of hotel units from 50 to 160; to increase the height of principal structures to 75 feet zoned and 90 f eet actual; to add assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of .45 as a permitted use in addition to the allowed 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge uses and accessory uses to hotel and restaurant uses on property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North and Walkerbilt Road in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.67 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion PL20190000850) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] 3. *** This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting. *** PL20190000454: 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 Map Series by amending the Urban Commercial district to add the Germain Immokalee Commercial subdistrict to allow development of up to 80,000 square feet of C-1, commercial professional and general office district and luxury automobile dealership uses. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately .6 miles west of I-75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.97± acres. (Companion to PL20190000451) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] 4. *** This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting. *** PL20190000451-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 an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Germain Immokalee CPUD, to allow a new and used automotive dealership up to 80,000 square feet on the property located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 8.97± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL20190000454) [Coordinator: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] 5. *** This item was continued from the June 16, 2020 meeting and the July 16, 2020 meeting and the August 20, 2020 meeting; and is further continued to the September 17, 2020 meeting, at the petitioner’s request.*** PL20190001052-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 Future Land Use Map and Map Series to allow an air curtain incinerator as a conditional use in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District-Receiving Lands. The subject property is located east of the Naples Landfill, north of I-75 in Section 31, Township 49 South, August 2020 Collier County Planning Commission Page 4 Printed 8/12/2020 Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 3 acres of the 28.76± acre property; and furthermore, directing transmittal of the adopted amendment to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity; providing for severability and providing for an effective date. (Companion to PL20190000948) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] 6. *** This item was continued from the June 16, 2020 meeting and the July 16, 2020 meeting and the August 20, 2020 meeting; and is further continued to the September 17, 2020 meeting, at the petitioner’s request.*** PL20190000948-A Resolution of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Collier County, Florida, amending Resolution No. 11-149 which provided for the establishment of a conditional use to allow a collection and transfer site for resource recovery within an Agricultural (A) zoning district, and within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands Zoning Overlay and within the North Belle Meade Zoning Overlay, pursuant to Subsection 2.03.01.A.1.c.12 of the Collier County Land Development Code, to allow an air curtain incinerator as an accessory use to the collection and transfer site for resource recovery use on 3± acres of the 28.76± acre property lo cated east of the Naples Landfill, north of I-75 in Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Companion PL20190001052) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, Principle Planner, AICP, Planner] 7. *** This Agenda Item was continued from the August 6, 2020 CCPC Meeting and the August 20, 2020 meeting: and is further continued to the September 17, 2020, at the petitioner’s request. *** PL20160000221-A Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners proposing amendment to the Collier County Growth Management Plan, Ordinance 89-05, as amended, specifically amending the Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Maps to add the Immokalee Road-Estates Commercial Subdistrict to the Estates- Commercial District, to allow uses permitted by right and conditional use in the General Commercial (C-4) zoning district with a total maximum intensity of 200,000 square feet of gross floor area, and furthermore recommending transmittal of the amendment to the Florida Department Of Economic Opportunity. The subject property is 20± acres and located on the west side of Immokalee Road, approximately one-half mile north of Randall Boulevard, in Section 22, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. (Transmittal Hearing) [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, AICP, Principal Planner] B. Noticed 10. New Business 11. Old Business 12. Public Comment 13. Adjourn 08/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 5.A Item Summary: July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Meeting Date: 08/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: Operations Analyst – Planning Commission Name: Diane Lynch 08/06/2020 5:30 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 08/06/2020 5:30 PM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 08/06/2020 5:30 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/06/2020 5:32 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 08/10/2020 10:04 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 08/11/2020 1:10 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 08/11/2020 1:11 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 08/11/2020 3:53 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/20/2020 9:00 AM 5.A Packet Pg. 5 July 2, 2020 Page 1 of 59 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Naples, Florida, July 2, 2020 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: Edwin Fryer, Chairman Karen Homiak, Vice Chair Karl Fry Joe Schmitt Paul Shea (remotely) ABSENT: Patrick Dearborn Tom Eastman, Collier County School Board Representative ALSO PRESENT: Raymond V. Bellows, Zoning Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney 5.A.a Packet Pg. 6 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 2 of 59 P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Welcome to the July 2, 2020, meeting of the Planning Commission. Would everyone please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. (The Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Will the secretary please call the role. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Eastman? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm here. Chairman Fryer? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Vice Chair Homiak? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Here. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Dearborn? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Shea, remote? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Present. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman, we have a quorum of five. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. Quick question for the County Attorney, if I may. MR. KLATZKOW: Sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Did the Governor's order expire June 30 about quorums? I don't think it's going to be a problem. MR. KLATZKOW: It was extended. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Extended. Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Thank you very much. Addenda to the agenda. Ray. MR. BELLOWS: I have no changes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. Planning Commission absences. We've got two meetings coming up that I want to ask about. July 16 and then August 6th. Does anyone know that they will not be able to be here on July 16? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yes, sir. July 16th I will not be here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. If you're the only one, we should still, then, have a quorum. Who will call the role? COMMISSIONER FRY: Boy, that's a question for the ages. I don't know. MR. KLATZKOW: Eeny, meeny, miny, moe. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And August 6th, 2020, does anyone know whether they will be here or not? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. So we should have a quorum for both of those meetings. Approval of the minutes. We were mailed -- emailed minutes for June 11 and June 16, 2020, meetings. With respect to June 11, does anyone have any changes, corrections, additions, et cetera? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'd entertain a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 7 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 3 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: Approved unanimously. Then the June 16, 2020, meeting minutes. Any corrections, changes, et cetera? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, a motion, please. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Motion to approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: Passes unanimously. Thank you. All right. Under Chairman's report, I've got a couple of things here. First of all, by your leave, Planning Commission, I'd like to -- I'd like to try out the use of this signaling light that the Board of County Commissioners uses and some other boards are also using, I've been told, as a way for members to signal their wish to speak. And it makes it a little challenging in the case of Paul Shea, who's present electronically, but I'm going to try to keep Paul in mind. And since he can't -- he can't signal electronically -- and if I forget you, Paul, I apologize in advance, but I'll try to ask you if you have anything to say after we've covered the people who light up. Then the other thing I want to announce is we need to have a hard break at noon today, if we're not already finished with the meeting, which is possible, because we need to have a court reporter change. So we're going to have a hard break at 12 noon. All right. Consent agenda. There is none. Public hearings, 9A1, first advertised -- first advertised public hearing is PL201900019 -- excuse me -- 1695. This is the Isles of Capri boat dock extension. 155 East Hilo. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we ordinarily get a County Commission meeting synopsis prior to this? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We do, and I -- I'm sorry. We do. Thank you for correcting me. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Let's cover that first, Ray. I'm sorry. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The Board of County Commissioners met on June 23rd. There was the Naples Senior Center on their public hearing agenda, and the applicant requested a continuance to maybe address some concerns that was raised, and it hasn't been rescheduled yet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Sorry for those who rose and sat down again. But 5.A.a Packet Pg. 8 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 4 of 59 please rise if you wish to testify in matter and be sworn in. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission. I'd like to start on my right, and we'll just go down, and then we'll call on Paul remotely. So start with Mr. Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials, emails. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. In my case it's staff materials and communications with staff and also communication with the representative of the petitioner. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I had nothing other than what we had in emails. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Same. I have nothing other than what was included in our packet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Same. I have -- yes, just staff materials for me. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. All right. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation and ask the gentleman to please proceed. MR. ROGERS: Good morning, Commissioners. For the record, my name's Jeff Rogers representing the owner of 155 Hilo Street. Ken Wood is his name. THE COURT REPORTER: Can you speak into the mic? MR. ROGERS: There you go. Is that better? Again, Jeff Rogers with Turrell Hall representing the owner at 155 East Hilo Street, Isles of Capri, Florida. Just a quick overview. We are requesting a boat dock extension from the allowed 20 feet of 23.62 feet to an existing nonconforming dock in regards to the non-conformant. It is a grandfathered structure that was built originally in 1973 without county permits, basically. So -- or state permits, just so you guys know. And, basically, I want to run through the criteria of the application and touch on each part of it. On the primary criteria, you know, we're allowed to miss one of the five, and in this case -- I'll go through them really, really quickly and touch on them. The first one is whether or not the dock facility's appropriate with single-families. This is a single-family dock. We're allowed two boat slips and, as proposed, we only have one currently. So, technically, all single-family docks are allowed to have two boatlifts or boat slips moored along them. So that criteria is met. Number 2 is -- basically, it goes through what's driving this BDE. Is the water too shallow? Is it the vessel? In this case the reason for the BDE is we're adding an existing -- we're adding a boatlift to an existing dock. Again, the dock was built in 1973, and we have to go through the BDE process in order to install a boatlift on it and bring the dock into conformity with the county requirements. Let me go through. There's the existing dock on the screen, as you can see. It's 43.62 feet, and that's based off a certified survey, and the length of shoreline is also based off a certified survey that we have. There's the proposed dock on the screen. Number 3, whether adverse navigation -- as you guys can tell on this, there is a lot of existing docks in this area. Consistently, we are about in the same, you know, protrusion distance out into the waterway with the adjacent docking facilities. As you work your way up the screen, which is to your north, the docks do protrude less, but down on the bottom right, that 48-foot dock is also -- and the 41-foot dock were built way back in the '70s, and they're also existing. No navigational issues. Here's the width of waterway showing, you know, that there's -- there is a shoal there, and that has been, you know, raised by some questions by people on the outside, but there's no real navigational markers here. It's kind of a local-knowledge waterway. You do hug the shoreline relatively. But, again, these docks have been existing since 1973, and there's been no navigational issues so, therefore, that criteria we do meet as well. Number 4 on the primary, whether the proposed dock protrudes no more than 25 percent width of the waterway. As you can see here on this exhibit on your screen, we're about -- you know, the waterway's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 9 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 5 of 59 710 feet wide. The navigable waterway width is 548 feet wide; however, the criteria is total waterway width. With that being said, we're about 7 percent width of the waterway as proposed. And let me stress that the proposed boatlift will not increase the overall protrusion. It will not change that. The boatlift will be inside the existing protrusion of the 43.62 feet. Number 5, whether or not the proposed location of the design of the facility is such that the facility will not interfere with neighboring docks. Basically, the dock is existing. We had to fit it in where we could in regards to the setbacks that are enforced by the county, which in this case we are under the 60-foot linear foot of shoreline so, therefore, our required setbacks are seven-and-a-half feet. We had to push the boatlift as close as we could to the shore in order to fit a maximum of a 33-foot vessel that could be moored there at any time. Now, let me stress that if we did not put this boatlift in there, a vessel could sit in the water as shown on this exhibit and still meet the required setbacks and not interfere with, you know, having to get a setback waiver or anything like that, and that would not require us to be here in front of you today with the BDE. The only reason we are here today is because of the boatlift that the owner would like to install. So that's the primary criteria. Based off that, I believe we meet all five, and that's -- staff has also reviewed that as well. Let's move on to the secondary criteria. Whether or not there's any special conditions not involving water depths related to this situation. Again, this is a grandfathered existing dock that the owners purchased the property with and are just adding a lift to, and this BDE is bringing this nonconforming dock into conformity with the county rules. Number 2 on the secondary, whether the proposed facility will allow reasonable safe access to the vessel for loading and unloading. As you guys can see here, there's plenty of deck space for loading and unloading off of the boatlift at any time and so, therefore, that criteria is met, too. Number 3 is for single-family dock facilities, whether or not the length of the vessel or vessels in combination described by the petitioner exceeds 50 percent of the subject property's linear waterfront frontage -- footage. We do not meet that. As shown here, we have 59.89 feet, and the vessel that is proposed is a 33-foot vessel so, therefore, we exceed that threshold, and that is the one criteria of the secondary that we do not meet as of now. Number 4, whether or not the proposed facility would have a major impact on the waterfront view of neighboring waterfront property owners. There is -- there has been some questions by the neighbor to our left at -- off Pago Pago. And, again, we are inside our riparian lines. I don't want to get into the weeds here with views of riparian rights, but your view is within your riparian rights, and the boat fits within the riparian rights. And there's numerous court cases out there that will back that up. So, again, if we weren't doing the boatlift, the vessel could sit there. And, technically, all these docks are in everybody's view down there. So we said, and staff agreed, that this will not impact views any because it's inside the required setbacks and is inside our riparian rights. Number 5, whether or not seagrass beds are located within 200 feet. There are no seagrasses within 200 feet that we found after we swam it. Number 6, whether or not the proposed facility is subject to the Manatee Protection Plan. This is a single-family home. We're allowed two boat slips; therefore, we meet that criteria as well. So in overview, primarily we meet all; secondary we do not meet all of them. We miss No. 3. Again, I want to stress that this dock, per this aerial, was built in 1973. This is an example of it with a boat moored along it just as we're proposing within the setback. The neighboring dock to our right, the boathouse, was there back then as well, and it's also a grandfathered structure. So I have other historical aerials to show of the area. If I need to, I can get back up and present that. But as of now, if you guys have any questions, happy to answer them. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. You turned your light off or -- COMMISSIONER FRY: I turned it back on. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 10 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 6 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We have one planning commissioner lit up, and that would be Mr. Fry. Go ahead, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hey, Jeff. Is the 33-foot boat already owned by the client? MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Which side does the adjacent property owner above -- above the subject property, the dock to the -- above it, which side do they moor their boat on? MR. ROGERS: Honestly, I have not seen a boat moored there myself, personally. So by the looks of it, they could moor a boat on either side. There's no handrailing on it; however, you would be encroaching onto the side yard setback requirement. So, technically, a boat might not be able to be moored there overnight. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I think I saw one aerial view where a boat was moored on the south -- I'll call it the lower side of that dock. So a question just about the requirements for -- of riparian rights. MR. ROGERS: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is the homeowner required to enter and exit his dock fully within his own riparian rights area, meaning where those two docks converge at an angle, it seems like it might be difficult for him to come in at times fully on his side of that riparian line. Is that a legal requirement of any kind? MR. ROGERS: You're allowed to ingress/egress over other adjacent neighbors' riparian rights; however, you cannot moor the vessel within those people's setback requirements until you go through the proper process, which is why we're here today. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Nobody else is lit up? Anything further to say, sir. MR. ROGERS: No, sir. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Joe's lit up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, go ahead, Joe. Sorry. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- when the staff report comes in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Let's hear from staff. MR. KELLY: Good morning, Commissioners. John Kelly, senior planner, for the record. This is going to be Lot 140, Isles of Capri, No. 2. As specified by the applicant, we were unable to locate any permitting information for the dock. As such, we established that it is legal nonconforming utilizing the criteria set forth in LDC Section 9.03.03.B.2.A. Again, we were able to establish that it is legal nonconforming. We're here before you today as the applicant seeks to add a boatlift to the existing dock which extends 23.62 feet beyond the 20-foot allowable protrusion, the water frontage at that location being platted at 59.89 feet, resulting in a 7.5-foot side riparian line setback. We have received two letters of objection to the project. Staff has found that the project satisfies the primary -- the bulk of the primary and the required number of secondary review criteria; however, we do differ from Mr. Rogers with one primary criteria staff found that that was not met, and that was No. 2, whether the water depth at the proposed site is so shallow the vessel of the general length, type, and draft, it cannot mean -- moor at mean low tide. But -- again, we found that criteria not to be met, so they satisfied four of the five primary criteria. We found of the secondary criteria that No. 6 is not applicable and, therefore, they satisfied four of the five remaining primary criteria. Staff, therefore, recommends the Planning Commission approve this boat dock extension in accordance with the plan attached to the resolution as Exhibit B. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. I just note for the record on the staff report, my Page 12, Staff 5.A.a Packet Pg. 11 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 7 of 59 Report Page 8 of 9, the appeal, it says, such appeal shall be filed with the Community Development and Environmental Services administrator within 30 days. Considering I was the last person to fill that position, and I departed staff in 2009 and that position was essentially eliminated, I think, for the record, we would have to state who they would state the appeal to. Would that be the County Manager, or would that be the Growth Management? MR. KELLY: I believe, since it was the CDES director or administrator prior, that it would be the Growth Management Division administrator. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just wanted to note for the record, John. MR. KELLY: Or, I'm sorry, deputy department head, yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you, Joe. Nobody else is lit up. So let's ask if we have any registered speakers. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Yeah. We have one registered speaker. John Hooley. MS. SULLIVAN: Actually, we have two. MR. HOOLEY: I'll go first. MR. BELLOWS: Oh, yeah. And Chris Sullivan. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. HOOLEY: Well, I'm here on behalf of the Christine Sullivan. My name is John Hooley. I looked at this in order to assist her, and I'm somewhat -- I don't know how to proceed. The problem is that the seawall actually exceeds 60 feet, and everybody knows that. And so instead of using the actual survey, what they're doing is they're saying, well, the plat, which is wrong, shows that it's under 60 feet, so we get these seven-and-a-half foot setbacks. Now, I don't know. It just doesn't seem reasonable. Now, I base this on taking a look at Mr. Kelly's letter. Jeff Rogers got a letter on September 23rd, 2019, Construction Comment No. 4. If I could use the Elmo. MR. BELLOWS: I don't believe we have it functioning. Let's try it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: There we go. MR. BELLOWS: I'll get it blown up a little bit. MR. HOOLEY: So as you can see, there's a survey, and the survey says that it's 60.89 feet or 60.63 feet; 60.68 feet. So we've got a survey that shows that it's actually in excess of 60 feet, and so it was confusing to me when I looked at Turrell's and they say the platted distance on their survey, because my dealings with surveys is that somebody goes out and actually measures that. And the county knows that, too. And the county says that, look, we've got a problem here. One is that the survey shows the 60.68, and the aerial view shows over 60 feet, and the note shows over 60 feet. So I'm at a loss as to how the Commission can approve this because the setbacks are 15 feet, not seven-and-a-half. And I go, you know, is there something in the Land Development Code that says plat -- plat is good enough even though we're not dealing with reality? And the only thing that I could find was on 5.03.06, dock facility, it talks about the measurement of the dock protrusions. And then it says -- it's from the most restrictive of the following, and it talks about the seawall, and then under Subsection C.4 it says, the allowable protrusion of the facility into the waterway shall be based on the percentages described in Section 5.03.06.E.2 of this LDC as applied to the true waterway width as depicted by the survey, and then it specifically says "and not the platted canal width." So this is the only discussion of how to do the measurements in the code. And I submit that, you know, we really shouldn't be here doing imaginary widths; otherwise, why have anybody submit a survey? Why not just use the plats? So what they're trying to do is really encroach on the 15-foot setback. And now what they're saying is, yeah, but we've got this -- my client's on Pango Pango [sic], and she's oriented turning directly into -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pago. MR. HOOLEY: Pardon? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 12 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 8 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Pago. MR. HOOLEY: Pago Pago. It's turned into the -- into the dock, so they're going to put this big boat there. So I would submit that if you approve this, basically, you're saying that the lot isn't 60 feet wide. And as the county noted, you really need -- it's -- you really need another -- you really need another request for a variance for the seven-and-a-half-foot-wide distance. And I submit also that it's going to damage Ms. Sullivan's property because -- she's got the photos, and I'm going to turn it over to her. But, really, the question for the Board is, are we going to deal with real measurements, or are we going to deal with imaginary measurements? And I submit that I think our job for the county and for the code is to really deal with what the survey shows. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Next speaker? MR. BELLOWS: Chris Sullivan. MS. SULLIVAN: Hello. Thank you for letting me speak. I'm happy -- I want to be a good neighbor. I'm happy the neighbor can get a boat and a boatlift, but my objection is putting it on the left side. Their home runs perpendicular to my property, so the existing dock already impedes my view. I have photos. But throwing an additional lift on the left side with the minimum of six-and-a-half feet of pilings will completely destroy it and my property value, not to mention the obstruction of a 33-foot vessel. A really good solution would simply be to put the boat on the right side of their property, the lift on the right side. Putting it on the right side will not hurt the next -- the neighbor to the right. It will not hurt his view because they are parallel to each other, and they each have 60 feet of water frontage. I only have 40 feet of water frontage. The neighbor to the right of this property, he has an existing grandfather clause in boathouse, and he has an awesome view. Putting -- this neighbor -- to put the lift on the right, will not affect that neighbor's view at all. We've tested it. Another good solution would be to put the boatlift -- the new boat in the center. They can cut in the dock in the center of his property. That would be a much better egress. I've had several boat captains and marine people come out and tell me that either way, to the right side or in the middle of his property, would have a better egress for him than putting it in the left. I think they just want to throw it on the left because it's just easier than altering his dock. So the right or center would be a great option. It won't obstruct anyone else's view, and they'd have a much better egress out. I have photos. I don't know how to get to them. Sure, I'll let you do that. Sure, and I'll just say -- because I'm being timed. I have a few minutes. These photos don't do it justice. The camera just can't capture what the human eye can capture. And my letters -- I hope you've all read my letter. If not, please read my letter of objection. I think it can do a much better job than what I'm doing right now to explain the situation. But I do invite anyone from the county and anyone at the Planning Commission to the property, because when you step in the home, I think you will better -- you will see there's just not room on the left side to put this vessel. Again, the property -- I did get a survey done. The property is over 60 feet. It's 60.68. With them trying to use plat, it basically comes down to an inch; an inch .32. So for one inch, I just can't have my -- lose my property value. I am a real estate agent, so I do know what I'm speaking about that. It's going to be a problem if I ever try to sell the property. So -- oh, it's not on this screen. Is there a screen I can point to? Okay. This is from -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're going to need to be on mic. MS. SULLIVAN: It's okay. If you're looking at the picture there, behind Mr. Bellows, that is from my front door. The home was still under construction from hurricane damage. That's why it has this paper. But, anyway, when you open the front door, there's my dock. There's the dock. So it's bad enough, but they're 5.A.a Packet Pg. 13 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 9 of 59 proposing to put a lift. Could I have the next photo, or how do I -- I'm not that techy, but my assistant Photoshopped from the county plans where they're projecting to put the lift in red marker, and I think it would give you a much better example why I'm so concerned. Okay. That was a boat from a previous tenant. It was -- Code Enforcement made them move. It was out of -- that was illegal, but that's what a boat looks like parked where he was -- Jeff Rogers said if they didn't do a lift, they could put a boat, just moor one in the water. That's taken from, like, inside my living room. That was the neighbor's dock. But they did remove it. Next photo, please. Okay. That red box is sort of indicating where -- with the height, six feet where the boat would go on top of a lift. That is, like, from, again, my front door and my living room. Okay. You can go to the next photo. That's another rendering kind of where -- this one covers the dock because, again, the boats -- the lift and the boats' going to be up to the left of the dock, so that's running parallel with the dock that's there. That's another example higher up. But, more importantly, besides imagining what the lift and boat would look like, is you see already how protruding the dock is, which I can't do anything about that. The dock's there. It's been there. But when I purchased the property, the people that were living there then and owned the home said, oh, we can't put a boat here because we don't have the setbacks to put a boat. He had davits or something. If they alter the dock, you could, but -- there we go. That's maybe a better job. She tried to put in an exact -- in exact spaces where they had the rendering on the county from Turrell where the lifts were proposed to go. That's a good picture, if you want to maybe end on that one. Pull it up a little bit. That's fine. Thank you. Again, just in summary, on the right-hand side, if they'd alter the dock, a lift and a boat either cut in the middle would allow them to have nice deck space on each side and a real easy ingress in and out or, simply, put on the right side, it will not affect the neighbors to the right. Because, again, they're parallel. I'm perpendicular. So, basically, I'm in a bad spot. So I really hope the Collier County -- the Planning Commission will protect my view rights and property value. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thanks. Before you sit down, Joe, do you -- MS. SULLIVAN: Sure. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Ms. Sullivan, was it? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: You stated for the record that the neighbor to the right wouldn't object. Is that fact, or is that your opinion? Do you have any -- MS. SULLIVAN: The neighbor to the right of -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Can I finish the question, please. I know you want to answer, but I'm going to ask -- because I'm concerned about -- you stated for the record, but is that your opinion, or do you have testimony from the neighbor saying that they don't object to it being on the right? I mean, you made a statement of fact that it would not interfere with that neighbor's view. MS. SULLIVAN: Right. We stood inside the home and in the yard, and looking straight, it would not. I could give you his name and cell phone number if you want to speak to him directly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is he here today? MS. SULLIVAN: He is not. I assume he received the letter, but I don't know that he's able to come. But it would not -- standing in the yard or even an aerial -- on the aerial view you might be able to determine, too, it wouldn't affect his property. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. MS. SULLIVAN: Because his boathouse doesn't affect the neighbors to his right because they're all 60 feet and parallel. They each have boathouses, and they don't affect each other's views. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So it's kind of move it to that side so it doesn't bother me, but it may 5.A.a Packet Pg. 14 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 10 of 59 bother -- MS. SULLIVAN: No. It doesn't bother them. I'm saying the neighbor has a big boathouse, and the neighbor to his right doesn't see his boathouse, and that guy has a boathouse. They're not -- what they have in their backyard doesn't affect the people to right. I've been to all the homes. I mean, it doesn't affect them. It's because I'm perpendicular to -- like, see how I see his dock right now? They can't see that from their house. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have a question -- MS. SULLIVAN: I hope I answered that correctly. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- regarding, this is the second -- a follow-up question but -- for your attorney. Is that your attorney? MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I wasn't clear. Was he representing you? MS. SULLIVAN: Attorney John Hooley, yes. MR. HOOLEY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. You made a statement for the record that the plat was incorrect. Do you have a registered survey that indicates that, or was that your opinion or, is that based on what -- I know it's what it says in the staff record, but I'm looking for something that states for a matter of fact that -- you made a statement on the record that the plat is incorrect. So you're stating officially that the official plat for this property is incorrect? MR. HOOLEY: I am. I'm stating that the plat is incorrect; that they have a survey; that they know that the survey shows that the seawall's in excess of 60 feet. And if you've ever looked at surveys, they don't tell you that the platted length of the seawall is 59.89. They tell you what the actual run of the seawall is in feet, and they didn't do that here, and that's a very significant omission on the part of Turrell & Associates. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, who is they? MR. HOOLEY: Turrell & Associates. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Did Turrell do a survey? MR. HOOLEY: We have a survey, I think, in the record but, yes, there's a survey. I don't know whether Turrell did it. I'm not sure whether Turrell's the surveyor. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is there an official -- let me ask the -- I'll go to Turrell, then. MR. KLATZKOW: There is no survey in your material. There's no survey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't -- MR. KLATZKOW: There's no survey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There is no survey. I don't have a survey. MR. KLATZKOW: No, you're right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So is there an official survey recorded in the Collier County for this piece of property? MR. ROGERS: (Nods head.) COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Please come up on the microphone. Because we're at dispute here, and we put some information on the record that the survey is incorrect. I've not seen anything to refute that. All I'm asking is, is there an official survey on the record, and what does -- the official survey in the OR or registered for this piece of property -- MR. ROGERS: Property, yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- what does it state? MR. ROGERS: Again, Jeff Rogers with Turrell Hall. Yes, as part of the BDE application requirement, we are required to submit a survey within -- that's been completed within the last six months from the date of submittal. So there is a survey that was submitted with this application. I can't speak as to why you guys don't have that in your files. MR. BELLOWS: We're going to put it on the visualizer. MR. ROGERS: Perfect. But, yes, Turrell did not do the survey. We are not surveyors. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 15 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 11 of 59 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I understand. I know Turrell. MR. ROGERS: Yep. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And just so Ms. Sullivan understands, I'm a former district engineer for the Army Corps of Engineers. I'm an engineer, so I fully understand docks and permits. I've been involved in it in different aspects of my career as an Army engineer but -- from the standpoint of civil works. So let me see -- John, if you could, please -- what's the staff assessment of this? Because I'm sort of miffed that we introduced that there is -- that what's on file is, in fact, not correct. MR. KELLY: There is a survey with the staff report. It's Attachment A. Also, the plat does state, I believe it's 59.89 feet, as does the most current survey. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this is the official survey that is recorded in the Collier -- in Collier County? MR. KELLY: For this project. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: For this piece of property? MR. KELLY: Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So -- MS. SULLIVAN: The county has -- the county i-map has it over 60 feet. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. You can have surveyors come up with different numbers. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. BELLOWS: That's why -- one of the reasons we use the platted lot width is determining street frontage as well as frontage on waterfront. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's my -- the official recorded -- this is in sync with the official recorded plat for this piece of property? MR. KELLY: (Nods head.) MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's all I needed. So, in fact, the distance, as stated, is the recorded distance, not as presented that it was incorrect? MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I know your opinion, sir. You can -- I don't need to hear it again because you already stated your opinion for the record, unless one of the other board members wants to hear it, but -- so I'm -- MS. SULLIVAN: It was recorded in the county project planning on the county site that it's 60.68. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't see that. MS. SULLIVAN: I'll pull it up for you on my phone. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'm done. MS. SULLIVAN: But I'll do that afterwards. I'll get that letter to you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: My questions are done. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. Two things. Based on that, whether it's seven-and-a-half or whether it's a 15-foot setback, even a 15-foot setback is going to cause the same obstruction of view having it on the left side. I really ask that they put this lift on the right side or in the middle of the dock. Center it -- center or right so it's parallel with the other properties not perpendicular to mine. I wanted to answer Mr. Fry. You had asked the previous speaker about "what if the neighbor had a boat?" I believe you meant my property. I do not have a boat, but in order to put -- if I had a little small flats boat, it would have to go on the right side of my dock because of setbacks with the neighbor who's to the left of me, which would be on the same side as where the subject's proposing to put the lift. I don't plan to get a boat. I am redoing my dock. We have a permit in and, you know, they're working on that right now. But I would have to -- it would have to go there on the right-hand side. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do you have any other questions? MS. SULLIVAN: But I'm not planning to get a boat, but I'm just letting you know that's where it 5.A.a Packet Pg. 16 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 12 of 59 would go. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ms. Sullivan, since you're up there. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: I mean, I think we're talking about, on the survey, a few inches plus or minus -- MS. SULLIVAN: 1.32. COMMISSIONER FRY: 1.32-inches, all right. I can see how different surveyors might come up with a different number, especially, you know, for that level of intricacy of the numbers. If you had a boat, how long could it be? Is there a number of how long a boat could be on that -- because you may not be the only owner. MS. SULLIVAN: I don't know. I'm guessing 20, 25 feet, maybe 30 feet. I'm guessing just from -- I don't have -- I only have 40 feet of frontage. COMMISSIONER FRY: Regardless of this lift, I think the intent here, I guess my hope, sitting up here as a volunteer, is that both of you have adequate access to and from your dock with a boat of a length that you are permitted to have. MS. SULLIVAN: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is there a boat currently docked at the subject property? MS. SULLIVAN: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: He says he has a 33-foot boat -- or Mr. Turrell [sic] said he has a 33-foot boat, or Jeff -- Mr. Rogers, I'm sorry. MS. SULLIVAN: It's not there. Oh, it's not there. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's not there. MS. SULLIVAN: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your concern is not so much that he has a 33-foot boat and could park it along that dock. It's that the lift raises that boat further obstructing your view? MS. SULLIVAN: It's that he's putting it on the left side of his property because it destroys my view. He has ample room on the right or in the middle. He's got 60 feet. Like, he could have a nice setup to the right side. On left side, it really -- because you saw how much the dock -- the dock already is all you see when you walk in my house. I can't do anything about that, because he's perpendicular to me, where the other ones are all parallel. So I have a real problem with the view. If he would just put it in the middle, to the right, that would save my view. COMMISSIONER FRY: You had a large boat that you showed a picture of that was moored there previously. I guess if he -- this gentleman has a 33-foot boat, it would be -- it sounds like -- MS. SULLIVAN: It's not going to look much different than that picture. COMMISSIONER FRY: It won't look much different? MS. SULLIVAN: That boat was bigger, and it was in violation, and Code Enforcement came out. That was a tenant that -- from the previous owner, and they got rid of him. But that boat -- that was awful. That picture, that was taken from, like, inside my house. So, I mean, that's probably a 59-foot boat, I'm guessing, 60, but it's not going to be much different having any boat out there. I just wish he would put it in the middle or right side. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. But you're prepared that he has the right to park the 33-foot boat there now. The only thing at issue today is the lift, is my understanding. MS. SULLIVAN: It doesn't look like he even has the seven-and-a-half -- there's a pole in the middle from the surveyor showing a riparian line, and it just doesn't look like there's room for a lift or a boat. But, again, when you look at these aerials, it looks like there's all this room. When you go to the property and stand there, it does not look like there's enough room. I don't know how that's seven-and-a-half feet. I've had dock guys just look and guess, and they think, oh, it looks like there's eight feet there, nine feet. It doesn't look like there's a lot of room. It's going to be a really tight fit. For him docking it, too, it's going 5.A.a Packet Pg. 17 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 13 of 59 to be really tight. COMMISSIONER FRY: In our position, we have staff that has recorded for the record that there is enough room based on, you know, the Land Development Code and the codes for docks. So I think we have -- as a Board, we have to rely on that information or not trust it. I tend to trust that information. That's their job. So have you talked to the applicant about putting the lift on the other side? Have you had a conversation with them? MS. SULLIVAN: I did once. I asked if he was going to put it on the right or the left, and he said the left, because he probably doesn't want to alter -- he might have to alter the dock a bit to fit it in on the right. I asked -- he did come in the home. And I said, well, it's ruining my view. And he walked in the house. He goes, I see a great view. I said, well, look at your dock. And he just kind of looked at it, and he left. You know, I just -- I don't want problems with neighbors. I was trying to be very nice, you know. And then I was in the home at the time with some -- my contractors. So he had come back in, and I said, it's fine. And he went to look at something, and he was just staring. He was just looking. I didn't really talk to him because I was with the builder. But I think he knows. Anyone that walks in the house -- I've had people walk in and say, I can't believe that dock's there. The county allowed that? And I'm like, well, it's -- you know, the dock, I know, is on his property. It's just because of the perpendicular -- the illusion -- the perpendicular. It's bad, but it's like, what, a V.? I'm the last house, and he's the next house. But a lift, I just can't imagine that being allowed, a lift with a boat. It's going to completely block -- it's going to ruin my property and ruin my property value. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I'm going to ask planning -- were you finished? I'm sorry. MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Were you finished? COMMISSIONER FRY: Sure. Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I want to ask Planning Commissioner Shay if he has any questions. I don't want to forget about him. Paul? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: I take that as a no. Do we have any other registered speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: No other speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No other speakers of any kind. MR. HOOLEY: Excuse me. Could I just put one thing on the record, since I'm not -- we may be appealing this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. MR. HOOLEY: I know Mr. Schmitt is taking me to task on arguing about the survey, so I'm relying on Mr. Kelly's letter, and Mr. Kelly's letter says, as-built survey demonstrates a waterfront width of 59.89 feet platted and 60.68 measured. So, you're right, I didn't get the survey and measure it out myself. I relied on the county to have -- to analyze the plat and tell me what the actual measured amount was. So I'm not trying to -- I'm not trying to dispute this. I'm trying to tell you that I relied on the county to have the actual measured thing. Otherwise, if I thought it was a real issue, we would have had a survey and a surveyor come in here and talk. But it seems like the county agrees that it's over 60 feet. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Thank you. I'm going to ask the county to respond. MR. KELLY: What's being referred to is a review corrections letter or request for corrections letter. Since that correspondence was issued, they provided a new survey which provided the 59.89 feet of shorefront, waterfront. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Petitioner have some rebuttal? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 18 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 14 of 59 MR. ROGERS: Yes. For the record, Jeff Rogers again. There was a lot of things said there that I want to try to touch on real quick. I'll be brief. The big thing here, basically, from what I heard, is the question of being -- the option of moving the lift. We looked at that option, you guys. If I could get my aerials back up, I could show you real quickly why that would not work. Again, we're going back to the grandfathered structure here, and it's located within the required setbacks. And if we added a lift onto the right side -- we only have seven-and-a-half feet. As you guys can see on the screen right here on the right side, that's actually 7.6 feet currently. So we just meet the required setback for the structure. So any additional structure we put within that setback would require a setback or a variance to setback requirements. And the 7.6 feet is just not wide enough. Now, the next option would be taking the dock out and rebuilding it. We obviously looked at that, too. And getting into the weeds a little bit here, this is aquatic preserve with the State of Florida and the Department of Environmental Protection, and they have very tight restrictions for docks. This dock is grandfathered with DEP as well. And if we remove this dock, we would never get this dock back, ever. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's correct. MR. ROGERS: So with that being said, we would then have to comply with the aquatic preserve rules as -- Isles of Capri, you know, is one of those places where a lot of things were done historically just, you know, without permits, and this dock was one of those. And we're dealing with a nonconforming dock trying to bring it into conformity. And the state would really -- we would end up which a marginal dock, you guys, about 5-foot wide off of the seawall, and then imagine the ingress/egress for that. The subject dock next door as well, we would have to comply to those rules. I did some research into that dock. That dock, too, does not have any state or federal permits and nor county permits either, and that dock -- I do have a historical aerial showing the buildout of that dock over the years that I could show you. I brought those just in case we got into this. The dock, as you see currently, was built in 2012, expanded to the current footprint. I don't believe the current owner did that. I think she bought the property with the dock there. So we all -- it is a very tight situation. That vessel that she did show sitting in the water did go over the setback, you guys, and was the reason why that vessel had to be removed from the site, so -- and that was a tenant that was renting the home prior to the current applicant buying the house. So since then there has been, to my knowledge, no vessel kept there overnight, just temporary. He does have a 33-foot vessel that he's keeping on the uplands until he can put a lift in to store the boat there, because if you guys don't know, storing vessels in water is not the best thing for water quality, and it definitely -- you have the bottom paint and all that. So he's trying to put a lift in to keep the vessel safe. A professional surveyor would come out and be required to do a layout for this for the contractor to install the lift. That is one of the first things contractors do, because if they did not have a surveyor come out and lay out the setback requirements of seven-and-a-half foot because, as was testified, it is very -- you know, looking at it on land from shore, it is tight, and that's why you need to make sure that the lines are right. And if a contractor builds over that line, then he's responsible and has to go back and move it. So it's on him to get a pre-layout survey which happens on every job that Turrell is involved in. It's a requirement. So with that being said, we want to be neighborly. We would love to put the dock in a different area; however, we would never get this dock. It's grandfathered with you guys, Collier County, as well as the state and feds. Looked at every option. This is the only option that would fit a vessel and the boat on a lift. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Joe? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I just want to summarize. Are we closing the public hearing? Because then I want to put some statements on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Not -- we haven't closed it yet. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: All right. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 19 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 15 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: So you're going to hold? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just until I'm ready to put it on the record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So -- all right. So you've lit up for after the public? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any other planning commissioner have any questions of anyone before we close the public segment? Ma'am, I'm sorry. MS. SULLIVAN: Am I allowed to speak again? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sorry. All right. There being none, without objection, we're going to close the public speaking portion of the hearing and move to Planning Commission deliberations. And Commissioner Schmitt's light is on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'll make a statement. Isles of Capri certainly has been an issue in this county for many, many years. Just for history of my fellow planning commissioners, it goes back to the Deltona Settlement. I won't go into detail about the Deltona Settlement, but it was basically the elimination of dredge and fill on Marco Island and Isles of Capri, Marco Shores, and some of the other properties down in that area were mitigation to the developer of Marco Island for eliminating, basically, the dredge and fills throughout the state of Florida. That was a lawsuit back in the '80s. But this is an issue, and it's a nonconforming dock. Mr. Rogers is, in fact, correct; if they took this dock down, they would not get a new dock. The state would prohibit it. The federal government has deferred to the state and, in fact, and the state in many cases defer to local government in regards to dock and imposing and protecting riparian rights -- riparian rights and the long history in regards to docks and views. The issue here is the neighbor says I don't want it in my view. I want it in my neighbor's view. And we could go on and on about the dispute, but there are riparian rights. There are certain rights. This is a legally nonconforming structure, and the intent was to make it legally conforming. I fully understand and empathize with Mrs. Sullivan, but the fact of the matter is, I believe, in my personal opinion, the homeowner has every right to bring this dock into conformity, has every right to put a dock -- put a boat there. When you buy a piece of property on a water body, the homeowner is going to face the problem of either looking at a dock or looking at a boat. And I could basically say, then there are other places to live if you don't want to look at a boat, because you're going to look at a boat outside your window if you're living on a waterway. I find that -- I don't find any objection to this from a standpoint legally. If, in fact, there is a dispute on the survey, I would suggest that you pursue a second- or third-order survey, because typically a land survey is probably, what, plus or minus a half inch. You can go second or third order, and we can bring this very much closer, but you're going to spend a lot of money doing a second-order or third-order survey. I mean, I'm talking -- when we're talking within centimeters. So if you want to dispute -- and look at -- look at an official plat. So based on my statement, I see no reason to object to this, and I fully support it. I recommend approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Fry? COMMISSIONER FRY: Joe, I appreciate your comments and the background and the history that you bring to this. I need to ask for a little bit more input from my fellow commissioners. My question is, I see that the homeowner's entitled to have a boat there. This application is for a lift. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Is that a right that you believe that comes with the dock to put in a lift which it raises a boat and further encroaches on the view of the neighbor, or is that a subjective type 5.A.a Packet Pg. 20 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 16 of 59 determination? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I don't know if it's a right. That -- I can't answer that. It's certainly a privilege that comes with a -- with owning a dock, because you do have a right to pull your boat out of the water to protect your boat. That's why people have lifts. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The boatlift is part of the dock facility. A dock facility, if it meets the criteria, staff will make a recommendation of approval. If it doesn't meet the criteria, then we'll make that recommendation. But a dock is an accessory use to a single-family residence, and part of that dock includes a boatlift if the property owner so wishes to have it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Ray, are you saying that by a means of owning the home and the dock, that confers a right to have a lift there also as long as it meets these other setbacks and other requirements? MR. BELLOWS: Well, it's an accessory use. The dock is an accessory use to a single-family residence, and that is permitted by right. And if it meets the criteria, they can extend out beyond the -- this limit for each dock. It's usually 20 feet. Now, if they want a boatlift with that and the dock is less than 20 feet, they don't have to come in for a boat dock extension petition. MR. KLATZKOW: All right. But having said that, they're asking -- they're asking you for a variance. You are allowed to place conditions on that variance. I'm not recommending you do this, not recommending you don't do this. But one of those conditions could be no boatlift. So we'll give you your variance for the dock, but you're not allowed to put up a boatlift. You've got that ability. I'm not making any suggestion one way or the other that you do this. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you, Jeff. Is there precedent for other issues like this that have come before this board in the past where these types of petitions were rejected because of further encroachment of the neighbor's view? MR. BELLOWS: Well, view corridor's somewhat subjective. The county looks at the view corridor as what is viewed from within each property owner's riparian lines. So if you see a dock on somebody else's property within their riparian lines, we don't -- that's not deemed to be an issue from meeting that standard. MR. KLATZKOW: Well, it's one of the criteria. MR. BELLOWS: It's one of the criteria. But if it was crossing into somebody's view corridor through their riparian lines, then we could make a case it's not meeting that criteria. COMMISSIONER FRY: But in staff's opinion, as you've stated, this lift, all things considered, meets the criteria? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. And there are some unusual circumstances with the configuration of this lot and its angular proximity to the adjacent lot. So your view corridors are going to cross at some point. COMMISSIONER FRY: From the aerial -- one of the aerials, it showed that this dock was there and this property was there before any of the others to the -- MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- to the north of it. MR. BELLOWS: It was a preexisting nonconforming dock. COMMISSIONER FRY: So anybody that built that home and that dock that is to the north of it knew this dock was there when they built this property and that there would be a boat there. The question is the lift. MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Any other -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other planning commissioners have questions or comments? And I'm also asking Paul if you do. COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, no questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. I have a couple of concerns, I guess, that I want to express. First of all, I struggle over the very issue that is, I think, now before us, and that is whether Secondary Criteria No. 4 5.A.a Packet Pg. 21 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 17 of 59 has been met, and that has to do with the view of the neighboring property owners. And I think -- I think there's an argument that could be made both ways on this, but I believe the burden would have been on the Pago Pago property owner to demonstrate a little more persuasively as to what the -- what the blockage would have looked like. And I, personally, was not adequately persuaded that the drawings that were presented to us conform to the reality of what would actually -- what that would actually look like in terms of blocking and, also, there's still a considerable amount of water view that's available to that property owner. Furthermore, I think the official records of the county reveal that the shorefront is 59.58, and I don't think a case has adequately been made that another number should apply. And, finally, I don't believe there's anything brought before us, at least nothing that was competent or sufficiently persuasive, with respect to consent from the neighbor to the right of the property to allow a relaxation of the setback. So for those reasons -- and it's not without concern for the rights and interests of the Sullivans; nonetheless, I'm prepared to vote in favor of this. Anybody else want to make comments before we call for a vote? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. I'd entertain a motion. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I thought Joe made a motion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I made a motion. I make a motion that -- let me go back to the number, please. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The petition here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: The number is PL20190001695. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Right. I make a motion that PL20190001695 -- this is a resolution to the Collier County Planning Commission for a boat dock extension. I recommend approval as stated in the staff report. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's been moved and seconded to approve the petition. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: There being none, all those in favor, please say aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? Okay. That was you, Paul, saying aye? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So it passes unanimously, 5-0. Thank you very much. ***Let's see. The next -- the next matter before us is PL20180003511. This is the Melrose Lane communications tower variance, and in this case our action would come in the form of a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Ex parte disclosures from the Planning Commission starting with secretary. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 22 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 18 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. For me it's staff materials and communications with staff. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing, just the staff materials. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials and additional emails from the staff regarding this petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Shea. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just staff materials. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. We'll begin, then, with the applicant's presentation. Please introduce yourself and proceed. MS. JAHN: Good morning. I'm Mattaniah Jahn, 935 Main Street, Suite D, Safety Harbor, Florida, 34695. I also have Bill Compton with Verizon Wireless available to answer any questions you may have concerning Verizon's RF need. He has -- we have both taken an oath. I come before you today with a staff recommendation of approval for a variance allowing a 150-foot monopole style communication tower to remain at 5650 Melrose Lane. If I may please have the PowerPoint or the -- okay. We're set up for that. So this is a general -- this is an aerial of the Lely area, and you can see in the approximate center is a green marker. That is the Melrose monopole. There -- the vertical line running through the middle is Collier Boulevard. As we get closer, you can see to the south of the green marker which, again, is the Melrose tower, Sabal Palm Road, and to the west is also Collier Boulevard. And then this is a closer view yet showing approximate lot lines. Generally speaking, to the northwest is Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Hacienda subdivision. To the south is Sabal Palm Road and then Veronawalk. To the east is the Rockedge PUD and nursery and ag zoned land with residences to the west, our nursery, then Collier Boulevard, then the Lely Resort. You'll notice that mature existing vegetation is present throughout the area. Parent parcel zoned agricultural with a future land use designation of urban residential fringe subdistrict. Communication towers are permitted on properties with this -- with these designations as of right and allowable via variance when standards need to be adjusted. This is an aerial from Sheet C1B of the plans, and it's a setback layout diagram, and it shows the location of the Lely monopole located towards the southwest side of the parcel. Okay. Good. You can see the -- can you see my mouse on the -- on your screens? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. JAHN: Excellent. So where I'm pointing right now is the monopole. It's surrounded by an enclosed equipment compound that has a concrete wall. To the north is a preserve that was applied to the land. You can see setback lines. I apologize that they're black on green, but they're setback lines for the two-and-a-half times tower height separation to the north and also the 50 percent tower height separation to the west. This monopole was sited at the time to meet the residential separation to the north. The parcel to the southeast at that time was cognized by both SBA and staff to be agriculturally zoned. At the time that this was applied for, the monopole met all -- was believed to meet all required setbacks. SBA is requesting a 30 percent reduction, so of the required setback to the southeast in order to maintain the monopole in its location and at its current height. That still provides 1.75 times the tower height separation. I also polled the Rockedge PUD and did the math to see what the distance to the closest buildable lot line setback would be within the PUD, and it's actually 1.91 times tower height separation. So you're going on almost two times there. This monopole employs fall zone technology. Basically, that means that a crimp point has been designed within the monopole so that in the unlikely event that -- if it were to fail, it would fold over upon itself and be contained completely within SBA's lease area on the parcels. That's within a 50-foot distance. This is a plan sheet that just shows the setback lines more clearly. You have this in your record. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Excuse me, Ms. Jahn. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 23 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 19 of 59 MS. JAHN: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Just for clarification -- I apologize for interrupting. But with respect to the fall zone -- because this was going to be a question of mine -- if there were a fall and it fell based upon where it had been crimped -- is that the word? MS. JAHN: Yes. It's basically designed with a preengineered failure point. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So my question is, then, if it fell at that pre-engineered failure point, how many feet from the closest improved structure would it be? MS. JAHN: I can pull the plans and tell you. It would be that on-site structure to the northwest. Actually, let me see here. Right now I'm showing 287 feet to the nearest buildable lot line on the Rockedge PUD. So it would be 237 feet away. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt. MS. JAHN: All right. Moving on to the elevation. Verizon Wireless is the anchor tenant for this tower. They are the reason that it was constructed. They are collocated at the top. This is the elevation sheet from your -- from the plan set. So the height of the tower is the minimum height necessary for Verizon to achieve their RF objectives. If you were to shorten the tower any further, you would have to lower Verizon's antennas and, as a result, it would cover less area. The other thing to also keep in mind is when you -- this tower is designed for collocation. Those collocation spaces are available on a market basis. So as other carriers have need in the area, your code actually encourages collocation onto existing towers. And as you shorten the top collocation, you shorten all the other ones, and they become less effective as well. I'm going to move -- this is just a plan sheet showing the equipment compound, and it also clearly shows the fall zone radius. It is the circle within that equipment compound. Now, moving on to an RF package that was provided by Verizon Wireless to show what this monopole is currently doing in the area. And, generally speaking, modern communication towers serve two functions. They fill holes in coverage, and they also remove traffic strain from neighboring towers, which is called capacity. A communication tower is like a road. It can only handle so much traffic upon it. As our use has been expanding, you need to -- in addition to filling holes in service, you also need to offload that traffic stress, and those two combined can -- a lack of capacity or a lack of coverage can create a gap in service. This monopole serves over 9,000 peak active users on average per weekday. It provides coverage for the Veronawalk, Saratoga, Tiger Islands Estates, Classic Plantation Estates, Players Cove, Lely Elementary, South Florida -- Florida Southwestern State College, the Arlington facility, and the Rockedge PUD once it's built out. It removes capacity strain from the three existing towers that were previously attempting to serve this area. It also additionally serves as the data backhaul for Verizon's distributed antenna system at the Collier County EOC and provides in-building coverage for Physicians Regional Hospital and the Collier County Library. This also provided coverage for the Picayune -- for the wildfires in Picayune Strand State Park in 2018. These are charts just showing usage per sector. There's three sides to a communication tower. I'm going to skip through these quickly unless you were to have questions on these. This is the coverage that's currently out in the area today. So in the middle, again, is the monopole. To the north, southwest, and south are the existing communication towers that we're attempting to serve the area. Everything that's colored green is reliable wireless coverage. Everything that's colored red is unreliable wireless coverage. If the monopole were shortened to 100 feet, this is what the coverage would be. You would have gaps in service in the south -- the south and east portions of Veronawalk. You'd also have gaps in service through the north portions of Lely Resort heading up towards the college. Mr. Compton is available today if you have questions on this, but he is prepared to testify that he -- to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 24 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 20 of 59 fill these two gaps in service, he would need to construct two additional communication towers to fill the two different holes that would be created, and that's not even addressing the loss in coverage on the north and east towards the Hacienda subdivision. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you show the previous slide again, please? MS. JAHN: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. JAHN: So this is coverage today, this would be coverage at 100 feet, and then this is the coverage without the monopole. Just a quick overview of height. It's driven by what's called ground clutter on the earth. So, essentially, cellular signals aren't like your AM/FM radio station signals where you could place a communication tower in Immokalee and reach from Okeechobee to Marco Island. You have to place the communication tower where the users are because the signal, essentially, gets absorbed and scattered by things like trees and buildings. These are pictures from the south along Plantation. You can see the monopole in the background there. You can also see in the foreground that existing utility wires are taller than it, and existing trees in the midground are nearly as tall as the monopole itself. This is a view from Collier Boulevard, and you can see that they have to get the signal over these trees here, and they completely obscure the monopole at this point. This is from the north near Physicians hospital, and this is from the east off of Brandy Lane. This is a very simplified diagram showing how the system works. Essentially, if you're too short, you're in the situation on the top where you have objects obstructing the wireless signal to the users. And once you are tall enough, you can get over those objects; you have a scenario like you see in the bottom. This is a map from the RF package that shows that -- shows the distance to the nearest handoff towers. These are the towers I described earlier, but the nearest tower to the north is 1.55 miles, the nearest tower to the southwest is 2.35 miles, and the tower to the south is 3.3 miles. So those nearest towers are pretty far away, and you saw on the RF maps that they don't have the ability to reach into the Lely area. Finally, I'd just like to touch on the search ring that was released for this. Verizon's original request was for a 180-foot-tall monopole down at the entrance to Veronawalk. That's the most efficient solution that Verizon identified to solve their significant gap in service. The further you move away from that geographically and the shorter the monopole becomes, the more it becomes a compromised solution. In this instance, this is -- and I'm moving to an aerial showing the monopole relative to the search ring. The white oval is the search ring that I was discussing where Verizon initially determined they need the 180-foot-tall monopole. And the marker up here towards the upper center is the Lely monopole. So they've moved away, and they've shortened 30 feet. The design itself is already a compromise compared to the most efficient solution. The other thing to notice from the search ring is that it was commissioned in 2013, and Verizon's equipment was not installed on the monopole until 2018. So it took them five years from the point where they determined they needed a communication tower in the area to the point where they had a communication tower that they were collocated upon. I'm going to just move real quickly through the variance elements so as not to take too much time. You have these mostly described in your -- in the narrative I submitted, like peculiarity. This parcel is a triangle-shaped-parcel. If it were squares, we wouldn't be here discussing this. Another thing to keep in mind with peculiarity is that the structure itself has limitations upon it. Monopoles have -- communication towers have to be cited in a relative position compared to the other towers in the area so as to provide network. Special conditions and circumstances. Again, you do have that triangle-shaped parcel. Unfortunately, we are here in a reverse order procedurally because there was an error in the zoning maps, and we went -- and that was not cognized by either SBA or county staff, and we went through the entire review 5.A.a Packet Pg. 25 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 21 of 59 process. And there is a tower on the ground -- or tower in the air out there, and Verizon has their equipment there providing service currently. Literal interpretation hardship. This ties back into it. You saw that Verizon would lose a significant amount of coverage if they had to remove their antennas, even if they were to shorten it. The other thing that plays into hardship is the fact that SBA went through the process in good faith and, unfortunately, we find ourselves in this situation where we do need this variance, and denial of it would require partial, if not complete, removal of the monopole. Minimum requests possible. The separation is driven by the height of the monopole. The height is driven by Verizon's RF need. There's no additional tower height above Verizon's antennas, so this is the minimum request necessary. No special privilege. This is not a request for any type of special privilege for constructing a use that could not be constructed otherwise. This is an attempt to correct an unfortunate error that occurred. Additionally, I would submit that your tower code also anticipated the need to vary the dimensional standards from time to time in order to provide communication towers that fulfill the sound planning objectives of your tower code. Harmony and intent with the LDC. Again, your Land Development Code was designed to be varied on a case-by-case basis through this height and scrutiny that we have today and anticipated the need to make adjustments. I would also contend that there would be -- that the monopole furthers the public welfare through the provision of reliable wireless service. You heard that it serves as a backhaul to Verizon's distributed antenna system at the EOC, but the other thing to keep in mind is that over 80 percent of all 911 calls in 2018 were -- came from wireless phone -- wireless phones, and this is a backup email for that. And what this shows is that reliable wireless network -- reliable wireless coverage is not a luxury. It's a necessity. Natural conditions. I respectfully submit that the vegetation along -- on the parcel and along the southeastern lot line helps provide buffering that would -- helps provide buffering for the monopole. And then consistency with the Growth Management Plan. I respectfully submit that your Land Development Code is the expression of your Growth Management Plan when it comes to communication towers, and it was intended to be varied on a case-by-case basis for the logical implementation of wireless coverage when balancing all the factors before you. So to wrap up, SBA respectfully requests the Planning Commission recommend approval of the monopole to the Board of Zoning Adjustment as depicted in the staff report and application. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Just for clarity, the drawing, C3, that's the monopole. There's no guidelines. This is basically just, what, a reinforced concrete structure? MS. JAHN: It's actually a steel structure -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Steel structure. MS. JAHN: -- on concrete caisson. There are no guy wires. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No guy wires. MS. JAHN: No guy wires. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Good morning. First of all, I want to commend you. I just thought that was a very clear and concise presentation; made it very clear for us. I think we're here because a mistake was made initially, that the location of this kind of slipped through the process, and maybe it would not have been located as close to that RF PUD. What are the detrimental effects of having a tower within a range that's shorter than what's recommended of a residential 5.A.a Packet Pg. 26 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 22 of 59 community? MS. JAHN: Some would claim that there is an aesthetic effect from that. As far as -- there are people who would say they wouldn't like to have it nearby; however, there's many instances throughout the state of Florida where you have communication towers that are much closer to residential areas, and they do not affect the market rates in the area. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we know -- are there any photos that were taken from the border of the RF PUD? It's still trees at this point, I assume. Do we know what their view of this tower will look like? MS. JAHN: I do not have any photos from the RF PUD parcel itself. The one thing to keep in mind about the dynamics of tree coverage is that the closer you get to the tree line, which is actually on the parent parcel, the more buffering that it does provide, because basic site triangle visibility says if you move the source point closer, the object -- the object in the foreground is relatively larger compared to the object in the background. COMMISSIONER FRY: You mentioned -- or it's reported that Verizon is the anchor tenant. I'm not familiar with how these towers work. But I know that in shopping centers you have an anchor tenant and then a bunch of other subtenants. How does a cell tower work in terms of, are there other tenants of this tower? And if so, name a few or at least tell me the character of those. Is it other cell phone companies that collocate on these towers? MS. JAHN: At this time, Verizon is the only tenant that's providing cellular service from the monopole. Essentially how these work is that carriers instruct or commission tower companies, like SBA, to find locations where they can construct monopoles -- or construct communication towers to solve significant gaps in their network. So in this instance, as you can see from the search ring here, Verizon issued a search ring in 2018 and basically said, go forth and find us a site that can support a 180-foot monopole in this area. Then companies like SBA go out and search the area, work their way through. They're attempting to find something in the search ring, and they progressively move away from it, as there's a -- a pawn failing to find acquirable sites within the search ring or near the search ring. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. That's all I have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, any other planning commissioners have comments? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Paul? All right. If not -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: None. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. We'll now hear from staff. Going forward, in order to expedite, we can also use the center podium while the other one is being cleaned. Thank you. MR. FINN: For the record, I'm Tim Finn, principal planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any Planning Commission questions -- oh, Joe, you're lit up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. There was a letter in the packet from Attorney Pires, Mr. Pires. Have you addressed any of those issues? That was addressed to you. MR. FINN: Yeah, we did look at those issues yesterday. I talked with Matt McLean as well as Chris Scott from Site Development Planning, and the communication tower is compliant with Site Development Planning and all the structural codes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Because he -- in the letter, he has -- in the packet here are several positions raised by Mr. Pires in regards to what he believes are salient points for denying this request. And you reviewed each of those. And are you prepared to refute those? Because I see Tony's here, so I'm sure he's going to make a presentation in regards -- and so this will become an issue, because I'm certainly looking forward to hearing what he has to say, but you're prepared to address each of these points? MR. FINN: Yes, we have staff that's here to -- prepared. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 27 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 23 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hi. Tim, what is the significance and impact -- why do we have a 2.5-times separation guideline for RF PUDs from cell towers? MR. FINN: That's how it's laid out in the code. When the cell tower came in via permit, the zoning map was not updated. It still had illustrated agricultural when it should have been Rockedge PUD. So that separation requirement, in good faith, it was incorrect. MR. KLATZKOW: To give you some history on this, this provision of the LDC is rather old, and when it was put in, it was when cell towers had guidelines, and also they would tend to fall down like trees rather than self-collapse. We've had this issue discussed off and on for several years, and staff is in the process of updating this provision. I don't know when they'll be coming back. But the reason for the two-and-a-half times setback really is a historical need rather than a present need. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the new guidelines that they're working on would require a shorter setback? MR. KLATZKOW: I have no idea what they're going to come back with. I do know that they've been working on it, and they've been working on it for some time. COMMISSIONER FRY: But you're saying the main criteria for the two-and-a-half times was guy wires -- MR. KLATZKOW: It was the technology at the time. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- and falling? MR. KLATZKOW: Yes. It was the technology at the time that we put the Land Development Code together. That technology has evolved. The Land Development Code is in the process of being evolved with it. COMMISSIONER FRY: So the salient point here to me is that it was not based on wireless transformation risk of being near the cell tower from a standpoint of radiation and -- MR. KLATZKOW: I can only go by what Stan Chrzanowski used to talk about, because he was part of that. And it was due to the fact they used to fall like trees. And if it was close to agricultural land, the setback could be smaller than if it was close to houses. But they don't fall like trees anymore. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. Very helpful. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Just to follow up what Jeff said. He's, in fact, correct. It was the design for the fall zone because, of course, towers, as -- over the years -- certainly today the structural engineering and other ways of constructing. That's why I asked the question about the construction of the pole. But it was basically to protect anything on the ground from being in an area in case of a collapse of a tower. And you could Google towers in the past. I mean, there has certainly been engineering failures. But the designs today, there's no guidelines. These are all -- and that's -- I believe there was a prestress concrete. These are -- which was stated, it was a steel pole, but it certainly is prestressed in order to prevent. And it was pretty interesting that it actually has a failure point to prevent and reduce the area required for the fall. COMMISSIONER FRY: In the follow-up item there was a writeup about how the crimp point is kind of a certain distance from the top, and when it falls, it actually stays attached to the tower and falls completely within the area, I think, that's surround by a concrete wall, correct? (No response.) COMMISSIONER FRY: All right. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any other planning commissioners have questions or comments of staff? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have a question, Ned. Ned? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Paul, please. Go ahead. MR. BELLOWS: It's Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: And more of these educational questions that I like to ask. Originally, the property was zoned agriculture. And when was that changed, Tim? MR. FINN: Two or three years ago. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 28 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 24 of 59 COMMISSIONER SHEA: Two or three. And if it had stayed agricultural, the tower that's up there now would not be -- we wouldn't be having this hearing right now. MR. FINN: It would be in compliance, yes. It would be in compliance. If it stayed agricultural, it would have far exceeded it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else, Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. It's 27 minutes after 10. I think we want to take a mid-morning break but, before doing so, I want to ask Ray to just let us know about registered speakers. MR. BELLOWS: We have two public speakers present. I believe one of them is with the applicant's team, Mr. Compton, and then two virtual speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you very much. So we will stand in recess until 20 minutes of 11:00; 13 minutes. (A brief recess was had from 10:26 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're back in session. And I'm going to ask Mr. Bellows to call upon the registered speakers, please. MR. BELLOWS: Anthony Pires is the first registered speaker. MR. PIRES: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Tony Pires with the law firm of Woodward, Pires & Lombardo representing Waterman at Rockedge, the owner of the RPD to the north and east of this property residential PUD. I think one correction for the record that's important. I think the question was asked, when did the property, I think -- I assume to the east and north, when was it changed from agricultural to PUD. It was -- your agenda packet at Page 129 references the pertinent dates. And the rezoning of the Rockedge PUD occurred on February 11th, 2016, and the tower application was submitted June of 2016 and issued -- the permit issued September 2017. So the erroneous approval of the SDP was 16 months after the Rockedge PUD was approved. So everyone was on notice of the fact of the existence of that RFD. A couple of important points also. I would like -- I don't know if a copy of the PowerPoint has been provided to staff. It should be part of the record, and I'd like to request a copy of that PowerPoint. One other interesting aspect is a lot of the argument made by the applicant's counsel in today's meeting is not in the application. These are all new arguments that are being raised for the first time today in the materials to my recollection. I stand to be corrected. But the focus has been in the application and in the staff report on it's a binary choice, as they call it. Remove it. Don't remove it. Remove it. Don't remove it. There's been no analysis in the staff report or in the application as to the reduction in height to comply with the required setbacks. I calculated 105 feet would be a tower that would be compliant with the setbacks. One other -- the object -- or the purpose and intent is important also of this section of the Land Development Code. I think that was one of the questions that was asked. Regardless of whether or not there's changing technology, the code that's in existence today is the only code that you can consider, in my humble opinion. You cannot consider what maybe potentially could be in the future as far as changing criteria based upon changing technology. And part of the purpose and intent, as outlined in 5.05.09.A of the Land Development Code, intended to minimize, where applicable, adverse visual impacts of towers and antennas through careful design, siting, and vegetation screening. So that is a significant matter especially for abutting residential properties, which we have in this case. Furthermore, to avoid danger of potential damage to adjacent properties from tower failure. And we've heard again today not what's in the materials but a presentation that is attempting to sway you to convince you to recommend a granting of this variance. We would submit that any proposed -- any hardship is self-created. They've given you an all-or-nothing approach in the application. And, again, I cite to the staff report. It says, removal of the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 29 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 25 of 59 communication tower would prohibit Verizon Wireless from providing reliable coverage. And on Page 109 of the packet, the literal application of the LDC in the instant would require the communication tower to be removed. Again, we submit that it can be reduced in size to meet the setback. The Land Development Code -- excuse me. The Growth Management Plan also has a criteria. It says, all new developments shall be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. That has not been analyzed at all. That's in Future Land Use Element Policy 5.6 of the Growth Management Plan. The minimum setbacks in the LDC, I would submit, are designed and intended to ensure that new developments of towers, because of their increased height, are compatible with and complementary to surrounding land uses. A reduction in a variance in this case to eliminate the required setback would result in a use not compatible with and not complementary to the adjacent residential properties. Again, we disagree that the literal application only requires removal. It could allow for reduction. And the purpose of the -- as I've articulated, one stated purpose is to avoid potential damage to adjacent properties and minimize adverse visual effect impacts. And we saw some photographs today -- again, not in your materials previously -- taken from various angles which we all know, depending upon where you take a photo and how you take a photo, it really may not be illustrative of the real one-the-ground circumstances. We also, if this -- we request you recommend denial, and we also request that if you are to recommend approval, that there be assurances provided to the owners of the Rockedge PUD that there would be no adverse impact on the development of their property consistent with their PUD. And one other aspect is the applicant keeps mentioning that the distance from the tower to the first developable parcel is a certain distance. That's not what the code says. The code says it's the distance to the boundary of the property that has the residential zoning. For all the forward going -- and hopefully you've had an opportunity to review our two objection letters -- we request that this recommendation for denial be provided to the Board of County Commissioners and, again, request a copy of the PowerPoint presentation. And just a note. We filed our first objection in October. We followed up last -- I've heard nothing from the applicant, nothing as to the rationale until today. I think that does a disservice to this board and to the community. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: No one is lit up. COMMISSIONER FRY: I am, but go ahead. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Pires, do you have any photos that would -- that would show the viewpoint of that property, the PUD, for the visual impact of the tower? MR. PIRES: No, I don't. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Is it possible to get photos like -- I mean, why -- I guess I would love to see those. If part of your case is the visual impact, it would be nice to see what that visual impact is. MR. PIRES: I don't have those today, but I most definitely will for the County Commission. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. It sounds like, from what we've heard, the two-and-a-half times was somewhat related to guy wires and structures falling like trees rather than crimp points and falling within their own boundary. Is your only objection to this the fact that it never should have been approved in the first place and that there is a visual impact, or is there -- are there other concerns? MR. PIRES: The visual, the safety concerns, and that -- it's up to the -- it's not up to the property owners adjacent to show why it should not be approved. The burden is on the applicant to show why it should be approved and why there is a hardship and why -- and, again, they've given you an all-or-nothing proposition. And so, in my opinion, my presentation is they've not shown you that a literal application will work a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 30 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 26 of 59 hardship. We heard some reference, and I'm sure the applicant will now have Mr. Compton up here to talk about -- and they showed a graphic of a reduction in coverage, but does that qualify as a sufficient hardship under the code to grant them this exception, to grant them this variance from the code? I would submit that it does not. Again, the application in the staff report focused solely on removal versus remaining. Today we heard for the first time about reduction in height. And it didn't indicate how that would be a hardship to the application by having the reduction in height. I mean, it talked about a reduction in possible service area. It doesn't say that it's a hardship on the applicant, though, to reduce the height. COMMISSIONER FRY: In your -- I guess one of the things I'm struggling with is, you know, we know that a mistake was made. I think it was overlooked by SBA and the staff at the time. Do we -- I guess I'm going on the assumption that it was an honest mistake on all parties. You seem to be implying that there was knowledge that the PUD was there during that decision-making process. Is that your assertion? MR. PIRES: Yes, because the adoption of the PUD occurred at a public hearing. It's in the official records of the county. And whether or not someone placed it on a map or did not timely place it on a map, in my opinion, is not relevant to the consideration. That PUD was in place 17 months before the permit was approved to build this tower. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. I certainly will love to hear from staff regarding that when we get to that. Thank you. MR. PIRES: Thank you. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Schmitt. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. Tony, but just to clarify, of course, the mistake has been recognized, and based on the mistake, they are now applying for the variance. So we're not disputing, anymore, the zoning. We can dispute what came first, but the fact of the matter is, it now is -- was identified as a mistake. The structure is built, and now they're asking for a variance. So your objection is solely based on it does not meet the intent of the criteria of the LDC for a variance. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So okay. MR. PIRES: Coupled with the fact that I don't believe they -- in my opinion they can't use that mistake of law as a basis for asserting that they should get it. And the criteria in the Land Development Code, in my opinion, do not submit granting the variance. It's a complication. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, but they have every right to ask for a variance having discovered the mistake, and I believe it was -- basically, one application overlapped the other, and it was just a matter of the timing. But I won't get into the -- its history in regards to what happened with the zoning map. But the fact of the matter is, it is now -- what's -- it is a matter of record that it does not meet the requirements in the LDC, and the applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance. MR. PIRES: Yes. And just one quick point. I think it's important. The Rockedge PUD was approved by the County Commission on February 11th, 2016. And, as we all know, there's plenty of notice before the Planning Commission -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MR. PIRES: -- to adjacent property owners before the County Commission to adjacent property owners, of the zoning. So they were on notice. That property owner that is the property owner of the site who is the applicant was aware of the fact that there was this PUD being processed and ultimately was approved on February 11th, 2016. On June 8th, 2016, four months later, is when the SDP was applied for. So the property owner was fully on notice. Now they're asking for forgiveness for not paying attention to that notice. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well -- but it's your assumption they knew. MR. PIRES: Well, the county's required to give notice. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It is a matter of public record, but based on what you just said, your position is that they moved forward knowing that they were in vitalization? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 31 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 27 of 59 MR. PIRES: They moved forward knowing that the property next door was zoned RPD. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now wait a minute. MR. PIRES: They had knowledge of the pending zoning. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You're not actually saying that, are you, sir? Aren't you saying that they knew or should have known? You're not saying they had actual knowledge, are you? MR. PIRES: They had -- in my opinion, if the county provided the requisite notice for the Rockedge PUD to be approved, they would have to have notified, by letter, the adjacent property owners and posted signs. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So you're here before us telling us that the applicant had actual knowledge that they were in violation of the code? MR. PIRES: No, sir. That's not what I said. They knew or should have known that the zoning was taking place, the rezoning of the Rockedge PD. If the county complied with its zoning notice requirements, they were on notice back in June. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Actual or constructive? You're not -- you're not standing here and telling us that there was a lack of good faith on their part. Perhaps they neglected to read their mail. They knew or should have known. Are we in agreement on that? MR. PIRES: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was my point. So, I mean, that was -- I don't think it was done willfully, but -- and, of course, it's staff responsibility to make sure that any application that comes in is in compliance. And it was a matter of whoever reviewed this, for whatever reason, the documentation and the staff was not updated in order to catch the mistake. But be that as it may, it happened. It's constructed, so we have two choices. Well, it is a binary choice here. Well, it's actually three. One, reduce the height of the structure, which probably, from an engineering standpoint, would be very difficult. That's why I asked about the construction of the -- so the second would be to remove it and put up a new pole, or third would be, of course, the variance. Those are, basically, the three choices. MR. PIRES: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And one being to modify the existing pole, I don't think is going to -- from an engineering standpoint is going to work, but... CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. You mentioned and you listed, and it was helpful that you did, some pertinent dates so that we could see the order of sequence, but I think you neglected to mention one date, and that was the date of May 12 of 2015. And on that date the applicant filed a request for its first site plan application with all the information that was pertinent to what was ultimately constructed, and that became a matter of public record and was available to anybody who would consult CityView. MR. PIRES: But the difference is no mailed notice, no posted notices provided to property owners for Site Development Plan. That's different than having the zoning action where you have notices in the newspaper, mailed notice, and posted notice on the property. It does not concur with site plan approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I understand that is a difference, and it's a significant one, but, nonetheless, the May 12, 2015, application was a matter of public record. Whether it got discovered by your client or not, it was a matter of public record. MR. PIRES: I hear you, but I don't believe that -- unless this Planning Commissioner Board is setting a new standard requiring that any applicant for a PUD search CityView for any surrounding applications, I don't think that's required. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm not setting any standards. I'm just asking you questions about the facts, sir. So when did -- when did your client first learn that a variance would be needed or sought or that there was a nonconforming use with respect to the tower? MR. PIRES: My recollection is when they received the notice from the county. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So then -- 5.A.a Packet Pg. 32 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 28 of 59 MR. PIRES: Back in, I think, 2019 or '20. I can't recall the exact date. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So, really, for four or five years they were living with that tower not knowing that it was in violation of the ordinance, but when they discovered that it was, it was a matter of opportunity to be taken, correct? MR. PIRES: I disagree with that characterization as "a matter of opportunity." CHAIRMAN FRYER: How would you characterize it? MR. PIRES: It's a matter of concern. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Concern based upon a discovery a number of years after the fact. MR. PIRES: Of the fact that the pole is not compliant with the required regulations. Again, the burden is on the applicant, not on the surrounding property owners. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I understand that, but I think that the applicant has made a prima facia case on certain important points here, and I think the burden of coming forward then shifts to you. MR. PIRES: It does not in my understanding. Maybe Jeff can contradict me. But in my opinion and my recollection of Florida law, it does not. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we disagree on that. Let's see. So we've established that you're not -- you're not alleging bad faith on the part of the applicant, correct? MR. PIRES: No, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we've established that at least the dimensions of the tower were a matter of public record seven months before the PUD was granted, correct? MR. PIRES: I'm not conceding that because I don't know what plans were alleged to have been submitted back in May of 2015. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, all one would have to do would be to look at CityView and see those records, which I did, and sometime in May of 2015 that became a matter of public record. Let's see. Paul, do you have anything? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No additional questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have a request. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. May I ask staff to put up an aerial that will clearly show the tower site and the property that Mr. Perez is representing -- Mr. Pires. MR. PIRES: Yeah, thank you. And that's a good point, because in our objection we submitted the zoning map and also the aerial of the property, and it's -- Page 153 of the packet has the site plan for the RPUD, and Page 133 has the photograph from the Property Appraiser's website depicting my client's property in yellow, and the tower site is to the northwest of that, that triangle piece. COMMISSIONER FRY: What page was that last one? MR. PIRES: On Page 133 of today's packet is the aerial photograph. COMMISSIONER FRY: You are the green area? MR. PIRES: Yellowish green, I guess. COMMISSIONER FRY: So nothing is built there currently. MR. PIRES: That's the client's property -- I mean, that's the applicant's property there. Page 133. No, there are no buildings on the Rockedge PUD at the present time. COMMISSIONER FRY: It's still just trees? MR. PIRES: It's undeveloped. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's why you have no photos because you'd be in the middle of trees to take photos, right? MR. PIRES: I don't -- no, I didn't think about taking any photos. That's why. COMMISSIONER FRY: I gotcha. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, the applicant presented photos. MR. PIRES: Yes. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 33 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 29 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: On the issue of compatibility or unsightliness and the like -- and to me it seems that at that point, if I were you, if I were in your shoes, I would feel the need to come forward with photos showing that it was unsightly. MR. PIRES: I think we will do that now that -- those photographs were not submitted previous to today, and I'm sure there will be more photos for the County Commission meeting. That's the first time I saw that. And, again, Ray, correct me if I'm wrong, the PowerPoint photographs were not previously provided to staff. MR. BELLOWS: That's my understanding. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any other planning commissioners have questions for counsel? (No response.) MR. PIRES: Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. If not -- we're going to -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I want to hear staff's rebuttal on this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Why don't we do it that way. Let's -- before we have petitioner's rebuttal, let's have staff answer some of the questions which have been raised, if -- Ray, would you mind? MR. BELLOWS: Do you have a specific question first? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, when I spoke with you by phone a couple of days ago, an explanation was given having to do with how this happened, things just got ahead of themselves, and I think it would be useful for the Planning Commission to hear that same explanation. MR. BELLOWS: For the record, Ray Bellows. The process starts with a pre-application meeting for Site Development Plan for use that's allowed by the zoning district. So there was no zoning change necessary. During the pre-application meeting staff will pull the official zoning atlas to look at surrounding zoning and look at the application's request and Land Development Code requirements. It's my understanding at the time of the pre-app for the communication tower Site Development Plan that the zoning map did not show Rockedge RPUD since it was previously approved. So they had no knowledge of it when reviewing at the time of pre-app. And as they went through the review process, that same zoning map was part of that review process. We have altered our process once our PUD or any PUD is approved. You now make sure that the zoning maps are updated immediately. I think at the time Rockedge was approved we held onto it not closing it out, meaning taking it through the process of getting the zoning maps updated. And there's several reasons. One was if there were any fees outstanding, we were holding onto it till we collected those fees. We don't do that anymore. We make sure the zoning maps are in place so that way a situation like this doesn't occur. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Joe. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. I'm actually looking at Google Maps. I hate to give Google the credit for this but, clearly, even when you're along Sabal Palm Road and the other road, there are power line towers that are almost the same height closer to the -- what is it, Rockledge? MR. BELLOWS: Rockedge. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- Rockedge PUD than this actual tower, and I -- just looking at this it's probably maybe -- the tower may be about 30-foot higher than some of these -- these are high-tension -- high power lines that run right down -- MR. BELLOWS: I've seen them as well. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- along that as well. So it's -- I'm just looking at -- if you want to say the tower is obtrusive, well, then so are the power lines. So are the trees. So it's -- okay. Thanks. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Ray, I believe we had other registered speakers. MR. BELLOWS: The one in person was William Compton, but I believe he's with the applicant's 5.A.a Packet Pg. 34 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 30 of 59 team. MS. JAHN: That's correct. MR. BELLOWS: Is he going to speak? CHAIRMAN FRYER: If he's part of the applicant's team, Ms. Jahn, we'll have him speak during your rebuttal. MS. JAHN: Understood. I'm just approaching the mic so you can hear my response. Mattaniah Jahn, again, for the record. And Mr. Compton's only available for your questions. If you'd like him to give a further explanation, he can. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Ray, who else? MR. BELLOWS: Eddy Garcia, and he's a virtual speaker. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Garcia, you've got five minutes. MR. GARCIA: How are you, ladies and gentlemen of the Board? Thank you so much for listening to our issue here. I am -- my name is Ed Garcia. I am the principal at Waterman at Rockedge. And the issue that we have is that we are currently probably two months now away from starting infrastructure and developing our site and building homes on the site. The tower, as it presents itself now, will be an issue in terms of visibility, a nuisance, and our problem is that we're not saying the tower should go away but, you know, the tower company -- Verizon is a very, very large company. And, you know, they have not at one point even reached out to us, not once, to try to remedy any problem, to try to come to some kind of a conclusion or try to come up with some kind of feasible alternative even as a dialogue, not once. And this has been ongoing now for months. And to say that, yeah, there was a mistake that was made, but it wasn't a mistake on our part. We did everything we were supposed to do. It wasn't our mistake. And the way that it's been presented, it's almost like we are left to defend ourselves when we did everything we were supposed to do, and it wasn't our fault that the maps weren't changed. And now we're being asked to just take it; move on. And I think that's a little unfair, especially when -- the fact that a company like Verizon and their size and their economic power wouldn't even reach out to a neighboring property owner that they have a potential issue with to try to come up with some kind of a compromise. What does it cost to have a dialogue with a neighboring property that you currently may have an issue with? It costs nothing. And they would be able to stand up in that hearing today with a straight face and say that at least they tried to reach out to the neighboring property and come up with some kind of a compromise and a solution and none was able to be reached if that were the case. But they haven't so much as reached out to us at all. And that is the issue that I'm having a problem with, because we did everything that we were supposed to do and then some. And those 266 homes that are going to be built on that site, they're going to be paying taxes to the county. So they should be considered as well -- because they are future homeowners -- over the need of a giant Verizon company that could make modifications if they had to, can reduce the size of the tower if they had to, and it wouldn't hurt them one iota. It wouldn't change their stock price one iota. But, yet, everybody is willing to allow the 266 homes that are going to be built there to be the ones to make the sacrifice. And I think that's wrong. At the very least, we are asking that you table this item and allow for some dialogue to take place to see if there's a compromise, to see if there's a solution that can be reached where both parties can come out feeling at least some satisfaction even if both parties didn't get exactly what they want. That is all we're asking for. I don't believe that that is too much to ask for. I ask you -- that you either table this item or deny it at this time on my behalf, my company's behalf. I respectfully request that you table this item or deny it. I thank you for listening to me, and I appreciate your time in these troubling times. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Before we lose you, I've got two planning commissioners who have lit up. Do they -- Commissioner Schmitt, do you want to ask a question of this caller? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 35 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 31 of 59 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. The question, basically, is you said they didn't reach out. But had they reached out, I guess, what solution are you looking for? Because am I -- I have to use the word assuming that you're -- you're looking for them to reduce the height, which they could legally. What other solution are you looking for? MR. GARCIA: Well, we don't know because we don't know what -- we haven't had a dialogue to come up with some kind of alternatives. They haven't presented us with any other alternatives. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, let's talk about alternatives. MR. GARCIA: Reducing the height could be one. Yes, moving the towers somewhere else. We could potentially have another -- another piece of property or a place somewhere on our property where it wouldn't affect us, where it would be closer to a conservation area away from the properties in itself. There's a lot of alternatives. Do they -- do they amount to some cost of money for them? Sure, but why should we be the sole ones to bear all of the burden and the hardship? That wouldn't be -- that wouldn't be really fair of us when we did exactly what we were supposed to do. It wasn't our mistake. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, for clarity, what burden and hardship are you experiencing? MR. GARCIA: Well, first of all, you know, there's a bad -- people don't like to see towers in general, okay, whether there's -- whether there's health issues associated or not, nobody really knows, but I can tell you that homeowners don't like to physically see a cell tower anywhere near their house. That's number one. I don't believe that anybody can say with a straight face that they're okay with living within visual site of a cell tower. I don't think anybody likes that. First of all, whether it's bad or not, nobody can physically tell me that there's no health issues associated with living next to a cell tower, number one. Number two, there's a perception that it's bad, and when you physically see it, that perception increases. So that's -- you know, that in itself is a problem, and it creates a hardship for the homeowners and the homes that we are trying to sell in the community. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Well, you made several points. But do you have any basis that -- facts that back up your points, or is this basically your opinion? MR. GARCIA: That is my opinion. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. GARCIA: That is my opinion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's go to Commissioner Fry now. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mr. Garcia, I guess a question I see, from the presentation by the applicant, it appears that there is somewhat of a benefit to you by having the current tower of a higher height in place in that your cell coverage for your residents might be better. And I know -- so I wanted to ask you about that, because in today's world we live and die by our cell coverage as people. So I guess my question for you is, does that benefit -- do you not believe there is a benefit from the additional tower height, or do you just believe it's not significant? MR. GARCIA: Well, I mean, I think from our standpoint when we're selling single-family houses, we never get a question about what cell coverage is in the area and how strong our cell coverage is. When somebody is looking out of their backyard -- remember, right now you have a totally vegetated site, but within two months, you know, the site will be cleared, so that cell tower will become even more visible. So from a sales standpoint when I'm trying sell a house and I'm taking a buyer out to a location where that house will be, the last question I'm going to get is how good is my cell tower service going to be in this location? They're going to ask me, well, am I going to be able to see that cell tower? Well, kind of, that cell tower is sitting there. Is there a bad -- you know, is there a health risk with having that cell tower there? Those are the questions I'm going to get for certain. So from my standpoint, whether it's good or bad from a coverage standpoint -- I mean, obviously people have been getting coverage there for a long time. It's not like you drive by Sabal Palm Road and that 951 and your cell completely dies, okay? That's not happening. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 36 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 32 of 59 So whether they want additional coverage or stronger coverage or more coverage, you know, those are -- those are points that I can't educationally speak on, but I'm just telling you what our hardships are. And how, you know, this creates a problem for us. And the fact that we haven't even been contacted about a dialogue or an explanation or -- educate me, because I'm not educated in the cell tower business. I'm educated in the development business, so that's where I have to kind of watch for our interest. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. I'm going to ask Commissioner Shea if he wants to weigh in on this. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Probably just more trying to understand the details of it. Again, if -- when you -- when the land was purchased, it was zoned agricultural, right? MR. GARCIA: No, sir. The land was purchased -- it was already a PUD known as Rockedge PUD. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. MR. GARCIA: So the Rockedge PUD has been in place for a very long time, since the early 2000s. There was an additional 30 acres of land that was added to the original Rockedge PUD, and then we went through a new PUD to add the 30 acres of land. But the Rockedge PUD has been in place since the early 2000s. So it has been on the radar for many, many years. It was not agricultural land when we purchased it. It was an existing PUD. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Okay. That's all I have. Thanks, Ned. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I have a couple of questions here. First of all, Mr. Garcia, you've mentioned that the applicant didn't reach out. So I guess my question for you is, is once this application was filed, did Waterman reach out? Are you still there, Mr. Garcia? MR. GARCIA: I am. At that point, we went ahead and hired counsel because we, you know, didn't know how to deal with this situation. So I don't know if counsel reached out or not, but that's where I left it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So it sounds like, perhaps, there was no reaching out in either direction. What surprises me a bit is that the objectors' case, if you will, seems to rest largely on unsightliness. And under the circumstances, I mean, we've got a tower that's already up. You'd think that there would be pictures brought before us to take a look at so that we could make our own judgments about sightliness or unsightliness, and that just doesn't seem to be the case. Also, the petitioner introduced evidence of coverage loss resulting from reduced height with graphics that illustrated, rather persuasively, certainly clearly, of how much coverage would be lost if the height were reduced, and I don't think that there was anything brought forth by the objector to challenge that evidence either. So those are -- those are my concerns at this point. Any other registered speakers, Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Shawn Martin. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Martin, you have five minutes, sir. MR. MARTIN: Hi there. Shawn Martin with Waterman Development Group. I'm the Waterman Group's land development manager. And I guess I don't have a ton to add to what Eddy's said, but I would like to speak to the timeline a little bit. I believe the tower -- we learned of the tower during a site visit back in 2018, which I believe was shortly after construction, and at that point we brought it up -- I brought it up to the county staff, Chris Scott and Matt McLean, particularly. We had various emails and discussions on it back in 2018. So by no even was it, you know, in place for years at all before we found out about it. So in 2018 we brought it up to staff, learned that there was an issue with the zoning map and everything else, and I believe at that time, Matt and Chris let the applicant know of the issues and I think then waited close to probably a year before any kind of variance application was submitted. So we -- obviously, we did not sit on the application one bit. It was -- we notified county staff immediately when we learned -- when we saw it, followed up with looking at the county code, and that was 5.A.a Packet Pg. 37 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 33 of 59 determined back in, I think, late summer to early fall of 2018. So I guess that's the main thing in that regard that I had to follow up on. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right, sir. Thank you. I don't see anybody lit up. Commissioner Shea, do you have any questions of this witness? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No questions. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Commissioner Schmitt is lit up. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no questions, but I did ask staff to put a picture -- this is a picture from Sabal Palm Road as the -- right at the entrance to the nursery, because anywhere else it was all obstructed by trees, but that -- you could see the tower in the background there. But this is from Sabal Palm Road. I didn't do it from Rockedge. You'd have to go all the way around to the north side. But that is the -- that is actually the tower. You can see it. I don't know, Ray, if you want to move it around. That is the tower we're talking about right -- yeah. That's the tower. And, of course, this perspective -- and I'm not in any way making a judgment, but this perspective, it does show the height of the power lines, but those power lines probably are -- probably 50 -- 30 to 50 feet shorter. I don't know. I didn't go out and measure it. But I just wanted the rest of the commissioners to understand what we're looking at where the tower is existing and, like I said, that's from Sabal Palm Road. If you went up that road on Google Earth, you just -- you can't see it because it's all obstructed by the vegetation. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Ray, do we have any other registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: No one has registered. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Do we have any unregistered speakers, people who would like to be heard on this matter? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, I'm going to call upon the applicant to provide any rebuttal that she wishes. MS. JAHN: One moment while I get settled here. I apologize. CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's all right. MS. JAHN: Mattaniah Jahn again, for the record. I also have Bill Compton with me. I'm going to try to go -- there was quite a bit that was thrown out there. I'm going to try to go through it top to bottom. So starting off with the concept that everyone was on notice. SBA's in a somewhat peculiar -- or somewhat unique position in that they are a tenant, not a property owner, so they would never have received the notice of the neighboring parcel being rezoned. Additionally, the whole concept of constructive notice is to avoid willful blindness. So the case they teach you in law school is that a person buys a piece of land, sees vents coming out of their property, and they -- and they later claim they had no idea that there was a gas line there. SBA did the exact opposite of that. They subjected themselves to the jurisdiction, to the actual record keepers and, unfortunately, through a mistake of process, human institutions, that was not caught until after the monopole was constructed and we had steel and antennas in the air. I'd also like -- if I could have my PowerPoint back, please. Thank you. So the developer/objector discussed the intent of your code. And it is true that one of the objectives of your code is to minimize the aesthetic impact of communication towers, but another objective that you have to -- you have to balance against that is to minimize -- is a call to minimize the overall number of towers in the county. Specifically, your code states under 5.05.09, Sub A, after the discussion about aesthetics and tower failure, to maximum the use of new communication towers and thereby minimize the need to construct new towers, to maximize the shared use of specified tower sites and the need for additional tower sites implied within the county. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 38 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 34 of 59 So you're not just thinking in terms of since a communication tower is a piece of infrastructure, and it does serve an overall area. It's not just the parcel that it's on versus the neighborhood parcels. You have to keep into account the fact that changing of the design of the monopole will affect other property owners where there's already houses on the ground and people have owned their houses for years. And I'll draw you back to the RF propagation maps showing a shortened height. So with this map, this would show what the broadcast would be like from a 100-foot-tall site. You're looking at gaps in the Lely Resort area and the Veronawalk area. We're concerned about sites that have -- about house properties that have never been built. What about those property owners? I'd respectfully submit that -- let's see. I'd also like to draw your attention to the standard -- the burden of proof under the variance section of your code, because SBA and Verizon still contend that a hardship would be visited upon them through even needing to shorten this communication tower. But the code does not require one to go that far. The actual burden of proof is practical difficulty, which is a lower burden of proof. And so we respectfully submit that we've surpassed that. I agree with Mr. Bellows that the process of this misunderstanding occurred because there was an overlap between when SBA began their pre-application meeting and when the actual rezoning came in on that south acre or that south portion. You saw on the plans that SBA was attempting to avoid residential in the area by locating to the southern end of that parcel. Moving down. There was a discussion that -- there was a discussion that SBA never reached out to the developer/objector, and that's simply untrue. I actually reached out to Mr. Martin shortly after this -- their complaint was brought to SBA's attention. The product of that conversation, ultimately, was not fruitful. To the extent that you've heard discussion about environmental effects of RF emissions, I respectfully submit that the Telecom Act in 1996 prohibits that consideration by this board and that that evidence is -- that information is not properly before you as competent substantial evidence to base your -- to base your decision upon. And now -- and now, if I may, I have Mr. Compton available, and he can give a very quick presentation on the RF need necessary. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Before that, Commissioner Schmitt's light's on. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just -- one question. Just to the east of the tower is a structure on the property. What is that? Is that a home there? I'm looking again at the aerial. MS. JAHN: Let me switch back to that on my monitor. Yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is that -- that's a home right below where it's the two letters "ln" lane; that's a private home? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And are they the property owners of that entire property, and they lease the site for the tower? I'm just trying to understand. Well, I guess the real question is, have you -- is this property owner in objection in any way, shape, or form in regards to this tower? MS. JAHN: No, sir. The property owner is not. So just for back story on this property owner -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. MS. JAHN: This property belongs to an owner who used to live on the parcel and now is in the care of family, I believe, down in Florida City. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. JAHN: She owns the entire triangular parcel and the roadway parcel for Melrose Lane, and she leased this portion to SBA. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. And then there's a -- I'm not showing on yours, but I'm looking again on an aerial on my computer. There looks like another structure/home to the west, almost directly west. I see a pool in the background. That's on Red Bird Lane. There's a home there. Have you heard anything from that resident in regards to any objection or any issues with the size of this tower? MS. JAHN: No, sir. Mattaniah Jahn again. No, sir. We have not received any objections. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 39 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 35 of 59 Additionally, this monopole exceeds the required separation from that residence. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. MS. JAHN: Your separation fluctuates, so in that direction, it's actually only 50 percent tower height. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And I just have some questions of staff as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Fry. COMMISSIONER FRY: One question. You showed the coverage area at 150 feet, the current height, and also at 100 feet, the diminished area. For the Rockedge PUD that's adjacent to this property -- to the tower, would that reduction have any impact on their cellular coverage? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir. From the RF propagation maps, you see that it would -- this is the full coverage right now at 150 feet, and then this is coverage at 100 feet. So it would -- essentially, coverage of the Rockedge PUD would evaporate. So there would be no -- there would functionally be no coverage. To the extent that the landlord -- or that the developer/objector has stated that there may be some coverage out there currently -- there's actually case law on this. Once a carrier identifies a certain -- a specific use pattern such as, in this case, in-home coverage, that is -- the absence of coverage sufficient to serve that use pattern is a gap in coverage, even if there's a lower level of coverage available. And I can pull that opinion up if you need it. COMMISSIONER FRY: If what you're saying is that when we have limited signal strength, our coverage suffers and we suffer, then I get that. MS. JAHN: Yes, sir, to the point that the federal courts even recognize that. COMMISSIONER FRY: So you're saying that your map shows that by reducing the height to 100 feet, the coverage of the Waterman/Rockedge PUD would be diminished significantly? MS. JAHN: Yes, sir, and I can actually have Mr. Compton come up and speak on that. COMMISSIONER FRY: Who is Mr. Compton? MS. JAHN: Bill Compton is the RF engineer for Verizon who is assigned to this site. He actually prepared the propagation maps that are on your -- that are the PowerPoint, and he is available today. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd definitely like to hear from him, and I have one other question for him as well. MS. JAHN: Absolutely. Mr. Compton, please step up. State your name and address. MR. BELLOWS: Go to the center one. MR. COMPTON: Hi. My name is William Compton. William Compton. Address is 7701 East Telecom Parkway, Tampa, Florida. I'm not familiar, actually, with exactly where this PUD that they're talking is. Can someone show it to me on the actual map? MS. JAHN: Mr. Compton, it is immediately to the southeast and north. MR. COMPTON: Yeah, absolutely. So something that's also not being mentioned is in the good old days of 2G and 3G technology, basically, as long as your phone had coverage, it actually had a connection with the tower. If you sustained a phone call, you were good. That was all you needed. Newer technology, 4G, and even more specifically 5G technology going forward, the actual connection is what we call adaptive modulation. A good example of that would be if I held up a piece of paper right here in front of the Board with standard font, no one sitting there would probably be able to read it. If I held up a huge letter A, you'd be able to read that A. That same amount of information getting through at the distance you are, basically, kind of illustrates what we can do from an RF perspective. So the closer you are to a cell site, the finer print, the more information you can get through from an RF standpoint. Like I said -- I'm kind of dumbing down the scenario but, like I said, it's called adaptive modulation that's out on the web. It's -- in the earlier days the technology was very proprietary and kept under close guard. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 40 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 36 of 59 The 4G technologies and going forward, they're kind of universal. They're nation -- not a nationwide. They're worldwide. So any of the standards can be read so, therefore, we can share them with zoning boards and that kind of stuff. We're not sharing any proprietary information for Verizon Wireless because T-Mobile's using it. Sprint's using it. Every other carrier's using it. COMMISSIONER FRY: If these people are only a couple hundred feet away, and you're talking about the reduction of 150 feet to 100 feet, the coverage map seems to show that their coverage would evaporate largely. MR. COMPTON: Right. COMMISSIONER FRY: But properties in other directions seem to have coverage. Does it vary by direction for some reason, or is it just purely a measure of the height of the trees and other obstacles? MR. COMPTON: Yeah. One thing that's kind of hard to pick up is -- actually, on the map, if you look at the map on your computer screens, there's actually red, green, and blue little pie wedges coming out right where the sites are. That graphically illustrates the direction of the antennas on the cell towers. Early cell technology, we basically had what we called an omni site. It covered 360 degrees around the site and, therefore, everybody locked onto that site that was in any direction. As we needed more capacity, what we've done is we've done what we've called sectorization. So each one of those pie sectors can carry the same amount of traffic as that big overall site, but we've basically taken the coverage area of the site and divided it into thirds so we can get more capacity out in the areas. There is technology -- we can go to four sectors now. Once we go beyond that, there's limiting factors that basically make it so it doesn't make it worthwhile to go to 30 sectors or something like, but, basically that shows you why some of those sector wedges are going on -- the coverage is going out further in directions, because there's basically a directionality to that antenna. COMMISSIONER FRY: If you reduced it to 100 feet, would you be able to change the antenna pattern in order to restore coverage in that area for that development and other properties beyond that? MR. COMPTON: For that development right underneath it, absolutely. Well -- if we were to lower it to 100 feet -- that development underneath it, the problem with that is back to that adaptive modulation. If you're not within a certain distance, the further you go away from a cell site, the further you're -- the less service level you get. The slower speeds would be what most people recognize as -- so if you ran a speed test or something like that and you're five miles away from a cell site, you're going to get very slow speeds. If you're right underneath the site, you're going to get very fast speeds. That is directly functional to, once again, are you reading a full sheet of paper sitting here, or are you reading just the letter A, and now I have to hold up the letter B to start belling out a word to you. COMMISSIONER FRY: But their distance from the cell tower would not change. Only the height of the tower would change. So how does that impact their service? MR. COMPTON: Because, once again, it's a function of the distance and also, when we're trying to -- if you try and cover further away -- there's only so much energy that we can get out of an antenna. And if I want to cover you, I don't cover this gentleman. I don't cover this gentleman over here. I'm covering that way. So if we were going to try and make up for the coverage loss -- because that would be our first primary factor. If Verizon Wireless was faced with the concept of lowering this site from 150 to 100 feet or 105 feet, whatever that height is, our first primary concern is to try and get coverage back out to those far users. They're the customers that are on it today so, therefore, there would be more energy there. Less energy right underneath the tower. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So you have a limited amount of broadcast power, and you have to basically aim it where you need it; is what you're saying? MR. COMPTON: Exactly (unintelligible). THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Could you slow down, sir? THE COURT REPORTER: I don't even know what you're saying. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 41 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 37 of 59 MR. COMPTON: Sorry. Yeah. The RF engineers, we kind of reference -- it's kind of like trying to wrestle an old waterbed mattress. You kind of pick it up in one direction, and all the water goes the other way. It's -- RF is the same kind of thing. We're trying to direct it -- we're trying to get a fountain hose going in a certain direction. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sir, please slow down. MR. COMPTON: Sorry. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I don't think he can talk slower. MR. COMPTON: I'll try. COMMISSIONER FRY: One last question, sir. Over here. A lot of concern these days about RF signals, radiation; 5G has a lot of concern about impacts on us. Is there any -- what are the concerns -- viable concerns about the radiation impacts of being close to a cell tower? MR. COMPTON: Okay. From the tower itself -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Speaking very slowly, of course. MR. COMPTON: Very slowly. From the tower itself, basically, once your -- the FCC recognized this. Once you're 30 to 50 feet away from an antenna, even if you're right in front of the antenna, basically we're allowed to build sites as long as we're using -- let me back up. All the equipment that Verizon uses -- Verizon doesn't build a cell phone. They don't build a tower. They don't build the radios that go on the tower. They don't build the antennas. All of those pieces of equipment are type accepted, and what that means is -- most people are familiar, you flip over your toaster at your house, and it says, underwriter laboratories, UL listed. What that means is someone has tested that particular article and made sure it's not going to burst into flames with a bagel in it or anything else. Basically, that same type of testing is done. That's part of the reason for the 1996 Telecom Act in that what we're actually implementing out in the field, the FCC has already tested. They've done every different scenario of that radio, of this different antenna, this different height or whatever, and they've basically said that, intrinsically, as long as Verizon stays within those guidelines, which we have to maintain because we're an FCC wireless service, we have to actually maintain those guidelines. So we maintain those guidelines. We're tested once a year on every single one of our cell sites. We maintain all that documentation for the FCC. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if you're more than 30 feet away from the tower, you're not at a significant radiation risk; is that what you were saying? MR. COMPTON: That's basically what I'm referring to, because nowadays the new thing is or -- is small cells. How close can you get to a small-cell antenna? And a lot of times the limiting factor on the small-cell antenna is we can't go too low because we don't want to get too close to people for that RF emissions problem that you're talking about. So a lot of times you'll see this. Well, why can't you go at the 10-foot light pole that's in this neighborhood? We're too low. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. MS. JAHN: If I may, just to follow up on Mr. Compton. Mr. Compton, are Verizon's facilities compliant with FCC regulations? MR. COMPTON: Absolutely. At all times. MS. JAHN: When you said standing in front of a 30-foot distance from an antenna, did you mean directly in front on same level of that antenna? If you were -- if the antenna was mounted on the ground and you were standing in front of it, that's the distance you were referencing, correct? MR. COMPTON: That's correct, which, obviously, 100-foot monopole, 150-foot monopole is pretty much impossible. MS. JAHN: Additionally, do objects in the foreground -- if the tower becomes shorter, do objects in the foreground present more scattering effect than they would have if the tower was taller? MR. COMPTON: Absolutely. That was the reason for my illustration in the map where it was the crude drawing where I basically showed the height of a tower and all the clutter that was involved. The tower -- the antenna -- the trees and that kind of stuff in the way. That's on the screen right now. That was a 5.A.a Packet Pg. 42 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 38 of 59 reason for my illustration of that. Basically, the lower we go. The more we get into the clutter. Instead of seeing you above everything, we're now playing -- actually, RF is coming through objects. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. No more speakers. MR. BELLOWS: No more speakers. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And rebuttal is complete. MS. JAHN: If I may just bring the Commission's attention to one more thing under RF emissions. Subjective evidence basically saying, "well, I can get a call out there" is not enough to refute the testimony and studies of an RF engineer. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MS. JAHN: So... CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. With that, we will close the public speaking portion of this hearing and deliberate at the Planning Commission level. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Joe. I didn't see you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Question of staff. Where did staff go? Tim? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Sure. Go ahead. MR. FINN: Yes. Hello. For the record, I'm Tim Finn. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Tim, questions. We heard testimony regarding cost, price, and everything else. Is stock price an issue in regards to a variance, whether an applicant can afford or not afford or stock price -- the impact on stock an issue? MR. FINN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is cost an issue? MR. FINN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Is the wealth of the applicant an issue? MR. FINN: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The size of the business an issue? MR. FINN: No, it's not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just want to make -- put that on the record. That has nothing -- all those issues have nothing to do with it. MR. FINN: No. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Does the stated impact on a local community on property value or subjective valuation that there may be an impact to property value in and around the facility -- a vicinity of the tower have an impact on the decision? MR. FINN: No, it does not. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So none of those issues are relevant in this case? MR. FINN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The only issue is the fact that -- the variance request and what Mr. Pires stated in regards to the reasons for denying it, but all those other issues that were discussed are irrelevant? MR. FINN: Right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other questions from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Let's now close the public hearing portion of the meeting and enter the phase of Planning Commission deliberation and discussion. Who would like to lead off? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll start. The issue is -- it's a serious issue. The thousands of applicants that come in and across the desk -- and, of course, during my time in staff, so it's probably a bit 5.A.a Packet Pg. 43 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 39 of 59 jaded view. But errors are made. And it's unfortunate if the staff made an error, but errors are made. It's a judgment call. Staff reviews an application based on the criteria that they have in front of them. And we can point figures -- fingers. I guess maybe we can have hangings at noon until morale improves or whatever but, regardless, the -- mistakes have -- they do happen. But in this case, I think it was a matter of timing. And the application was submitted. It was approved based on the material at that time. And I know Mr. Pires refutes that based on the sequence of events, but I really don't find any significant hardship. The hardship, of course, would be -- it's stated, but the choice here is reduce the height, and the only way you can reduce the height is to replace the pole or move the pole, and I don't think there's sufficient justification to warrant that decision. I would support the petition, the variance. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other planning commissioner want to weigh in? Go ahead, Karl. COMMISSIONER FRY: Well, I am sensitive to the Waterman/Rockedge PUD's sensitivity to the aesthetic concerns; however, in the absence of photos, I'm not be able to even really evaluate the extent that that might be detrimental to them in the selling of their properties. I do think that they have a mixed bag in that, while this was built -- maybe, you know, approved without the zoning maps being updated, they have a taller tower which, in fact, results in better coverage for their residents. And whether they ask about that when they purchase the home or not, I can tell you that every person in this room -- I'm going to go out on a limb and say every person in this room is happier to have stronger cell coverage than not, and it gets more important every day in our lives. So I don't believe I could vote against this based on that exception. I would invite them, as Mr. Pires said he would do, take photos to the County Commission if it gets approved here and state your case there and solidify what the hardships are on this homeowner. But we are -- I think there's demonstrated a very significant hardship not only on Verizon in reducing the cell tower height, partly because of the new engineering of these poles that Joe eluded to where we have a crimp point. They can't just cut it off at 100 feet and put the antennas back on. They have to reengineer a crimp point at a lower ratio of the new height, and that would be rebuilding from scratch. So I'm convinced that is a significant cost and hardship to them. I'm also of the opinion, from all the evidence we've heard, that it's a significant hardship on many residents that are now enjoying the benefits of the tower at its current height that would lose coverage. So for those reasons, while I'm sensitive to the -- that's kind of a raw deal in one way for the Rockedge PUD. It's also a blessing, I guess, that down the road residents may appreciate it. I'd have a -- I could not -- I have to vote in favor of it based on what I've heard. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any other planning commissioners wish to be heard? If not -- COMMISSIONER SHEA: Ned? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes, Paul. Yes, go ahead. COMMISSIONER SHEA: I agree with everything that both Joe and Karl have said. I have been to the site, and this idea of something being objective is very subjective. I've been to the site and looked at it in a lot of different directions, and I guess I didn't see, the way it's laid out, that it would be that much of an adverse impact on the residents of the newer homes. So I don't know that pictures would help that much on it. So as Karl and Joe said, I would support the resolution as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm going to support it, too. I agree with everything that's been said. And I think it's been there, and I think it's necessary for the cell towers and cell service for everyone now. It's necessary. And this is a variance, and I see that Rockedge had 10 of them, so -- and some of them were for less buffering, so, you know -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- it works both ways. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 44 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 40 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'd entertain a motion at this time. COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved, approval. If you want to read the number, I move for approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's going to take me a minute to get that. We probably don't need to. COMMISSIONER FRY: Do we need to read it? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I don't think so. COMMISSIONER FRY: I move for approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second -- (indicating) second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor of approval, please say aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIMAN FRYER: It passes unanimously, five to nothing. Thank you very much. Let's see. I don't think it would be productive to start the next matter unless members of the Planning Commission would like to use 13 minutes to do so. We've got a hard stop at 12:00 noon. MR. BELLOWS: We have two public speakers that are attending virtually. Do you want to hear from them first or have them come back after the break? CHAIRMAN FRYER: What's the Planning Commission wish? COMMISSIONER FRY: I'd love to use the time and hear from them, if there's no objection. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: That's fine. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: This is the Richland communications tower? MR. BELLOWS: Correct. COMMISSIONER FRY: We're already versed in some of the issues. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. We're tower experts now. Well, then, anyone who wishes to testify on this matter, please rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn and indicated in the affirmative.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Disclosures, ex parte from the Planning Commission, starting with the secretary. COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials and communications with staff. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing, just the staff materials. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Again, only staff materials. MR. BELLOWS: Mr. Chairman, I do have a clarification to make. I was informed the people who are participating online are actually with the applicant's team. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, all right. Well, they can be able to get more time that way. All right. So those are -- those are the only people who are going to speak. MR. BELLOWS: That's correct. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Part of the applicant's group. COMMISSIONER FRY: Did Mr. Shea give his disclosures? I just -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I have nothing other than staff materials. Thank you. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 45 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 41 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. All right. Well, in that event, I suggest that we -- that we break for lunch and take an hour and 11 minutes, an hour and, yeah, 11 minutes, and return here at 1:00 with another court reporter. Without objection, we're in recess. (A luncheon recess was had from 11:48 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.) P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN FRYER: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a quorum. Commissioner Shea is on the phone, and I know that Commissioner Schmitt will be in momentarily. So before we go to Item No. 3, I'm going to ask Jeremy Frantz to raise a question having to do with our meeting schedule, and then find out what the pleasure of the Planning Commission is on resolving this issue, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Good afternoon. Jeremy Frantz for the record. We have five separate petition types, or items, currently scheduled for the July 16th Planning Commission meeting. It covers really only three separate projects. Two of those projects have requested to be heard in the afternoon due to some conflicts, and so that would only leave us with a very short agenda in the morning, and then either the need to break until the afternoon to hear the remainder of the meeting, or, you know, I wanted to put that to you all, if you had another way that you want to address those two items? CHAIRMAN FRYER: So two -- actually, four of these items are companions, two and two? MR. FRANTZ: Right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And then the fifth item is a HEX matter? MR. FRANTZ: That's right. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So, I guess, the question is what do we want to do about the 16th of July? The -- both petitioners have requested an afternoon hearing. We really, undoubtedly, couldn't get to both of them before 4 or 4:30, I would have to guess. So the question is, do we schedule one of them, but then we're going to have some downtime, if we start the HEX item, undoubtedly we will, at 9:00. So what is the -- what's the preference of the Planning Commission? COMMISSIONER FRY: I won't be here so -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: So you don't care? COMMISSIONER FRY: -- I'm not committed to either outcome. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Karen, what do you think? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We can then start in the afternoon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I suppose we could do that. MR. FRANTZ: The expected hearing time that we have for that date is four and a half hours for all of the items. MR. KLATZKOW: Are these items that need to go to the Board of County Commissioners? MR. FRANTZ: Yes, except for the one that has not asked for the later time. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. So it's not going to get to the board until September anyway... COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, so, let's look at -- I'm thinking about possibly doing away with the next July meeting, if we can find a way of scheduling these, that would work for everyone concerned. Do you have any suggestions, Jeremy? MR. FRANTZ: Well, you -- I mean, you could just continue those items, rather than trying to hear them on that date. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. FRANTZ: We brought the -- brought the discussion to you all, just because we're trying to keep the schedule of the Planning Commission items moving forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Appreciate that. So you -- so we would continue the two that want afternoon slotting. Would we continue it indefinitely or to a date certain? MR. FRANTZ: We could avoid re-advertising if we did a date certain. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Would we -- how does September look? MR. FRANTZ: Well, I don't know that we need to go all the way out to September. We -- we could 5.A.a Packet Pg. 46 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 42 of 59 potentially continue them to an August hearing date. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Then would that make for a pretty long day for us? I mean, potentially, we can go to 4:30, I guess. If we don't make it, we just, you know, continue the items. MR. FRANTZ: We were hoping to the hear the RLSA related changes to the GMP on the 20th of August. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: We could potentially look at scheduling a special meeting for that particular hearing, and leave these two petitions on that date, and that would not result in an extra long day for you then. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. And then we can -- the HEX matter is on for July 16th, we'll just defer that to the HEX? MR. KLATZKOW: You should have a HEX on board by then. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. So does that work with the noticing and the like? MR. FRANTZ: We'll work with the County Attorney's Office on that end. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MR. FRANTZ: And given that it's scheduled for the 16th, it's already been advertised for the Planning Commission, so we'll just work with them on that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. But we don't want to assemble together to just hear one HEX matter. MR. FRANTZ: Understood. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. All right. So I think -- what do you think, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: We're doing them all on the 20th or on August 6th? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, first of all, I think what we're saying is that we're not going to meet on July 16th. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And we're going to defer the HEX matter to the HEX, and the two items -- the two matters -- the two companion items that want to be heard in the afternoon, we will continue them to a date certain, so as to avoid the need to advertise, and that date certain would be? MR. FRANTZ: August 20th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Both of them for August 20th? MR. FRANTZ: (Nodded head.) COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Do they still need to be in the afternoon? MR. FRANTZ: I couldn't tell you that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Well, we'll continue them to August 20th, and we'll see what we can get accomplished. If they both need to be in the afternoon, we'll hear what we can until 4:30. Otherwise, we can rearrange the schedule. We can put the other one on the first meeting in September. MR. FRANTZ: Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. But as long as we continue the two -- the four companion items to a date certain, we don't need to re-advertise? MR. FRANTZ: As long as it's within a certain period of time. If we're looking at August, then we should be fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So does anybody object to us not meeting on July 16th, in accordance with what we've just outlined? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Question. Question, Ed? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. Go ahead, Paul. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a problem just doing it on the same day and starting later? I guess I'm kind of -- I don't want to see us back things up too much, and since everybody has their date clear already on the 16th, it would be nice to get some of this behind us. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, that's a valid point. In the interest of full disclosure, I commute to these meetings from New York. So it would -- it would be helpful if I didn't have to come back, but that's just me, and we'll find out the will of the full Planning Commission. What's your thoughts, Karen? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it doesn't make any difference to me. You could still be on remotely. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I can be on remotely, yeah. I wanted to -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: You won't be here? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 47 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 43 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: No. I wanted to save that possibly for August. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, okay, August. Well, it doesn't matter either way. If you wanted to do them all remote, I don't -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, Paul, as far as our scheduling is concerned, the way we would do this is, we're not going to work, you know, until six in the evening or seven in the evening. We will put in a full day from nine to, say, 4:30, and then we'll get as much done as we can, and to the extent that we can't complete an item that is -- that is under discussion, we'll just continue the balance of that hearing to the next meeting, and we'll catch up eventually. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So who else is -- Joe's not here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: It would be nice to know what Joe wanted to do. COMMISSIONER FRY: Joe is in the hallway completing a call. He'll be in shortly. Just as an input for your consideration -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- I think as in looking forward, my hope is to continue on a regular schedule and not have to schedule -- minimize the number of special meetings that we have to call, if that was a possibility? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I'm thinking that we may not need a special meeting, and we need to be in management of our own agenda here, and we'll meet twice a month from nine until 4:30, and we'll keep doing that until we, you know, we clear the backlog. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: What was it? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Is there a -- is there an option, Ed, why don't -- they asked us to move them to the afternoon. Well, why don't we say, "No, we'll do them it the morning. Can you make it?" CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I suppose we could. We try to accommodate when we can, and in this situation, you know, I think we can accommodate them without having to lay on a special meeting, or meeting after 4:30. It just may take us another couple of weeks to catch up, or possibly four weeks, but it seems to me, we'll catch up. Joe, what would you think about us not having a meeting on July 16th? Would that give you heartburn not to be able to come in here and be with us? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I will be very upset about that. So are we talking about just having a meeting in the afternoon? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we could. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Two petitioners have requested the afternoon on the 16th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Correct, on the 16th in the afternoon. Why not just schedule -- MR. BELLOWS: Well, there are only three items, so one would be over early in the morning and you'd have to take a longer break in between. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Well, why not just have all three in the afternoon? MR. BELLOWS: We can do that. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Schedule a 1:00 start, instead of a nine; is that doable? CHAIRMAN FRYER: It's doable. COMMISSIONER FRY: Does that present a hardship on you, Ed, with your -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, Vice Chairman Karen will preside and I'll dial in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Or are you looking to just schedule for another day in July? I'm open. CHAIRMAN FRYER: My thought is, is that we've got a bit of a backlog, but, eventually, I would say, you know, two or four weeks later than originally scheduled, we should be able to work through that backlog, and my proposal is that we continue meeting two days a month, you know -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: -- semimonthly, and we'll meet from nine to 4:30 each day, and if we're in the middle of something, we'll continue it until the next meeting and we'll just do it that way, rather than have a special meeting. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. And the HEX item that's set up for July 16, we can simply roll that over to 5.A.a Packet Pg. 48 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 44 of 59 the HEX. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I believe that's the right thing to do. If we have a HEX now, and just defer all the HEX matters to the HEX. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we don't have a contract with the HEX yet, but, presumably, I look to the County Attorney, and I assume that that is foreseeable? MS. HOMIAK: That was one that was requested for August. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, we're finalizing the agreement now. I just am hopeful to get the agreement onto the next board meeting, which means you can commence August, September. THE COURT: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: I don't expect you guys to hear another HEX matter. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good, that would be my preference, in fact. So, I mean, we can meet on Thursday -- on the 16th in the afternoon, and hear one of these two afternoon preference meetings, or we could -- we could continue them both to a date certain where they don't have to be re-advertised, and we don't have to come in on July 16th. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Doesn't matter to me either way. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, I don't -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: I would dial in from out of town rather than come in for one -- for one afternoon, which I -- and I prefer to be physically present. Although, Karen does a better job; is easier to look at, too. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Oh, no, I don't know. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, I'm going to make an executive decision. If there's violent disagreement, I'll retract it, but let's not meet on the 16th of July, and let's schedule the two afternoon items to the first available date certain, and we'll just come in here twice a month, and we'll see what we can get through. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That's fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Does that work? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Works for me. COMMISSIONER FRY: I would like to express my violent disagreement. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You who will not be here on the 16th? COMMISSIONER FRY: That's correct. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: He was looking forward to lunch, that's all. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: So our next meeting is the 6th -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Of August. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: -- of August? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Right. And we'll probably hear one of those afternoon items on the 6th, and there's a HEX item on the 6th, but that -- they've specifically requested us; is that what I remember you saying? MR. FRANTZ: That was for the 16th. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh. MR. FRANTZ: -- but you're deferring those to the HEX, so that will be fine. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. All right. MR. FRANTZ: And then we'll also work with the applicants, just to make sure they're not going to have another scheduling issue on whichever the next day is. CHAIRMAN FRYER: OKAY. All right. MR. FRANTZ: The CCPC meeting for your -- for the 16th was already advertised, so we'll have to make sure, you know, to continue those items appropriately, so that they don't -- aren't required to re-advertise if we can avoid that. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good. Okay. Are we all on -- MR. BELLOWS: So what date are you moving it to? CHAIRMAN FRYER: We're not going to meet on the 16th of July. One of the two afternoon items will be put on for the 6th, and the other on the 20th, or you probably need to work it out with the petitioners. MR. BELLOWS: They might want to know what date, if they're watching. I think you have to say which petition is for the 6th. MR. FRANTZ: I recommend continuing them both to August 20th. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 49 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 45 of 59 CHAIRMAN FRYER: Fine. That's, without objection, that's what we're going. Thank you, and thank you, Jeremy. MR. FRANTZ: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now we're ready for Item 3, and I apologize to the Petitioner for a little bit of a delay. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: So no meeting on the 16th? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No meeting on July 16th; correct. All right. This is PL20180003229, the Ridgeland Communications Tower Variance. Again, our role is recommendatory to the BZA. All those wishing to testify in this matter, please, rise to be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. Ex parte disclosures, starting with the secretary? COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Staff materials, same with me, and also a word or two with staff. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just staff materials. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff materials only. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We'll begin with the applicant's presentation. Please proceed. Introduce yourself and proceed, after everything has been cleaned up. And, also, for the purposes of conducting this hearing and the subsequent ones, we've got two podiums here. So while one is being cleaned, the speaker can proceed to the other podium, and we can avoid the delay. Go ahead, ma'am. MS. KOLE: Good afternoon. My name is Katie Kole, K-O-L-E, with Hill, Ward, Henderson Law Firm, representing the applicant, which is Crown Castle USA. So, first, in light of that last conversation, I first wanted to say thank you for having these hearings, despite some of the virtual quasi-judicial nature of them. We are one of the applicants that has been sitting in limbo for several weeks and months at this point. So I just wanted to say thank you to the staff and to you all for committing to getting these applications moving on, moving forward. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MS. KOLE: As you see in your staff report and in the site plan application, this is a request to relocate a tower -- well, the request before you today is for a variance in height for a tower that is intended to be relocated less than a half mile from its current location, to the proposed location in the Pebblebrooke Shopping Center. The existing tower was on a site that was subsequently purchased by Standard Pacific and is being developed as part of the residential PUD, resulting in the nonconforming -- the tower becoming nonconforming, with respect to setbacks to residential. You all spent a lot of time this morning talking about this. I fear, and in talking with staff, understand that this may be a recurring theme with wireless communications towers in the future, based on the development that's occurring in Collier County, and in some of these more rural areas. In this instance, the applicant searched for about three years for a suitable replacement. The existing tower is 200 feet tall, and I'll go through some of that information, but after identifying several different sites, this is the site that became apparent so... Why is this site important? Some overviews about wireless phone usage; 96 percent of Americans own a cell phone, 57 percent rely exclusively on their phones, and 80 percent or more of 911 emergency calls were made from wireless devices. So this is an area that's very near the hospital, and would take calls directly to the hospital there. The 190-foot wireless communications tower is within the Ridgeland PUD behind the existing commercial uses. It's buffered from the residential uses by the existing wetlands and preserve rands -- lands. It is already -- it's a kind of a unique site, because there's a parking area and storm water pond in the back, and so the applicant has been working with SFWMD and the engineers, to confirm that this was buildable, and so we did receive our SFWMD Permit, and so wanted to move forward with the variance and site plan application subsequently. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 50 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 46 of 59 Without the construction of the proposed tower, there will be a loss of coverage for this area, very specifically. In 1998 the existing tower was constructed at a height of 199 feet, and it's operated uninterrupted for that time with both T-Mobile and Verizon as the two current carriers on that tower. Both of those carriers are proposed to relocate to the new tower, and the search for a new tower was based -- was contingent upon that. This is the elevation of the proposed tower. You can see the two towers at the height of 180 and 190, with the top of the tower at 195. This is lower than what the existing tower is, but was the minimum height available for the carriers to maintain the coverage. There are two additional antennas based on your collocation and shared tower ordinances, that can be placed on there in the future, but, honestly, at that height, it may not be likely that they would get anybody on this -- any additional users on that tower. This is an example. You can see where the existing tower is, and the new residential area that was approved there, and relocated to the back, because this is the corner of Immokalee and Collier Boulevard. This is the existing coverage by Verizon. The RF maps, and I will shortcut some of these, because you all had an extensive lesson on RF propagation maps earlier today. So I was laughing, if this was the final hearing, I would have incorporated much of that into the record for myself. But you can see that the darker shade represents the existing in-building coverage, and the lighter is in-vehicle coverage, if you're out and about, perhaps able to catch that cell; subject to all of the caveats that you heard earlier today about ground clutter and the height and whatnot. The proposed coverage, there's a very little change in the coverage area. You can see between the two, so there -- this is existing, this is proposed, so the intention of a relocation is to find a site extremely close, and at the same or greater height so you can maintain that coverage. T-Mobile, here is an existing map of their existing coverage, and the proposed coverage. So, again, a very minimal change in coverage on the whole coverage, because of this height variance, and the ability to maintain that coverage at this height. There were three different sites that were located, identified, that had various constraints before this site was determined to be a viable tower site for the relocation. This is an excellent coverage analysis to show if you can look in the bottom -- bottom right corner, you can see that this is the T-Mobile figures, just generally on their one tower, and you can see that the photo on the exhibit on the left, is the towers with the T-Mobile, and on the right is totally without it. So instead of relocating, this would be if that tower went away. The existing site is going away 100 percent. The PUD that is approved does not allow that tower. The landlord has advised that that tower must be removed, and so it is going away, and so this is the replacement tower proposed. Similar, you can see the local footprint and population calls, one of the issues with towers was obviously the 911 capabilities and the emergency calls, and so this is just an exhibit that shows many of those emergency calls that came off of this one tower. So the variances requested, there are two, an increase of height from 185 to 195 feet, and then a -- the use of a chain-link fence where an opaque wall is otherwise required. The criteria for a variance are very specific, and so the site plan criteria, we'll go through with staff at site plan stage, but for this purpose, there are special conditions and circumstances peculiar with the characteristics of the land and structure. This property is in the rear. It's located in a storm water pond and surrounded, generally, by wetland and preserve area, meaning the tower height needs to be increased to reach out to the areas that it is going to serve. With respect to the chain-link fence, the pond is regulated by SFWMD, and the county, of course, in putting the footers and hard wall fence in this area would be difficult, if not impossible. The existing tower is being replaced of a tower of similar height with services, and there -- the pond is in the preexisting location. I won't go through each one of these. It was included in your packet. We can answer any questions if you have of them, but this is the minimum variance necessary. I did want to highlight, just so you can see the design of the tower on -- and the fence details on Sheet Z2 and Z3 of the site plan that were included in your package, and you can see on the aerial this will be a platform, and so the tower will actually come out of the ground, kind of as a platform on pillars. So that's the reason for the fence would -- instead of being in the ground, would be on top of the platform 5.A.a Packet Pg. 51 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 47 of 59 there. As you can see in the staff report, the proposed communications tower is deemed an essential use and provides essential cellular service to the residential communities, and a necessary purpose to support the hospital and emergency services. The tower is going from 185 to 195, and that ten-foot difference is necessary for the -- to maintain the coverage. The original -- as you saw in the staff report, based on the staff analysis, the preapplication asked that carriers were looking for a tower that was upwards of 250 feet tall, and the applicant and the staff worked together with Verizon and T-Mobile to bring that down to 195. While not ideal, that allowed for the tower to not require any separation requirements, and to really ensure that it was as great a distance from any of the closest residential areas as possible. This is just some information about Crown Castle and the company. So with that, I know your staff report went through each of the criteria, the application went through each of the criteria, provided the RF propagation maps, and showed the evidence with the reduction, and we would be happy to answer questions. Crown Castle does have a travel ban right now for its employees due to COVID-19, and so on the phone is Sunny Piper and Phillip Cochran from Crown Castle. In the event you had any specific questions with respect to how these towers work, again, you had quite a lessen this morning, but they can answer them, if I cannot, if you would allow them to do so, Mr. Chair. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. No one is lit up, so I'll just ask the question generally. Any Planning Commissioners have questions for the Applicant or comments? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: None from me. I'm good. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Paul, are you okay? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I did have one question. In reading the agenda item, it describes one of the variances to require only one chain-link fence. What does that mean? MS. KOLE: That it -- and perhaps, I don't know if Mr. Bellows or Mr. Finn wants to respond? I'm happy to respond. The code has a requirement that there has to be an exterior opaque fence, and this is going to allow a chain-link fence, et al, and it's presuming that there's landscaping, an opaque fence, and other fences surrounding the equipment. So this will allow a single fence surrounding the compound as a whole on top of the platform. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Does the code require two fences? MS. KOLE: I believe, yes, it requires an opaque fence around the compound, and then it requires the equipment to be fenced otherwise. COMMISSIONER SHEA: So that opaque fence and a chain-link could be combined into one fence. Why was -- why do we require two fences? Maybe this is more a question for the county? MR. FINN: For the record, Tim Finn, Principal Planner. For communications towers, it requires an opaque wall, but they're requesting this petition is a chain-link fence to allow a free water flow into the retention pond. COMMISSIONER SHEA: All right. I understand that. I'm just wondering why does it say it requires only one chain-link fence? CHAIRMAN FRYER: And, Paul, I had the very same question, and I think it was just misworded. It's -- what's required, I believe, is a wall. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: And the variance would allow for -- MR. FINN: Just a wall. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah, allow for a fence, which would manage the water, the surface water better. MR. FINN: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Anything else, Paul? COMMISSIONER SHEA: No, that's it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: May I request an aerial, I guess, an aerial view of this site, so we can all understand exactly what we're -- what we're planning? From what I can gather this is a -- it's a dry retention area that gets water in the summertime, and you're going to put the tower on a platform in the middle of that? MS. KOLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: And then the chain-link fence goes on the outside, on the perimeter of the 5.A.a Packet Pg. 52 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 48 of 59 retention area, or in the water around the platform? MS. KOLE: I'm looking for the planning use sheet, so I can guide you, point you to where it is in your -- there's an existing chain-link fence in the storm water pond already, because the code requires that on the outside of the storm water pond. So as it's developed, and if you look on Sheet L1 of your site plan that was included, and I don't have the page number of your agenda packet, but in the site plan agenda packet, L1, it's the landscape plan. COMMISSIONER FRY: I have T's and Z's in my -- in my zoning plan. I'm not sure where -- MS. KOLE: After Z6 starts Z8, L1. COMMISSIONER FRY: Mine -- I guess they are multiple copies because mine stops at Z6 and goes into the petition application, so maybe I need -- MR. BELLOWS: Do we have something on the visualizer? MS. KOLE: This is the landscape plan, and you can see the fence is proposed to be on the edge of the platform. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. So the entire -- even with the -- it looks like it has plantings around it also -- MS. KOLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: -- trees and bushes, that entire structure is within the wet retention area? MS. KOLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Any other questions of the Petitioner? COMMISSIONER FRY: I do have one. I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER FRY: We talked earlier about crimp points and the fact that they shouldn't fall on anything. MS. KOLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Isn't there a parking lot surrounding this, around the perimeter of this entire -- wouldn't the tower fall on those cars, or is it all self-contained within the area itself? MS. KOLE: Sure. The -- on Sheet Z1 is the overall site plan. In the fall zone radius that's certified by the engineer on this tower is 137 feet, there is parking surrounding this. The -- the actual setback to the edge of this property, you can see, is over 155 feet, but as was described earlier, the tower would fall in half onto itself at the 137-foot mark, but in the event it didn't, could there be an issue if there were a car in the back, perhaps, but, honestly, these parking spaces are not used at all. There's sufficient parking in the front of the parking, in the front of the shopping center. I've never seen a car back there in all of the times I've looked. COMMISSIONER FRY: So where is the fall radius shown on that? MS. KOLE: It's not shown on this. I was just telling you there's a fall zone letter. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. It seems relevant to me to see where that fall radius falls. So we're saying that fall radius falls outside of the parking spot, so it could possibly -- MS. KOLE: Excuse me. I'm sorry, Commissioner, there is a 58-foot fall radius. As you can see on the next sheet, Z2 -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. MS. KOLE: -- the dotted line is the fall radius, so the 137 radius means 137 feet of the tower remain upright, and the fall zone would -- the top of the tower would fall over itself. COMMISSIONER FRY: So if the top of the tower fell over, it would not go beyond that dotted line? MS. KOLE: No. COMMISSIONER FRY: And the parking spots are all beyond that dotted line? MS. KOLE: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Anything else from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, thank you for your presentation. We'll hear from staff. Tim? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 53 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 49 of 59 MR. FINN: For the record I'm Tim Finn, Principal Planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Any questions for staff? Nobody is lit up. COMMISSIONER FRY: I'm lit up. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Secretary Fry? MR. BELLOWS: Tim, he's got a question. MR. FINN: I'm sorry. COMMISSIONER FRY: Hey, Tim, how -- she mentioned that it started as a request for a 250-foot tower and staff worked with Verizon and T-Mobile, and, but could not get it down to 185. How did you arrive at 195 feet as being the minimum height? It's only ten feet higher than, you know, the code, so how was that arrived at, the 195 was sufficient, but as short as possible? MR. FINN: To the best of my knowledge the client couldn't do 185 feet due to coverage, whereas, 195, the extra ten feet, they can do that, and that's how they arrived at 195. COMMISSIONER FRY: She showed two additional potential antenna bands below the two that would go in day one, but then said -- seemed to caveat that with the fact that there may not be any coverage improvements, because they're not high enough? Was that -- did I hear that accurately, I guess? Yes. MS. KOLE: So the way that the coverage works, as you learned this morning, obviously, the height and the coverage can go out, as well as how the antenna are identified and where they are focused, and so if there -- there could be a user who would want to have a lower height that doesn't need the same coverage radius. So, for example, if there's a tower in the vicinity, or a closer satellite or antenna for another user, or perhaps an emergency department that doesn't need the same coverage band, they could use it at a lower height, but for the users for the replacement of the existing tower to move to this tower, this was the minimum height available for them. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you for clarifying, because I was left with the impression that possibly the tower was actually too short, really needed to be a little bit taller, so that those additional locations would be helpful, but it sounds like this does meet your needs and potential future needs? MS. KOLE: Certainly our carriers would love to have taller towers, but in light of your code and being respectful of that, this would be the minimum height that could get the carriers what they could use. COMMISSIONER FRY: Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much, and I think, were there any other questions for staff? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Do we have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: The ones that were registered were with the Applicant. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Proponents, yeah. Okay. All right. So there's no need for rebuttal, nothing to rebut, and there being no speakers, registered or otherwise, we will close the public speaking portion of the hearing and call for discussion by the Planning Commission. Who would like to start? If no one -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I have no issues. I am prepared to support the petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. COMMISSIONER FRY: I find nothing to object to in this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. Paul, how are you doing with it? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I'm doing good. I have no objections as well, and I'm prepared to support the petition. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. As am I. I'd entertain a motion then, please. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion to approve PUDZ-PL20190000734 -- oops. I read the wrong one, I'm sorry, in the record. I was already on the next one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: You can get us out of here early. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I can get her out of here early. I take that back. Petition PL20180003229 Ridgeland Communication Tower, I make a recommendation for approval -- CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: -- as proposed, subject to the -- as proposed by staff. CHAIRMAN FRYER: This is a -- this is a two-part item. There's a fence and a height. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 54 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 50 of 59 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes, both variances. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Good. Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please, say aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. Opposed? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Oh, Paul was a little late. I wasn't sure. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, Paul, you were an aye? You said you were. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Yes. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yeah. Thank you so much. Okay. Good. Thank you. MS. KOLE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Since I made the next one, we'll move right to the next one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, we don't have to, we've already approved it. COMMISSIONER FRY: Cell tower day here. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. All right. Now we go -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: A cell tower fell on my head and I moved right to the next one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We will go to -- this one is going to be our last quasi-judicial, because the very last one is legislative, I think. So that is going to be PUDZ-PL20190000734. This is the Immokalee Fair Housing Alliance PUDZ, and all those wishing to testify in this matter, please, rise and be sworn in by the court reporter. (The speakers were duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Very good. Any ex parte disclosures by the Planning Commission, start with the secretary? COMMISSIONER FRY: Staff materials. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Staff materials, as well as communications with staff, and a brief communication with the Applicant's Counsel. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Nothing, just staff materials. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Staff material only. I was out there many years ago, but not any -- in any relation to this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. We'll begin then with the Applicant's presentation. Please proceed, Mr. Pritt. COMMISSIONER FRY: I should add, I had a brief conversation with Mr. Pritt walking down the stairs at lunchtime. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Good afternoon. My name is Robert Pritt with the law firm of Roetzel and Andress, and I'm an attorney still. A lot of people have asked, "Why haven't you retired yet or something?" I'm very honored to be in front of you today. This is a little bit different for me, in that, I get to work with the Immokalee Fair Housing Coalition, Inc., and I'm going to have Dr. Arol Buntzman speak for a few minutes before we get into the details of the presentation. I think the presentation overall will be fairly short, because unlike any other time in my career, I think we agree with every single thing that the staff has done in the staff report. I mentioned that to Mr. Finn and Mr. Bellows during the break. And so what we're dealing with is an issue that, notwithstanding the changes that we've had in the last couple of months, is still a very, very important issue, and it's affordable housing, affordable housing here in Collier County, and there's so much talk about affordable housing everywhere. Way early in my career I was general counsel for a large housing authority. I thought I had heard it all by then, but we hear a lot of talk about, yeah, we've gotta do 5.A.a Packet Pg. 55 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 51 of 59 something, we've gotta do something, and Collier County is actually doing something. And I'm before you today on something that is actually being done, and we hope that this will be successful today and throughout the hearing process with the County Commission. We have every reason to think that it will be successful, because so far, I guess I better knock on wood or something, so far we have not heard any opposition. Maybe there's some that we don't know about. We've had two NIMS, two neighborhood informational meetings. They were all totally positive, and everything that we can tell so far, is that people are in favor of this in Immokalee. The speakers that I intend to present to you today would be Dr. Buntzman, and he's just going to briefly go over a little bit about what this organization is about, and what they're doing, and I think he has some petitions in support of the project. And then, secondly, we'll have Canon Sandora who's a -- who is an engineering intern with Andres Boral Engineering. Andres Boral is an engineer, registered engineer, or licensed engineer in Florida, and he is here also. Canon Sandora has been working and interacting with the county staff on a regular basis for the last, I don't even know how long, at least a year, I think, on this project and we have a, I think it's, like, only nine or ten slides, a little PowerPoint for you, if you can stand one this late in the afternoon, this late in the day. And we also have here Church Roberts. He's our environmental consultant. He's here to answer any questions that's been through environmental review by your staff, and we agree with the environmental review also, but we didn't dare not have him here, just in case there was something that might come up that we don't know about. We also -- I want to recognize, and I guess you call it a shout out now, positive, to Barron Collier Partnership. They're the owner of the property, as you can see from the application, and we appreciate their patience in getting through the process. Nobody knew that it was going to take this long, probably because a lot of it had to do with COVID, and this was an expedited project, by the way, under your rules, but there's only so much expediting you can do under these circumstances, so -- but we do want to thank them and let you know that they're very much a part of this process, and we appreciate that. And the Housing -- IFHA, we'll call it, we do call it, they've entered into an agreement with the county, and I think you have all of that in your packet to provide this affordable housing, and the level of affordable housing we will get into. We think that all of the provisions of the PUD, the proposed PUD and the four proposed PUD's, and the intended requirements in your packet, that we think that each and every one of the requirements have been met, and without going through all of them, of course we can do that, but without going through all of them, your staff has agreed and has -- and we agree with the staff, what we would like to do, this might shorten things a little bit, is we would like to ask that the staff report be incorporated into our presentation. It's a little bit of a legal term, but we'd like to have that incorporated into our presentation for -- in case there's any issue as to whether or not we have sufficient, competent, substantial evidence in the record. And with that -- oh, and the last thing, I want to thank the county staff. They've been very competent on this and they've been patient and competent, and their analysis has not always been 100 percent easy, but it's been very, very good, and so with that, I'll yield the microphone to Dr. Buntzman first, and then Canon is going to do a little presentation for you. Okay. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. DR. BUNTZMAN: Thank you, Mr. Pritt, Commissioners. I'm very happy to be here today. I wanted to share a little bit about the Immokalee Fair Housing Alliance and our motivation behind the project. My name is Arol Buntzman. I'm the Chair of the Immokalee Fair Housing Alliance. For the record, I live at 5273 Messina Street in Ave Maria. Decent, safe, affordable housing is more than a roof over people's heads. When homes are decent, safe and affordable, children are healthier and they do better in school. Workers are more productive, and families have incomes for other than just the basic needs, on a sustainable basis, while boosting the local economy. When rents consume more than half of household income, there's not enough left over for healthy food, decent clothing, childcare, early childhood education or after school programs. In Immokalee farm worker families and other low-income families that live year-round in Immokalee, often have to spend much more than 50 percent of their income on rent. The Immokalee Fair Housing Alliance was organized as a Florida not-for-profit 501C3 by an alliance of 5.A.a Packet Pg. 56 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 52 of 59 faith-based organizations, nonprofit foundations and NPO's and individuals that believes that everyone deserves a chance to live in decent, affordable, hurricane-resistant housing. IFH's plan is to develop 128, two and three-bedroom low-energy, low-maintenance housing units that can be rented to low income and very low-income families that reside in Immokalee on a year-round basis at rents they can afford. At this point I'd like to yield to Canon, and I will be happy to answer any questions afterwards. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you, sir. MR. SANDORA: Thank you, guys. Canon Sandora for Boral Engineering and Design. I'm honored as well to be a part of this project. So if we can go on to the second slides, really, is the -- oh, I can do it here. I'm figuring this one out. So as Dr. Arol shared, some of the key objectives of the project is to have it hurricane-resistant construction. We wanted it to be low-energy, low-maintenance, safe, and also a lot of community space, indoor and outdoor, we'll see that, kind of, when we get to the site plans so... And then I'm going to also share when we get to the site plan, I'm going to share the key features. As Dr. Arol mentioned it's 128 units, so that's eight, 16-unit buildings. There's also a community center. There's a preserve within a retention area, and then you have your parking, sidewalks, bicycles. There's also a half-court basketball, recreational parks, landscaping, utilities, the typical things. So here is the location of the project, the aerial of it. Right there on Lake Trafford Road by the corner of -- and adjacent to North 19th Street. So it's a nine and a half acre site. To the north you have a RPUD, which is five dwelling units per acre, and you also have a preserve, which is to the northwest area. Now, to the east you have a -- there's a residential multifamily 12 units per acre, and there's also a gas station over there. To the south there's -- it's mobile homes, mobile homes, and to the west is still vacant so... Now, here's the master site plan, which has been -- we've got staff approval on the master site plan, and we've also shared this at the neighborhood information meetings, and we've heard nothing but support for the site plan. So it's basically there's two entrances. There's one on Lake Trafford Road. There's one on North 19th Street, and then you have your basic loop that you're going to see in a lot of different communities, kind of just a simple approach within the buildings. There's eight buildings there, as well as the community center, with the detention area in the middle. You know, we have the preserve is up to the northwest, and that's 1.41 acres, so now we're at nine and a half acres and we're proposing 13.44 units per acre, so that's 128 units. So that's -- as you can see on the site plan, there's a lot of room for recreational area. So we're really looking to, you know, not just help these families, but also have an opportunity for them to get outside, have a recreational area, basketball court, and there's the community center, things of that nature so... So this project really fulfills the Immokalee Area Master Plan vision. In 2018 the -- basically the public got together and created a vision for Immokalee, which is, I'll read you a little bit of it, Immokalee is a family-oriented community that supports a healthy lifestyle. It is attractive, environmentally sustainable and offers a full range of housing, recreation and education opportunities to meet the needs -- the residents' needs. Immokalee has a safe, well-connected network to walk and bicycle about town, as well as roadway networks needed to support and transport of good services. So and then more from the Immokalee Area Master Plan is to encourage the -- about regarding affordable housing bonus density zones, to encourage the provision of affordable housing within certain subdistricts in the urban designated area. A maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre may be added to the base density, if the project meets the definitions and requirements of the Affordable Housing Bonus Density Ordinance set forth in the LDC. The staff report reflects that, that we're in compliance with the LDC. Now here's to -- as Bob was sharing about the companion agreement for affordable housing, now we have a base density for it, it's zoned RS4, and then we can have up to 12 more. So we chose to have -- now go with at least 70 percent affordable housing, as part of our agreement, which allows us to have an additional 11 units per acre. So four plus 11, that puts us at 15, so that's -- and we're proposing 13.44, so we're within the requirement there. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 57 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 53 of 59 Traffic, we prepared a -- Boral Engineering and Design prepared a traffic statement so -- and the staff found that it is -- it is sufficient. The roadways are sufficient, and they're going to be -- be able to handle the -- the traffic. So I'm going to read you a line from that, but the staff has approved with regards to traffic, so there's no issue there, but we do have a traffic consultant here, if there's any questions regarding traffic. Yes, sir? CHAIRMAN FRYER: No, I'm just waiting. Please continue. MR. SANDORA: Okay. Okay. So we do -- we are proposing one deviation, and it's regarding the parking. So Immokalee farm -- Immokalee farm workers, as well as the low-income families, don't require quite as much parking as, say, you know, a not-affordable housing. So typically you need two parking spaces per dwelling unit. Now, we propose to have 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit, so, and the staff has recommended approval for that, too. The staff has recommended approval on every respect of the project, you know, including traffic, environmental, and so forth. So we also have the environmental consultant here, if there's any questions regarding environmental, and some recommendations, approvals and support, of course, we have the Collier County staff has recommended approval, and I think the staff did a great job, too. I want to second that, on the project, and Tim Finn as a principal planner, did a great job, so we're really thankful for them. The Immokalee Local Redevelopment Area Board, the Immokalee CRA, they have wrote us a support letter. We went and met with them, and they've wrote us a support letter, and we've brought those support letters today, if you guys would like to hear them, but they're very supportive, and we're thankful for their support. The neighbors, you know, at the neighborhood information meeting, we hear nothing but support, so we're really glad. We also brought a petition of a lot of people here that have signed it. CHAIRMAN FRYER: We'll make that a part of the record. MR. BELLOWS: Yes, we'll make a copy and give a copy to the court reporter when we get a chance. MR. SANDORA: Is there any questions for me? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Yes. I'm going to ask Commissioner Fry. There was a question for you, and also Dr. Buntzman. COMMISSIONER FRY: Canon, you have 70 percent affordable housing planned in order to get to the maximum of 15 units, and you're asking for 13.44? MR. SANDORA: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: What is the -- what are the remaining 30 percent, and if this is an affordable housing complex, why is it not 100 percent affordable housing to some extent? MR. SANDORA: Well, I will say this: There's only -- we are agreeing to have at least 70 percent, so there's nothing stopping us from having 100 percent so -- COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. That's really a determination, so that you can qualify for the density that you're -- MR. SANDORA: We're qualifying for the density so... COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. My next question is for you, Dr. Buntzman. Come back up. And, first, I'll say I joined this Commission in December of 2018, and one of the very first things that I had the honor of being part of was the Immokalee Area Master Plan, which had been in the works for years and years, and we finally got it going and approved, and this seems like this is the -- one of the first applications of that new master plan; correct? DR. BUNTZMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. DR. BUNTZMAN: I think under the new master plan, that site would be zoned for R6 rather than R4. COMMISSIONER FRY: So, you know, we've heard so many references to affordable housing. It gets talked about in every PUD that comes in. We ask for affordable housing, in essential workers, and that's been done, and so finally we have a development that's actually an affordable housing development. So I'm honored to be here and actually hear affordable housing being proposed. My question is you're building 128 units. I know there's a great need in Immokalee of a lot of farm workers and families. The Immokalee Fair Housing Alliance, of which you're chairman, is this a one-and-done project for you? I guess my question is 128 units, to what extent does that address the need, and if not, are there future plans 5.A.a Packet Pg. 58 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 54 of 59 from your organization to do more? DR. BUNTZMAN: It does not address the need. The need is probably 10 to 20 times as much affordable housing that's needed. Hopefully it's not a one-and-done. The board has committed to doing as many projects as we can once this one is done, until everybody has the opportunity to live in decent, affordable, hurricane-resistant housing in Immokalee. COMMISSIONER FRY: So your -- your organization remains, even after this project, if it's approved and built, and continues that same mission moving forward? DR. BUNTZMAN: Yes, sir. COMMISSIONER FRY: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you very much. Any other Planning Commissioners have questions for the applicant? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. If not, we'll now hear from staff. MR. FINN: For the record my name is Tim Finn, Principal Planner. The project is compliant with the GMP and the rezoning criteria within the LDC; therefore, staff recommends approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Planning Commissioners have any questions or comments for staff? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Neither do I. All right. Ray, do you have any registered speakers? MR. BELLOWS: Yes. We have both speakers present and some virtual speakers as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Are they all opposed or -- MR. BELLOWS: No, they seem to be -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Supportive or opposed? MR. BELLOWS: Supportive. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. I just didn't know if they wanted to steal victory from the jaws of defeat? CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was going to raise the same thing, Joe. In anticipating there is unanimous support for this, including on this dais, I thought maybe -- well, I'm going to indicate my personal support for it, subject to, if there are negative spokespeople, I'll certainly keep an open mind and listen, but right now I find this as an entirely commendable project serving an important, unmet need, and we thank all who have been involved in bringing this forward. So that's where I am at this point, and I think I'm going to ask if any other Planning Commissioners want to sort of give a preliminary signal of where they are, that might obviate the need for everybody who wants to speak to do so? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I'll be delighted to hear anybody speak, if they wish, but I am in full support of this proposal. COMMISSIONER FRY: Barring any compelling objections, I'm in complete support as well. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: I'm in support also. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Paul, do you want to weigh in? COMMISSIONER SHEA: I am in complete support as well. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. So you've got -- you've got strong indication from all five of us that we're in support. Having said that, you have every right, and are more than welcome to speak, and speak for a full five minutes, if you wish, but it's not -- it's not necessary. I don't think you need to worry about where we're -- you're going with this. So let's -- if when your name is called, and you don't believe you need to speak, you can just wave or raise your hand and say that you don't wish to speak. Ray? MR. BELLOWS: Julia Perkins? MS. PERKINS: I'll not speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Reverend Robert Morrow? DR. BUNTZMAN: I think he had to leave. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. All right. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 59 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 55 of 59 MR. BELLOWS: Miguel Estrada? MR. ESTRADA: I pass. Thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: Dan Oberski? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. MR. BELLOWS: And then for the virtuals we have John Riley? CHAIRMAN FRYER: Mr. Riley, do you still wish to speak? MR. RILEY: No, thank you. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Who else, sir? MR. BELLOWS: Barbara Weiss? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Barbara Weiss? DR. BUNTZMAN: Barbara may be on mute. MR. BELLOWS: How about Shirley Hackerson? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's it? MR. BELLOWS: No, there's lot more. CHAIRMAN FRYER: A lot more. All right. MR. BELLOWS: Charlene Oldham? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: How about John Guest? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Sylvia Marsh? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Do we need to slow down? Barbara Heart -- or Hurt, I should say? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Richard Runnert? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Peter Rodino? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: Wow. All right. Peter -- or Melina Shrugg? (No response.) MR. BELLOWS: None of these? I've been informed we might have Charlene wishing to speak. CHAIRMAN FRYER: All right. MR. BELLOWS: So we'll try that one. CHAIRMAN FRYER: She's virtual or live? MR. BELLOWS: Virtual. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Charlene, are you there? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, it doesn't sound as though she is there. There's been a tremendous outpouring of unanimous support from the community, a voluminous petition, and we are all up here very, very happy to pass this one on with a strong enthusiastic recommendation of approval and just formalize it. MR. BELLOWS: Yeah, and each one has expressed -- noted that they are in support. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Oh, good. Okay. MR. BELLOWS: So we know these are all in support. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay, that's good. Anything further from the Planning Commission? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. We need to have three votes, and the first is on the PUD rezone. The second on EAC. Is EAC on environmental, and the third on the Affordable Housing Bonus Agreement. So let's take those one at a time. First of all on the PUDZ, is there a motion to recommend approval? 5.A.a Packet Pg. 60 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 56 of 59 COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Just in the PUD on Exhibit D, there's just a few clean-up things, I think. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Please, go ahead. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: There's one thing -- the same as principal structure maybe should be removed, because it's not in this table. MR. BELLOWS: Which page are you reading from? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Page 2 of 6 of the PUD with the Exhibit D. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. So we have a cleanup there to remove -- COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It says SPS equals same as principal structure, but it's not in the table. MR. BELLOWS: Okay. It should have a footnote, if it's not there. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Yeah, there's a footnote, but it's not referenced in the table either. MR. BELLOWS: I appreciate the comment. We'll clean that up. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: It should say structure. MR. BELLOWS: Mark Strain-like. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: There's no requirement for EAC vote on this. CHAIRMAN FRYER: I was told there was. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It states -- it's stated here the project does not require Environmental Advisory Council review, as the project did not meet EAC's scope of land development; that was in the report, so if it does we -- MR. BELLOWS: It does. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: It does. So that is incorrect in the report. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Well, it says it both ways. MR. BELLOWS: We'll have Jamie Cook come up to give a legal presentation. MS. COOK: Good afternoon, Jamie Cook, Principal Environmental Specialist. On Page 7 of 16 of the staff report, it does indicate that EAC is required because scrub jays were observed onsite. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Okay. So on 15 it doesn't, so Page 15 -- thank you for that clarification. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. All right. So on the PUDZ rezone, it's been moved. Was it seconded? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please, say aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes unanimously. Second on the EAC, again, our recommendation of approval to the county -- Board of County Commissioners. Is there a motion? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a motion that we approve. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please, say aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 61 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 57 of 59 COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes unanimously. And, finally, the Affordable Housing Bonus Agreement has been brought to us for action, which I think is maybe a little unusual, but we've been asked to vote on it, so we will. Is there -- and that was also part of the materials I've read it. It seems satisfactory to me. Is there any discussion on that? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No discussion. CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, then I'll entertain a motion to approve. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I second. COMMISSIONER FRY: So moved. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: If not, all those in favor, please, say aye. COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Those opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes unanimously. Thank you very much Immokalee Fair Housing Alliance. All right. We've got one more item, and just on the off chance that we can get -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Wait a minute. They have to stay for this. We get lonely. All right. Thank you all. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. We will give them time to leave. MR. KLATZKOW: It's a pandemic, they can go. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Good point. Okay. The last item, I believe is legislative, and it is PL20190002635, and it's the GMPA to extend the availability of early entry TDR bonus, and this is here for adoption, and just for your recollection purposes, we voted unanimously seven to nothing to transmit. So it's back now for adoption, and I don't think we have to make disclosures or swear anybody in. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: No. CHAIRMAN FRYER: So does staff have a presentation? MR. KLATZKOW: We can just vote on it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: We can vote. I recommend -- MR. BELLOWS: Michele said she really wanted to make a presentation. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Michele wants to -- I haven't seen Michelle in so long. Get up here so I can hammer you. We can question her. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Commissioner Schmitt said don't want to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. MS. MOSCA: Thank you. My eyesight is going. It's really bad, Joe -- or Commissioner Schmitt. For the record, my name is Michele Mosca, Principle Planner in the Community Planning Section, and this is the adoption hearing for the early entry TDR bonus. It's to extend the bonus until September 27th, 2022, and as Commissioner Schmitt had mentioned, you all have seen this previously at your January transmittal hearing, I believe with the exception of Mr. Shea. You all had recommended unanimous approval. It was transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners transmitted to the State in February of this year, and the State had no objections to the amendment. There is one modification since transmittal. We have added some language to make it consistent with the Land Development Code, which states the board can extend the TDR early entry bonus again by resolution. So that's within your Adoption Ordinances, 5.A.a Packet Pg. 62 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 58 of 59 Exhibit A, and if you don't want any further presentation, I can just go with the recommendation. Staff is recommending that you forward this petition with the revised changes to the Board of County Commission for adoption. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. I think that's a wise decision. Commissioner Schmitt? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I just have one question, Michele. When is -- when are the new amendments coming? Are they still being -- still going through the public vetting process or public hearing process? MS. MOSCA: They have -- COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: The revision to the whole plan. MS. MOSCA: Right. We received board direction, I want to say, in June of -- I want to say it goes back a couple years. We are moving the amendments forward. There's some additional work that still needs to be done. Our hope is to bring the amendments and the LDC, the Land Development Code, amendments, back to the Planning Commission Board hopefully the first part of the next year. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: And this -- this would then be part of that, again, if it's going to be -- MS. MOSCA: This is really sort of a stopgap measure. What's going to happen with the amendments, there's a base -- base TDR provision. You'd receive two base TDR credits, and this would go away, the early entry would go away, that's what's being proposed currently. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: I make a recommendation we -- of approval. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Let's see what Commissioner Fry has to say. COMMISSIONER FRY: Michele, when was this originally approved? MS. MOSCA: Are you talking about this amendment? COMMISSIONER FRY: Yeah, the RFMUD and the TDR program, 2000 -- MS. MOSCA: Back in, I'd say around 2003, and the three bonus amendments, we have the early entry as well as the restoration, maintenance and conveyance, those were adopted, I believe, in 2005. COMMISSIONER FRY: Should we change the name of this clause from early entry to thank God you're entering, better late than never or -- MS. MOSCA: Well, as I mentioned, this really is a stopgap measure, so we will be eliminating the early entry bonus provision when we come forward with the amendment. COMMISSIONER FRY: That's it. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: If you recall the last petition we had in here was actually taking advantage of this. That was the -- was that from the fringe, rural fringe? COMMISSIONER FRY: That was from the RFMUD. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was from the RFMUD, yeah. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Thank you. Okay. Great presentation. Thank you very much. Anything further -- Paul, how about you? Anything from you? COMMISSIONER SHEA: Just an educational question, I have no problem with it. Is the -- is the reason we have to keep extending it, because we're not getting the interest in it we wanted? CHAIRMAN FRYER: That's a good question and the answer is yes. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Yes. MS. MOSCA: It helps with participation, but really incentivizes the use of TDR's. So it does further the participation in the program, and the reason for the extension is, again, we'll be moving forward. There is a need for the TDR's to entitle development in the receiving lands, as well as in the some of the urban-designated areas. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Schmitt, I guess that was a motion you made, was it not? COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: That was a motion, yes, sir. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Is there a second? COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Second. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: All those in favor, please, say aye. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 63 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) July 2, 2020 Page 59 of 59 COMMISSIONER HOMIAK: Aye. COMMISSIONER FRY: Aye. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Aye. COMMISSIONER SHEA: Aye. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Passes unanimously. New business? I don't believe we have any new business. Old business? No old business. Public comment? Any member of the public wish to speak on anything? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FRYER: Now we come to adjournment, and without objection, anyone care to comment? COMMISSIONER FRY: I do. I do care. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Okay. Why is that? COMMISSIONER FRY: I would just like to comment that I think that I'd like to commend Chairman Fryer. Mark Strain was chairman for, I believe, 13 years and on this board for 19 years. I may be off, but, I think you've stepped into his shoes, and you've -- you've ran a smooth machine so far, and I just appreciate it. It's made it a lot easier transition, because you were a fixture on this commission. CHAIRMAN FRYER: Well, you're very, very kind to say that, and, certainly, his shoes are big shoes, so I'm doing my best. No one will probably ever really be able to be another Mark Strain, so we miss him. There being nothing further to be brought forward, we're adjourned. COMMISSIONER SCHMITT: Thank you. * * * * * * There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 2:17 p.m. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ___________________________________ EDWIN FRYER, CHAIRMAN These minutes approved by the Board on _______________, as presented _________________ or as corrected _________________. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., MORNING SESSION BY TERRI LEWIS, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC, AFTERNOON SESSION BY JANICE R. MALINE, COURT REPORTER AND NOTARY PUBLIC. 5.A.a Packet Pg. 64 Attachment: 7-2-2020 CCPC Total Meeting Minutes (13134 : July 2, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes) 08/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.1 Item Summary: *** This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** PL20190000850-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 Map series by amending the Urban Commercial District to add the Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict to allow development of up to 160 hotel rooms and assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of .45, and up to 400 seats of Restaurant uses. The subject property is located in the Northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North, and Walkerbilt Road in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.67± acres. (Companion to PL20190000154) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] (Adoption Hearing) Meeting Date: 08/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 06/29/2020 7:20 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 06/29/2020 7:20 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/29/2020 11:01 AM Zoning Sue Faulkner Additional Reviewer Completed 06/29/2020 12:38 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 07/10/2020 2:14 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 07/20/2020 4:46 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 07/21/2020 9:47 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 07/22/2020 4:45 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.1 Packet Pg. 65 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT (ADOPTION HEARINGS) PL20190000850/CPSS-2019-6 CCPC: July 16, 2020 BCC: October 27, 2020 9.A.1.a Packet Pg. 66 Attachment: 00_CCPC COVER (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC July 16, 2020 GMP Small Scale Amendment Adoption Hearings PL20190000850/CPSS-2019-6 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENTS: Staff Report: 2) TAB: Adoption Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps) 3) TAB: Project PL20190000850/ DOCUMENT: Application/Petition Petition CPSS-2019-6 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: Advertisement 9.A.1.b Packet Pg. 67 Attachment: 00_Table of Contents CCPC (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 1 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2020 RE: PETITION PL20190000850/CPSS-2019-06, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (Companion to PUDA- PL20190000154) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agent: Karen Bishop, AICP, President PMS, Inc. of Naples 3125 54th Terrace SW Naples, FL 34116 Applicants: Edwin Negley and Peter Tierney Turtle Bay Holding Company, LLC 799 Walkerbilt Road Naples, FL 34110 Edwin Negley and Peter Tierney Bay House Campus, LLC 799 Walkerbilt Road Naples, FL 34110 Owners: Turtle Bay Holding Company, LLC 799 Walkerbilt Road Naples, FL 34110 Bay House Campus, LLC 805 Walkerbilt Road Naples, FL 34110 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 68 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 2 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises ±8.67-acres and is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North and Walkerbilt Road, in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East (North Naples Planning Community). REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Lane Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new subdistrict, Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict, within the Urban Designation, Urban – Commercial District. The applicant also proposes to amend the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and create a new map (“Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict”) in the FLUM series of the FLUE, to identify the newly created Subdistrict. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added, single strike-through text is deleted, and is also reflected in the Ordinance Exhibit A). FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Proposed Subject Site 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 69 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 3 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 I. URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 13. East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict 14. Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict 15. Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 16. Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict The Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict (BHCCS) is 8.67 +/- acres in size and is located west of U.S. 41 and north of Walkerbilt Road. The purpose and intent of the site- specific Commercial Subdistrict is to allow limited specific commercial uses. The existing Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) is within the Subdistrict. Allowable Uses and Maximum Allowable Intensity 1. Hotel, motel and transient lodging, not to exceed 160 rooms (SIC Groups 7011); 2. Eating and Drinking Establishments, not to exceed 400 seats (SIC Group 5812 and 5813); 3. Assisted Living Facilities, subject to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45; and, 4. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this Growth Management Plan Amendment is to create text and a map for a new subdistrict, Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict. The subdistrict will allow hotel /motel and transient lodging uses (not to exceed 160 rooms); eating and drinking establishments, not to exceed 400 seats; and assisted living facilities. The creation of the subdistrict along with the accompanying amendment to the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development, will allow the hotel use and the Assisted Living Facility and will retain the restaurant use currently allowed by the existing PUD zoning on the site. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 70 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 4 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The subject property is approximately ±8.67 acres and is designated Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, and is also within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The site is zoned Bay House Campus CPUD and the northeast corner is within a Special Treatment Overlay (ST). This PUD is identified as “Consistent by Policy” on the Future Land Use Map Series. As such, it is subject to FLUE Policy 5.3 which allows a zonin g change so long as the proposed zoning is not more intense than the existing zoning and the overall intensity is not increased. In as much as the intensity of use is being increased – adding hotel units and an assisted living facility, this PUD amendment is not consistent with FLUE Policy 5.3. The current existing land uses on the subject site are a 400-seat waterfront restaurant (The Bay House) with a full-service cocktail lounge with musical entertainment. The CHHA boundary is generally depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and is more precisely shown in the Future Land Use Map series; all lands lying seaward of that boundary are within the CHHA. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately to the north is a tributary of the Cocohatchee River and ecological sensitive land with many mangroves; designated Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA in the FLUM and zoned Agricultural – Special Treatment. East: Immediately adjacent to the east lies U.S.41. Across U.S.41 (designated Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA in the FLUM) are commercial properties General Commercial Zoning District (C-4) and a residential community (zoned RSF- 4) just to the east of the C-4 properties along U.S.41. Just to the north of the residential community and C-4 Zoning District is the Double Tree Suites, which is also designated as Urban Residential Subdistrict and zoned as Residential Tourist District (RT). South: Immediately adjacent to the south of a large portion of the subject property is land currently zoned as C-4. Walkerbilt Road lies directly south adjacent to the westerly portion of the subject property. To the south of Walkerbilt Road, the land is zoned C- 4 (General Commercial Zoning District), which houses Cooper’s Hawk Restaurant and Collier Tract 21 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the south of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. West: Immediately adjacent to the west of the subject site are currently existing land uses for with a golf course maintenance facility for the Collier Tract 21 PUD Zoning District, and further to the west of this use is the Palm River Mobile Home Park and it is zoned Mobile Home (MH) Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the west as Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the CHHA. 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 71 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 5 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The subject site was first created into a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1988 (32 years ago). This PUD predated the adoption of the Growth Management Plan in 1989. The original PUD (known as the Cocohatchee River Trust) approved both a full-service restaurant/cocktail lounge with 180 seats and a hotel with 160 rooms, as well as water management facilities and lakes, and conservation and recreational facilities. The original PUD also allowed accessory uses: a chickee bar and boat slips. No other uses were permitted. This original petition rezoned the subject site from Agricultural-2, Agricultural-ST and C-4 zoning districts to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD. In December 2013, the BCC approved the creation of the Bay House Campus Commercial PUD (CPUD); along with the repeal of the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD and the removal of the Special Treatment (ST) Overlay, via Ordinance #13-65. The Bay House Campus CPUD made the following changes: • Increased the number of seats for the full-service restaurant/cocktail lounge from 180 to 400. • Reduced the number of hotel rooms from 160 to 50 rooms. • Add a new accessory retail use of a maximum of 4,500 square feet culinary school. • Add accessory use of specialty retail and restaurant/brew house. • Add 2 caretaker residences • Add accessory uses under boats: boat rental, boat slips limited to 9, kayak and canoe launch, and kayak and canoe storage. • Add uses that are accessory and incidental to principal hotel and restaurant uses such as retail, services, and recreational uses; and that are for the exclusive use by hotel and restaurant patrons. The hotel, although approved in 1988 and 2013, was never constructed. Although the hotel was approved for the second time in 2013; a hotel is a non-conforming use when located outside of an activity center or without being granted as a conditional use in a C-4 or C-5 Zoning District. The applicant is proposing a GMP amendment. Per LDC Sec. 9.03.02, if a nonconforming use ceases to operate for any reason for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use must conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located. The effect of the nonconforming use status is that if the hotel use is ceased for any reason-or in this case not begun, including removal or destruction by natural causes; a GMPA is needed to permit the hotel use at this site. The applicant wishes to create a subdistrict that will allow the hotel use into perpetuity. These are the requested permitted uses proposed with this application: Proposed Subdistrict Allowable Uses and Maximum Allowable Intensity 1. Hotel, motel and transient lodging, not to exceed 160 rooms (SIC Groups 7011); 2. Eating and Drinking Establishments, not to exceed 400 seats (SIC Group 5812 and 5813); 3. Assisted Living Facilities, subject to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45; and, 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 72 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 6 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 4. Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC) The Subdistrict would increase the hotel rooms back from 50 to 160 rooms; remove the 4,500 square feet for the culinary school and the use; restaurant and cocktail lounge would remain unchanged at 400 seats; add a new use for Assisted Living Facilities with a F.A.R. of 0.45. The accessory uses are proposed in the CPUD – not in the Subdistrict. The subject site consists of ±8.67-acres and is comprised of two tax parcels: the eastern most parcel (#26300000755) is currently not developed; the parcel (#23100000026) directly west of the other parcel and is the location of The Bay House Restaurant and parking area. This GMPA amendment has a companion zoning petition (PL20190000154) to amend the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development. The GMPA encourages new subdistricts to also create a PUD. Compatibility: There are existing uses that are similar to those proposed in the subdistrict. The Subdistrict seems to be compatible, given the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood with an existing general commercial C-4 zoning district (including an upscale restaurant); the proximity of the site to the Cocohatchee River; and proximity to a residential tourist district with an existing hotel. The surrounding area already includes other restaurant uses and a hotel used for transient lodging. Compatibility can be more specifically addressed with the zoning petition, and may include building height and size limitations, setback and buffer requirements, etc. In staff’s opinion, because the some of the proposed uses of this subdistrict have already existed for over 30 years and has created very little impact on the surrounding area, it appears to co-exist well with all the neighboring uses. Justifications for Proposed Amendment: Given the mixed-use nature of this neighborhood, which includes transient lodging, restaurants and retail shops; and the site’s proximity to the Cocohatchee River. The proposed small-scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) establishing this Subdistrict is necessary to reestablish the previously allowed 160 hotel rooms, since otherwise Policy 5.3 (below) would apply and the requested PUD Amendment would not be deemed consistent with that Policy. The SSGMPA also requests ALFs as an allowable use. The CPUD will include a Trip CAP such than any use of the property, in aggregate, will not exceed the maximum PM Peak Hour Trip CAP. FLUE Policy 5.3: All rezoning’s must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 73 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 7 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. The foregoing notwithstanding, such commercial properties may be approved for the addition of residential uses, in accordance with the Commercial Mixed-Use Subdistrict, though an increase in overall intensity may result. A zoning change of such commercial-zoned properties to a residential zoning district is allowed as provided for in the Density Rating System of this Future Land Use Element and as provided for in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: Process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. 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 and: [The subject site comprises ±8.67 acres.] (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 does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (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 Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] (2) Small scale development amendments adopted pursuant to this section require only one public hearing before the governing board, which shall be an adoption hearing as described in s. 163.3184(11). [This project will be heard with only one public adoption hearing.] (3) If the small-scale development amendment involves a site within a rural area of opportunity as defined under s. 288.0656(2)(d) for the duration of such designation, the 10-acre limit listed in subsection (1) shall be increased by 100 percent to 20 acres. The local government approving the small scale plan amendment shall certify to the state land planning agency that the plan amendment furthers the economic objectives set forth in the executive order issued under s. 288.0656(7), and the property subject to the plan amendment shall undergo public review to ensure that all concurrency requirements and federal, state, and local environmental permit requirements are met. [This amendment does not involve a site within a rural area of opportunity.] 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 74 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 8 of 9 Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 (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. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Erin Josephitis, Senior Environmental Specialist who was with the Collier County Environmental Planning Section, completed her review and approved this petition in July 2019. Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, completed his review and approved this petition in December 2019. Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition, without any conditions, in March 2020. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on October 16, 2019, 5:30 p.m. at the Double Tree Suites by Hilton Hotel Naples, 12200 Tamiami Trail N., Naples, FL 34110. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) petition. The applicant’s team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. See applicant ’s NIM notes included in the companion PUDA packet. A total of approximately 3 members of the public along with approximately 4 members of the applicant’s team and 2 County staff signed in at the NIM. The consultant explained that there were two separate applications: a small-scale amendment for the Growth Management Plan (creation of a new subdistrict) and a zoning action for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The public asked questions about the project details, especially about what the hotel height will be. There were also questions about dredging the adjacent Cocohatchee River that is adjacent to the subject site. The agent, Karen Bishop, stated the DEP agreed to accelerate the permitting process, however the funding is not currently in place. The dredging is needed for drainage – not for boat access. The meeting ended at approximately 5:50 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 75 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 9 of 9 PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY STAFF: Comprehensive Planning staff has not received any correspondence concerning this project. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • The reason for this GMPA and companion PUDA zoning petition is to allow and permit, the hotel/motel use that has been a longstanding (30+ years) approval for a non-conforming use in the existing CPUD zoning district. • There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. • No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. • There are no utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • There are no concerns for impacts upon other public infrastructure. • There are no transportation or utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. • The site’s uses (existing as well as permitted by existing zoning) will change slightly; therefore, the use intensity could increase; however, the CPUD will continue to hold the development to the same Trip Cap already approved. o The restaurant is currently approved for 400 seats, but only provides seating for 240 seats. o The culinary school use/conference room will be removed and an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) use will be added. The ALF generally creates a low traffic impact. In the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) it states, “Potential future ALF development would be allowed in lieu of other approved uses such that the total trip generation would not exceed the overall project’s trip cap which is established in the PUD.” o The hotel use will be increased from currently approved 50 rooms to 160 rooms. • The use is generally compatible with surrounding development based upon the high-level review conducted for a GMP amendment and has co-existed with surrounding development for many, many years. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on June 23, 2020. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element are in Sections 163.3177(1)(f) and 163.3177(6)(a)2, Florida Statutes. The criteria for changes to the Future Land Use Map is in Section 163.3177(6)(a)8, Florida Statutes [HFAC] STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PL20190000850/CPSS-2019-06 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve (adopt) and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 9.A.1.c Packet Pg. 76 Attachment: 01_Staff_Rpt_CPSS-19-06_BayHouseCampusCommSub1(003) FNL (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) [19-CMP-01056/1547923/1] 62 1 of 3 PL20190000850 – Bay House Campus SSGMPA 6/16/20 ORDINANCE NO. 2020-___ 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 MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ADD THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 160 HOTEL ROOMS AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AT A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .45, AND UP TO 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH AND WALKERBILT ROAD IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.97± ACRES. [PL20190000850] WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. seq., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WHEREAS, Bay House Campus, LLC and Turtle Bay Holding Company, LLC, requested an amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1), Florida Statutes, this amendment is considered a Small-Scale Amendment; and WHEREAS, the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on July 16, 2020, considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners; and CAO 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 77 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) [19-CMP-01056/1547923/1] 62 2 of 3 PL20190000850 – Bay House Campus SSGMPA 6/16/20 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County did take action in the manner prescribed by law and held public hearings concerning the proposed adoption of the amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series of the Growth Management Plan on ____________; and WHEREAS, all applicable substantive and procedural requirements of law have been met. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN The Board of County Commissioners hereby adopts this small-scale amendment to the Future Land Use Element and Map Series in accordance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. The text amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: SEVERABILITY. If any phrase or portion of this Ordinance is held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion. SECTION THREE: EFFECTIVE DATE. The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be 31 days after the state land planning agency notifies the local government that the plan amendment package is complete. If timely challenged, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the state land planning agency. CAO 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 78 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) [19-CMP-01056/1547923/1] 62 3 of 3 PL20190000850 – Bay House Campus SSGMPA 6/16/20 PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida this ______ day of _________________, 2020. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K. KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA ________________________ BY: _________________________________ Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: ________________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko, Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachment: Exhibit A – Proposed Text Amendment & Map Amendment HFAC 6-16-20 CAO 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 79 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) PL20180000850/CPSS19-06 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deletions EXHIBIT A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** TABLE OF CONTENTS *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** II. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES (Page vi) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** *Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict Map *East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Map *Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict *Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict *Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Policy 1.5: The URBAN Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use Districts and Subdistricts for: *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. URBAN – COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (Page 10) 1.Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict 2.Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict 3.Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** 13.East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict 14.Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict 15.Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict 16.Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Page 1 of 5 CAO 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 80 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) PL20180000850/CPSS19-06 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deletions FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I.URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** b. Non-residential uses including: (Page 26) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 12. Commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the Urban - Mixed Use District, PUD Neighborhood Village Center Subdistrict, Office and Infill Commercial Subdistrict, Residential Mixed Use Neighborhood Subdistrict, Orange Blossom Mixed-Use Subdistrict, Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach/Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Goodlette/Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict, Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston/Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict, Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict, Davis ‒ Radio Commercial Subdistrict; and, in the Urban Commercial District, Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Commercial Mixed Use Subdistrict, Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Orange Blossom/Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict, Logan Boulevard/Immokalee Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict, East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict, Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict, Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict, Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict, in the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay; and, as allowed by certain FLUE policies. *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION SECTION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** I.URBAN DESIGNATION *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** C. Urban Commercial District (Page 69) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** Page 2 of 5 CAO 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 81 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) PL20180000850/CPSS19-06 Words underlined are added; words struck-through are deletions 14.Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict 15.Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** 16.Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict The Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict (BHCCS) is 8.67 +/- acres in size and is located west of U.S. 41 and north of Walkerbilt Road. The purpose and intent of the site specific Commercial Subdistrict is to allow limited specific commercial uses. The existing Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) is within the Subdistrict. Allowable Uses and Maximum Allowable Intensity 1.Hotel, motel and transient lodging, not to exceed 160 rooms (SIC Groups 7011); 2.Eating and Drinking Establishments, not to exceed 400 seats (SIC Group 5812 and 5813); 3.Assisted Living Facilities, subject to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.45; and, 4.Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). *** *** *** *** *** *** *** TEXT BREAK *** *** *** *** *** *** FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES (Page 148) Future Land Use Map Activity Center Index Map Mixed Use & Interchange Activity Center Maps *** *** *** *** text break *** *** *** *** *** Seed to Table Commercial Subdistrict Map Livingston Road/Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict Map Vanderbilt Beach Commercial Tourist Subdistrict Map Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict Map Page 3 of 5 CAO 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 82 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Tamiami TRL NWalkerbilt RD Ma i n H o u s e DR Shores AVE Cocohatchee STRiver CTClear Bay DR EXHIBIT A PL20190000850/CPSS-2019-6 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA º0 200 400100 Feet DRAFT SUBJECTSITE ADOPTED - XXXX, XXXX (Ord. No. XXXX-X) PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICP GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPT. FILE: BAY HOUSE CAMPUS SITE LOCATION MAP DRAFT.MXD DATE: JUNE 2020 LEGEND BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT Page 4 of 5 CAO 9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 83 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER BLVDTURNER RIVER ROADSR 29INTERSTATE 75 IMMOKALEE RD OIL WELL RD COLLIER BLVDTAMIAMI TRL E CR 846 SR 82 LIVINGSTON RDSR 29 NSAN MARCO RDTAMIAMI TRL NDAVIS BLVDGOODLETTE RD NPINE RIDGE RD EVERGLADES BLVD NRADIO RD GOLDEN GATE PKY DESOTO BLVD SLOGAN BLVD NSANTA BARBARA BLVDDESOTO BLVD NVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD EVANDERBILT DREVERGLADES BLVD SAIRPORT PULLING RD CORKSCREW RD GOLDEN GATE BLVD W C O P E L A N D A V E S9TH ST NS 1ST STN 15TH STBALD EAGLE DR N B A R F I E L D D R GREEN BLVDOLD US 41LAKE TRAFFORD RD RATTLESNAKE HAMMOCK RD WILSON BLVD NN COLLIER BLVDS BARFIELD DRCOUNTY BARN RDS COLL IER BLVD BONITA BEACH RD 111TH AVE N COLLIER AVEN E W M A R K E T R D WWILSON BLVD SW MAIN ST WIGGINS PASS RD 9TH ST SSEAGATE DR I-75 S I-75 NSR 29Tamiami TRL E Oil Well RD Immokalee RD Collier BLVDEverglades BLVDSR 82 CR 846 E Livingston RDDesoto BLVDSan Marco R DAirport RD NTamiami TRL NSR 29 NWilson BLVDDavis BLVD Pine Ridge RD Radio RD Logan BLVD NVanderbilt Beach RDVanderbilt DRGoodlette-Frank RD NRandall BLVD Golden Gate PKWY Camp Keais RDCorkscr e w R D Santa Barbara BLVDGolden Gate BLVD E 9th ST NOld 41Bald Eagle DRN Colli er B L V D Westclox ST Bayshore DRThomasson DR E M a i n S T Smallwood DRI-75 SI-75 N I-75 S I -75 SI-75 NI-75 S° HENDRY COUNTY MONROE COUNTY LEE COUNTY HENDRY COUNTY 2012-2025FUTURE LAND USE MAP Collier County Florida DETAILS OF THE RLSA OVERLAY AREA ARE SHOWN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TITLED: "COLLIER COUNTY RURAL & AGRICULTURAL AREA ASSESSMENT STEWARDSHIP OVERLAY MAP" BAREFOOT BEACH PRESERVE COUNTY PARK DELNOR- WIGGINS STATE PARK CLAM PASS COUNTY PARK CLAM BAY NRPA ROOKERY BAY NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE CITY OF NAPLES TIGERTAIL BEACH COUNTY PARK CITY OF MARCO ISLAND COLLIER- SEMINOLE STATE PARK CAPE ROMANO PORT OF THE ISLANDS CAPE ROMANO - TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS AQUATIC PRESERVE EVERGLADES NATIONAL PARK CHOKOLOSKEE PLANTATION ISLAND EVERGLADES CITY COPELAND BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE FAKAHATCHEE STRAND PRESERVE STATE PARK FLORIDA PANTHER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SOUTH GOLDEN GATE ESTATES NRPA BELLE MEADE NRPA NORTH BELLE MEADE NRPA IMMOKALEE CORKSCREW SWAMP SANCTUARY CREW NRPA LAKE TRAFFORD R 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E T 46 ST 47 ST 48 ST 49 ST 50 ST 51 ST 52 ST 53 SR 25 E R 26 E R 27 E R 28 E R 29 E R 30 E R 31 E R 32 E R 33 E R 34 ET 46 ST 47 ST 48 ST 49 ST 50 ST 51 ST 52 ST 53 S!"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 !"#$75 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 Æþ41 GOODLANDGu lfof Mex i c o 0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles J ?EXEMPTAREA PREPARED BY: BETH YANG, AICP GIS/CAD MAPPING SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT FILE: Bay House FLU Map Draft.mxd DATE: 06/15/2020 GOLDEN GATE Veterans Memorial BLVD R 32 E R 33 E R 34 E URBAN DESIGNATION (1) THIS MAP CAN NOT BE INTERPRETED WITHOUT THE GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES OF THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWITH MANAGEMENT PLAN. (2) THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES INCLUDES NUMEROUS MAPS IN ADDITION TO THIS COUNTYWIDE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THESE MAPS ARE LISTED AND LOCATED AT THE END OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT. (3) MOST SUBDISTRICTS AS DEPICTED MAY NOT BE TO SCALE. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SERIES DEPICTS THESE SUBDISTRICTS TO SCALE. (4) THE CONSERVATION DESIGNATION IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AS AREAS ARE ACQUIRED AND MAY INCLUDE OUTPARCELS. (5) REFER TO THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND THE IMMOKALEE ARE MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE MAPS OF THOSE COMMUNITIES. NOTE : MIXED USE DISTRICT BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT OFFICE AND INFILL COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT PUD NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE CENTER SUBDISTRICT RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBDISTRICT Orange Blossom Mixed Use Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach / Coller Blvd. Commercial Subdistrict Henderson Creek Mixed Use Subdistrict Urban Residential Subdistrict Residential Density Bands Urban Coastal Fringe Subdistrict Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict RURAL COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict RURAL FRINGEMIXED USE DISTRICT Neutral Lands Sending Lands Receiving Lands AGRICULTURAL / RURAL DESIGNATION AGRICULTURAL/RURAL MIXED USE DISTRICT Conservation Designation Estates Designation Rural Industrial District Rural Settlement Area District Industrial District BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT Hibiscus Residential Infill Subdistrict Livingston Road / Radio Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict Vanderbilt Beach Road Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict Collier Blvd Community Facility Subdistrict Buckley Mixed Use Subdistrict Vincentian Mixed Use Subdistrict Mini Triangle Mixed Use Subdistrict East Tamiami Trail Commercial Infill Subdistrict Goodlette / Pine Ridge Mixed Use Subdistrict COMMERCIAL DISTRICT Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict Interchange Activity Center Subdistrict Livingston / Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict FUTURE LAND USE MAP ADOPTED - JANUARY, 1989 AMENDED - JANUARY, 1990 AMENDED - FEBRUARY, 1991 AMENDED - MAY, 1992 AMENDED - MAY, 1993 AMENDED - APRIL, 1994 AMENDED - OCTOBER, 1997 AMENDED - JANUARY, 1998 AMENDED - FEBRUARY, 1999 AMENDED - FEBRUARY, 2000 AMENDED - MAY, 2000 AMENDED - DECEMBER, 2000 AMENDED - MARCH, 2001 AMENDED - MAY 14, 2002 (Ord. No. 2002-24) AMENDED - JUNE 19, 2002 (Ord. No. 2002-32) AMENDED - OCTOBER 22, 2002 (Ord. No. 2002-54) AMENDED - FEBRUARY 11, 2003 (Ord. No. 2003-7) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 9, 2003 (Ord. No. 2003-43) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 (Ord. No. 2003-44) AMENDED - DECEMBER 16, 2003 (Ord. No. 2003-67) AMENDED - OCTOBER 26, 2004 (Ord. No. 2004-71) AMENDED - JUNE 7, 2005 (Ord. No. 2005-25) AMENDED - JANUARY 25, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007-18) AMENDED - DECEMBER 4, 2007 (Ord. No. 2007-78,79,81) AMENDED - OCTOBER 14, 2008 (Ord. No. 2008-57,58,59) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 (Ord. No. 2011-26) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 13, 2011 (Ord. No. 2011-27) AMENDED - JANUARY 8, 2013 (Ord. No. 2013-14) AMENDED - MAY 28, 2013 (Ord. No. 2013-41) AMENDED - JUNE 10, 2014 (Ord. No. 2014-20) AMENDED - FEBRUARY 10, 2015 (Ord. No. 2015-13) AMENDED - APRIL 14, 2015 (Ord. No. 2015-26) AMENDED - JUNE 9, 2015 (Ord. No. 2015-32) AMENDED - JULY 7, 2015 (Ord. No. 2015-42) AMENDED - MAY 24, 2016 (Ord. No. 2016-15) AMENDED - JUNE 13, 2017 (Ord. No. 2017-22) AMENDED - DECEMBER 12, 2017 (Ord. No. 2017-46) AMENDED - MAY 8, 2018 (Ord. No. 2018-23) AMENDED - JUNE 12, 2018 (Ord. No. 2018-30) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 11, 2018 (Ord. No. 2018-42) AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 25, 2018 (Ord. No. 2018-48) Area of Critical State Concern Overlay Airport Noise Area Overlay Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Overlay Rural Lands Stewardship Area Overlay Urban-Rural Fringe Transition Area Overlay North Belle Meade Overlay OVERLAYS ANDSPECIAL FEATURES Incorporated Areas Coastal High Hazard Area Livingston Road / Veterans Memorial Boulevard East Residential Subdistrict AMENDED - SEPTEMBER 24, 2019 (Ord. No. 2019-21) AMENDED - OCTOBER 8, 2019 (Ord. No. 2019-33) DRAFT EXHIBIT "A"PETITION PL20190000850 / CPSS-2019-6 AMENDED - XXXX, 2020 (Ord. No. 2020-XX) SUBJECT SITE PL20190000850/CPSS-2019-6 BUSINESS PARK SUBDISTRICT RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PARK SUBDISTRICT Livingston Road / Eatonwood Lane Commercial Infill Subdistrict Livingston Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict COMMERCIAL MIXED USE SUBDISTRICT Livingston Road / Veterans Memorial Blvd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict Orange Blossom / Airport Crossroads Commercial Subdistrict Davis-Radio Commercial Subdistrict Logan Blvd./Immokalee Rd. Commercial Infill Subdistrict Seed To Table Commercial Subdistrict Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict Page 5 of 5CAO9.A.1.d Packet Pg. 84 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 061620 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Inc. of Naples Land Development Consultant May 24, 2019 Intake Team Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Bay House Campus CPUD Amendment Ordinance 2013-65 Dear Intake Team: This letter and the enclosed information are submitted to request approval of an Amendment to Bay House Campus CPUD (Ordinance No. 13-65 which includes Hex No. 2016-29). The existing CPUD allows for principle uses of hotel, motel, and transient lodging with a maximum of 50 rooms, as well as eating establishments with a maximum of 400 seats. The comprehensive accessory use list included items such as a commercial culinary school and auditoriums. The proposed request adds assisted living facilities and an increase in the hotel rooms to 160 with an additional 10 feet in height, while removing the commercial culinary school and auditoriums. The additional uses and rooms will not result in an increase in the development footprint. The traffic analysis concludes the proposed changes do not represent a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location and proposes to select appropriate TDM strategies at the time of future SDP application when more complete development parameters are specified. We enclose the following documents: • One (1) Cover letter and Project Narrative • One (1) completed PDA Application; • One (1) set of the Pre-Application Meeting Notes • One (1) Affidavit of Authorization (signed and notarized) • One (1) Property Ownership Disclosure Form • One (1) Covenant of Unified Control • One (1) Addressing Checklist • One (1) Warranty Deeds • One (1) Boundary Survey (signed and sealed); • One (1) Statement of Utility Provisions • One (1) Traffic Impact Study • One (1) copy of current Master Plans – No Revisions requested • One (1) copy of original PUD Ordinance No. 13-65 & Hex No. 2016-29; • One (1) copy of PUD Document with changes struck through and underlined; Additional Data/Information requested by County staff post submittal: • One (1) Engineering Report • One (1) Pressure and Flow Reports • One (1) Monitoring Report • One (1) Property ID Numbers • One (1) Legal Description • One (1) Lift Station Review • One (1) NIM Package Should you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, Karen Bishop 3125 54th Terrace SW, Naples, FL 34116 / (239) 825-7230 / Fax (239) 234-6096 /Email: karenbishop@pmsnaples.com 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 85 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 86 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 87 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ______ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 88 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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.1.e Packet Pg. 89 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 90 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ____________________________________________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 91 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 92 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 93 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 94 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 95 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 96 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COしLl冨R COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT WWW.COlliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRiVE NAPしES, FしORIDA 34104 (之39) 252-之400戸AX: (239)之与2-紙58 超　しegai Adve巾Sing Fees: Ja CCPC: ;1,125.00 二卿BCC:S与00.bo　　　　く □　Schcol Concurrency Fee, if appIicable: O Mitigation Fees言fappiication, tO be determined by the SchooI District in coordinati6n with the County 片re‘ code P/。nS Review Fee叩re nOt栂ed, but 。re COI/ected 。t the time Q句ppIic。t/on submiss/on 。nd those J?es ore setjbrth by the Authorfty hovingjurisdiction. 77?e 10nd Deve/opment Code requires Neighbomood No亡折COtion moilersjbr AppIi訪tions heoded to heoring, Ond rhis Jおis coIIected prior to he。ring. A// checks p。y。b/e to: Bo。rd qf County Commissioners.IAs the authorized agent/applicant forthis petitio卑i attest that a= ofthe information indicated on this Checkiist is inciuded in this submittai package, i understand that fa冊re to include a= necessary Submittai information may resuit in the deiay of processing this petition. Printed named of signing party FebmaⅣ 1, 2019 Pagellofll 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 97 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD Property ID Numbers 26300001000 0.35 Acres 26300000755 6.35 Acres 23100000026 1.97 Acres 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 98 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development 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 noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. Narrative Statement Describing Request The property has been zoned as a CPUD since 1988 and is partially developed with a principal use of the restaurant known as the Bay House. This CPUD amendment proposes to revise the current 55 room hotel to a 160 room hotel, add assisted living as a principal use, and increase the zoned height from 50’ to 60’ with no change to the actual height of 75’. This request will also be eliminating the commercial cooking school and auditoriums as uses. The requested change does not impact the location of the development tracts, lakes, and preserves depicted on the CPUD master plan. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B) 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. The Bay House Campus CPUD is located on the northwest quadrant of US 41/Tamiami Trail North and Walkerbilt Road with access on both Walkerbilt Road and U.S. 41, as well as frontage on the Cocohatchee River. Access to the site will be from US 41 N and Walkerbilt Road. The arterial frontage properties in this area have been zoned for commercial uses since the late 1980s. The property is suitable for the proposed land uses and is consistent with the commercial patterns of development which has occurred in the vicinity of the CPUD. The application and supporting materials address traffic, access and utilities which are all available to the site. The proposed additional hotel rooms as well as the assisted living facilities will be located in areas previously identified commercial use and will take the place of the commercial cooking school and destination resort use. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicants own all of the land within the proposed Bay House Campus CPUD. The existing and proposed uses are currently and will continue to be interdependent with the sharing of infrastructure, access, and property management. 3. Conformity of the proposed CPUD 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 Bay House Campus CPUD property is located in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistict of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 99 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 2 of 4 The Bay House Campus CPUD amendment is proposing to increase the hotel rooms from 50 to a maximum of 160 hotel units, as well as adding an option for an assisted living facility. This request is well within the density rating system permitted in the Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendment to the Bay House Campus CPUD will remove a commercial cooking school and auditoriums as uses but does not change the majority of the already approved the full range of commercial uses. The Urban Land Use designation description in the Growth Management Plan permits the full range of residential dwelling units, and recreational facilities. All of the proposed uses within the amended CPUD are consistent with the Future Land Use designation, which is consistent with the FLUE. Objective 2: Coordinate land uses with the availability of public facilities, accomplished through the Concurrency Management System of the Capital Improvement Element and implemented through the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance of the Land Development Code. A traffic analysis has been prepared, which concludes that there are no existing or anticipated roadway level of service issues resulting from the increase in commercial uses or senior housing units proposed for the project. Water and sewer services are provided by Collier County, and there are no existing or anticipated deficiencies. Projections of water and sewer demand are provided in the application materials. The surface water management system has been designed and permitted in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District. Objective 3: Ensure protection of natural and historic resources, ensure the availability of land for utility facilities, promote compatible land uses within the airport noise zone, and to provide for management of growth in an efficient and effective manner through Land Development Regulations adopted to implement this Growth Management Plan. The previous approval of the development location, configuration and commercial uses deem it consistent with the growth Management Plan. Objective 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. The project has acquired required state and federal environmental permits consistent with the GMP. The specific land uses have been deemed compatible with the previous zoning approvals Ordinance 1988-30, Ordinance 2013-65 and HEX 2016-29. Policy 5.3 All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: As described above the proposed land uses and intensities of the uses had been deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan at different times. However, after the zoning change in 2013 which reduced the intensity, the application is affected by Policy 5.3.a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 100 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 3 of 4 as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. The applicant has submitted a Growth Management Plan Amendment application (PL20190000850) to address this provision. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The Bay House Campus CPUD is in a neighborhood that is surrounded by commercial type uses and therefore is compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The Bay House Campus CPUD has connection points to one local road, Walkerbilt Road and one arterial road, US 41 / Tamiami Trail. Access will be provided to each of these roadways. Interconnections with adjoining properties have been identified due to their developed status. 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 Bay House Campus CPUD site design anticipates internal drive or parking lot connections for access to all uses. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. The properties adjacent to the Bay House Campus CPUD have been developed with limited availability to interconnect. However, interconnection will be made where the option exists. 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. All efforts will be made to contribute to the County’s effort to provide walkable communities. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed uses are limited to commercial and typical accessory uses. Typical development standards have been identified and established in the CPUD document, which are consistent with those previously approved for the property. Buffers to surrounding commercial uses will meet or exceed the requirements of the land development code. The conceptual CPUD master plan 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 101 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 4 of 4 identifies the development tracts, preservation areas, buffers, and access to the site. The proposed CPUD is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Bay House Campus CPUD master plan identifies preserves, recreational amenity area, lakes and buffers which will be utilized for recreation and open space which will meet or exceed the minimum open space standard required. The CPUD document also provides for a variety of open space and recreational uses that will be designed for use of the owners and guests. 6. 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. There are no known capacity issues that will impact this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Bay House Campus CPUD is surrounded by zoned, developed and undeveloped land. The subject application includes additional lands owned by the current property owner and represents all of the lands under its unified control. It is not anticipated that the CPUD boundary will be expanded beyond that included in this application. 8. 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 CPUD rezone proposes development standards which are generally consistent with other planned developments in the area, and consistent with those uses and standards previously approved for the property. Deviations from the LDC have been requested to address interconnections, parking spaces, sidewalk locations, and site specific signage. Approval for these deviations were previously approved. No further deviations have been requested. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 102 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 103 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 104 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 105 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 106 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 107 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 108 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 109 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 110 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 111 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 112 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 113 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 114 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 115 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 116 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 117 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 118 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 119 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 120 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 121 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 122 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. 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: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 123 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 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 % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 124 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COしLIER COuNTY GOV RNMEN丁 ., GROWTH MANAGEM即すPEPAR丁MENT WWW.COiIiergov.net　　　∴ Date of option: 舘蹴瑚妙 Date optidn terminates: Anticipated cIosing date: 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRiVE NAPしES,軋ORIDA 34104 (之3?) 252-2400 FAX: (之39)之5之・6襲8 I( Any petition required to h訪e property owhership DiscIosure; WiiI not be accepted without this form. Req中rements for petition tγpeS are iocated on the associated ap即Cation form. Any change in ownerihip whether individua=y or with a T「ustee, Company or other interest-holding pa轟y, muSt be discIosed to CoIIier County immediateIy if such change oct:urS Prior to the petition’s final public hea「ing. As the authorized agent/appIica読for this petitio叫attest that all of.the,information indicated on this checkiist is incIuded in this submitta看package. I understand that faiiureto incIude鉦nさcessarγ Submittai information may resuIt ・in the deIay of processing this`Petition. The compieted application, aiI required submittal materia」s, and fees sha= be submitted to: Growth ’Malnagement Department ATTN: Business Center Created 9/28/2017 Page3of3 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 125 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 126 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 127 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U.D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 128 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 129 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 130 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U.D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 131 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus 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 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 132 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus 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 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 133 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U. D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 5 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 C ) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 134 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 135Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 136 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 137 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 138 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 139 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 140 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 141Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 142Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 143Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ____________________________________________________ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 144 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 145 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Traffic Impact Statement Bay House Campus CPUD Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Collier County, FL 10/02/2019 Prepared for: Prepared by: PMS of Naples, Inc. 3125 54th Terrace SW Naples, FL 34116 Phone: 239.825.7230 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239.566.9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee – $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Small Scale Study – No Fee 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 146 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 147 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 6 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................... 8 Background Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 10 Existing and Future Roadway Network......................................................................................... 10 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis ............................................................ 11 Site Access Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 13 Project Access – Tamiami Trail North (US 41) ........................................................................... 14 Project Access – Walkerbilt Road .............................................................................................. 14 Improvement Analysis .................................................................................................................. 14 Mitigation of Impact ..................................................................................................................... 15 Appendices Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan ........................................................................................ 16 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) ................................................ 18 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition ....................................................... 25 Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits ................................................................................. 43 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 148 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 4 Project Description The Bay House Campus project is located in north Naples just west of Tamiami Trail (US 41) on the north side of Walkerbilt Road. The project is currently zoned Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) – Collier County Ord. 13-65. The project is located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Refer to Figure 1 – Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Figure 1 – Project Location Map The subject site currently consists of one 240 seat quality restaurant – the Bay House Restaurant. PUD zoning is approved for up to 400 restaurant seats, 4,500 square feet (sf) of accessory retail uses (to include culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house) and a 50 room hotel. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 149 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5 The Bay House Campus Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application proposes to maintain the restaurant’s potential seating capacity of 400 seats, eliminate the 4,500 sf of accessory retail, increase the proposed hotel to 160 rooms and add an option for an assisted living facility (ALF). Potential future ALF development would be allowed in lieu of other approved uses such that the total trip generation would not exceed the overall project’s trip cap which is established in the PUD. The purpose of this report is to document the transportation impacts ass ociated with the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA). A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on May 6, 2019 (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting). For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2024 planning horizon. The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the pr oject’s proposed trip generation. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Development Program Development ITE Land Use [SIC Codes] ITE Land Use Code Total Size Approved PUD Conditions Quality Restaurant [5812, 5813] 931 400 seats Approved PUD Conditions Quality Restaurant* [5812, 5813] 931 4,500 square feet* Approved PUD Conditions Hotel [7011] 310 50 occupied rooms Proposed GMPA/PUDA Quality Restaurant [5812, 5813] 931 400 seats Proposed GMPA/PUDA Hotel [7011] 310 160 occupied rooms Proposed GMPA/PUDA Assisted Living [8361] 254 TBD** Note: *Accessory retail uses to include culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house. **TBD – To be determined provided the overall trip generation cap is not exceeded. Connection to the subject site is currently provided as follows: one right-in/right-out access on southbound Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and one full movement access on westbound Walkerbilt Road. No new connections are proposed as part of this application. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 150 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6 Trip Generation The project’s site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The software program OTISS – Online Traffic Impact Study Software most current version was used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates were used for the trip generation calculation s. The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. Per Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. For this project, the software program OTISS is used to generate associated internal cap ture trips. The OTISS process follows the trip balancing approach as recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Manual Handbook 3rd Edition. The resulting internal capture rates are below the county limits. The pass-by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational-access analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, quality restaurant land uses (LUC 931) are allowed maximum pass-by traffic of 40% of the project’s external trip generation potential for the peak hour and the daily capture rates are assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis calculates Quality Restaurant LUC 931 pass -by daily rates at 30% and AM and PM peak hour rates at 40%. No pass-by reduction is considered for the approved 4,500 sf accessory retail use (evaluated as Quality Restaurant in the trip generation analysis). The proposed GMPA/PUDA project trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A. The trip generation analysis under approved PUD conditions is shown in Table 2B. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 151 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7 Table 2A Trip Generation (Proposed GMPA/PUDA Conditions) — Average Weekday Proposed GMPA/PUDA Conditions 24 Hour Two- Way Volume PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Quality Restaurant 400 seats 1,040 75 37 112 Hotel 160 occupied rooms 1,957 57 60 117 Total Traffic 2,997 132 97 229 Total Internal Capture (94) (7) (7) (14) Total External 2,903 125 90 215 Total Pass-by (298) (28) (14) (42) Total Net External 2,605 97 76 173 Table 2B Trip Generation (Approved PUD Conditions) — Average Weekday Approved PUD Conditions 24 Hour Two- Way Volume PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Quality Restaurant 400 seats 1,040 75 37 112 Hotel 50 occupied rooms 611 18 19 37 Quality Restaurant* 4,500 sf 377 23 12 35 Total Traffic 2,028 116 68 184 Total Internal Capture (112) (9) (9) (18) Total External 1,916 107 59 166 Total Pass-by (300) (28) (14) (42) Total Net External 1,616 79 45 124 Note: *Accessory Retail uses – see Table 1, page 5. The new net external proposed trip generation Table 2C shows total proposed GMPA/PUDA conditions versus approved PUD (the difference between Table 2A and Table 2B). Table 2C 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 152 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 8 Trip Generation (Proposed New Net External Traffic) — Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Land Use Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA/PUDA (Net External Traffic) 97 76 173 Approved PUD (Net External Traffic) 79 45 124 Total New Net External Traffic 18 31 49 The roadway link concurrency analysis on the surrounding roadway network is analyzed based on only the new net external traffic generated as a result of the proposed project (as shown in Table 2C). Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the GMPA/PUDA development was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning staff. The assignment of the net new proposed site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour, and is graphically depicted on Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic PM Peak Hr Project Traffic Vol.* Enter Exit Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 50% SB – 9 NB – 16 Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 50% NB – 9 SB – 15 Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 30% NB – 5 SB – 9 Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 20% WB – 4 EB – 6 Note(s): *Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 153 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9 Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 154 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual traffic counts (estimated from 2008 through 2019), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the Collier County AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. A draft copy of the 2019 AUIR is available and utilized in this report. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year 2024. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2019 – 2024) Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2019 AUIR Pk Hr, Pk Dir Background Traffic Volume (trips/hr) Projected Traffic Annual Growth Rate (%/yr)* Growth Factor 2024 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Growth Factor** Trip Bank 2024 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Trip Bank*** US 41 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 2,720 (NB) 2.0% 1.1041 3,004 34 2,754 US 41 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 2,720 (NB) 2.0% 1.1041 3,004 34 2,754 US 41 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 1,790 (NB) 2.0% 1.1041 1,977 15 1,805 Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 2,110 (WB) 2.92% 1.1548 2,437 168 2,278 Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate – based on peak hour, peak direction volume (from 2008 through 2019), 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1 + Annual Growth Rate)5. 2024 Projected Volume = 2019 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2024 Projected Volume = 2019 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2024 Peak Hour – Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5 - Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 155 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2019 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location Exist Roadway Min. Standard LOS Exist Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Future Project Build out Roadway Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 6D E 3,100 (WB) 6D Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project , which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network for future conditions (planning horizon year 2024). The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant impacts to the area roadway network. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the studied roadway network. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 156 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2024 Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2019 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Roadway Link, Peak Dir, Peak Hr (Project Vol Added)* 2024 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Volume w/Project ** % Volume Capacity Impact By Project Min LOS exceeded without Project? Yes/No Min LOS exceeded with Project? Yes/No Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 3,100 (NB) NB – 16 3,020 0.52% No No Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 3,100 (NB) NB – 9 3,013 0.29% No No Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 3,100 (NB) NB – 5 1,982 0.16% No No Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 3,100 (WB) WB – 4 2,441 0.13% No No Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2024 Projected Volume = 2024 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan – Transportation Element – Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. As illustrated in Table 6, the projected traffic impact is de minimis for the purposes of this application. The analyzed roadway links are located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCMAs designation is provided in Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element – Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). In agreement with Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element, the TCMA concurrency is measured on a system-wide basis such that each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards. Based on the information contained in 2019 AUIR, the Northwest TCMA percent lane miles meeting standard is 97.1%. As illustrated in Policy 5.8(d) – Transportation Element, no impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LO S requirements of the TCMA are maintained. As illustrated in Table 6, no LOS deficiencies are expected for the analyzed roadway network. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 157 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13 Site Access Analysis Connection to the subject site is currently provided as follows: one right -in/right-out access on southbound Tamiami Trail North (US41) and one full movement access on westbound Walkerbilt Road. No new connections are proposed as part of this application . For more details refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. US 41 (SR 45) – Tamiami Trail North is under Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) jurisdiction and is currently a north-south, six-lane, two-way, divided arterial roadway and has a posted legal speed limit of 55 mph in the vicinity of the project. Walkerbilt Road is currently an undivided two-lane public local roadway, north of Immokalee Road. This is a low volume cul-de-sac roadway servicing the commercial and residential developments and has a posted legal speed of 25 mph in the vicinity of the project. The project access on Walkerbilt Road was evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook: (a) two-lane roadways – 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided roadways – right turn lanes shall always be provided; and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. Turn lane lengths required at build -out conditions were analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period – right turns; and two-minute period – left turns, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. For details refer to Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits. The site access analysis captures projected generated trips as illustrated in Table 7. The PM Peak Hour has the highest traffic intensity. Table 7 Trip Generation (Proposed Development) – Average Weekday* AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Hotel 160 occupied rooms 57 42 99 57 60 117 Quality Restaurant 400 seats** 4 4 8 75 37 112 Total Traffic 61 46 107 132 97 229 Note(s): *Pass-by trips and Internal Capture reductions are not deducted for the purposes of this operational analysis. **ITE does not provide AM peak hour directional distribution; a 50%-50% split is assumed. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 158 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 14 Project Access – Tamiami Trail North (US 41) This is an existing shared driveway with the commercial – retail area occupying the northwest corner of US 41 and Walkerbilt Road. This is a right -in/right-out drive with an existing urban flare turn out (no turn lane). The project is expected to generate 12vph and 26vph inbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Based on prior coordination with FDOT, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted. Project Access – Walkerbilt Road The project is expected to generate 49vph and 106vph inbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively, which is above the 40vph threshold value. As such, a westbound right turn lane is warranted at this location. The intersection of US 41 and Walkerbilt Road is the nearest one serving this project. This is a directional median opening to allow for right-in/right-out/left-in movements. The existing right-turn lane on US 41 serving the intersection will accommodate the additional project traffic for both deceleration and stacking. Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, the proposed project is not a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. Based upon the results of turn lane analysis performed within this report, turn lane improvements are warranted at the project access located on Walkerbilt Road. A more detailed evaluation of applicable access points and intersecti on connections will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available, to determine operational requirements as they are warranted. The maximum net external trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 173 two way PM peak hour trips (internal capture and pass by trips deducted). The trips will be based on the applicable land use codes in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for Site Development Plan (SDP), or Plat and Construction Plan (PPL) approval. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 159 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15 Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee s as building permits are issued for the project. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 160 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 16 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 161 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 17 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 162Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 18 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 163 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 19 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 164 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 20 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 165 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 21 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 166 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 22 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 167 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 23 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 168 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 24 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 169 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 25 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 170 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 26 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 171 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 27 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 172 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 28 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 173 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 29 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 174 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 30 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 175 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 31 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 176 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 32 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 177 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 33 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 178 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 34 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 179 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 35 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 180 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 36 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 181 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 37 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 182 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 38 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 183 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 39 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 184 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 40 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 185 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 41 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 186 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 42 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 187 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 43 Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 188 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 44 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 189 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 45 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 190 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT C - CPUD MASTER PLAN tCDDtnnli Z A cp} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC o m rmnz mNNm OcONr Nznmv Z z m v, Aa Zmm D m ao u, C o y TRaF wo o c D mo m K Ft F+ Fa om c c o a a a tCDDtnnli Z A c p} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 191Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) HEX NO. 2016—29 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION PETITION NO. PDI-PL20160000837 — Bay House Campus LLC requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2013-65, the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development, to reduce the minimum distance between principal structures to 10 feet where both principal structures do not exceed 30 feet in zoned height. The subject property consisting of 8.67± acres is located northwest of the US 41 and Walkerbilt Road intersection, in Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. DATE OF HEARING:July 28, 2016 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: Based on the applicant's written petition, testimony at the hearing of the applicant and the public, and the recommendation of staff, the Hearing Examiner finds that the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13 E.1 and 10.02.13 E.2 of the Land Development Code has been met and the petition should be approved. ANALYSIS: Staff received no objections to this application. One member attended the hearing to question transportation issues unrelated to this application. During the hearing the applicant agreed to add a limitation for actual height and this is incorporated into the approved language. DECISION: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves Petition Number PDI-PL20160000837, filed by Lindsay Rodriguez of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. representing Bay House Campus, LLC, with respect to the property as described in the Bay House Campus CPUD, Ordinance No. 2013-65, for an insubstantial change to the development standards of Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 2013-65, to reduce the minimum distance between principal structures to 10 feet where both principal structures do not exceed 30 feet in zoned height and 35 feet in actual height. Said change is fully described in the Bay House Campus CPUD amendment attached as Exhibit "A", and is subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A—CPUD Amendment 16-CPS-01542/1270252/1118 1 of 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 192 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Ordinance No. 2013-65, the Bay House Campus CPUD. CONDITIONS: 1.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER: Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS: This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ajt ° Date Mar Strain, Hearing Examiner Approved as to form and legality: A C/co H idi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 16-CPS-01542/1270252/1}18 2 of 2 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 193 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS(EXTERNAL) From US 41 R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS(INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15' SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15' 10' Preserves* 0'/25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures" 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' 35' Actual 75' 45' SPS=Same as Principal Structure 0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.1.h.iii Minimum distance between principal structures shall be 10'feet where both structures do not exceed 30' in zoned height and 35' in actual height. Exhibit"A" to HEX No. 2016-29 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PL20160000837 Page 1 of 1 Last Revised:July 28,2016 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 194 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) ORDINANCE NO. 13- 6 5 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 FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WHICH IS HENCEFORTH TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD, TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY AND TO ALLOW 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT /COCKTAIL LOUNGE, A 50 ROOM HOTEL OR MOTEL, AND 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ACCESSORY RETAIL USES INCLUDING A CULINARY SCHOOL, SPECIALTY RETAIL AND RESTAURANT/BREW HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.67 +/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 88 -30, THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ- A- PL20120001593] WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. representing Bay House Campus, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to repeal Ordinance 88 -30, the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development, and rezone the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Bay House Campus CPUD, and the Special Treatment Overlay, is removed to allow 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge, a 50 room hotel or motel and 4,500 square feet of gross floor area of accessory retail uses including a culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house in accordance with the Bay House Campus CPUD attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated by reference herein. The Bay House Campus CPUD Page 1 of 2 PUDZ- A- PL20120001593 — rev. 10/8/13 NO 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 195 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 88 -30, known as the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: 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 ' day of Ut.,61. -, 2013. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. °BkOCK, CLERK By: De u Cl Attest as to "n's signature only. Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS C I R COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Attachments: Exhibit A — List of Permitted Uses GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ. Chairwoman Exhibit B Development Standards Exhibit C Master Plan Exhibit D Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F — Development Commitments 12- CPS -01191 X26 This ordinance filed with the e retary of 'fate's Of ice the ay of 20)t3 and acknowledgefpt fgf that fili cei mvedthisL-v " day of By. Bay House Campus CPUD Page 2 of 2 PUDZ- A- PL20120001593 —rev. 10/8/13 Cq 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 196 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, as limited by Section III of this Exhibit A: I. Campus Tract A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Hotel, motel and transient lodging — maximum of 50 rooms (Group 7011) 2. Eating establishments (Group 5812) — maximum of 400 seats Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Boats (All subject to LDC Section 5.03.06): Boat rental Boat slips (limited to 9 slips) Kayak and canoe launch Kayak and canoe storage 2. Two (2) caretaker's residences (subject to LDC Section 5.03.05) 3. School, commercial (Group 8299). Limited to culinary school accessory not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the principal hotel and restaurants uses, including but not limited to the following recreational, retail and personal service uses: administrative offices, ATM (automatic teller machine), apparel and accessory stores, barber shops (excluding barber schools), beauty shops (excluding beauty schools), boardwalks and nature trails, book stores, camera & photographic supply stores, child day care services, drugstore, drinking establishments (excluding bottle clubs), educational kiosks and shelters, entry gates & gatehouse, essential services, fences, walls, food store, florists, gift and souvenir shop, jewelry store, museum & art galleries, parking lot, personal service establishments, entertainment facilities, and meeting rooms and auditoriums, physical fitness facilities, recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, chickees huts /bars, and gazebos. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons and shall not be advertised to the public via on -site or off -site signage, with the exception of the culinary school, which is open to the public and may be advertised in accordance with the LDC and the provisions of the PUD stated herein. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 1 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 G 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 197 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) II. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses & Structures Passive recreational uses limited to the following, as long as any clearing required to facilitate the uses does not impact the minimum required preserve. 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails) 2. Benches for seating 3. Educational kiosks 4. Signs 5. Viewing platforms 6. Water management facilities 7. Inclement weather shelters without walls 8. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible with the preserve area. III. Development Intensity Development intensity is limited to a 50 -room hotel, 400 -seat restaurant(s) /cocktail lounge(s), and 4,500 square feet of accessory commercial uses within the CPUD. Accessory uses for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons are not subject to the 4,500 square foot limitation. The gross project area is 8.67 ± acres. No residential density is permitted, except for the caretakers residences. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 2 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 cA 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 198 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS (EXTERNAL) From US 41 R -O -W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R -O -W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS (INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15' SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15' 10' Preserves* 0'/ 25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' 35' Actual 75' 45' SPS= Same as Principal Structure 0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.1.h.iii BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 3 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 OAQ 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 199 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT C - CPUD MASTER PLAN tCDDtnnli Z A cp} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC o m rmnz mNNm OcONr Nznmv Z z m v, Aa Zmm D m ao u, C o y TRaF wo o c D mo m K Ft F+ Fa om c c o a a a tCDDtnnli Z A c p} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 200Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U. D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 5 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 C ) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 201 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Deviation No. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.04.02 which requires all commercial projects to provide interconnections and shared access to adjacent properties. The requested deviation is to allow for the existing interconnections to the commercial retail property to the southeast only, as shown on the CPUD master plan. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.1- 1, which requires 218 parking spaces based upon the proposed mix of principal and accessory uses, to allow for a 10% reduction to required parking spaces for the project. The number of required parking spaces is subject to change at the time of SDP or PPL based upon final square footage of uses. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.d, which allows temporary signs on nonresidential or mixed use properties up to 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to 48 square feet in area and a maximum of 12 feet in height. The sign shall be limited to 28 calendar days per year. Deviation No. 4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.a, which allows off - premise directional signage up to 12 square feet in size. The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) off - premise directional signage up to 16 square feet in size. Deviation No. 5: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires developments to provide 5' -wide sidewalks on both sides of private rights -of -way or easements internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow a 5' -wide sidewalk on the northern side of the easement that connects the development area to US 41. Deviation No. 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.F, which prohibits project sites with more than one building where the aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more from undergoing the administrative determination of deviation process, to allow the project site to qualify for administrative determination of deviations where the aggregate gross building area is 70,000 square feet. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 6 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 GO 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 202 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Bay House Campus, 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 acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD 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. 2. PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "C ", PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan approval in accordance with the LDC. 3. UTILITIES 3.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District ( CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 4. TRANSPORTATION 4.1 The developer, its successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital costs of traffic signals on U.S. 41 at the project access and at Walkerbilt Road if and when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. 4.2 The developer, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for required improvements to Walkerbilt Road, including widening, as warranted by County land development regulations for this roadway to accommodate the traffic for this project and shall be initiated within 90 days of the County's request, as applicable. Walkerbilt Road improvements, if warranted shall be BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 7 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 0011 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 203 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) permitted as part of a Development Order improvement process (PPL or SDP), or approved as a Right -of -Way Permit. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL 5.1 The project shall provide a minimum of 1.64 acres of on -site native habitat preservation in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Any clearing required to facilitate passive recreational uses shall not impact the minimum required preserve. 5.2 Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis have been documented on the property. Management plans for these species shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Land Development Code. 6. ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORICAL RESOURCES 6.1 A certified archaeologist shall be on -site during excavations. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 8 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 oo 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 204 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) FLORIDA DEPART MENT dSTATE RICK SCOTT Governor December 16, 2013 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101 -3044 Attention: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: KEN DETZNER Secretary of State Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 13 -65, which was filed in this office on December 16, 2013. — Sincerely, Liz Cloud Program Administrator LC /elr Enclosure R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 Telephone: (850) 245 -6270 • Facsimile: (850) 488 -9879 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 205 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 1 of 8 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDA-PL20190000154 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, Words underlined are added   EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, as limited by Section Ill of this Exhibit A: I. Campus Tract A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Hotel, motel and transient lodging - maximum of 50 160 rooms (Group 7011) 2. Eating establishments (Group 5812) - maximum of 400 seats 3. Assisted Living Facility (as defined in the LDC) – maximum of .45 FAR Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Boats (All subject to LDC Section 5.03.06): Boat rental Boat slips (limited to 9 slips) Kayak and canoe launch Kayak and canoe storage 2. Two (2) caretaker's residences (subject to LDC Section 5.03.05) 3. School, commercial (Group 8299). Limited to culinary school accessory not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the principal hotel and restaurants uses, including but not limited to the following recreational, retail and personal service uses: administrative offices, ATM (automatic teller machine), apparel and accessory stores, barber shops (excluding barber schools), beauty shops (excluding beauty schools), boardwalks and nature trails, book stores, camera & photographic supply stores, child day care services, drugstore, drinking establishments (excluding bottle clubs), educational kiosks and shelters, entry gates & gatehouse, essential services, fences, walls, food store, florists, gift and souvenir shop, jewelry store, museum & art galleries, parking lot, personal service establishments, entertainment facilities, and meeting rooms and auditoriums, physical fitness facilities, recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, chickees huts/bars, and gazebos. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons and shall not be advertised to the public via on-site or off-site signage., with the exception of the culinary school, which is open to the public and may be advertised in accordance with the LDC and the provisions of the PUD stated herein.   9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 206 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Page 2 of 8 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDA-PL20190000154 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, Words underlined are added   C. Operational Requirements for Group Housing: Group Housing for seniors’ uses shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1.The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2.There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3.Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents’ individual needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4.There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5.A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6.Each unit shall have the option to be equipped to notify the community staff in the event of medical or other emergency. 7.Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 8.There shall be an emergency generator to serve the project with sufficient fuel supply for 5 days. The generator shall be equipped with a noise attenuation device or shall be enclosed. II.Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses & Structures Passive recreational uses limited to the following, as long as any clearing required to facilitate the uses does not impact the minimum required preserve. 1.Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails) 2.Benches for seating 3.Educational kiosks 4.Signs 5.Viewing platforms 6.Water management facilities 7.Inclement weather shelters without walls 8.Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible with the preserve area. Ill. Development Intensity Development intensity is limited to a 50 160 room hotel, 400-seat restaurant(s)/cocktail lounge(s), and 4,500 square feet of accessory commercial uses within the CPUD an Assisted Living Facility. Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons are not subject to the 4,500 square foot limitation. The gross project area is 8.67 ± acres. No residential density is permitted, except for the caretakers residences. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 207 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDA- PL20190000154 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, Words underlined are added EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITIED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS (EXTERNAL) From US 41 R-0-W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R-0-W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS (INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15’ SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15’ 10' Preserves* 0'/25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures** 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' I 35' Actual 75' I 45' SPS= Same as Principal Structure *0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.l. h.iii **Minimum distance between principal structures shall be 10' feet where both structures do not exceed 30' in zoned height and 35' in actual height. (Approved in HEX Decision 2016-29) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 208 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT C - CPUD MASTER PLAN tCDDtnnli Z A cp} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC o m rmnz mNNm OcONr Nznmv Z z m v, Aa Zmm D m ao u, C o y TRaF wo o c D mo m K Ft F+ Fa om c c o a a a tCDDtnnli Z A c p} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 209Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 1 4 AND 1 5 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U.D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 210 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 6 of 8  EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Deviation No. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.04.02 which requires all commercial projects to provide interconnections and shared access to adjacent properties. The requested deviation is to allow for the existing interconnections to the commercial retail property to the southeast only, as shown on the CPUD master plan. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires 218 parkin g spaces based upon the proposed mix of principal and accessory uses, to allow for a 10% reduction to required parking spaces for the project. The number of required parking spaces is subject to change at the time of SDP or PPL based upon final square footage of uses. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.d, which allows temporary signs on nonresidential or mixed use properties up to 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to 48 square feet in area and a maximum of 1 2 f e e t in h e ig h t . T h e s ig n s h a l l b e l i m i t e d t o 2 8 calendar days per year. Deviation No. 4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.a, which allows off-premise directional signage up to 12 square feet in size. The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) off-premise directional signage up to 1 6 square feet in size. Deviation No. 5: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires developments to provide 5'-wide sidewalks on both sides of private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow a 5'-wide sidewalk on the northern side of the easement that connects the development area to US 41. Deviation No. 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.F, which prohibits project sites with more than one building where the aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more from undergoing the administrative determination of deviation process, to allow the project site to qualify for administrative determination of deviations where the aggregate gross building area is 70,000 square feet. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 211 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 7 of 8   EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Bay House Campus, 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 acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD 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. 2. PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "C", PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan approval in accordance with the LDC. 3. UTILITIES 3.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available.   3.3 The owner agrees to eliminate the private pump station and force main with connection to the 8” gravity sewer on Walkerbilt Road and replace it with a Community Pump Station with connection to the 8” force main on Walkerbilt Road. The pump station and force main would be the responsibility of the developer to design, permit, and construct and would be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. This requirement would coincide with construction of either a hotel or an ALF. 4. TRANSPORTATION 4.1 The developer, its successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital costs of traffic signals on U.S. 41 at the project access and at Walkerbilt Road if and when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. 4.2 The developer, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for required improvements to Walkerbilt 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 212 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 8 of 8   Road, including widening, as warranted by County land development regulations for this roadway to accommodate the traffic for this project and shall be initiated within 90 days of the County’s request, as applicable. Walkerbilt Road improvements, if warranted shall be permitted as part of a Development Order improvement process (PPL or SOP), or approved as a Right-of-Way Permit. 4.3 The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 173 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. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL 5.1 The project shall provide a minimum of 1.64 acres of on-site native habitat preservation in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Any clearing required to facilitate passive recreational uses shall not impact the minimum required preserve. 5.2 Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis have been documented on the property. Management plans for these species shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Land Development Code. 6. ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORICAL RESOURCES 6.1 A certified archaeologist shall be on-site during excavations. 7. ALF EMERGENCY EVACUATION 7.1 Should an assisted living facility be constructed and or a facility that would be licensed and fall under rules by the Agency for Health Care Administration, it shall be noted that the facility when under a mandatory evacuation order shall be responsible for its own evacuation transportation, sheltering, re- entry, staffing, recovery and restoration without burden to the County for services and sheltering 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 213 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus ABB PN: 19-0006 Prepared For: Bay House Campus LLC 799 Walkerbilt Road Naples, FL 34110 Date: March 31, 2020 Prepared By: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Professional Engineers, Planners, Land Surveyors & Landscape Architects 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 Naples, Fl 34108 ______________________________ Kevin M. Dowty P.E.# 82330 This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Kevin M. Dowty, PE. on 03/31/2020 using a Digital Signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 214 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Sewer Bay House SEWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ABB PN 19-0006 A. Sewage Generation Rate Residential Demands per CCUSM DC Part 2 Commercial Demands per F.A.C. Ch64E-6 Proposed ADF - Hotel or Assisted Living Facility (ALF): GREATER OF THE TWO Hotel Number of Hotel Rooms = 160 rooms Demand per Hotel Room = 100 gpd ADF for Hotel = 16,000 gpd ALF Number of ALF Beds = 448 beds Demand per ALF Bed = 100 gpd Additional demand per meal prepared per bed = 5 gpd Meals prepared per day = 3 meals ADF for ALF = 51,520 gpd <GOVERNS> - Caretakers Residenecs for ALF Number of Caretakers = 2 Demand per 1 Bedroom Residence = 100 gpd ADF for Commercial = 200 gpd - Restaurant (operating < 16hrs/day) Number of Seats = 400 seats Demand per Seat = 40 gpd ADF for Restaurant = 16,000 gpd Total ADF Sewage Generation =67,720 gpd B. Peak Sewage Demand Peaking Factor from Collier County 2014 Master Plan Peaking Factor =1.35 Hours of daily operation =24 hrs Adjusted Peak flow =>91,422 gpd => 3,809 gph Instantaneous Peak Flow = 63.5 gpm Summary Peak Sewage Demand :63.5 gpm 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 215 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Water Bay House WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ABB PN 19-0006 A. Water Demand Generation Rate Demands per CCUSM D.C. Part 2.2.1.C Proposed ADF - Hotel or Assisted Living Facility (ALF): GREATER OF THE TWO Hotel ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Hotel = 22,400 gpd ALF ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 51,520 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Hotel = 72,128 gpd <GOVERNS> - Caretakers Residenecs for ALF ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 200 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Commercial = 280 gpd - Restaurant (operating < 16hrs/day) ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Restaurant = 22,400 gpd Total ADF Water Demand =94,808 gpd B. Peak Water Demand Peaking Factor from Collier County 2014 Master Plan Peaking Factor =1.35 Hours of daily operation =24 hrs Adjusted Peak flow =>127,991 gpd => 5,333 gph Instantaneous Peak Flow = 88.9 gpm Summary Peak Water Demand :88.9 gpm 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 216 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Water Bay House WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ABB PN 19-0006 A. Water Demand Generation Rate Demands per CCUSM D.C. Part 2.2.1.C Proposed ADF - Restaurant (operating < 16hrs/day) ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Restaurant = 22,400 gpd - Hotel ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Hotel = 22,400 gpd - Commercial ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 675 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Commercial = 945 gpd Total ADF Water Demand =45,745 gpd B. Peak Water Demand Peaking Factor from Collier County 2014 Master Plan Peaking Factor =1.35 Hours of daily operation =24 hrs Adjusted Peak flow =>61,756 gpd => 2,573 gph Instantaneous Peak Flow = 42.9 gpm Summary Peak Water Demand :42.9 gpm 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 217 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) February 28, 2019 Pump Station 127.00 Pressure & Flow Request 8-inch Discharge Force Mai n Pressure Report Force Main Pressure Summary Pressure Transducer Connection Point Elevation = 3.7 FT, NGVD29 Gauge Pressure (PSIG) Hydraulic Grade Line (FT, NGVD29) 25th Percentile 13 34 75th Percentile 16 40 Maximum 23 57 Comments: Wastewater generated within the proposed redevelopment site known as the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD located on the north side of Walkerbilt Road west of US-41 is proposed to be conveyed to the existing privately owned and maintained Pump Station 9000.17, located within the redevelopment site. The existing pump station pumps wastewater south and discharges into the 8-inch gravity sewer along Walkerbilt Road. The 8-inch gravity sewer flows west and discharges into the wet well of Pump Station 127.00 located along the south side of Walkerbilt Road. Pu mp Station 127.00 pumps wastewater east along Walkerbilt Road through an 8-inch force main. The 8-inch force main connects to the 20 -inch force main along the west side of US-41. The 20-inch force main conveys wastewater south along US -41. And eventually discharges at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) located along Goodlette-Frank Road just south of Immokalee Road. A pressure recorder was installed in the below ground valve vault at Pump Station 127.00. This report shows the recorded operating pressure in the 8- inch discharge force main from 1/28/2019 to 2/6/2019. The elevation of the pressure transducer connection point is approximately 11.6 feet NGVD29 per Collier County GIS and field measurements See Attachments for: • Force Main Operating Pressure and Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation Graph • Pump Station 127.00 Flow Report • Wastewater System Exhibit • Pump Station Photos Pump Station 127.00 Pressure & Flow Request Wastewater System Exhibit Misc. Wastewater System Data Collection, Monitoring, & Analysis 70044.10.1 / 20149700-175 N Pressure Recorder 8” Discharge Force Main) PS 127.00 Direction of Flow in 8-inch Force Main COOPER’S HAWK RESTAURANT 8” Force Main US-41WALKERBILT RD PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT SITE (COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST) 4” Force Main PS 9000.17 THE OLD COLLIER GOLF CLUB 20” Force Main 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 218 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Collier County Public Utilities PS 127.00 Pressure and Flow Request 2/21/2019 7.1 9.2 11.4 13.5 15.7 17.9 20.0 22.2 24.4 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 1/28/19 12:00 PM1/29/19 12:00 PM1/30/19 12:00 PM1/31/19 12:00 PM2/1/19 12:00 PM2/2/19 12:00 PM2/3/19 12:00 PM2/4/19 12:00 PM2/5/19 12:00 PM2/6/19 12:00 PMGauge Pressure (PSIG)Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation (FT, NGVD)PS 127.00 -Walkerbilt Road 8-inch Discharge Force Main Pressure Maximum = 57 FT / 23 PSI Average = 38 FT / 15 PSI Median = 38 FT / 15 PSI 25th Percentile = 34 FT / 13 PSI 75th Percentile = 40 FT / 16 PSI 90th Percentile = 43 FT / 17 PSI Top of Ground Elevation = 5.5 FT, NGVD Elevation of Transducer = 5.5 feet minus 1.8 feet = 3.7 FT, NGVD Misc. Wastewater System Data Collection, Monitoring, and Analysis 70044.10.1 / 20149700-175 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 219 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA)  Report prepared on 2/13/2019 at 2:27 PMPump Station 127.00 ‐ Walkerbilt RdPump Make/ModelDiameter (ft)Two (2) Submersible Pumps6FLYGT CP3127 W/ 463 IMP ‐ 10 HPAnalysis from 2/1/2018 to 2/7/2019.PARAMETER (units)ValueTotal Pump Run Time (minutes) 81,897.5Run Time Per Day (minutes) 220.4Run Time Per Day (hours) 3.7Pump Starts Per Day 56.2Average Pump Rate (GPM) 156.8Average Influent Rate (GPM) 24.0Average Daily Flow (GPD) 34,535Pump Station FeatureMeasured Down (From Rim)NGVD Elevation(ft)NAVDᵈ Elevation(ft)ᵃ Top of Wetwell‐6.405.15ᵇ High Water Float8.50‐2.10‐3.35ᵇ Lag #2 Float‐‐‐ᵇ Lag #1 Float 9.90‐3.50‐4.75ᶜ  Lead Float 11.10‐4.70‐5.95ᶜ  Pump Off Float‐‐6.99‐8.24ᵇ Bottom of Wetwell 16.00‐9.60‐10.85ᵃ  Top of wetwell elevation based on record drawings and compared to LiDAR information.ᵇ Elevations are based on wetwell top elevation and field measurements (to top of float or bottom of wetwell).ᶜ Float switch elevation based on water level measurements using pressure transducer.ᵈ Conversion from NGVD to NAVD at this location (subtract 1.25).Pump Station 127.00 ‐ Walkerbilt Rd9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 220Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA)  Report prepared on 2/13/2019 at 2:27 PM21161311111213141723252726272727272931333333312601020304050600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Influent Rate (GPM)Hour of DayAverage Influent Rates by Hour from 2/1/2018 to 2/7/2019 Influent Rate for Each Hour Average Hourly Influent RatePump Station 127.00 ‐ Walkerbilt Rd9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 221Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Pump Station 127.00 Pressure & Flow RequestWastewater System ExhibitMisc. Wastewater System Data Collection, Monitoring, & Analysis70044.10.1 / 20149700-175NPressure Recorder8” Discharge Force Main)PS 127.00Direction of Flow in 8-inch Force MainCOOPER’S HAWK RESTAURANT8” Force MainUS-41WALKERBILT RDPROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT SITE(COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST)4” Force MainPS 9000.17THE OLD COLLIER GOLF CLUB20” Force Main9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 222Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Collier County Public Utilities 2/21/2019 Pump Station 127.00 Photos 70044.10.1 / 20149700‐175             9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 223 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Collier County Public Utilities 2/21/2019 Pump Station 127.00 Photos 70044.10.1 / 20149700‐175       9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 224 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 225 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 226 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 227 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Bay House Campus CPUD Property ID Numbers 26300001000 0.35 Acres 26300000755 6.35 Acres 23100000026 1.97 Acres 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 228 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) EXHIBIT “A”    LEGAL DESCRIPTION  BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD      BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT  BOOK SO, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST  P.U.D., ACCORDING TOTHE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE  PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,  RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE  OR LESS.    9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 229 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) From:StevensMichael To:NagySteve; MildenAnthony; FeyEric; TrtanCorinne; PajerCraig Cc:ChmelikTom; JohnssenBeth Subject:RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) Date:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:10:28 AM Attachments:image006.png image007.png image008.jpg image009.png image010.png image011.jpg Agreed. Eliminating the re-pumping of the private system flow would be beneficial. The capacity of the 8” to accept the additional flow needs to be confirmed via an engineering analysis. I’ll wait for Corinne’s response on whether or not we have a pump station report for 127.00 or if one is needed. Respectfully, Michael Stevens, P.E. Principal Project Manager Engineering & Project Management Division “Continuous Improvement” 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112-5361 Phone: 239-252-2589 Cell: 239-877-7192 www.colliergov.net From: NagySteve Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:45 AM To: MildenAnthony ; FeyEric ; TrtanCorinne ; StevensMichael ; PajerCraig Cc: ChmelikTom ; JohnssenBeth Subject: RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) I support Anthony’s suggestions…Steve From: MildenAnthony Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:12 AM To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>; TrtanCorinne <Corinne.Trtan@colliercountyfl.gov>; StevensMichael <Michael.Stevens@colliercountyfl.gov>; PajerCraig <Craig.Pajer@colliercountyfl.gov>; NagySteve <Steve.Nagy@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: ChmelikTom <Tom.Chmelik@colliercountyfl.gov>; JohnssenBeth <Beth.Johnssen@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) My suggestions: Eliminate private pump station connection to PS 127.00 gravity system (regardless of available capacity) Require connection of 4” private FM to CCWSD 8” FM south of existing connection (if 8” CCWSD FM capacity exists) Require connection of 4” private FM to CCWSD 20” PVC FM at the NW corner of US-41 (if 8” CCWSD FM capacity does not exists) Require improvements where private 4” FM enters ROW in line with current standards (USM detail WW2) Note: 20” FM was replaced in 2000 during US-41 road improvement project (1999-2001). Anthony From: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:27 PM To: TrtanCorinne <Corinne.Trtan@colliercountyfl.gov>; StevensMichael <Michael.Stevens@colliercountyfl.gov>; PajerCraig <Craig.Pajer@colliercountyfl.gov>; MildenAnthony <Anthony.Milden@colliercountyfl.gov>; NagySteve <Steve.Nagy@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: ChmelikTom <Tom.Chmelik@colliercountyfl.gov>; JohnssenBeth <Beth.Johnssen@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) Wastewater Team, The below pre-application meeting notice was issued this afternoon. Based upon the project description, the proposed change in permitted uses would result in an increase in design peak hour flow of nearly 30 gpm (61.6 gpm to 90.4 gpm). There may be a capacity concern given the age and materials of the existing infrastructure (i.e. elevated potential for infiltration). The Cocohatchee River Trust PUD, now known as the Bay House Campus PUD (as of Ordinance No. 13-65), is the location of The Bay House Restaurant on Walkerbilt Rd, which is served by a private pump station (9000.17). PS 9000.17 discharges to the 8” VCP sewer on Walkerbilt Rd via a 4” force main. The gravity sewer flows to MPS 127 at the west end of Walkerbilt Rd. MPS 127 discharges through an 8” cast iron force main that runs east to the 20” PVC force main along the west side of Tamiami Trail N (US 41). Our GIS indicates the wastewater collection/transmission system improvements along Walkerbilt Rd were constructed in 1976 or 1977 and the 20” force main along US 41 was constructed in 1988. See the GIS screen shot below: I have two general questions: 1. Should I require an engineering analysis for this PUDA, or are we comfortable that the existing infrastructure is adequate? 2. Should I stipulate the connection point for the proposed hotel, and if so, where should that be? Also, Corinne, do we have a pump station report for MPS 127? Lastly, Craig or Michael, do we have any capital projects in our CIP to replace any of this aging infrastructure? I would appreciate your input prior to the 1/29 pre-application meeting. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E. 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 230 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Senior Project Manager cid:image005.jpg@01D3676E.EE3105D0 Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management DivisionContinuous ImprovementNOTE: Email Address Has Changed3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-5361Phone: 239.252.1037 Cell: 239.572.0043 -----Original Appointment----- From: EstradaMaria On Behalf Of CDS-C Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 2:22 PM To: AcevedoMargarita; AlcornChris; Amy Lockhart-Taylor; AnthonyDavid; ArnoldMichelle; AshtonHeidi; AuclairClaudine; BaluchStephen; BeardLaurie; BrownCraig; CascioGeorge; ClarkeThomas; ColeTabatha; CondominaDanny; CrotteauKathynell; CrowleyMichaelle; David Ogilvie; dfey@northcollierfire.com; DumaisMike; FaulknerSue; FeyEric; FinnTimothy; FleishmanPaula; GewirtzStorm; GibbonsMichael; GiblinCormac; GosselinLiz; GundlachNancy; HughesJodi; HumphriesAlicia; JacobLisa; jnageond@sfwmd.gov; JohnHouldsworthVEN; JohnsonEric; JosephitisErin; KellyJohn; KendallMarcia; KurtzGerald; LevyMichael; lmartin@sfwmd.gov; MartinezGilbert; MartinezOscar; MastrobertoThomas; McCaughtryMary; McKennaJack; McKuenElly; McLeanMatthew; MoscaMichele; MoxamAnnis; NawrockiStefanie; NuteMelissa; OrthRichard; PajerCraig; PattersonAmy; PepinEmily; pjimenez@sfwmd.gov; PochmaraNatalie; PollardBrandi; RodriguezWanda; RomanDaniel; RosenblumBrett; SaboJames; SantabarbaraGino; SawyerMichael; ScottChris; ScottTami; ShawinskyPeter; Shawn Hanson; SheaBarbara; SmithCamden; SmithDaniel; StoneScott; StrainMark; SuleckiAlexandra; SummersEllen; SweetChad; TempletonMark; VanLengenKris; VargaCecilia; VelascoJessica; WalshJonathan; WeeksDavid; WickhamFlannery; WilkieKirsten; WilloughbyChristine; ZunzuneguiDaniel; karenbishop@pmsnaples.com Subject: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) When: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Conf. Room C- Nancy Gundlach Planner: Nancy Gundlach Fire District: North Collier NN Fire ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cid:image001.png@01D4AF38.C76484F0 ***************************************************************************************************************************** cid:image002.png@01D4AF38.C76484F0 Respectfully, Maria Estrada, AS Business Project Coordinator 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 231 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) Inc. of Naples Land Development Consultant 3125 54th Terrace SW, Naples, FL 34116 / (239) 825-7230 / Fax (239) 234-6096 /Email: karenbishop@pmsnaples.com Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application (PL20190000850) known as Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict as well as a Planned Unit Development Amendment Application (PL20190000154) for the following described property: Bay House Campus CPUD: Located on the northwest corner of Walkerbilt Road and Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41) The petitioner is asking the County to approve these companion applications to allow the Bay House Campus CPUD to reestablish the previously allowed maximum of 160 hotel rooms, add assisted living as an additional principal use and increase the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and increase the actual building height from 75 feet to 90 feet. The purpose of the SSGMPA (companion to a PUDA) is to reestablish the previously allowed maximum of 160 hotel rooms, and identify all other allowable uses within the proposed Subdistrict and related intensity limitations. The PUD amendment is necessary in order to request the increase in hotel rooms, add assisted living as an additional principal use, increase the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and increase the actual building height from 75 feet to 90 feet. The application also removes the 4500 square-foot commercial cooking school and auditoriums as accessory uses. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our development intentions and to give you an opportunity to influence the form of development. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 15th at 5:30 P.M. at The Doubletree Suites by Hilton, 12200 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL 34110. At this meeting, the petitioner will make every effort to illustrate how the property will be developed and to answer any questions. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me. Respectfully, Karen Bishop 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 232 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 233 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.e Packet Pg. 234 Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 三三∴　〕三、 の の 当 てさ ヰ 5 し 禽・ 、a 一志 ③ き ゃ や) し 3 ` も く二 重 一三 吋 も I て) 千 の 室 山 「 支 薫 ミ ‡ヽ ミ .ミ 高 く_ 。ミ 雷 電 ヽ〇二ここ ゴ ミー く9 ’室 くま, N ぜ 寝 くの 主 o ト }l ノ 」 ⊇ 立 ∽ の 里 さ ミ ! 薄 で .イ 8 諾 一°。〇〇一 >ヽ ヾ・ {ヽ てさ てさ 〃く \ハ ヽ」 睾 V\ か くへ \へ 登 ぐ\ ぐう し“￣ ( 宮 .4 0 0 ヾ \」 ー \モ ① 巨 億 之 ヽ’〇一〇 メ 1′\ 3 蔓 草 ∴山 ミ _く 6 i・- ′ \上 ●一ヽ /　- $ ご く ′/ `ブ ぴ 、ゴ ミ ミ エ ーこ> だ 9.A.1.ePacket Pg. 235Attachment: 03_Petition-Application Complete Package - Bay House (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) iptjc.q 4K)CIA11 Tclotm PART OF THE USA TODAY NET WORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 BCC COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES FL 34112 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Joe Heynen who on oath says that he 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. Afftanl 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_ 6/26/2020 Subscribed and sworn to before on June 26, 2020: 0-LCl Yvt UvN t_QA tx:_0— Notary, State of WI, County of Brown IAHA MONDI.00H Notary Public State of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: S1.040 36 Ad No (100440i67 Customer No: i06365 POIt: 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: 04_CCPC Affidavit & Advertisement (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on July 16, 2020 commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners chamber, third floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA At\1ENDING ORDINANCE. NO.89-05. AS AYIENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE. LAND USE ELEMENT AND MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAI. DISTRICT TO ADD THE. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 160 HOTEL R0051S AND ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AT A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .45, AND UP TO 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NOR'I-HWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIANII TRAIL NORTH .AND WALKERBILT ROAD IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.671 ACRES. [PL201900008501 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 13-65, THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOTEL UNITS FROM 50 TO 160; TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TO 75 FEET ZONED AND 90 FEET ACTUAL; TO ADD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AT A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .45 AS A PERMITTED USE IN ADDITION TO THE ALLOWED 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT/COCKTAIL LOUNGE USES AND ACCESSORY USES TO HOTEL AND RESTAURANT USES ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH AND WALKERBILT ROAD IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.67 +1- KRIS: AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ]15LZ1119000154] Project Location Walkerbilt RD 4tIth-AVE N -{ IIka All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S) will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A M and 5:00 P.M., Mondaythrough Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, fourth floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to July 16, 2020, will be read and considered at the public hearing. As part of an ongoing initiative to promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely, should register any time after the agenda is posted on the County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link provided on the front page of the County website at www.colliercountyfl.gov. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. For additional information about the meeting, please call Thomas Clarke at (239) 252-2526 or email to CCPCRemoteParticipation® Coll ierCountyFL.gov 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 Edwin Fryer, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission June 26th. 2020 ND-GCIQM056741 9.A.1.f Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: 04_CCPC Affidavit & Advertisement (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.gPacket Pg. 238Attachment: 05_CPSS-2019-6 Affidavit & Sign Postings (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) ?UBLIC HE ANING ilOTI BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMIUIEBCIAT SUBDISTBICT (PETliloN NO. PL'20190000850) & BAY HOUSE CAMPU{I (PETlil0N N0. PUDA'PL20190000154) ' cGPc: AUGusr 20, 2o2o - 9:oo a-m- BGC: OCTOBER 27. 2O2O - 9:00 a-m- Collier County Government Center, William H. Turner Bldg., Third Floor, 3299 Tamiami Trail East, Naples, FL 34112 SUE FAULKNER. Principal Plannen 239'252-5715 . NANCY GUNDLACH, AICP, Priry:ipal Planner: 239-252'2484 . I \ \ I I ,i t v a 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: 05_CPSS-2019-6 Affidavit & Sign Postings (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) I ITOTIC I 0rsrB,cr D t54) t , 2O2O - 9:00 a.m: BER 27, 2O2O - 9:00 a.m. Collie r County Government Center, William H. Turner Bldg., Third Floor, 3299 Tamiami Trai! East, Naples, tL 34112 SUE FAUIKNEB. Principa! Planner: 239-252-5715 ITIANCY GUNDLACH, AICP, Principaplanner: 239-252-2484 = . .h. '.t, Y BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMEBCIAT SU (PET|T|oN tuo. PL-20190000850) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS C U F (PETrfloN N0. PU CC: OGTO I !' a a a D I 9.A.1.g Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: 05_CPSS-2019-6 Affidavit & Sign Postings (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 9.A.1.h Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: 06_Bay House Virtual Hearing ltr_CPSS-19-06 (12667 : Bay House Campus GMPA) 08/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.2 Item Summary: *** This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting.*** CPUD-PL20190000154-An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 13-65, the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development, to increase the maximum number of hotel units from 50 to 160; to increase the height of principal structures to 75 feet zoned and 90 feet actual; to add assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio of .45 as a permitted use in addition to the allowed 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge uses and accessory uses to hotel and restaurant uses on property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North and Walkerbilt Road in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.67 +/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion PL20190000850) [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach, AICP, PLA, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 08/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Principal – Zoning Name: Nancy Gundlach 06/24/2020 12:05 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 06/24/2020 12:05 PM Approved By: Review: Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 06/24/2020 1:42 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/29/2020 10:44 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 07/01/2020 2:38 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 07/09/2020 2:51 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 07/10/2020 5:30 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.2 Packet Pg. 242 PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 1 of 13 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT - PLANNING & REGULATION HEARING DATE: AUGUST 20, 2020 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) – COMPANION TO ITEM PL20190000850, BAY HOUSE CAMPUS SUBDISTRICT _______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT AND AGENTS: Property Owner/Applicant: Bay House Campus LLC/Turtle Bay Holding Company LLC 799 Walkerbilt Road Naples, FL 34110 Agents: Karen Bishop Richard Yovanovich PMS Inc. of Naples Coleman Yovanovich Koester 3125 54th Terrace SW 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34116 Naples, FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 13- 65, the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development, to i ncrease the maximum number of hotel units from 50 to 160; to increase the height of principal structures to 75 feet zoned and 90 feet actual; to add assisted living facilities at a floor area ratio (FAR) of .45 as a permitted use in addition to the allowed 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge uses and accessory uses to hotel and restaurant uses, and by providing an effective date. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 2 of 13 9.A.2.aPacket Pg. 244Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 3 of 13 9.A.2.aPacket Pg. 245Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 4 of 13 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 8.67± acres, is located on property located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail North and Walkerbilt Road in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See the Location Map on page 2 of this Staff Report.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property was originally rezoned in 1988 from Agricultural (A-2 and A-2ST) and Commercial (C-4) to the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development (PUD) per Ordinance Number 88-30. That ordinance approved the development of a 180-seat restaurant, a 160-room hotel, ancillary recreational uses, and open space/preserve areas. While the restaurant uses were fully built-out, the hotel uses were never constructed. As such, the hotel portion was deemed “sunsetted” in accordance with former Section 10.02.13.D of the Land Development Code. Ordinance Number 2013-65 amended the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD and renamed it to the Bay House Campus CPUD, removed the Special Treatment Overlay and allowed 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge, a 50 room hotel or motel, and 4,500 square feet of gross floor area of accessory retail uses including a culinary school, specialty retail, and a restaurant/brewhouse. See Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65. The petitioner proposes to amend the Bay House Campus CPUD to: - remove the accessory use for a commercial culinary school and auditoriums; - add a third principal use for an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) with a maximum FAR of .45; - increase the number of hotel, motel, and transient lodging rooms from the approved maximum of 50 rooms to 160 rooms; and - increase in the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and actual building height from 75 feet to 90 feet. There is no proposed change in the number of restaurant seats (400). There are no changes to the currently approved Master Plan and development standards. See Attachment A – Proposed PUD Ordinance. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Cocohatchee River, and then undeveloped land with a zoning designation of Agriculture within a Special Treatment Area Overlay (A-ST) East: US 41, a 6-lane divided arterial roadway and then a hotel with a zoning designation of Residential Tourist (RT) and various retail uses with a zoning designation of General Commercial (C-4) 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 5 of 13 South: A C-4 zoned tract that is developed with various retail uses with frontage on Walkerbilt Road with a zoning designation of C-4, and then a golf course with a zoning designation of Collier Tract 21 PUD West: A golf maintenance facility, with a zoning designation of Collier Tract 21 PUD AERIAL PHOTO GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Comprehensive Planning staff has reviewed the proposed PUD Amendment and has found it consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP subject to the approval and adoption of the companion GMP Amendment, PL20190000850, Bay House Subdistrict. See Attachment C – FLUE Consistency Review. Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s October 2, 2019, Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP using the applicable 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Reports (AUIR). Subject Site 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 6 of 13 Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP states; “The County Commission shall review all rezone petitions, SRA designation applications, conditional use petitions, and proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) affecting the overall countywide density or intensity of permissible development, with consideration of their impact on the overall County transportation system, and shall not approve any petition or application that would directly access a deficient roadway segment as identified in the current AUIR or if it impacts an adjacent roadway segment that is deficient as identified in the current AUIR, or which significantly impacts a roadway segment or adjacent roadway segment that is currently operating and/or is projected to operate below an adopted Level of Service Standard within the five-year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the proposed development will generate a projected total of +/- 173 PM peak hour, 2-way trips on the adjacent roadway segments of Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and Immokalee Road (CR 846). This represents an additional +/- 49 PM peak hour, 2-way trips to the existing developments approved +/-124 PM peak hour 2-way trips. The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link: Link/Roadway Link 2018 AUIR LOS 2019 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2018 Remaining Capacity 2019 Remaining Capacity 99.0/Tamiami Trail North (US 41) Wiggins Pass Road to Immokalee Road (CR 846) E *expected deficient in 2020 D *expected deficient now in 2026 3,100/North 66 346 100.0/Tamiami Trail North Immokalee Road C C 3,100/North 1,164 1,295 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 7 of 13 (US-41) (CR 846) to Vanderbilt Beach Road 41.1/Immokalee Road (CR 846) Tamiami Trail North (US 41) to Goodlette- Frank Road C C 3,100/West 845 822 FDOT has a current on-going intersection capacity improvements study for Tamiami Trail and Immokalee Road designed to address the projected deficiencies noted above. Staff notes that the proposed development is located within the South 41 Transportation Concurrency Exception Area (TCEA) which allows exemptions from concurrency requirements so long as impacts to the transportation system are mitigated consistent with GMP Policy 5.4. The proposed development is not requesting this exemption and not proposing TCEA mitigation measures at this time. Based on the TIS and the 2019 AUIR, the subject PUD Amendment can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. The TIS indicates that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental Planning staff have found this project to be consistent with the CCME. There are no revisions to the environmental portions of the PUD. GMP Conclusion: The proposed PUD Amendment may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP subject to the adoption of the companion GMP amendment. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition, including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.02.13 B.5., Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly 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 C ollier County Planning Commission’s (CCPC) recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the Board of Collier County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the headings “Rezone Findings” and “PUD Findings.” In addition, staff offers the following analysis: 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 8 of 13 Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed this petition. The existing preserve areas will not 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. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the north wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). Water and wastewater services are readily available via connections to existing infrastructure on-site and within adjacent rights-of-way. Sufficient water and wastewater treatment capacities are available. In the event a hotel or ALF is developed on the property, the developer has committed to replacing the existing private pump station with a community pump station (per county standards) and connecting wastewater service to the existing 8” force main on Walkerbilt Road rather the current connection to the existing 8” gravity sewer. Zoning and Land Development Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Staff believes that the proposed development will be compatible with and complementary to the surrounding land uses. Staff offers the following analysis of this project: The subject property is located northwest of US 41, a six-lane arterial roadway, and Walkerbilt Road, a two-lane local roadway, intersection with frontage and access to both roadways. The subject property is separated from the actual intersection by three separate commercial developments consisting of a 1.6± acre tract developed with a mix of retail uses that fronts directly on US 41, a 1.0± acre tract developed with mixed-use office and retail structures with access from Walkerbilt Road, and a 0.94± acre office and retail tract that fronts on Walkerbilt Road. Other adjacent uses include a golf maintenance facility to the west. The Cocohatchee River abuts the property to the north. The Bay House Campus PUD is compatible with the surrounding area based upon the placement of required landscape buffers, lakes, and preserve areas. The proposed development area is clustered within the central portion of the site to avoid impacts on adjacent parcels and screen views from US 41. The existing Bay House Restaurant is also screened from the adjacent golf maintenance facility to the west via an existing buffer yard. Lastly, the Cocohatchee River and uses north of the water body are adequately buffered by the proposed preserve area. As noted in the “Purpose/Description of Project,” the applicant is adding a principal use for an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) with a maximum FAR. of .45; increasing the number of hotel, motel, 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 9 of 13 and transient lodging rooms from 50 to 160; and increasing the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and actual building height from 75 feet to 90 feet. Staff is supportive of the proposed changes to the building height. Staff is also supportive of the proposed number of 160 hotel rooms as it is the same as the previously approved number of hotel rooms in Ordinance 88-30. There are no changes to the currently approved Master Plan. CONCURRENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS: There are no concurrent land use applications under review at the present time. REZONE FINDINGS: Staff offers the following analysis: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies, and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning staff has indicated that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with all applicable elements of the FLUE of the GMP. See Attachment C – FLUE Consistency Review. 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the “Surrounding Land Use and Zoning” portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood’s existing land use pattern can be characterized as developed commercial, golf course, hotel, and undeveloped Special Treatment Area Overlay (ST) lands. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size that it will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. The district boundaries are logically drawn as discussed in Items 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezone necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes because the petitioner wishes to develop the property with an increased number of hotel units, an ALF, and increase the building height. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 10 of 13 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. The proposed change in land uses and building height will not adversely influence 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., the GMP is consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the time of the 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 would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 9. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that their sound application, when combined with the SDP approval process and PPL process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 10. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The development complies with the GMP, which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed PUD Amendment does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 11. 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 proposed uses cannot be achieved without amending the PUD. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 11 of 13 12. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. The proposed PUD Amendment is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 13. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a zoning decision. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 14. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or PPL processes, and as part of the building permit process. 15. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The project will have 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 review. The activity proposed by this amendment will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 16. 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. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. 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:” 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 12 of 13 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. The PUD already receives potable water and wastewater services from the CCWSD, and there are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities available to future development as proposed by this petition. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for Rezones 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 provided satisfactory evidence of unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain SDP approval. These processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of, continuing operation of, and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff has found this petition consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The landscaping and buffering standards are compatible with the adjacent uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure is sufficient to serve the proposed project, as noted in the Transportation Element consistency review. Operational impacts will be addressed at the 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. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any SDPs or Plats, are sought. 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) PUDA-PL20190000154 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD July 13, 2020 Page 13 of 13 The CCWSD has sufficient treatment capacities for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacities must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including readily available County water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. This criterion essentially requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. The petitioner is not seeking any new deviations. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM meeting on August 27, 2019, at the Bay House Restaurant, located at 799 Walkerbilt Road, Naples, Florida. Due to noise issues, a second NIM was held on October 15, 2019, at the Doubletree Suites by Hilton located at 12200 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida. Approximately 3 residents attended the meeting along with the Agent’s team and Applicant. For further information, see Attachment D - NIM Summary. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the Staff Report for this petition on July 13, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: Planning and Zoning Review staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDA- PL20190000154, Bay House Campus CPUD to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to the approval of the companion GMP Amendment, PL20190000850, Bay House Subdistrict. Attachments: Attachment A - Proposed PUD Ordinance Attachment B - Previous Ordinances and Decisions Attachment C - FLUE Consistency Review Attachment D - NIM Summary Attachment E - Application 9.A.2.a Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Bay House PUD Staff Report.docx 7-13-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) [19-CPS-01914/1538709/1]65 Bay House Campus CPUD Page 1 of 2 PUDA-PL20190000154 5/4/20 ORDINANCE NO. 20-_____ AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 13-65, THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF HOTEL UNITS FROM 50 TO 160; TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES TO 75 FEET ZONED AND 90 FEET ACTUAL; TO ADD ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES AT A FLOOR AREA RATIO OF .45 AS A PERMITTED USE IN ADDITION TO THE ALLOWED 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT/COCKTAIL LOUNGE USES AND ACCESSORY USES TO HOTEL AND RESTAURANT USES ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAMIAMI TRAIL NORTH AND WALKERBILT ROAD IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.67 +/- ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL2019000154] WHEREAS, on December 10, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 13-65, which created the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD); and WHEREAS, Karen Bishop of PMS Inc. of Naples representing Bay House Campus, LLC and Turtle Bay Holding Company, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to amend the CPUD. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Ordinance No. 13-65 is hereby amended in accordance with the Bay House Campus CPUD attached hereto as Exhibits “A” through “F” and incorporated by reference herein. CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) [19-CPS-01914/1538709/1]65 Bay House Campus CPUD Page 2 of 2 PUDA-PL20190000154 5/4/20 SECTION TWO: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State and on the date that the Growth Management Plan Amendment in Ordinance No. 20 -____ becomes effective. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this _______ day of ________________, 2020. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS CRYSTAL K KINZEL, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: _______________________ By: _________________________________ Deputy Clerk Burt L. Saunders, Chairman Approved as to form and legality: __________________________________ Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A – List of Permitted Uses Exhibit B – Development Standards Exhibit C – Master Plan Exhibit D – Legal Description Exhibit E – List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F – Development Commitments HFAC 5-4-20 CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Page 1 of 8 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDA-PL20190000154 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, Words underlined are added   EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, as limited by Section Ill of this Exhibit A: I. Campus Tract A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1.Hotel, motel and transient lodging - maximum of 50 160 rooms (Group 7011) 2.Eating establishments (Group 5812) - maximum of 400 seats 3.Assisted Living Facility (as defined in the LDC) – maximum of .45 FAR Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B.Accessory Uses: 1.Boats (All subject to LDC Section 5.03.06): Boat rental Boat slips (limited to 9 slips) Kayak and canoe launch Kayak and canoe storage 2.Two (2) caretaker's residences (subject to LDC Section 5.03.05) 3.School, commercial (Group 8299). Limited to culinary school accessory not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 4.Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the principal hotel and restaurants uses, including but not limited to the following recreational, retail and personal service uses: administrative offices, ATM (automatic teller machine), apparel and accessory stores, barber shops (excluding barber schools), beauty shops (excluding beauty schools), boardwalks and nature trails, book stores, camera & photographic supply stores, child day care services, drugstore, drinking establishments (excluding bottle clubs), educational kiosks and shelters, entry gates & gatehouse, essential services, fences, walls, food store, florists, gift and souvenir shop, jewelry store, museum & art galleries, parking lot, personal service establishments, entertainment facilities, and meeting rooms and auditoriums, physical fitness facilities, recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, chickees huts/bars, and gazebos. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons and shall not be advertised to the public via on-site or off-site signage., with the exception of the culinary school, which is open to the public and may be advertised in accordance with the LDC and the provisions of the PUD stated herein. CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Page 2 of 8 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDA-PL20190000154 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, Words underlined are added   C. Operational Requirements for Group Housing: Group Housing for seniors’ uses shall provide the following services and/or be subject to the following operational standards: 1.The facility shall be for residents 55 years of age and older. 2.There shall be on-site dining for the residents. 3.Group transportation services shall be provided for residents for the purposes of grocery and other types of shopping. Individual transportation services may be provided for the residents’ individual needs including but not limited to medical office visits. 4.There shall be an on-site manager/activities coordinator to assist residents with their individual needs. The manager/coordinator shall also be responsible for arranging trips to off-site events as well as planning for lectures, movies, music and other entertainment for the residents at the on-site clubhouse. 5.A wellness center shall be provided on-site. Exercise and other fitness programs shall be provided for the residents. 6.Each unit shall have the option to be equipped to notify the community staff in the event of medical or other emergency. 7.Each unit shall be designed to accommodate residents with physical impairments (handicaps) as required by the applicable building codes and federal law and regulation. 8.There shall be an emergency generator to serve the project with sufficient fuel supply for 5 days. The generator shall be equipped with a noise attenuation device or shall be enclosed. II.Preserve Tract A.Principal Uses & Structures Passive recreational uses limited to the following, as long as any clearing required to facilitate the uses does not impact the minimum required preserve. 1.Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails) 2.Benches for seating 3.Educational kiosks 4.Signs 5.Viewing platforms 6.Water management facilities 7.Inclement weather shelters without walls 8.Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible with the preserve area. Ill. Development Intensity Development intensity is limited to a 50 160 room hotel, 400-seat restaurant(s)/cocktail lounge(s), and 4,500 square feet of accessory commercial uses within the CPUD an Assisted Living Facility. Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons are not subject to the 4,500 square foot limitation. The gross project area is 8.67 ± acres. No residential density is permitted, except for the caretakers residences. CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDA- PL20190000154 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, Words underlined are added EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITIED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS (EXTERNAL) From US 41 R-0-W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R-0-W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS (INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15’ SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15’ 10' Preserves* 0'/25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures** 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' I 35' Actual 75' I 45' SPS= Same as Principal Structure *0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.l. h.iii **Minimum distance between principal structures shall be 10' feet where both structures do not exceed 30' in zoned height and 35' in actual height. (Approved in HEX Decision 2016-29) CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT C - CPUD MASTER PLAN tCDDtnnli Z A cp} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC o m rmnz mNNm OcONr Nznmv Z z m v, Aa Zmm D m ao u, C o y TRaF wo o c D mo m K Ft F+ Fa om c c o a a a tCDDtnnli Z A c p} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC CAO 9.A.2.bPacket Pg. 261Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 5 of 8 EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 1 4 AND 1 5 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U.D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 6 of 8 EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Deviation No. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.04.02 which requires all commercial projects to provide interconnections and shared access to adjacent properties. The requested deviation is to allow for the existing interconnections to the commercial retail property to the southeast only, as shown on the CPUD master plan. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.H, which requires 218 parkin g spaces based upon the proposed mix of principal and accessory uses, to allow for a 10% reduction to required parking spaces for the project. The number of required parking spaces is subject to change at the time of SDP or PPL based upon final square footage of uses. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.d, which allows temporary signs on nonresidential or mixed use properties up to 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to 48 square feet in area and a maximum of 1 2 f e e t in h e ig h t . T h e s ig n s h a l l b e l i m i t e d t o 2 8 calendar days per year. Deviation No. 4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.a, which allows off-premise directional signage up to 12 square feet in size. The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) off-premise directional signage up to 1 6 square feet in size. Deviation No. 5: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires developments to provide 5'-wide sidewalks on both sides of private rights-of-way or easements internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow a 5'-wide sidewalk on the northern side of the easement that connects the development area to US 41. Deviation No. 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.F, which prohibits project sites with more than one building where the aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more from undergoing the administrative determination of deviation process, to allow the project site to qualify for administrative determination of deviations where the aggregate gross building area is 70,000 square feet. CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 7 of 8 EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD 1.PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Bay House Campus, 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 acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD 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. 2.PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "C", PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan approval in accordance with the LDC. 3.UTILITIES 3.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District (CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3.3 The owner agrees to eliminate the private pump station and force main with connection to the 8” gravity sewer on Walkerbilt Road and replace it with a Community Pump Station with connection to the 8” force main on Walkerbilt Road. The pump station and force main would be the responsibility of the developer to design, permit, and construct and would be conveyed to the Collier County Water-Sewer District at no cost to the County at the time of utilities acceptance. This requirement would coincide with construction of either a hotel or an ALF. 4.TRANSPORTATION 4.1 The developer, its successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital costs of traffic signals on U.S. 41 at the project access and at Walkerbilt Road if and when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. 4.2 The developer, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for required improvements to Walkerbilt CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) BAY HOUSE CAMPUS - PUDZ-A-PL2012-1593 Last Revised: April 4, 2020 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added Page 8 of 8 Road, including widening, as warranted by County land development regulations for this roadway to accommodate the traffic for this project and shall be initiated within 90 days of the County’s request, as applicable. Walkerbilt Road improvements, if warranted shall be permitted as part of a Development Order improvement process (PPL or SOP), or approved as a Right-of-Way Permit. 4.3 The maximum total daily trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 173 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. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL 5.1 The project shall provide a minimum of 1.64 acres of on-site native habitat preservation in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Any clearing required to facilitate passive recreational uses shall not impact the minimum required preserve. 5.2 Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis have been documented on the property. Management plans for these species shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Land Development Code. 6. ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORICAL RESOURCES 6.1 A certified archaeologist shall be on-site during excavations. 7. ALF EMERGENCY EVACUATION 7.1 Should an assisted living facility be constructed and or a facility that would be licensed and fall under rules by the Agency for Health Care Administration, it shall be noted that the facility when under a mandatory evacuation order shall be responsible for its own evacuation transportation, sheltering, re- entry, staffing, recovery and restoration without burden to the County for services and sheltering CAO 9.A.2.b Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Attachment A-Proposed Ordinance - 050420 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) HEX NO. 2016—29 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION PETITION NO. PDI-PL20160000837 — Bay House Campus LLC requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2013-65, the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development, to reduce the minimum distance between principal structures to 10 feet where both principal structures do not exceed 30 feet in zoned height. The subject property consisting of 8.67± acres is located northwest of the US 41 and Walkerbilt Road intersection, in Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. DATE OF HEARING:July 28, 2016 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: Based on the applicant's written petition, testimony at the hearing of the applicant and the public, and the recommendation of staff, the Hearing Examiner finds that the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13 E.1 and 10.02.13 E.2 of the Land Development Code has been met and the petition should be approved. ANALYSIS: Staff received no objections to this application. One member attended the hearing to question transportation issues unrelated to this application. During the hearing the applicant agreed to add a limitation for actual height and this is incorporated into the approved language. DECISION: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves Petition Number PDI-PL20160000837, filed by Lindsay Rodriguez of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. representing Bay House Campus, LLC, with respect to the property as described in the Bay House Campus CPUD, Ordinance No. 2013-65, for an insubstantial change to the development standards of Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 2013-65, to reduce the minimum distance between principal structures to 10 feet where both principal structures do not exceed 30 feet in zoned height and 35 feet in actual height. Said change is fully described in the Bay House Campus CPUD amendment attached as Exhibit "A", and is subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A—CPUD Amendment 16-CPS-01542/1270252/1118 1 of 2 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Ordinance No. 2013-65, the Bay House Campus CPUD. CONDITIONS: 1.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER: Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS: This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ajt ° Date Mar Strain, Hearing Examiner Approved as to form and legality: A C/co H idi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 16-CPS-01542/1270252/1}18 2 of 2 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS(EXTERNAL) From US 41 R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS(INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15' SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15' 10' Preserves* 0'/25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures" 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' 35' Actual 75' 45' SPS=Same as Principal Structure 0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.1.h.iii Minimum distance between principal structures shall be 10'feet where both structures do not exceed 30' in zoned height and 35' in actual height. Exhibit"A" to HEX No. 2016-29 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PL20160000837 Page 1 of 1 Last Revised:July 28,2016 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) ORDINANCE NO. 13- 6 5 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 FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WHICH IS HENCEFORTH TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD, TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY AND TO ALLOW 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT /COCKTAIL LOUNGE, A 50 ROOM HOTEL OR MOTEL, AND 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ACCESSORY RETAIL USES INCLUDING A CULINARY SCHOOL, SPECIALTY RETAIL AND RESTAURANT/BREW HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.67 +/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 88 -30, THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ- A- PL20120001593] WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. representing Bay House Campus, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to repeal Ordinance 88 -30, the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development, and rezone the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Bay House Campus CPUD, and the Special Treatment Overlay, is removed to allow 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge, a 50 room hotel or motel and 4,500 square feet of gross floor area of accessory retail uses including a culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house in accordance with the Bay House Campus CPUD attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated by reference herein. The Bay House Campus CPUD Page 1 of 2 PUDZ- A- PL20120001593 — rev. 10/8/13 NO 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 88 -30, known as the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: 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 ' day of Ut.,61. -, 2013. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. °BkOCK, CLERK By: De u Cl Attest as to "n's signature only. Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS C I R COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Attachments: Exhibit A — List of Permitted Uses GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ. Chairwoman Exhibit B Development Standards Exhibit C Master Plan Exhibit D Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F — Development Commitments 12- CPS -01191 X26 This ordinance filed with the e retary of 'fate's Of ice the ay of 20)t3 and acknowledgefpt fgf that fili cei mvedthisL-v " day of By. Bay House Campus CPUD Page 2 of 2 PUDZ- A- PL20120001593 —rev. 10/8/13 Cq 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, as limited by Section III of this Exhibit A: I. Campus Tract A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Hotel, motel and transient lodging — maximum of 50 rooms (Group 7011) 2. Eating establishments (Group 5812) — maximum of 400 seats Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Boats (All subject to LDC Section 5.03.06): Boat rental Boat slips (limited to 9 slips) Kayak and canoe launch Kayak and canoe storage 2. Two (2) caretaker's residences (subject to LDC Section 5.03.05) 3. School, commercial (Group 8299). Limited to culinary school accessory not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the principal hotel and restaurants uses, including but not limited to the following recreational, retail and personal service uses: administrative offices, ATM (automatic teller machine), apparel and accessory stores, barber shops (excluding barber schools), beauty shops (excluding beauty schools), boardwalks and nature trails, book stores, camera & photographic supply stores, child day care services, drugstore, drinking establishments (excluding bottle clubs), educational kiosks and shelters, entry gates & gatehouse, essential services, fences, walls, food store, florists, gift and souvenir shop, jewelry store, museum & art galleries, parking lot, personal service establishments, entertainment facilities, and meeting rooms and auditoriums, physical fitness facilities, recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, chickees huts /bars, and gazebos. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons and shall not be advertised to the public via on -site or off -site signage, with the exception of the culinary school, which is open to the public and may be advertised in accordance with the LDC and the provisions of the PUD stated herein. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 1 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 G 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) II. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses & Structures Passive recreational uses limited to the following, as long as any clearing required to facilitate the uses does not impact the minimum required preserve. 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails) 2. Benches for seating 3. Educational kiosks 4. Signs 5. Viewing platforms 6. Water management facilities 7. Inclement weather shelters without walls 8. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible with the preserve area. III. Development Intensity Development intensity is limited to a 50 -room hotel, 400 -seat restaurant(s) /cocktail lounge(s), and 4,500 square feet of accessory commercial uses within the CPUD. Accessory uses for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons are not subject to the 4,500 square foot limitation. The gross project area is 8.67 ± acres. No residential density is permitted, except for the caretakers residences. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 2 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 cA 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS (EXTERNAL) From US 41 R -O -W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R -O -W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS (INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15' SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15' 10' Preserves* 0'/25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' 35' Actual 75' 45' SPS= Same as Principal Structure 0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.1.h.iii BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 3 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 OAQ 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT C - CPUD MASTER PLAN tCDDtnnli Z A cp} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F>D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC o m rmnz mNNm OcONr Nznmv Z z m v, Aa Zmm D m ao u, C o y TRaF wo o c D mo m K Ft F+ Fa om c c o a a a tCDDtnnli Z A c p} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F>D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC9.A.2.cPacket Pg. 274Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U.D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 5 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 C ) 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Deviation No. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.04.02 which requires all commercial projects to provide interconnections and shared access to adjacent properties. The requested deviation is to allow for the existing interconnections to the commercial retail property to the southeast only, as shown on the CPUD master plan. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.1-1, which requires 218 parking spaces based upon the proposed mix of principal and accessory uses, to allow for a 10% reduction to required parking spaces for the project. The number of required parking spaces is subject to change at the time of SDP or PPL based upon final square footage of uses. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.d, which allows temporary signs on nonresidential or mixed use properties up to 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to 48 square feet in area and a maximum of 12 feet in height. The sign shall be limited to 28 calendar days per year. Deviation No. 4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.a, which allows off - premise directional signage up to 12 square feet in size. The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) off - premise directional signage up to 16 square feet in size. Deviation No. 5: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires developments to provide 5' -wide sidewalks on both sides of private rights -of -way or easements internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow a 5' -wide sidewalk on the northern side of the easement that connects the development area to US 41. Deviation No. 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.F, which prohibits project sites with more than one building where the aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more from undergoing the administrative determination of deviation process, to allow the project site to qualify for administrative determination of deviations where the aggregate gross building area is 70,000 square feet. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 6 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 GO 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Bay House Campus, 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 acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD 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. 2. PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "C ", PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan approval in accordance with the LDC. 3. UTILITIES 3.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District ( CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 4. TRANSPORTATION 4.1 The developer, its successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital costs of traffic signals on U.S. 41 at the project access and at Walkerbilt Road if and when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. 4.2 The developer, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for required improvements to Walkerbilt Road, including widening, as warranted by County land development regulations for this roadway to accommodate the traffic for this project and shall be initiated within 90 days of the County's request, as applicable. Walkerbilt Road improvements, if warranted shall be BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 7 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 0011 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) permitted as part of a Development Order improvement process (PPL or SDP), or approved as a Right -of -Way Permit. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL 5.1 The project shall provide a minimum of 1.64 acres of on -site native habitat preservation in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Any clearing required to facilitate passive recreational uses shall not impact the minimum required preserve. 5.2 Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis have been documented on the property. Management plans for these species shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Land Development Code. 6. ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORICAL RESOURCES 6.1 A certified archaeologist shall be on -site during excavations. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 8 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 oo 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) FLORIDA DEPART MENT dSTATE RICK SCOTT Governor December 16, 2013 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101 -3044 Attention: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: KEN DETZNER Secretary of State Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 13 -65, which was filed in this office on December 16, 2013. — Sincerely, Liz Cloud Program Administrator LC /elr Enclosure R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 Telephone: (850) 245 -6270 • Facsimile: (850) 488 -9879 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.2.c Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Attachment B-Ordinance Number 2013-65 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page - 1 - of 3 Growth Management Department Zoning Division Comprehensive Planning Section MEMORANDUM To: Nancy Gundlach, PLA # 1244, AICP, Principal Planner Zoning Services Section, Zoning Division From: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section Date: May 15, 2020 Subject: Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Consistency Review APPLICATION NUMBER: PUDA-20190000154 Review 4 APPLICATION NAME: Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) Amendment REQUEST: To amend the Bay House Campus CPUD, approved via Ordinance #13-65, to: remove the accessory use for a commercial culinary school and auditoriums; add a third principal use for an Assisted Living Facility (ALF) with a maximum F.A.R. of .45; increase the number of hotel, motel, and transient lodging rooms from the approved maximum of 50 rooms to 160 rooms. There is no proposed change in the number of restaurant seats (400). Submittal 2 addressed review comments from Utilities, Transportation, and County Attorney. Most of the Comprehensive Planning’s comments from Submittal 1 remain to be addressed. Submittal 3 states that the applicant is requesting an increase in the zoned height from 50’ to 75’ and actual height of 75’ to 90’, this was also presented at the NIM on October 15, 2019. The PUD documents were revised based on staff comments. Most of the Comprehensive Planning’s comments on Submittal 2 have been addressed, those that were not are listed at end of document. Submittal 4 addressed Public Utilities and Transportation comments. Two caretaker residences were added to accessory uses for the hotel and restaurant. LOCATION: The subject property (805 Walkerbilt Road) is located on the north side of Walkerbilt Road and the west side of US 41, and the entrance is located approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Walkerbilt Road and Tamiami Trail North (US41) in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING COMMENTS: The subject property is approximately ±8.67 acres and is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. The site is zoned Bay House Campus CPUD and the northeast corner is within a Special Treatment Overlay (ST). This PUD is identified as “Consistent by Policy” on the Future Land Use Map Series. As such, it is subject to FLUE Policy 5.3 which allows a zoning change so long as the proposed zoning is not more intense than the existing zoning and the overall intensity is not increased. In as much as the intensity of use is being increased – adding hotel units, this PUD amendment is not consistent with FLUE Policy 5.3. The Bay House Campus CPUD amendment is the companion to the Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) PL20190000850, which is petitioning to create the Bay House Campus Subdistrict. The Subdistrict will allow 160 rooms of hotel/motel use, 400-seat restaurant, and an ALF at Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 5-15-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 3 0.45. The CPUD petition is requesting a new use for an ALF and for an increase to the previously approved hotel use from 50 rooms to 160 rooms. The Bay House Campus CPUD amendment cannot be found to be consistent with the FLUE except for the ALF use, until such time as the Bay House Campus Subdistrict is approved and goes into effect. Select FLUE Policies are given below, followed with [bracketed staff analysis]. FLUE Policy 5.6 “New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended).” [It is the responsibility of the Zoning and Land Development Review staff, as part of their review of the petition in its entirety, to perform the compatibility analysis.] FLUE 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.” [‘Exhibit C, PUD Master Plan’ in the petition packet, depicts two ingress/egress points: one at Tamiami Trail N (US41), which is as a principal arterial, and one at Walkerbilt Road, which is a local roadway.] FLUE Policy 7.2 “The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals.” [‘Exhibit A – CPUD Master Plan’ shows only parking drive aisles and the two driveway entrances at the ingress/egress points, no internal roads are depicted.] FLUE Policy 7.3 “All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. [Bay House Campus CPUD Exhibit ‘C’ - Master Plan indicates two north-south interconnections to the abutting, developed C-4 commercial properties (which run parallel along US 41) at the most southeastern boundary of the CPUD. The rest of the southern boundary of the CPUD abuts Walkerbilt Road. The western boundary abuts the built-out property (golf course maintenance facility) belonging to the Old Collier Golf Club, Inc.; Staff sees no opportunity for interconnection to the west. The CPUD abuts the Cocohatchee River to the north and abuts Tamiami Trail N. (US41) at the northeast boundary. Staff sees no opportunity for interconnections, except to the south where they are proposed to connect to proposed adjacent commercial.] FLUE Policy 7.4 “The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types.” [Exhibit A.II.A. Principal Uses & Structures in the Preserve Tract lists a variety of passive recreation such as: boardwalks and nature trails, benches for seating, educational kiosks, viewing platforms, and more. The Bay House Campus Exhibit ‘C’ - CPUD Master Plan Land Use Summary Table lists 3.16 acres of open space. Civic uses are not specifically listed as a Permitted Use in “Permitted Uses: B. Accessory Uses,” but this use might take place within one of the spaces for gatherings such as the restaurant or hotel meeting rooms. CPUD Exhibit E: Deviation #5, which was previously approved with Ordinance #13-65, is to allow a sidewalk only on one side of the proposed access drive and entrance to the Tamiami Trail N. (US41). A blend of housing types and prices is not applicable to this project.] 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 5-15-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 2800 North Horseshoe Drive · Naples, FL 34104, 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 3 CONCLUSION Based upon the above analysis, staff concludes that this Planned Unit Development Amendment petition may only be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan, if the companion GMPA is approved and the effective date is referenced in the PUD. Staff has approved this project with the following informational comments (included under the Conditions Tab in City View: 1. This PUD amendment may only be deemed consistent contingent upon the companion GMP amendment petition being adopted and in effect. 2. The CPUD amendment ordinance effective date must be linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA petition. PETITION ON CITYVIEW cc: Anita Jenkins, AICP, Community Planning Manager, Zoning Division Raymond Bellows, Zoning Manager, Zoning Division 9.A.2.d Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Attachment C-FLUE Consistency Review 5-15-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Page 1 of 1 NIM SUMMARY The Bay House Campus Commercial CPUDA (PL20190000154) The Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict SSGMPA (PL-20190000850) October 16, 2019, 5:30 p.m. DoubleTree Suites by Hilton Hotel Naples 12200 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, Florida, 34110 The NIM was held for the above referenced petitions. The petitions are described as follows: 1) Companion applications to allow the Bay House Campus CPUD to reestablish the previously allowed maximum of 160 hotel rooms, add assisted living as an additional principal use; increase the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and increase the actual building height from 75 feet to 90 feet; and remove the 4,500 square foot commercial cooking school and auditoriums as accessory uses. Note: This is a summary of the NIM. An audio recording is also provided. Attendees: On behalf of Applicants: Karen Bishop, PMS Inc. of Naples Robert Mulhere, FAICP, VP Planning, Hole Montes James Carr, PE, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage Ciprian Malaescu, EI, Trebilcock Consulting Solutions Approximately 3 members of the public showed up. Mrs. Bishop started the presentation by introducing herself and the other consultants. She provided a brief history of the site and overview of the project. Mr. Mulhere then explained the process to amend the comprehensive plan, explained why the comprehensive plan amendment is necessary, and explained the public hearing process. The following questions were asked: Building Height A question was asked regarding the actual height of the building at completion. Mr. Mulhere explained that the county now requires a zoned and actual height. The actual height includes the building height and the required flood zone elevation. Dredging A question was asked about dredging the adjacent canal to alleviate existing drainage issues. Mrs. Bishop explained that although the dredging has not been permitted, the DEP has agreed to accelerate the permitting process, but the project has not been funded. It is too early in the process to provide an accurate timeline. The dredging is needed for drainage issues only, not for boat access. The meeting concluded at approximately at 5:50 PM. 9.A.2.e Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Attachment D-NIM Summary (10-17-2019) (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Inc. of Naples Land Development Consultant May 24, 2019 Intake Team Collier County Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: Bay House Campus CPUD Amendment Ordinance 2013-65 Dear Intake Team: This letter and the enclosed information are submitted to request approval of an Amendment to Bay House Campus CPUD (Ordinance No. 13-65 which includes Hex No. 2016-29). The existing CPUD allows for principle uses of hotel, motel, and transient lodging with a maximum of 50 rooms, as well as eating establishments with a maximum of 400 seats. The comprehensive accessory use list included items such as a commercial culinary school and auditoriums. The proposed request adds assisted living facilities and an increase in the hotel rooms to 160 with an additional 10 feet in height, while removing the commercial culinary school and auditoriums. The additional uses and rooms will not result in an increase in the development footprint. The traffic analysis concludes the proposed changes do not represent a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location and proposes to select appropriate TDM strategies at the time of future SDP application when more complete development parameters are specified. We enclose the following documents: • One (1) Cover letter and Project Narrative • One (1) completed PDA Application; • One (1) set of the Pre-Application Meeting Notes • One (1) Affidavit of Authorization (signed and notarized) • One (1) Property Ownership Disclosure Form • One (1) Covenant of Unified Control • One (1) Addressing Checklist • One (1) Warranty Deeds • One (1) Boundary Survey (signed and sealed); • One (1) Statement of Utility Provisions • One (1) Traffic Impact Study • One (1) copy of current Master Plans – No Revisions requested • One (1) copy of original PUD Ordinance No. 13-65 & Hex No. 2016-29; • One (1) copy of PUD Document with changes struck through and underlined; Additional Data/Information requested by County staff post submittal: • One (1) Engineering Report • One (1) Pressure and Flow Reports • One (1) Monitoring Report • One (1) Property ID Numbers • One (1) Legal Description • One (1) Lift Station Review • One (1) NIM Package Should you have any questions or require further information, please feel free to contact me. Respectfully, Karen Bishop 3125 54th Terrace SW, Naples, FL 34116 / (239) 825-7230 / Fax (239) 234-6096 /Email: karenbishop@pmsnaples.com 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ________________ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ______ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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.2.f Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COしLl冨R COUNTY GOVERNMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT WWW.COlliergov.net 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRiVE NAPしES, FしORIDA 34104 (之39) 252-之400戸AX: (239)之与2-紙58 超　しegai Adve巾Sing Fees: Ja CCPC: ;1,125.00 二卿BCC:S与00.bo　　　　く □　Schcol Concurrency Fee, if appIicable: O Mitigation Fees言fappiication, tO be determined by the SchooI District in coordinati6n with the County 片re‘ code P/。nS Review Fee叩re nOt栂ed, but 。re COI/ected 。t the time Q句ppIic。t/on submiss/on 。nd those J?es ore setjbrth by the Authorfty hovingjurisdiction. 77?e 10nd Deve/opment Code requires Neighbomood No亡折COtion moilersjbr AppIi訪tions heoded to heoring, Ond rhis Jおis coIIected prior to he。ring. A// checks p。y。b/e to: Bo。rd qf County Commissioners.IAs the authorized agent/applicant forthis petitio卑i attest that a= ofthe information indicated on this Checkiist is inciuded in this submittai package, i understand that fa冊re to include a= necessary Submittai information may resuit in the deiay of processing this petition. Printed named of signing party FebmaⅣ 1, 2019 Pagellofll 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 1 of 4 Pursuant to Section 10.02.13 of the Collier County Land Development 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 noted below. Provide a narrative statement describing the rezone request with specific reference to the criteria noted below. Include any backup materials and documentation in support of the request. Narrative Statement Describing Request The property has been zoned as a CPUD since 1988 and is partially developed with a principal use of the restaurant known as the Bay House. This CPUD amendment proposes to revise the current 55 room hotel to a 160 room hotel, add assisted living as a principal use, and increase the zoned height from 50’ to 60’ with no change to the actual height of 75’. This request will also be eliminating the commercial cooking school and auditoriums as uses. The requested change does not impact the location of the development tracts, lakes, and preserves depicted on the CPUD master plan. PUD Rezone Considerations (LDC Section 10.02.13.B) 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. The Bay House Campus CPUD is located on the northwest quadrant of US 41/Tamiami Trail North and Walkerbilt Road with access on both Walkerbilt Road and U.S. 41, as well as frontage on the Cocohatchee River. Access to the site will be from US 41 N and Walkerbilt Road. The arterial frontage properties in this area have been zoned for commercial uses since the late 1980s. The property is suitable for the proposed land uses and is consistent with the commercial patterns of development which has occurred in the vicinity of the CPUD. The application and supporting materials address traffic, access and utilities which are all available to the site. The proposed additional hotel rooms as well as the assisted living facilities will be located in areas previously identified commercial use and will take the place of the commercial cooking school and destination resort use. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the county attorney. The applicants own all of the land within the proposed Bay House Campus CPUD. The existing and proposed uses are currently and will continue to be interdependent with the sharing of infrastructure, access, and property management. 3. Conformity of the proposed CPUD 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 Bay House Campus CPUD property is located in the Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistict of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 2 of 4 The Bay House Campus CPUD amendment is proposing to increase the hotel rooms from 50 to a maximum of 160 hotel units, as well as adding an option for an assisted living facility. This request is well within the density rating system permitted in the Growth Management Plan. The proposed amendment to the Bay House Campus CPUD will remove a commercial cooking school and auditoriums as uses but does not change the majority of the already approved the full range of commercial uses. The Urban Land Use designation description in the Growth Management Plan permits the full range of residential dwelling units, and recreational facilities. All of the proposed uses within the amended CPUD are consistent with the Future Land Use designation, which is consistent with the FLUE. Objective 2: Coordinate land uses with the availability of public facilities, accomplished through the Concurrency Management System of the Capital Improvement Element and implemented through the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance of the Land Development Code. A traffic analysis has been prepared, which concludes that there are no existing or anticipated roadway level of service issues resulting from the increase in commercial uses or senior housing units proposed for the project. Water and sewer services are provided by Collier County, and there are no existing or anticipated deficiencies. Projections of water and sewer demand are provided in the application materials. The surface water management system has been designed and permitted in accordance with the South Florida Water Management District. Objective 3: Ensure protection of natural and historic resources, ensure the availability of land for utility facilities, promote compatible land uses within the airport noise zone, and to provide for management of growth in an efficient and effective manner through Land Development Regulations adopted to implement this Growth Management Plan. The previous approval of the development location, configuration and commercial uses deem it consistent with the growth Management Plan. Objective 5: Implement land use policies that promote sound planning, protect environmentally sensitive lands and habitat for listed species while protecting private property rights, ensure compatibility of land uses and further the implementation of the Future Land Use Element. The project has acquired required state and federal environmental permits consistent with the GMP. The specific land uses have been deemed compatible with the previous zoning approvals Ordinance 1988-30, Ordinance 2013-65 and HEX 2016-29. Policy 5.3 All rezonings must be consistent with this Growth Management Plan. For properties that are zoned inconsistent with the Future Land Use Designation Description Section but have nonetheless been determined to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element, as provided for in Policies 5.9 through 5.13, the following provisions apply: As described above the proposed land uses and intensities of the uses had been deemed consistent with the Growth Management Plan at different times. However, after the zoning change in 2013 which reduced the intensity, the application is affected by Policy 5.3.a. For such commercially-zoned properties, zoning changes will be allowed provided the new zoning district is the same or a lower intensity commercial zoning district as the existing zoning district, and provided the overall intensity of commercial land use allowed by the existing zoning district, except 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 3 of 4 as allowed by Policy 5.11, is not exceeded in the new zoning district. The applicant has submitted a Growth Management Plan Amendment application (PL20190000850) to address this provision. Policy 5.6: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended). The Bay House Campus CPUD is in a neighborhood that is surrounded by commercial type uses and therefore is compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. The Bay House Campus CPUD has connection points to one local road, Walkerbilt Road and one arterial road, US 41 / Tamiami Trail. Access will be provided to each of these roadways. Interconnections with adjoining properties have been identified due to their developed status. 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 Bay House Campus CPUD site design anticipates internal drive or parking lot connections for access to all uses. Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and/or interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. The interconnection of local streets between developments is also addressed in Policy 9.3 of the Transportation Element. The properties adjacent to the Bay House Campus CPUD have been developed with limited availability to interconnect. However, interconnection will be made where the option exists. 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. All efforts will be made to contribute to the County’s effort to provide walkable communities. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. The proposed uses are limited to commercial and typical accessory uses. Typical development standards have been identified and established in the CPUD document, which are consistent with those previously approved for the property. Buffers to surrounding commercial uses will meet or exceed the requirements of the land development code. The conceptual CPUD master plan 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD Evaluation Criteria Page 4 of 4 identifies the development tracts, preservation areas, buffers, and access to the site. The proposed CPUD is compatible with the surrounding land uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The Bay House Campus CPUD master plan identifies preserves, recreational amenity area, lakes and buffers which will be utilized for recreation and open space which will meet or exceed the minimum open space standard required. The CPUD document also provides for a variety of open space and recreational uses that will be designed for use of the owners and guests. 6. 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. There are no known capacity issues that will impact this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The Bay House Campus CPUD is surrounded by zoned, developed and undeveloped land. The subject application includes additional lands owned by the current property owner and represents all of the lands under its unified control. It is not anticipated that the CPUD boundary will be expanded beyond that included in this application. 8. 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 CPUD rezone proposes development standards which are generally consistent with other planned developments in the area, and consistent with those uses and standards previously approved for the property. Deviations from the LDC have been requested to address interconnections, parking spaces, sidewalk locations, and site specific signage. Approval for these deviations were previously approved. No further deviations have been requested. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. 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: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 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 % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COしLIER COuNTY GOV RNMEN丁 ., GROWTH MANAGEM即すPEPAR丁MENT WWW.COiIiergov.net　　　∴ Date of option: 舘蹴瑚妙 Date optidn terminates: Anticipated cIosing date: 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRiVE NAPしES,軋ORIDA 34104 (之3?) 252-2400 FAX: (之39)之5之・6襲8 I( Any petition required to h訪e property owhership DiscIosure; WiiI not be accepted without this form. Req中rements for petition tγpeS are iocated on the associated ap即Cation form. Any change in ownerihip whether individua=y or with a T「ustee, Company or other interest-holding pa轟y, muSt be discIosed to CoIIier County immediateIy if such change oct:urS Prior to the petition’s final public hea「ing. As the authorized agent/appIica読for this petitio叫attest that all of.the,information indicated on this checkiist is incIuded in this submitta看package. I understand that faiiureto incIude鉦nさcessarγ Submittai information may resuIt ・in the deIay of processing this`Petition. The compieted application, aiI required submittal materia」s, and fees sha= be submitted to: Growth ’Malnagement Department ATTN: Business Center Created 9/28/2017 Page3of3 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 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.2.f Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 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.2.f Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U. D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 5 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 C ) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 328Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 334Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 335Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 336Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ____________________________________________________ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Traffic Impact Statement Bay House Campus CPUD Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA) Collier County, FL 10/02/2019 Prepared for: Prepared by: PMS of Naples, Inc. 3125 54th Terrace SW Naples, FL 34116 Phone: 239.825.7230 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34110 Phone: 239.566.9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee – $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee – Small Scale Study – No Fee 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................... 6 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................... 8 Background Traffic ........................................................................................................................ 10 Existing and Future Roadway Network......................................................................................... 10 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis ............................................................ 11 Site Access Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 13 Project Access – Tamiami Trail North (US 41) ........................................................................... 14 Project Access – Walkerbilt Road .............................................................................................. 14 Improvement Analysis .................................................................................................................. 14 Mitigation of Impact ..................................................................................................................... 15 Appendices Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan ........................................................................................ 16 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) ................................................ 18 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition ....................................................... 25 Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits ................................................................................. 43 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 4 Project Description The Bay House Campus project is located in north Naples just west of Tamiami Trail (US 41) on the north side of Walkerbilt Road. The project is currently zoned Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) – Collier County Ord. 13-65. The project is located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. Refer to Figure 1 – Project Location Map, which follows and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Figure 1 – Project Location Map The subject site currently consists of one 240 seat quality restaurant – the Bay House Restaurant. PUD zoning is approved for up to 400 restaurant seats, 4,500 square feet (sf) of accessory retail uses (to include culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house) and a 50 room hotel. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5 The Bay House Campus Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) application proposes to maintain the restaurant’s potential seating capacity of 400 seats, eliminate the 4,500 sf of accessory retail, increase the proposed hotel to 160 rooms and add an option for an assisted living facility (ALF). Potential future ALF development would be allowed in lieu of other approved uses such that the total trip generation would not exceed the overall project’s trip cap which is established in the PUD. The purpose of this report is to document the transportation impacts ass ociated with the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated Planned Unit Development Amendment (PUDA). A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on May 6, 2019 (refer to Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting). For purposes of this evaluation, the project build-out year is assumed to be consistent with the Collier County 2024 planning horizon. The project provides a highest and best use scenario with respect to the pr oject’s proposed trip generation. The development program is illustrated in Table 1. Table 1 Development Program Development ITE Land Use [SIC Codes] ITE Land Use Code Total Size Approved PUD Conditions Quality Restaurant [5812, 5813] 931 400 seats Approved PUD Conditions Quality Restaurant* [5812, 5813] 931 4,500 square feet* Approved PUD Conditions Hotel [7011] 310 50 occupied rooms Proposed GMPA/PUDA Quality Restaurant [5812, 5813] 931 400 seats Proposed GMPA/PUDA Hotel [7011] 310 160 occupied rooms Proposed GMPA/PUDA Assisted Living [8361] 254 TBD** Note: *Accessory retail uses to include culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house. **TBD – To be determined provided the overall trip generation cap is not exceeded. Connection to the subject site is currently provided as follows: one right-in/right-out access on southbound Tamiami Trail North (US 41) and one full movement access on westbound Walkerbilt Road. No new connections are proposed as part of this application. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6 Trip Generation The project’s site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The software program OTISS – Online Traffic Impact Study Software most current version was used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates were used for the trip generation calculation s. The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition. The internal capture accounts for a reduction in external traffic because of the interaction between the multiple land uses in a site. Per Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, the internal capture trips should be reasonable and should not exceed 20% of the total project trips. For this project, the software program OTISS is used to generate associated internal cap ture trips. The OTISS process follows the trip balancing approach as recommended in the ITE Trip Generation Manual Handbook 3rd Edition. The resulting internal capture rates are below the county limits. The pass-by trips account for traffic that is already on the external roadway network and stops at the project on the way to a primary trip destination. It should be noted that the driveway volumes are not reduced as a result of the pass-by reduction, only the traffic added to the surrounding streets and intersections. As such, pass-by trips are not deducted for operational-access analysis (all external traffic is accounted for). Consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, quality restaurant land uses (LUC 931) are allowed maximum pass-by traffic of 40% of the project’s external trip generation potential for the peak hour and the daily capture rates are assumed 10% lower than the peak hour capture rate. This analysis calculates Quality Restaurant LUC 931 pass -by daily rates at 30% and AM and PM peak hour rates at 40%. No pass-by reduction is considered for the approved 4,500 sf accessory retail use (evaluated as Quality Restaurant in the trip generation analysis). The proposed GMPA/PUDA project trip generation is illustrated in Table 2A. The trip generation analysis under approved PUD conditions is shown in Table 2B. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7 Table 2A Trip Generation (Proposed GMPA/PUDA Conditions) — Average Weekday Proposed GMPA/PUDA Conditions 24 Hour Two- Way Volume PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Quality Restaurant 400 seats 1,040 75 37 112 Hotel 160 occupied rooms 1,957 57 60 117 Total Traffic 2,997 132 97 229 Total Internal Capture (94) (7) (7) (14) Total External 2,903 125 90 215 Total Pass-by (298) (28) (14) (42) Total Net External 2,605 97 76 173 Table 2B Trip Generation (Approved PUD Conditions) — Average Weekday Approved PUD Conditions 24 Hour Two- Way Volume PM Peak Hour Land Use Size Enter Exit Total Quality Restaurant 400 seats 1,040 75 37 112 Hotel 50 occupied rooms 611 18 19 37 Quality Restaurant* 4,500 sf 377 23 12 35 Total Traffic 2,028 116 68 184 Total Internal Capture (112) (9) (9) (18) Total External 1,916 107 59 166 Total Pass-by (300) (28) (14) (42) Total Net External 1,616 79 45 124 Note: *Accessory Retail uses – see Table 1, page 5. The new net external proposed trip generation Table 2C shows total proposed GMPA/PUDA conditions versus approved PUD (the difference between Table 2A and Table 2B). Table 2C 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 8 Trip Generation (Proposed New Net External Traffic) — Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Land Use Enter Exit Total Proposed GMPA/PUDA (Net External Traffic) 97 76 173 Approved PUD (Net External Traffic) 79 45 124 Total New Net External Traffic 18 31 49 The roadway link concurrency analysis on the surrounding roadway network is analyzed based on only the new net external traffic generated as a result of the proposed project (as shown in Table 2C). Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the GMPA/PUDA development was assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and as coordinated with Collier County Transportation Planning staff. The assignment of the net new proposed site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3, Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour, and is graphically depicted on Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Project Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic PM Peak Hr Project Traffic Vol.* Enter Exit Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 50% SB – 9 NB – 16 Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 50% NB – 9 SB – 15 Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 30% NB – 5 SB – 9 Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 20% WB – 4 EB – 6 Note(s): *Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9 Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates were estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from annual traffic counts (estimated from 2008 through 2019), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the Collier County AUIR volume plus the trip bank volume. A draft copy of the 2019 AUIR is available and utilized in this report. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year 2024. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2019 – 2024) Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2019 AUIR Pk Hr, Pk Dir Background Traffic Volume (trips/hr) Projected Traffic Annual Growth Rate (%/yr)* Growth Factor 2024 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Growth Factor** Trip Bank 2024 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Trip Bank*** US 41 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 2,720 (NB) 2.0% 1.1041 3,004 34 2,754 US 41 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 2,720 (NB) 2.0% 1.1041 3,004 34 2,754 US 41 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 1,790 (NB) 2.0% 1.1041 1,977 15 1,805 Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 2,110 (WB) 2.92% 1.1548 2,437 168 2,278 Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate – based on peak hour, peak direction volume (from 2008 through 2019), 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1 + Annual Growth Rate)5. 2024 Projected Volume = 2019 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2024 Projected Volume = 2019 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2024 Peak Hour – Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the 2019 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5 - Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2019 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location Exist Roadway Min. Standard LOS Exist Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Future Project Build out Roadway Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 6D E 3,100 (NB) 6D Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 6D E 3,100 (WB) 6D Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project , which were evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network for future conditions (planning horizon year 2024). The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant impacts to the area roadway network. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS impacts of the project on the studied roadway network. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12 Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2024 Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2019 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Roadway Link, Peak Dir, Peak Hr (Project Vol Added)* 2024 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Volume w/Project ** % Volume Capacity Impact By Project Min LOS exceeded without Project? Yes/No Min LOS exceeded with Project? Yes/No Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 North to Wiggins Pass Rd 3,100 (NB) NB – 16 3,020 0.52% No No Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 99.0 South to Immokalee Rd 3,100 (NB) NB – 9 3,013 0.29% No No Tamiami Trail North (US 41) 100.0 South of Immokalee Rd 3,100 (NB) NB – 5 1,982 0.16% No No Immokalee Road (CR 846) 41.1 East of Tamiami Trail North 3,100 (WB) WB – 4 2,441 0.13% No No Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2024 Projected Volume = 2024 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan – Transportation Element – Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. As illustrated in Table 6, the projected traffic impact is de minimis for the purposes of this application. The analyzed roadway links are located within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCMAs designation is provided in Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element – Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). In agreement with Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element, the TCMA concurrency is measured on a system-wide basis such that each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards. Based on the information contained in 2019 AUIR, the Northwest TCMA percent lane miles meeting standard is 97.1%. As illustrated in Policy 5.8(d) – Transportation Element, no impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LO S requirements of the TCMA are maintained. As illustrated in Table 6, no LOS deficiencies are expected for the analyzed roadway network. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13 Site Access Analysis Connection to the subject site is currently provided as follows: one right -in/right-out access on southbound Tamiami Trail North (US41) and one full movement access on westbound Walkerbilt Road. No new connections are proposed as part of this application . For more details refer to Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. US 41 (SR 45) – Tamiami Trail North is under Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) jurisdiction and is currently a north-south, six-lane, two-way, divided arterial roadway and has a posted legal speed limit of 55 mph in the vicinity of the project. Walkerbilt Road is currently an undivided two-lane public local roadway, north of Immokalee Road. This is a low volume cul-de-sac roadway servicing the commercial and residential developments and has a posted legal speed of 25 mph in the vicinity of the project. The project access on Walkerbilt Road was evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook: (a) two-lane roadways – 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided roadways – right turn lanes shall always be provided; and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. Turn lane lengths required at build -out conditions were analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period – right turns; and two-minute period – left turns, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. For details refer to Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits. The site access analysis captures projected generated trips as illustrated in Table 7. The PM Peak Hour has the highest traffic intensity. Table 7 Trip Generation (Proposed Development) – Average Weekday* AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Development Size Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Hotel 160 occupied rooms 57 42 99 57 60 117 Quality Restaurant 400 seats** 4 4 8 75 37 112 Total Traffic 61 46 107 132 97 229 Note(s): *Pass-by trips and Internal Capture reductions are not deducted for the purposes of this operational analysis. **ITE does not provide AM peak hour directional distribution; a 50%-50% split is assumed. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 14 Project Access – Tamiami Trail North (US 41) This is an existing shared driveway with the commercial – retail area occupying the northwest corner of US 41 and Walkerbilt Road. This is a right -in/right-out drive with an existing urban flare turn out (no turn lane). The project is expected to generate 12vph and 26vph inbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively. Based on prior coordination with FDOT, a dedicated right turn lane is not warranted. Project Access – Walkerbilt Road The project is expected to generate 49vph and 106vph inbound right-turning movements during the AM and PM peak hour, respectively, which is above the 40vph threshold value. As such, a westbound right turn lane is warranted at this location. The intersection of US 41 and Walkerbilt Road is the nearest one serving this project. This is a directional median opening to allow for right-in/right-out/left-in movements. The existing right-turn lane on US 41 serving the intersection will accommodate the additional project traffic for both deceleration and stacking. Improvement Analysis Based on the link analysis and trip distribution, the proposed project is not a significant traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. Based upon the results of turn lane analysis performed within this report, turn lane improvements are warranted at the project access located on Walkerbilt Road. A more detailed evaluation of applicable access points and intersecti on connections will be performed at the time of site development permitting/platting when more specific development parameters will be made available, to determine operational requirements as they are warranted. The maximum net external trip generation for the PUD shall not exceed 173 two way PM peak hour trips (internal capture and pass by trips deducted). The trips will be based on the applicable land use codes in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for Site Development Plan (SDP), or Plat and Construction Plan (PPL) approval. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15 Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee s as building permits are issued for the project. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 16 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 17 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 355Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 18 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 19 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 20 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 21 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 22 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 23 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 24 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 25 Appendix C: Trip Generation Calculations ITE 10th Edition 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 26 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 27 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 28 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 29 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 30 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 31 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 32 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 33 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 34 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 35 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 36 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 37 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 38 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 39 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 40 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 41 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 42 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 43 Appendix D: Turning Movements Exhibits 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 44 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 382 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD – GMPA/PUDA – TIS – October 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 45 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 383 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT C - CPUD MASTER PLAN tCDDtnnli Z A cp} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC o m rmnz mNNm OcONr Nznmv Z z m v, Aa Zmm D m ao u, C o y TRaF wo o c D mo m K Ft F+ Fa om c c o a a a tCDDtnnli Z A c p} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 384Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) HEX NO. 2016—29 HEARING EXAMINER DECISION PETITION NO. PDI-PL20160000837 — Bay House Campus LLC requests an insubstantial change to Ordinance No. 2013-65, the Bay House Campus Commercial Planned Unit Development, to reduce the minimum distance between principal structures to 10 feet where both principal structures do not exceed 30 feet in zoned height. The subject property consisting of 8.67± acres is located northwest of the US 41 and Walkerbilt Road intersection, in Section 21, Township 48 South,Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. DATE OF HEARING:July 28, 2016 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. FINDINGS: Based on the applicant's written petition, testimony at the hearing of the applicant and the public, and the recommendation of staff, the Hearing Examiner finds that the criteria set forth in Sections 10.02.13 E.1 and 10.02.13 E.2 of the Land Development Code has been met and the petition should be approved. ANALYSIS: Staff received no objections to this application. One member attended the hearing to question transportation issues unrelated to this application. During the hearing the applicant agreed to add a limitation for actual height and this is incorporated into the approved language. DECISION: The Hearing Examiner hereby approves Petition Number PDI-PL20160000837, filed by Lindsay Rodriguez of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. representing Bay House Campus, LLC, with respect to the property as described in the Bay House Campus CPUD, Ordinance No. 2013-65, for an insubstantial change to the development standards of Exhibit B of Ordinance No. 2013-65, to reduce the minimum distance between principal structures to 10 feet where both principal structures do not exceed 30 feet in zoned height and 35 feet in actual height. Said change is fully described in the Bay House Campus CPUD amendment attached as Exhibit "A", and is subject to the condition(s) set forth below. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A—CPUD Amendment 16-CPS-01542/1270252/1118 1 of 2 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 385 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See Ordinance No. 2013-65, the Bay House Campus CPUD. CONDITIONS: 1.All other applicable state or federal permits must be obtained before commencement of the development. DISCLAIMER: Pursuant to Section 125.022(5) F.S., issuance of a development permit by a county does not in any way create any rights on the part of the applicant to obtain a permit from a state or federal agency and does not create any liability on the part of the county for issuance of the permit if the applicant fails to obtain requisite approvals or fulfill the obligations imposed by a state or federal agency or undertakes actions that result in a violation of state or federal law. APPEALS: This decision becomes effective on the date it is rendered. Pursuant to Ordinance 2013-25, as amended, a Hearing Examiner Decision may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners or the Board of Zoning Appeals, as appropriate. Appeals must be filed within 30 days of the date the Hearing Examiner Decision is rendered. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS AND EXHIBITS: SEE CLERK OF COURT, MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. DECISIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USES, AND BOAT DOCK EXTENSIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE ZONING MAP FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES. ajt ° Date Mar Strain, Hearing Examiner Approved as to form and legality: A C/co H idi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney 16-CPS-01542/1270252/1}18 2 of 2 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 386 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE I DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS(EXTERNAL) From US 41 R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R-O-W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS(INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15' SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15' 10' Preserves* 0'/25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures" 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' 35' Actual 75' 45' SPS=Same as Principal Structure 0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.1.h.iii Minimum distance between principal structures shall be 10'feet where both structures do not exceed 30' in zoned height and 35' in actual height. Exhibit"A" to HEX No. 2016-29 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS—PL20160000837 Page 1 of 1 Last Revised:July 28,2016 Words struck through are deleted, words underlined are added 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 387 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) ORDINANCE NO. 13- 6 5 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 FOR A PROJECT PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) WHICH IS HENCEFORTH TO BE KNOWN AS THE BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD, TO REMOVE THE SPECIAL TREATMENT OVERLAY AND TO ALLOW 400 SEATS OF RESTAURANT /COCKTAIL LOUNGE, A 50 ROOM HOTEL OR MOTEL, AND 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS FLOOR AREA OF ACCESSORY RETAIL USES INCLUDING A CULINARY SCHOOL, SPECIALTY RETAIL AND RESTAURANT/BREW HOUSE ON PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.67 +/- ACRES; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 88 -30, THE COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST PUD; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (PUDZ- A- PL20120001593] WHEREAS, Alexis Crespo, AICP of Waldrop Engineering, P.A. representing Bay House Campus, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, to repeal Ordinance 88 -30, the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development, and rezone the subject property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 21, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, is changed from a Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for a project to be known as the Bay House Campus CPUD, and the Special Treatment Overlay, is removed to allow 400 seats of restaurant/cocktail lounge, a 50 room hotel or motel and 4,500 square feet of gross floor area of accessory retail uses including a culinary school, specialty retail and restaurant/brew house in accordance with the Bay House Campus CPUD attached hereto as Exhibits "A" through "F" and incorporated by reference herein. The Bay House Campus CPUD Page 1 of 2 PUDZ- A- PL20120001593 — rev. 10/8/13 NO 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 388 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) appropriate zoning atlas map or maps, as described in Ordinance Number 2004 -41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, is /are hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 88 -30, known as the Cocohatchee River Trust Planned Unit Development is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION THREE: 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 ' day of Ut.,61. -, 2013. ATTEST: DWIGHT E. °BkOCK, CLERK By: De u Cl Attest as to "n's signature only. Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton -Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS C I R COUNTY, FLORIDA By: Attachments: Exhibit A — List of Permitted Uses GEORGIA A. HILLER, ESQ. Chairwoman Exhibit B Development Standards Exhibit C Master Plan Exhibit D Legal Description Exhibit E — List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F — Development Commitments 12- CPS -01191 X26 This ordinance filed with the e retary of 'fate's Of ice the ay of 20)t3 and acknowledgefpt fgf that fili cei mvedthisL-v " day of By. Bay House Campus CPUD Page 2 of 2 PUDZ- A- PL20120001593 —rev. 10/8/13 Cq 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 389 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT A LIST OF PERMITTED USES BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD PERMITTED USES: No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land used, in whole or in part, for other than the following, as limited by Section III of this Exhibit A: I. Campus Tract A. Principal Uses and Structures: 1. Hotel, motel and transient lodging — maximum of 50 rooms (Group 7011) 2. Eating establishments (Group 5812) — maximum of 400 seats Any other principal and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). B. Accessory Uses: 1. Boats (All subject to LDC Section 5.03.06): Boat rental Boat slips (limited to 9 slips) Kayak and canoe launch Kayak and canoe storage 2. Two (2) caretaker's residences (subject to LDC Section 5.03.05) 3. School, commercial (Group 8299). Limited to culinary school accessory not to exceed 4,500 square feet. 4. Uses and structures that are accessory and incidental to the principal hotel and restaurants uses, including but not limited to the following recreational, retail and personal service uses: administrative offices, ATM (automatic teller machine), apparel and accessory stores, barber shops (excluding barber schools), beauty shops (excluding beauty schools), boardwalks and nature trails, book stores, camera & photographic supply stores, child day care services, drugstore, drinking establishments (excluding bottle clubs), educational kiosks and shelters, entry gates & gatehouse, essential services, fences, walls, food store, florists, gift and souvenir shop, jewelry store, museum & art galleries, parking lot, personal service establishments, entertainment facilities, and meeting rooms and auditoriums, physical fitness facilities, recreational uses and facilities, including swimming pools, tennis courts, volleyball courts, chickees huts /bars, and gazebos. Any other accessory use and related use that is determined to be comparable to the foregoing by the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals, pursuant to the process outlined in the Land Development Code (LDC). Accessory uses are for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons and shall not be advertised to the public via on -site or off -site signage, with the exception of the culinary school, which is open to the public and may be advertised in accordance with the LDC and the provisions of the PUD stated herein. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 1 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 G 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) II. Preserve Tract A. Principal Uses & Structures Passive recreational uses limited to the following, as long as any clearing required to facilitate the uses does not impact the minimum required preserve. 1. Boardwalks and nature trails (excluding asphalt paved trails) 2. Benches for seating 3. Educational kiosks 4. Signs 5. Viewing platforms 6. Water management facilities 7. Inclement weather shelters without walls 8. Any other preserve and related open space activity or use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing uses and which the Hearing Examiner or Board of Zoning Appeals determines to be compatible with the preserve area. III. Development Intensity Development intensity is limited to a 50 -room hotel, 400 -seat restaurant(s) /cocktail lounge(s), and 4,500 square feet of accessory commercial uses within the CPUD. Accessory uses for the exclusive use of hotel and restaurant patrons are not subject to the 4,500 square foot limitation. The gross project area is 8.67 ± acres. No residential density is permitted, except for the caretakers residences. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 2 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 cA 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT B DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Development of the Bay House Campus CPUD shall be in accordance with the contents of this Ordinance and applicable sections of the LDC and Growth Management Plan (GMP) in effect at the time of issuance of any development order, such as, but not limited to, final subdivision plat, final site development plan, excavation permit, and preliminary work authorization, to which such regulations relate. Where these regulations fail to provide developmental standards, then the provisions of the most similar district shall apply. Table I below sets forth the development standards for land uses within the Bay House Campus CPUD. Standards not specifically set forth herein shall be those specified in applicable sections of the LDC in effect as of the date of approval of the SDP or subdivision plat. TABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PERMITTED USES AND STANDARDS Principal Structures Accessory Structures Min. Lot Area N/A N/A Min. Lot Width N/A N/A SETBACKS (EXTERNAL) From US 41 R -O -W 40 ft. 25 ft. From Walkerbilt Rd. R -O -W 40 ft. 25 ft. Cocohatchee River 30 ft. 0 ft. Western Property Line 50 ft. SPS SETBACKS (INTERNAL) Internal Access Easements 15' SPS Side 10' 5' Rear 15' 10' Preserves* 0'/ 25' 0'/10' Min. Distance Between Structures 30' 5' MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT Zoned 50' 35' Actual 75' 45' SPS= Same as Principal Structure 0' setback is permitted for fences or retaining walls permitted as part of the stormwater management system, pathways, and other structures allowed within the preserves tract pursuant to Exhibit A and LDC Sec. 3.05.07.H.1.h.iii BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 3 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 OAQ 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT C - CPUD MASTER PLAN tCDDtnnli Z A cp} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC o m rmnz mNNm OcONr Nznmv Z z m v, Aa Zmm D m ao u, C o y TRaF wo o c D mo m K Ft F+ Fa om c c o a a a tCDDtnnli Z A c p} [J NA_Uj <Zy CO' J D nOtnmzcgg, aZ n _" ym C0 >D— v M mm wF,-4 >, iI n Z-g_ zx m y'z m$m RR' 1zz - y0 mA> g >a D O-A0 °Z -<C __ =gym mSmc0 mE m-mi0 mm D Zm2m9zAnr3xr0pZ, Z g1p vmR vnF C3amDv- 01 - F> D1 n >, ZEmzym m mZ r nC Z m m X T C y A Zm N` O z -4 p5C o° -min°, t Z m D 00 0 macC zm y Z m pm m z z zmO0 n CC _ n V Qu C mA T _. m Mm meM o= N_ goy 3 oo D102Zm m O i lA vn C (A zq <v, °°m . 2m Z 4 n gm C D— Fpik c x P O X X m W Z h r r c Tmo n p g mZZW m m m x r r n5ZCm A> FEE ly`k o 2 m ra m m yo ya by pa a a bb n p n go a > t t Y a r r rrn G) D m !? gX z a # " " r a r a .. m 1 1 0 m 1 n m 4 TAMIAMI TRAIL/ U.S. 41 150' R.O.W.) y 11 jm ITS Z 9CAL-'_;b- V BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 4 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 CAC9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 393Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT D LEGAL DESCRIPTION BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 50, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST P.U. D., ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 5 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 C ) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT E LIST OF REQUESTED DEVIATIONS FROM LDC BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD Deviation No. 1: Deviation from LDC Section 4.04.02 which requires all commercial projects to provide interconnections and shared access to adjacent properties. The requested deviation is to allow for the existing interconnections to the commercial retail property to the southeast only, as shown on the CPUD master plan. Deviation No. 2: Deviation from LDC Section 4.05.04.1- 1, which requires 218 parking spaces based upon the proposed mix of principal and accessory uses, to allow for a 10% reduction to required parking spaces for the project. The number of required parking spaces is subject to change at the time of SDP or PPL based upon final square footage of uses. Deviation No. 3: Deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.d, which allows temporary signs on nonresidential or mixed use properties up to 32 square feet in area and 8 feet in height. The requested deviation is to allow a temporary sign or banner up to 48 square feet in area and a maximum of 12 feet in height. The sign shall be limited to 28 calendar days per year. Deviation No. 4: Deviation from LDC Section 5.06.04.G.2.a, which allows off - premise directional signage up to 12 square feet in size. The requested deviation is to allow for one (1) off - premise directional signage up to 16 square feet in size. Deviation No. 5: Deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.2, which requires developments to provide 5' -wide sidewalks on both sides of private rights -of -way or easements internal to the site. The requested deviation is to allow a 5' -wide sidewalk on the northern side of the easement that connects the development area to US 41. Deviation No. 6: Deviation from LDC Section 5.05.08.F, which prohibits project sites with more than one building where the aggregate gross building area is 20,000 square feet or more from undergoing the administrative determination of deviation process, to allow the project site to qualify for administrative determination of deviations where the aggregate gross building area is 70,000 square feet. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 6 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 GO 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT F DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD 1. PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the general development commitments for the project. 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 PUD approval, the Managing Entity is Bay House Campus, 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 acknowledgement of the commitments required by the PUD 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. 2. PUD MASTER PLAN Exhibit "C ", PUD Master Plan, illustrates the proposed development and is conceptual in nature. Proposed area, lot or land use boundaries or special land use boundaries shall not be construed to be final and may be varied at any subsequent approval phase such as final platting or site development plan approval in accordance with the LDC. 3. UTILITIES 3.1 The project shall connect to the Collier County Water Sewer District ( CCWSD) potable water system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 3.2 The project shall connect to the CCWSD wastewater collection and conveyance system at a location determined by CCWSD when capacity is available. 4. TRANSPORTATION 4.1 The developer, its successors or assigns shall provide a fair share contribution toward the capital costs of traffic signals on U.S. 41 at the project access and at Walkerbilt Road if and when deemed warranted by Collier County. The signals shall be owned, operated and maintained by Collier County. 4.2 The developer, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for required improvements to Walkerbilt Road, including widening, as warranted by County land development regulations for this roadway to accommodate the traffic for this project and shall be initiated within 90 days of the County's request, as applicable. Walkerbilt Road improvements, if warranted shall be BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 7 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 0011 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) permitted as part of a Development Order improvement process (PPL or SDP), or approved as a Right -of -Way Permit. 5. ENVIRONMENTAL 5.1 The project shall provide a minimum of 1.64 acres of on -site native habitat preservation in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. Any clearing required to facilitate passive recreational uses shall not impact the minimum required preserve. 5.2 Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, and White Ibis have been documented on the property. Management plans for these species shall be submitted in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Land Development Code. 6. ARCHAEOLOGY & HISTORICAL RESOURCES 6.1 A certified archaeologist shall be on -site during excavations. BAY HOUSE CAMPUS — PUDZ- A- PL2012 -1593 Page 8 of 8 Last Revised: October 8, 2013 oo 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) FLORIDA DEPART MENT dSTATE RICK SCOTT Governor December 16, 2013 Honorable Dwight E. Brock Clerk of the Circuit Court Collier County Post Office Box 413044 Naples, Florida 34101 -3044 Attention: Martha Vergara, Deputy Clerk Dear Mr. Brock: KEN DETZNER Secretary of State Pursuant to the provisions of Section 125.66, Florida Statutes, this will acknowledge receipt of your electronic copy of Collier County Ordinance No. 13 -65, which was filed in this office on December 16, 2013. — Sincerely, Liz Cloud Program Administrator LC /elr Enclosure R. A. Gray Building • 500 South Bronough Street • Tallahassee, Florida 32399 -0250 Telephone: (850) 245 -6270 • Facsimile: (850) 488 -9879 www.dos.state.fl.us 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus ABB PN: 19-0006 Prepared For: Bay House Campus LLC 799 Walkerbilt Road Naples, FL 34110 Date: March 31, 2020 Prepared By: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Professional Engineers, Planners, Land Surveyors & Landscape Architects 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 Naples, Fl 34108 ______________________________ Kevin M. Dowty P.E.# 82330 This item has been electronically signed and sealed by Kevin M. Dowty, PE. on 03/31/2020 using a Digital Signature. Printed copies of this document are not considered signed and sealed and the signature must be verified on any electronic copies. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Sewer Bay House SEWER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ABB PN 19-0006 A. Sewage Generation Rate Residential Demands per CCUSM DC Part 2 Commercial Demands per F.A.C. Ch64E-6 Proposed ADF - Hotel or Assisted Living Facility (ALF): GREATER OF THE TWO Hotel Number of Hotel Rooms = 160 rooms Demand per Hotel Room = 100 gpd ADF for Hotel = 16,000 gpd ALF Number of ALF Beds = 448 beds Demand per ALF Bed = 100 gpd Additional demand per meal prepared per bed = 5 gpd Meals prepared per day = 3 meals ADF for ALF = 51,520 gpd <GOVERNS> - Caretakers Residenecs for ALF Number of Caretakers = 2 Demand per 1 Bedroom Residence = 100 gpd ADF for Commercial = 200 gpd - Restaurant (operating < 16hrs/day) Number of Seats = 400 seats Demand per Seat = 40 gpd ADF for Restaurant = 16,000 gpd Total ADF Sewage Generation =67,720 gpd B. Peak Sewage Demand Peaking Factor from Collier County 2014 Master Plan Peaking Factor =1.35 Hours of daily operation =24 hrs Adjusted Peak flow =>91,422 gpd => 3,809 gph Instantaneous Peak Flow = 63.5 gpm Summary Peak Sewage Demand :63.5 gpm 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 400 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Water Bay House WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ABB PN 19-0006 A. Water Demand Generation Rate Demands per CCUSM D.C. Part 2.2.1.C Proposed ADF - Hotel or Assisted Living Facility (ALF): GREATER OF THE TWO Hotel ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Hotel = 22,400 gpd ALF ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 51,520 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Hotel = 72,128 gpd <GOVERNS> - Caretakers Residenecs for ALF ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 200 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Commercial = 280 gpd - Restaurant (operating < 16hrs/day) ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Restaurant = 22,400 gpd Total ADF Water Demand =94,808 gpd B. Peak Water Demand Peaking Factor from Collier County 2014 Master Plan Peaking Factor =1.35 Hours of daily operation =24 hrs Adjusted Peak flow =>127,991 gpd => 5,333 gph Instantaneous Peak Flow = 88.9 gpm Summary Peak Water Demand :88.9 gpm 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 401 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Water Bay House WATER SYSTEM ANALYSIS ABB PN 19-0006 A. Water Demand Generation Rate Demands per CCUSM D.C. Part 2.2.1.C Proposed ADF - Restaurant (operating < 16hrs/day) ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Restaurant = 22,400 gpd - Hotel ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 16,000 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Hotel = 22,400 gpd - Commercial ADF from Sewer System Analysis = 675 gpd 40% increase factor per CCUSM = 1.4 ADF for Commercial = 945 gpd Total ADF Water Demand =45,745 gpd B. Peak Water Demand Peaking Factor from Collier County 2014 Master Plan Peaking Factor =1.35 Hours of daily operation =24 hrs Adjusted Peak flow =>61,756 gpd => 2,573 gph Instantaneous Peak Flow = 42.9 gpm Summary Peak Water Demand :42.9 gpm 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 402 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) February 28, 2019 Pump Station 127.00 Pressure & Flow Request 8-inch Discharge Force Mai n Pressure Report Force Main Pressure Summary Pressure Transducer Connection Point Elevation = 3.7 FT, NGVD29 Gauge Pressure (PSIG) Hydraulic Grade Line (FT, NGVD29) 25th Percentile 13 34 75th Percentile 16 40 Maximum 23 57 Comments: Wastewater generated within the proposed redevelopment site known as the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD located on the north side of Walkerbilt Road west of US-41 is proposed to be conveyed to the existing privately owned and maintained Pump Station 9000.17, located within the redevelopment site. The existing pump station pumps wastewater south and discharges into the 8-inch gravity sewer along Walkerbilt Road. The 8-inch gravity sewer flows west and discharges into the wet well of Pump Station 127.00 located along the south side of Walkerbilt Road. Pu mp Station 127.00 pumps wastewater east along Walkerbilt Road through an 8-inch force main. The 8-inch force main connects to the 20 -inch force main along the west side of US-41. The 20-inch force main conveys wastewater south along US -41. And eventually discharges at the North County Water Reclamation Facility (NCWRF) located along Goodlette-Frank Road just south of Immokalee Road. A pressure recorder was installed in the below ground valve vault at Pump Station 127.00. This report shows the recorded operating pressure in the 8- inch discharge force main from 1/28/2019 to 2/6/2019. The elevation of the pressure transducer connection point is approximately 11.6 feet NGVD29 per Collier County GIS and field measurements See Attachments for: • Force Main Operating Pressure and Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation Graph • Pump Station 127.00 Flow Report • Wastewater System Exhibit • Pump Station Photos Pump Station 127.00 Pressure & Flow Request Wastewater System Exhibit Misc. Wastewater System Data Collection, Monitoring, & Analysis 70044.10.1 / 20149700-175 N Pressure Recorder 8” Discharge Force Main) PS 127.00 Direction of Flow in 8-inch Force Main COOPER’S HAWK RESTAURANT 8” Force Main US-41WALKERBILT RD PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT SITE (COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST) 4” Force Main PS 9000.17 THE OLD COLLIER GOLF CLUB 20” Force Main 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 403 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Collier County Public Utilities PS 127.00 Pressure and Flow Request 2/21/2019 7.1 9.2 11.4 13.5 15.7 17.9 20.0 22.2 24.4 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 1/28/19 12:00 PM1/29/19 12:00 PM1/30/19 12:00 PM1/31/19 12:00 PM2/1/19 12:00 PM2/2/19 12:00 PM2/3/19 12:00 PM2/4/19 12:00 PM2/5/19 12:00 PM2/6/19 12:00 PMGauge Pressure (PSIG)Hydraulic Grade Line Elevation (FT, NGVD)PS 127.00 -Walkerbilt Road 8-inch Discharge Force Main Pressure Maximum = 57 FT / 23 PSI Average = 38 FT / 15 PSI Median = 38 FT / 15 PSI 25th Percentile = 34 FT / 13 PSI 75th Percentile = 40 FT / 16 PSI 90th Percentile = 43 FT / 17 PSI Top of Ground Elevation = 5.5 FT, NGVD Elevation of Transducer = 5.5 feet minus 1.8 feet = 3.7 FT, NGVD Misc. Wastewater System Data Collection, Monitoring, and Analysis 70044.10.1 / 20149700-175 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 404 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD)  Report prepared on 2/13/2019 at 2:27 PMPump Station 127.00 ‐ Walkerbilt RdPump Make/ModelDiameter (ft)Two (2) Submersible Pumps6FLYGT CP3127 W/ 463 IMP ‐ 10 HPAnalysis from 2/1/2018 to 2/7/2019.PARAMETER (units)ValueTotal Pump Run Time (minutes) 81,897.5Run Time Per Day (minutes) 220.4Run Time Per Day (hours) 3.7Pump Starts Per Day 56.2Average Pump Rate (GPM) 156.8Average Influent Rate (GPM) 24.0Average Daily Flow (GPD) 34,535Pump Station FeatureMeasured Down (From Rim)NGVD Elevation(ft)NAVDᵈ Elevation(ft)ᵃ Top of Wetwell‐6.405.15ᵇ High Water Float8.50‐2.10‐3.35ᵇ Lag #2 Float‐‐‐ᵇ Lag #1 Float 9.90‐3.50‐4.75ᶜ  Lead Float 11.10‐4.70‐5.95ᶜ  Pump Off Float‐‐6.99‐8.24ᵇ Bottom of Wetwell 16.00‐9.60‐10.85ᵃ  Top of wetwell elevation based on record drawings and compared to LiDAR information.ᵇ Elevations are based on wetwell top elevation and field measurements (to top of float or bottom of wetwell).ᶜ Float switch elevation based on water level measurements using pressure transducer.ᵈ Conversion from NGVD to NAVD at this location (subtract 1.25).Pump Station 127.00 ‐ Walkerbilt Rd9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 405Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD)  Report prepared on 2/13/2019 at 2:27 PM21161311111213141723252726272727272931333333312601020304050600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23Influent Rate (GPM)Hour of DayAverage Influent Rates by Hour from 2/1/2018 to 2/7/2019 Influent Rate for Each Hour Average Hourly Influent RatePump Station 127.00 ‐ Walkerbilt Rd9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 406Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Pump Station 127.00 Pressure & Flow RequestWastewater System ExhibitMisc. Wastewater System Data Collection, Monitoring, & Analysis70044.10.1 / 20149700-175NPressure Recorder8” Discharge Force Main)PS 127.00Direction of Flow in 8-inch Force MainCOOPER’S HAWK RESTAURANT8” Force MainUS-41WALKERBILT RDPROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT SITE(COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST)4” Force MainPS 9000.17THE OLD COLLIER GOLF CLUB20” Force Main9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 407Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Collier County Public Utilities 2/21/2019 Pump Station 127.00 Photos 70044.10.1 / 20149700‐175             9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 408 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Collier County Public Utilities 2/21/2019 Pump Station 127.00 Photos 70044.10.1 / 20149700‐175       9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 409 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 410 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Bay House Campus CPUD Property ID Numbers 26300001000 0.35 Acres 26300000755 6.35 Acres 23100000026 1.97 Acres 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) EXHIBIT “A”    LEGAL DESCRIPTION  BAY HOUSE CAMPUS CPUD      BEING ALL OF TRACT 1, BAY HOUSE REPLAT, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT  BOOK SO, PAGES 14 AND 15 TOGETHER WITH ALL OF TRACTS 2 AND 3, COCOHATCHEE RIVER TRUST  P.U.D., ACCORDING TOTHE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 18, PAGES 97 AND 98 OF THE  PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ALL LYING WITHIN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH,  RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 377,623 SQUARE FEET OR 8.67 ACRES, MORE  OR LESS.    9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) From:StevensMichael To:NagySteve; MildenAnthony; FeyEric; TrtanCorinne; PajerCraig Cc:ChmelikTom; JohnssenBeth Subject:RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) Date:Tuesday, January 22, 2019 11:10:28 AM Attachments:image006.png image007.png image008.jpg image009.png image010.png image011.jpg Agreed. Eliminating the re-pumping of the private system flow would be beneficial. The capacity of the 8” to accept the additional flow needs to be confirmed via an engineering analysis. I’ll wait for Corinne’s response on whether or not we have a pump station report for 127.00 or if one is needed. Respectfully, Michael Stevens, P.E. Principal Project Manager Engineering & Project Management Division “Continuous Improvement” 3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, FL 34112-5361 Phone: 239-252-2589 Cell: 239-877-7192 www.colliergov.net From: NagySteve Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:45 AM To: MildenAnthony ; FeyEric ; TrtanCorinne ; StevensMichael ; PajerCraig Cc: ChmelikTom ; JohnssenBeth Subject: RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) I support Anthony’s suggestions…Steve From: MildenAnthony Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 8:12 AM To: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov>; TrtanCorinne <Corinne.Trtan@colliercountyfl.gov>; StevensMichael <Michael.Stevens@colliercountyfl.gov>; PajerCraig <Craig.Pajer@colliercountyfl.gov>; NagySteve <Steve.Nagy@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: ChmelikTom <Tom.Chmelik@colliercountyfl.gov>; JohnssenBeth <Beth.Johnssen@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) My suggestions: Eliminate private pump station connection to PS 127.00 gravity system (regardless of available capacity) Require connection of 4” private FM to CCWSD 8” FM south of existing connection (if 8” CCWSD FM capacity exists) Require connection of 4” private FM to CCWSD 20” PVC FM at the NW corner of US-41 (if 8” CCWSD FM capacity does not exists) Require improvements where private 4” FM enters ROW in line with current standards (USM detail WW2) Note: 20” FM was replaced in 2000 during US-41 road improvement project (1999-2001). Anthony From: FeyEric <Eric.Fey@colliercountyfl.gov> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 3:27 PM To: TrtanCorinne <Corinne.Trtan@colliercountyfl.gov>; StevensMichael <Michael.Stevens@colliercountyfl.gov>; PajerCraig <Craig.Pajer@colliercountyfl.gov>; MildenAnthony <Anthony.Milden@colliercountyfl.gov>; NagySteve <Steve.Nagy@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: ChmelikTom <Tom.Chmelik@colliercountyfl.gov>; JohnssenBeth <Beth.Johnssen@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: RE: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) Wastewater Team, The below pre-application meeting notice was issued this afternoon. Based upon the project description, the proposed change in permitted uses would result in an increase in design peak hour flow of nearly 30 gpm (61.6 gpm to 90.4 gpm). There may be a capacity concern given the age and materials of the existing infrastructure (i.e. elevated potential for infiltration). The Cocohatchee River Trust PUD, now known as the Bay House Campus PUD (as of Ordinance No. 13-65), is the location of The Bay House Restaurant on Walkerbilt Rd, which is served by a private pump station (9000.17). PS 9000.17 discharges to the 8” VCP sewer on Walkerbilt Rd via a 4” force main. The gravity sewer flows to MPS 127 at the west end of Walkerbilt Rd. MPS 127 discharges through an 8” cast iron force main that runs east to the 20” PVC force main along the west side of Tamiami Trail N (US 41). Our GIS indicates the wastewater collection/transmission system improvements along Walkerbilt Rd were constructed in 1976 or 1977 and the 20” force main along US 41 was constructed in 1988. See the GIS screen shot below: I have two general questions: 1. Should I require an engineering analysis for this PUDA, or are we comfortable that the existing infrastructure is adequate? 2. Should I stipulate the connection point for the proposed hotel, and if so, where should that be? Also, Corinne, do we have a pump station report for MPS 127? Lastly, Craig or Michael, do we have any capital projects in our CIP to replace any of this aging infrastructure? I would appreciate your input prior to the 1/29 pre-application meeting. Respectfully, Eric Fey, P.E. 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Senior Project Manager cid:image005.jpg@01D3676E.EE3105D0 Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management DivisionContinuous ImprovementNOTE: Email Address Has Changed3339 Tamiami Trail East, Suite 303, Naples, Florida 34112-5361Phone: 239.252.1037 Cell: 239.572.0043 -----Original Appointment----- From: EstradaMaria On Behalf Of CDS-C Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 2:22 PM To: AcevedoMargarita; AlcornChris; Amy Lockhart-Taylor; AnthonyDavid; ArnoldMichelle; AshtonHeidi; AuclairClaudine; BaluchStephen; BeardLaurie; BrownCraig; CascioGeorge; ClarkeThomas; ColeTabatha; CondominaDanny; CrotteauKathynell; CrowleyMichaelle; David Ogilvie; dfey@northcollierfire.com; DumaisMike; FaulknerSue; FeyEric; FinnTimothy; FleishmanPaula; GewirtzStorm; GibbonsMichael; GiblinCormac; GosselinLiz; GundlachNancy; HughesJodi; HumphriesAlicia; JacobLisa; jnageond@sfwmd.gov; JohnHouldsworthVEN; JohnsonEric; JosephitisErin; KellyJohn; KendallMarcia; KurtzGerald; LevyMichael; lmartin@sfwmd.gov; MartinezGilbert; MartinezOscar; MastrobertoThomas; McCaughtryMary; McKennaJack; McKuenElly; McLeanMatthew; MoscaMichele; MoxamAnnis; NawrockiStefanie; NuteMelissa; OrthRichard; PajerCraig; PattersonAmy; PepinEmily; pjimenez@sfwmd.gov; PochmaraNatalie; PollardBrandi; RodriguezWanda; RomanDaniel; RosenblumBrett; SaboJames; SantabarbaraGino; SawyerMichael; ScottChris; ScottTami; ShawinskyPeter; Shawn Hanson; SheaBarbara; SmithCamden; SmithDaniel; StoneScott; StrainMark; SuleckiAlexandra; SummersEllen; SweetChad; TempletonMark; VanLengenKris; VargaCecilia; VelascoJessica; WalshJonathan; WeeksDavid; WickhamFlannery; WilkieKirsten; WilloughbyChristine; ZunzuneguiDaniel; karenbishop@pmsnaples.com Subject: PL20190000154-Amendment to the Cocohatchee River Trust PUD (PUDA) When: Tuesday, January 29, 2019 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: Conf. Room C- Nancy Gundlach Planner: Nancy Gundlach Fire District: North Collier NN Fire ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ cid:image001.png@01D4AF38.C76484F0 ***************************************************************************************************************************** cid:image002.png@01D4AF38.C76484F0 Respectfully, Maria Estrada, AS Business Project Coordinator 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) Inc. of Naples Land Development Consultant 3125 54th Terrace SW, Naples, FL 34116 / (239) 825-7230 / Fax (239) 234-6096 /Email: karenbishop@pmsnaples.com Dear Property Owner: Please be advised that a formal application has been submitted to Collier County seeking approval of a Small Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment Application (PL20190000850) known as Bay House Campus Commercial Subdistrict as well as a Planned Unit Development Amendment Application (PL20190000154) for the following described property: Bay House Campus CPUD: Located on the northwest corner of Walkerbilt Road and Tamiami Trail North (U.S. 41) The petitioner is asking the County to approve these companion applications to allow the Bay House Campus CPUD to reestablish the previously allowed maximum of 160 hotel rooms, add assisted living as an additional principal use and increase the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and increase the actual building height from 75 feet to 90 feet. The purpose of the SSGMPA (companion to a PUDA) is to reestablish the previously allowed maximum of 160 hotel rooms, and identify all other allowable uses within the proposed Subdistrict and related intensity limitations. The PUD amendment is necessary in order to request the increase in hotel rooms, add assisted living as an additional principal use, increase the zoned building height from 50 feet to 75 feet and increase the actual building height from 75 feet to 90 feet. The application also removes the 4500 square-foot commercial cooking school and auditoriums as accessory uses. In compliance with the Land Development Code requirements, a Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held to provide you an opportunity to become fully aware of our development intentions and to give you an opportunity to influence the form of development. The Neighborhood Information Meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 15th at 5:30 P.M. at The Doubletree Suites by Hilton, 12200 Tamiami Trail North, Naples, FL 34110. At this meeting, the petitioner will make every effort to illustrate how the property will be developed and to answer any questions. Should you have questions prior to the meeting, please contact me. Respectfully, Karen Bishop 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 三三∴　〕三、 の の 当 てさ ヰ 5 し 禽・ 、a 一志 ③ き ゃ や) し 3 ` も く二 重 一三 吋 も I て) 千 の 室 山 「 支 薫 ミ ‡ヽ ミ .ミ 高 く_ 。ミ 雷 電 ヽ〇二ここ ゴ ミー く9 ’室 くま, N ぜ 寝 くの 主 o ト }l ノ 」 ⊇ 立 ∽ の 里 さ ミ ! 薄 で .イ 8 諾 一°。〇〇一 >ヽ ヾ・ {ヽ てさ てさ 〃く \ハ ヽ」 睾 V\ か くへ \へ 登 ぐ\ ぐう し“￣ ( 宮 .4 0 0 ヾ \」 ー \モ ① 巨 億 之 ヽ’〇一〇 メ 1′\ 3 蔓 草 ∴山 ミ _く 6 i・- ′ \上 ●一ヽ /　- $ ご く ′/ `ブ ぴ 、ゴ ミ ミ エ ーこ> だ 9.A.2.fPacket Pg. 420Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) ∀ウ0 TliTF/DOT/ST OF Fし PO BOX 1249 BARTOW, FL　33831○○-1249 $醜聞匿態 09し8/09Lg④んo∧∀0∂∧e細led山00 ]山上9 X Lu山g乙l拙」01 0P鍋enb坤 O9L8/09L9⑧ん∂^∀囲M 91q!led山00 “8/9乙Xくくし∂Z!S i∂qe1 12052 TAMiAMi LLC 12052 TAMiAMI TRAIL NORTH NAPLES, FL　34108〇〇〇0 丁iITF/ST OF FL 3900 COMMONWEALTH BLVD TAししAHASSEE, FL　32399-○○6575 Iabei size l” x 2 5/8” compatible with Avery ⑪5160/8160 Etiquette do format 25 mm x 67 mm compatibie avec Avery ⑧5160/8160 霜害開運騒 BAY HOUSE CAMPUS LLC % EDWARD NEGLEY 8 SABRE LN NAPLES, FL　34102〇〇〇7937 MAR丁iN, 」ORGE & MARIA 30 SHORESAVE NAPLES, FL　34110---1604 04A 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) ∀ウ0 篭調艶酷醒蜜 09L8/09し9④ん9^∀ 09^t2 ∂iqped田OO u川上9 X田山9乙岬l山」0l OP 9聯nb岬 09L8/09L9④んe^∀ul岬8i叩ed田00 “8/9 Z X “し∂Z!S leqei WA丁TS, TERRYし PO BOX llO884 NAPしES, FL　34108-○○0 Iabei size l” x 2 5/8” compatibie with Ave「y ㊥5160/8160 Etiquette do format 25 mm x 67 mm compa脚e avec Ave「y ⑪5160/8160 論調園閻撼 WITKOWSKl, 」OHN EDWARD 33 SHORESAVE NAPLES, FL　3411O---1607 04A 9.A.2.f Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: Attachment E-Application (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.g Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: Bay House Virtual Hearing Waiver 6-26-20A (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.hPacket Pg. 424Attachment: Sign Posting Affidavit and Photos 7-6-20B (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.h Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: Sign Posting Affidavit and Photos 7-6-20B (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 9.A.2.i Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: Letter of Support-Oberhauser 7-2-20 (12726 : PL20190000154 Bay House Campus CPUD) 08/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.3 Item Summary: ***This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting. *** PL20190000454: 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 Map Series by amending the Urban Commercial district to add the Germain Immokalee Commercial subdistrict to allow development of up to 80,000 square feet of C-1, commercial professional and general office district and luxury automobile dealership uses. The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, approximately .6 miles west of I-75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.97± acres. (Companion to PL20190000451) [Coordinator: Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 08/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: Planner, Senior – Zoning Name: Marcia R Kendall 06/29/2020 7:13 AM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 06/29/2020 7:13 AM Approved By: Review: Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 06/29/2020 11:00 AM Zoning Sue Faulkner Additional Reviewer Completed 06/29/2020 12:23 PM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 07/10/2020 2:15 PM Zoning Anita Jenkins Additional Reviewer Completed 07/20/2020 4:48 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 07/21/2020 9:47 AM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 07/22/2020 4:45 PM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.3 Packet Pg. 427 COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT PL20190000454/CPSS-2019-5 (ADOPTION HEARINGS) CCPC: July 16, 2020 (continued from April 2, 2019) BCC: September 22, 2020 9.A.3.a Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 00_CCPC COVER (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) TABLE OF CONTENTS CCPC July 16, 2020 (continued from April 2, 2020) PL20190000454/CPSS-2019-5 GMP Small Scale Amendment Adoption Hearing 1) TAB: Adoption Staff Report DOCUMENTS: CCPC Staff Report 2) TAB: Ordinance DOCUMENTS: Adoption Ordinance with Exhibit “A” text (and/or maps): 3) TAB: Project PL20190000454/ DOCUMENT: Petition/Application CPSS-2019-5 4) TAB: Legal Advertisement DOCUMENT: CCPC Advertisement 5) TAB: Correspondence DOCUMENTS: Emailed Correspondence 9.A.3.b Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 00_Table of Contents (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 1 of 7 STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT/ZONING DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING SECTION HEARING DATE: April 2, 2020 RE: PETITION PL20190000454/ CPSS-2019-05, SMALL SCALE GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT GERMAIN IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT (Companion to PUDZ-PL20190000451) [ADOPTION HEARING] ELEMENT:FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT (FLUE) AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNER(S): Agents: Thomas D. Barber, AICP Agnoli, Barber, & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire Coleman, Yovanovich, & Koester, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicant: Flavio Galasso JAZ Real Estate Holdings, LLC 11286 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL 34110 Owners Herbert Scherer Trust c/o Mary Huckstep 9027 Alturas Lane #3305 Naples, FL 34113 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 01_Staff Report CP-2019-5 Germain Imm_FINAL (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 2 of 7 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property comprises ±8.97-acres and is located on the south side of Immokalee Road (CR 846), approximately 700 feet west of Juliet Blvd. and 0.6 miles west of I-75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. The subject site is adjacent to the western edge of the southwest quadrant of the Interchange Activity Center #4. (Below: see location map and aerial map with subject site in yellow brackets) Proposed Subject Site 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 01_Staff Report CP-2019-5 Germain Imm_FINAL (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 3 of 7 REQUESTED ACTION: The applicant proposes a small-scale Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), specifically to create a new subdistrict, Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict, within the Urban Designation, Urban – Commercial District. The applicant also proposes to amend the countywide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and create a new map (“Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict”) in the FLUM series of the FLUE, to identify the newly created Subdistrict. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Subject Property: The subject 8.97-acre subject site is undeveloped and is designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) as Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the residential density band for Mixed Use Activity Center #4. The site is zoned Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A). The subject site’s eastern boundary abuts the Interchange Activity Center #4. The Future Land Use designation of Urban Mixed-Use District is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential land uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs). Commercial development opportunities in the form of Interchange Activity Centers are provided to include a mixture of uses (including some industrial uses) which has the potential to lessen the impact on the transportation system. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Immediately to the north of the subject site is Immokalee Road (CR 846). Directly across Immokalee Road is zoned Carlton Lakes PUD, a development approved for up to 800 dwelling units (DUs) and 70,000 square feet of commercial use. Carlton Lakes is designated by the FLUM as Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. East: Immediately adjacent to the east is zoned the Gaspar Station Commercial PUD Zoning District. The FLUE designates this area to the east of the subject site as Urban, Commercial District, Interchange Activity Center #4 Subdistrict. Because this easterly site is within the Interchange Activity Center #4, it is approved for a wide variety of commercial uses – including a hotel/motel use. Among the commercial activities currently operating is an automated car wash. South: Immediately adjacent to the south is zoned Livingston Lakes PUD Zoning District, which is approved for a maximum of 327 DUs. The FLUE designates this area to the south of the subject site as Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and within the Residential Density Band of Interchange Activity Center #4. West: Immediately adjacent to the west is an undeveloped parcel zoned Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A). West of this parcel is a parcel zoned Eboli PUD, which is approved for 80 DUs. The FLUE designates this area to the west as Urban, Urban Mixed-Use 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 01_Staff Report CP-2019-5 Germain Imm_FINAL (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 4 of 7 District, Urban Residential Subdistrict and is within the Residential Density Band of Interchange Activity Center #4. STAFF ANALYSIS: Background and Considerations: The FLUE currently designates this undeveloped property as the Urban, Urban Mixed-Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict. The current land is zoned Rural Agricultural Zoning District (A). The purpose of this GMPA application is to amend the FLUE to create a subdistrict that will allow a rezone which would include luxury automotive dealership use and C-1 Zoning District by right and conditional uses as allowable uses with the submittal of a companion PUD rezoning request (PL20190000451). The site is located on the south side of Immokalee road approximately ½ mile west of Interstate 75. The subject site is approximately 8.97 acres. The site is bound on the eastern property line by activity center #4 and on the western side by a similarly zoned agricultural piece of property. The proposed development will consist of a car dealership building facing Immokalee road and a parking and vehicular storage building behind it. A portion of the southern side of the property will be preserved as native vegetation and buffer the residential community that abuts the property. This application will create a new subdistrict to allow the C-4 for Luxury Automotive Sales use only and allow other uses and regulations consistent with the C-1 zoning use. The Traffic Analysis prepared in conjunction with this application addressed the luxury auto dealership on this parcel (80,000 SF maximum). The companion Germain Immokalee Road PUD shall be limited to a maximum total traffic of 166 two-way PM peak hour trips. Compatibility: Given the mixed-use nature of this area and the proximity of the site to the Interchange Activity Center #4 (adjoining on the eastern boundary of the subject property); the requested new car dealership of luxury vehicles and requested permitted by right and conditional uses of C-1 Commercial Professional and General Office Zoning District uses are appropriate. The Interchange Activity Center #4 allows for the same mixture of land uses as allowed in the Mixed- Use Activity Centers; additionally, industrial uses are allowed in the southwest and southeast quadrants of Interchange Activity Center #4. Allowable land uses in Mixed Use Activity Centers include the full array of commercial uses, residential uses, institutional uses, hotel/motel uses at a maximum density of 26 units per acre, community facilities, and other land uses as generally allowed in the Urban designation. Industrial uses may include manufacturing, warehousing, storage, and distribution. During the rezone process, each such use shall be reviewed to determine if it will be compatible with existing and approved land uses. The subject property is surrounded by a mixed-use neighborhood, which includes a large general merchandise store, a car wash, gas station, restaurants (including a drive-thru), transient lodging, a large grocery store, residential uses, and the site’s proximity to the Interchange Activity Center #4. 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 01_Staff Report CP-2019-5 Germain Imm_FINAL (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 5 of 7 Staff’s opinion is that the requested uses are compatible with the land to the east and north of the subject site. The requested subdistrict will create much lower intensity uses than the uses in Interchange Activity Center #4. The preserve located in the southern portion of the subject site will buffer the commercial use from the residential use, and therefore, achieve compatibility. In staff’s opinion, the proposed limited uses of this subdistrict will create very little impact on the surrounding area and will be compatible. Justifications for Proposed Amendment: The applicant submitted a market study analysis that states demand for luxury cars is increasing (along with the population of Collier County) and that locating a luxury car dealership close to I- 75 and closer to the growing populations east of Collier Blvd. (CR 951) helps meet this increasing demand. The Market Study Analysis states the vast majority of auto dealerships in Collier County are located along the US41 and Airport Pulling Road corridors. The study shows a need for dealerships further east and recognizes a void in the service area along Immokalee Road and East of I-75. The Market Study Analysis indicates proximity to the interstate and being on Immokalee Road (a highly commercialized corridor) is highly desirable for this use. The Market Study Analysis states the subject property must have direct access and high visibility for the Automotive Sales and service along an arterial roadway. Identification and Analysis of the Pertinent Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria in Florida Statutes Chapter 163.3187: Process for adoption of small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. (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 subject site comprises ±8.97 acres.] (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 does include a text change to the Comprehensive Plan and those text changes are directly related to the proposed future land use map amendment.] (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 Administration Commission pursuant to s. 380.05(1). [The subject property is not located within an Area of Critical State Concern.] 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: 01_Staff Report CP-2019-5 Germain Imm_FINAL (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 6 of 7 (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. Corrections, updates, or modifications of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan shall not, for the purposes of this act, be deemed to be amendments. [This amendment preserves the internal consistency of the plan and is not a correction, update, or modification of current costs which were set out as part of the comprehensive plan.] Environmental Impacts and Historical and Archaeological Impacts: Craig Brown, Senior Environmental Specialist with Collier County Environmental Planning Section, completed his review and approved this petition in June 2019. He provided the following comments: The subject property is 8.97 acres. The acreage of native vegetation on site has been field verified by staff during review of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the project. The project is currently zoned Agriculture. The proposed GMP amendment will not affect the requirements of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the GMP. Native vegetation on site will be retained in accordance with the requirements of CCME Policy 6.1.1 and section 3.05.07 of the LDC. Public Facilities Impacts: Eric Fey, Senior Project Manager with Collier County Public Utilities Engineering & Project Management Division, stated in his review dated in June 2019, “This petition proposes no increase in density or changes in permitted uses, and would, therefore, have no impact on public utility facilities adequacy.” Transportation Impacts: Michael Sawyer, Project Manager with Collier County Transportation Planning, completed his review and approved this petition, without any conditions, in October 2019. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM), as required by Land Development Code (LDC) Section 10.03.05 A, was duly advertised, noticed, and held on August 22, 2019, 5:30 p.m. at the First Congregational Church of Naples, 6630 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34119. This NIM was advertised, noticed, and held jointly for this small scale GMP amendment and the companion Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) petition. The applicant’s team gave a presentation and then responded to questions. See applicant’s NIM notes included in this GMPA packet. A total of approximately 25 members of the public along with approximately 10 members of the applicant’s team and County staff signed in at the NIM. The consultant explained that there were two separate applications: a small-scale amendment for 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: 01_Staff Report CP-2019-5 Germain Imm_FINAL (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Zoning Division ● 2800 North Horseshoe Drive ● Naples, FL 34104 ● 239-252-2400 Page 7 of 7 the Growth Management Plan (creation of a new subdistrict) and a zoning action for a Planned Unit Development Rezone (rezone to a new PUD). The public asked questions about the project details, especially about intensity increases, such as will this affect my home value in the future, will there be late-night deliveries, loudspeakers blaring, lights in the sky at night. The public was very concerned about all the increases to traffic on Immokalee Road already. The meeting ended at approximately 6:35 p.m. [synopsis prepared by Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Section] PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED BY STAFF: Comprehensive Planning staff received five email correspondences of objection/concern, dated August 22, 2019 from residents of Livingston Lakes residential development. See the emails included in this GMPA packet. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: •The reason for this GMPA and companion PUDZ zoning petition is to allow and permit, respectively, the luxury car dealership (only C-4 use) and C-1 zoning district uses (all by- right and conditional uses). •There are no adverse environmental impacts as a result of this petition. •No historic or archaeological sites are affected by this amendment. •There are no transportation or utility-related concerns as a result of this petition. •The site’s uses will create minimal impact on the surrounding area. •The use is generally compatible with surrounding development based upon the high-level review conducted for a GMP amendment. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report was reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office on March 11 , 2020. The criteria for GMP amendments to the Future Land Use Element 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 PL20190000454/CPSS-2019-05 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to approve (adopt) and transmit to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 9.A.3.c Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: 01_Staff Report CP-2019-5 Germain Imm_FINAL (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) ORDINANCE NO. 2020- 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 MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ADD THE GERMAIN IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-1, COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT AND LUXURY AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY .6 MILES WEST OF 1-75, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.97± ACRES. [PL20190000454] WH EREAS , Collier County, pursuant to Se ction 163.3161 , et. seq., Florida Statutes , the F lorida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act , was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS , the Collier County Board of County Commi ssioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10 , 1989; and WH EREAS , the Community Planning Act of 2011 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans; and WH EREAS , JAZ Real E state Holdings LLC , requested an amendment to the Future Land U se Element and Map Series ; and WH EREAS , pursuant to Subsection 163.3187(1 ), Florida Statutes , this amendment is considered a Small-Scale Amendment; and WHE REAS , the Subdistrict property is not located in an area of critical state concern or a rural area of opportunity ; and WHEREAS , the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) on April 2 , 2020 , considered the proposed amendment to the Growth Management Plan and recommended approval of said amendment to the Board of County Commissioners ; and [1 9-C MP-01055 /152 6 874/l ] 35 PL 201800036 59 -Germ a in lmmo kalee Road SSGMPA 3/3/20 Words underlin e d ar e addition s, words struck through are deletions . 1 of 3 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.d Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.dPacket Pg. 444Attachment: 02_Ordinance - 030320 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Application Revised November 2019 Page 1 of 6 APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN APPLICATOIN NUMBER: ___________________ DATE RECEIVED: ______________________________ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE: 3-5-2019 DATE SUFFICIENT: ______________________________________________________________________ This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Growth Management Department, Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. 239-252- 2400. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the applica tion, 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: Flavio Galasso Company JAZ Real Estate Holdings, LLC Address 11286 Tamiami Trail North City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34110 Phone Number (239) 449-5555 Fax Number ______________________________ B. Name of Agent * Thomas D. Barber, AICP • THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION. Company Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Address 7400 Trail Boulevard, Unit 200 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34108 Phone Number (239) 597-3111 Fax Number ______________________________ C. Name of Owner (s) of Record Herbert Scherer Trust c/o Mary Huckstep Address 9027 Alturas Lane # 3305 City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34113 Represented by Craig D. Blume, P.A., Attorney at Law City Naples State Florida Zip Code 34102 Phone Number (239) 417-4848 Fax Number D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Application Revised November 2019 Page 2 of 6 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 __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each. Name and Address Percentage of Stock __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchaser s below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership JAZ Real Estate Holdings, LLC 100% __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ __________________________________________ _________________________ 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Application Revised November 2019 Page 3 of 6 Date of Contract: 12/12/2018 F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, li st all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust. Name and Address ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________ G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ):________Term of lease______yrs./mos. If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: ______________ and date option terminates: ______________, or anticipated closing: November 8, 2019 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 responsibili ty of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 30 48 26 E1/2 OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4, LESS N 100FT R/W 9.24 AC OR 1079 PG 1242 _________________________________________________________________________________ B. GENERAL LOCATION South side of Immokalee Road, west of Juliet Boulevard C. PLANNING COMMUNITY: Urban Estates D. TAZ 161 E. SIZE IN ACRES : 8.97 F. ZONING A G. SURROUNDING LAND USE PATTERN: Adjacent to CPUD, ROW, Agricultural, Residential H. FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION(S): Urban Residential Subdistrict, 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 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Application Revised November 2019 Page 4 of 6 B. AMEND PAGE (S) ___10, 26,69___________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: See proposed GMPA Language (Exhibit IV.B.1) _________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ C. AMEND FUTURE LAND USE MAP(S) DESIGNATION FROM Urban Residential Subdistrict, TO Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict D. AMEND OTHER MAP(S) AND EXHIBITS AS FOLLOWS: (Name & Page #) Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict Inset Map ______________ ________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________ E. DESCRIBE ADDITINAL CHANGES REQUESTED: ________________________________________ Creation of Germain Immokalee Commercial Subdistrict____________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________ 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 V.A.1. Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI’s, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. V.A.2. Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. V.A.3. 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 V.B.1 . Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL V.C.1. (14 & 18) 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. V.C.2. (20 & 22) Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) a nd 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. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Application Revised November 2019 Page 5 of 6 D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference F.A.C. Chapter 163-3177 and Collier County’s Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). 1. INSERT “Y” FOR YES OR “N” FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: ____N_____ Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? 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. ? ____Y/N____ Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 163.3187 (1)(c), F.S. ? Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County-wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. _____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? If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. E. PUBLIC FACILITIES 1. Provide the existing Level of Service Standard (LOS) and document the impact the proposed change will have on the following public facilities: V.E.1. Potable Water V.E.1 . Sanitary Sewer V.E.1 . Arterial & Collector Roads; Name specific road and LOS ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ V.E.1 . Drainage V.E.1 . Solid Waste V.E.1 . Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fa ll below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Objective 1 and Policies) 2. V.E.2. Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools and emergency medical services. 3. V.E.3. Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Application Revised November 2019 Page 6 of 6 F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: V.F.1. Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM). _V.F.2. __ 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) _ X__ $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) X.A.1. Proof of ownership (copy of deed) X.A.2. Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (See attached form) _ Y __ 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 25 copies of the complete application will be required. * If you have held a pre-application meeting and paid the pre-application fee of $250.00 at the meeting, deduct that amount from the above application fee amount when submitting your application. All pre-application fees are included in the total application submittal fee. Otherwise the overage will be applied to future proportionate share advertising costs. * Maps shall include: North arrow, name and location of principal roadways and shall be at a scale of 1” =400’ or at a scale as determined during the pre-application meeting. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT I GERMAIN IMMOKALEE PUD Project Narrative and Detail of Request Project Background: The Collier County Growth Management Plan currently addresses this property as the suburban residential in the Future Land Use Element. The current land is zoned agricultural. The property qualifies to be rezoned to commercial uses under the Commercial In-Fill Commercial Subdistrict within the GMP. The purpose of these applications is to amend the GMP to allow a rezone which would include automotive dealership as an allowable use and to submit a PUD rezoning request. The site is located on the south side of Immokalee road 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75. The subject site is approximately 8.97 acres. The site is bound on the eastern property line by activity center #4 and on the western side by a similarly zoned agricultural piece of property. Project Narrative and Explanation/Justification of GMPA Approval for Auto Sales The proposed development will consist of a car dealership building facing Immokalee road and a parking and vehicular storage building behind it. A portion of the southern side of the property will be preserved as native vegetation and buffer the residential community that abuts the property. This application will create a new subdistrict to allow the C-4 Motor Vehicle Dealer use as well as the other uses and regulations consistent with the C-1 zoning use. The Traffic Analysis prepared in conjunction with this application addressed a Motor Vehicle Dealer on this parcel (80,000 SF maximum). 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 7/19/2019 Details www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/recorddetail.html?sid=241760988&Map=No&FolioNum=00198040008 1/1 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0 $ 1,344,050$ 0$ 1,344,050$ 46,857$ 1,297,193$ 1,344,050 $ 1,297,193 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No 00198040008 SiteAddress Site City Site Zone*Note Name / Address HUBERT SCHERER TRUST C/O MARY HUCKSTEP 9027 ALTURAS LN #3305 City NAPLES State FL Zip 34113 Map No.Strap No. Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated3B30000100 030 13B30 30 48 26 9.34 Legal 30 48 26 E1/2 OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4, LESS N 100FT R/W 9.24 AC OR1079 PG 1242 Millage Area 47 Millage Rates   *CalculationsSub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other TotalUse Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.049 5.8222 10.8712 Latest Sales History(Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality)Date Book-Page Amount06/16/09 4466-107512/13/04 3695-337404/29/84 1079-124202/01/77 675-1483  2018 Certified Tax Roll(Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (-) 10% Cap (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll  9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 460Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 461Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 462Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 463Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 464Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 465Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 466Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 467Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 468Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. 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: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 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 % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 471Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 472Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Page 1 of 2 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Page 2 of 29.A.3.ePacket Pg. 474Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee e 8/19/2019 Prepared By: Thomas D. Barber, AICP Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. Professional Engineers, Planners & Land Surveyors 7400 Trail Blvd., Suite 200 Naples, Fl 34108 Market Study Analysis 1 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 3 Narrative 15 Exhibit X.B.1 – Interchange Key Map Detailed Intersection Exhibits 17 Exhibit X.B.2 Immokalee Rd 19 Exhibit X.B.3 Pine Ridge Rd 21 Exhibit X.B.4 Golden Gate Pkwy 23 Exhibit X.B.5 Collier Blvd. 25 Exhibit X.B.6 Existing Dealership Map 27 Exhibit X.B.7 Existing Dealership Map (expanded) 29- 31 Property Analysis Table Table of Contents 2 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Jaz Real estate Holdings contracted ABB to analyze the availability of properties for a new luxury car dealership in Collier County. This automotive dealership will have space on the site dedicated to sales, inventory storage and service. The need for more luxury car dealerships within Collier County is increasing. Demographics of the area show that has a median household income of $62,407 which is higher than other counties in Florida, but as a better demonstration of the wealth in the area the Median property value is $316,2000 vs Florida as a whole, which is $178,700. (Based on United States Census data 2013-2017) Below in Figure 1 is an image that demonstrates the county boundary and illustrates the vast areas of the county to the East which have distances of more than 30 miles west to US-41 and into the main commercial corridors. This site was closer due to its proximity to I-75, on a highly commercialized corridor. Figure 1 Collier County Boundary Introduction 3 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) The planning community known as the Urban Estates is exhibited below and is primarily made up of Estates and PUD land uses. The lack of commercial zoning and facilities in this area has caused more vehicular trips across the county which exacerbates traffic congestion on the road network. Beyond the Urban Estates planning community further east lies, Orange Tree, Ave Maria, Immokalee and Villages that are in the planning stages right now. This Eastern Collier area will create more of a need for commercial facilities such as automotive dealerships. As of this writing, there are no new car dealerships located east of Airport Road in Collier County. Zoning and Planning Figure 2 Urban Estates Planning Community 4 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) The location of the future businesses should be planned and take the demographics of the area into account. Collier County has grown in population by 27.9% from the 2000 to the 2010 census. The projected growth of the county shows that that trend will continue and mostly likely will be skewed to the farther Eastern portions of the County. The projected growth into the next few decades estimates population will increase by 13.3% from 2020 to 2030 and 9.5% from 2030 to 2040. The detail of the projected growth is from the 2016 Collier County Economic, Demographic & Community Profile. As the County builds-out, there will be less opportunities for new development in the western areas of Collier due to diminishing vacant property or redevelopment potential. The potential population growth of the county as well as planned infrastructure development of the areas out East indicates a need for additional commercial areas to serve the newly developed parcels. Essential consumer goods and services will be located in and around the Eastern village centers, establishments such as municipal infrastructure, grocery stores, gas stations, banks, etc. These would be goods that are needed on a daily or weekly basis. Car dealerships are considered non-essential, but nevertheless a demand for the use is present. Because these commercial uses are less frequently used, they can be located in areas that are convenient to the new development, but not necessarily within the new development. Figure 4 6 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) The exhibit below shows certificate of occupancies issued from 2005-2016. The trend of development east of I-75 is apparent from this exhibit and it demonstrates the need for some of the Luxury services such as automotive dealerships to be located closer than 30 to 40 miles away. The vast majority of auto dealerships in Collier County are located along the US41 on Airport Road corridors. More of this service is needed further east. Furthermore, luxury car owners and the need for those dealerships can be linked closely with golf courses and the location of those courses. The exhibit on the following pages illustrates locations of golf courses throughout the county. As compared to the relative location of other automotive dealerships a void in the service area is present along Immokalee road and East of I-75, see also Exhibit X.B.6 & X.B.7. Figure 5 Demand 7 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Figure 6 8 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Sales, display and presentation of vehicles in automotive dealerships has changed from the historical model, with the improvements in technology customers no longer solely shop at the physical facility. Many vehicles, and luxury cars especially, are selected on the internet before any trip to look at the car has been made. Many buyers either purchase the car online or locate the specific make, model and even trim package they are looking for and travel to the dealership that has the exact car. This change in the shopping process places a much different emphasis on the location of the facility. Decades ago, automotive dealerships would be strategically placed in location that would primarily receive the most drive by traffic and visibility. In southwest Florida that would be along US-41 on Airport Road. As demonstrated in Exhibit X.B.5, the majority of dealerships are along US-41on Airport Road. Given the ongoing development in the eastern portions of the county and the implementation of the Rural Land Stewardship Area (RLSA) Overlay Program the commercial needs along the corridor of Immokalee road will increase greatly. Automotive dealerships rely on I-75 for easy transport of their product to the respective sites, having proximate location to I-75 will also reduce local heavy truck trips on the county road network. A considerable amount of the sales traffic for this dealership will come from outside of Collier County. The automotive sales model has changed over the past few decades due to the internet. Many sales are conducted by out of town customers who purchase online and drive the vehicle off the lot and as the younger digitally savvy generations get older that trend will continue. Habits and Cultural Shifts Evolution of the Shopping Industry 9 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) To facilitate the analysis various information was utilized, it is highlighted below: · Collier County Current Zoning Maps · Collier County Future Zoning Maps · Ordinances · Individual PUD documents o PUD Name o Uses allowed o Tract Sizes o Location along Arterial Roadways o Development Status of the Individual Parcels · Collier County Property Appraiser Aerials · Collier County Property Data · Land Area, Size (acres) · Zoning, (allowable commercial use, C-4) · US Census Bureau Information · Collier County Growth Management Data and Reports · Collier County AUIR · Collier County GIS Considerations & Data 10 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) A comprehensive market research effort was conducted based on the need to be near an interstate interchange. In order to pinpoint a particular property on the market for the proposed use, several property characteristics were considered and are critical for the property that would be selected. Furthermore, various site constraints clarified the properties that were selected for a more in-depth analysis. In order to select an appropriate parcel for the subject site a process was established to narrow the focus and analyze all of the available parcels that fit. The properties were narrowed by the following criteria beginning with the available parcels in Collier County, 67 different parcels remain. 1. Subject property must be within a mile, or less, from an interstate interchange a. This breakdown is represented by the overall interchange radius breakdown in Exhibit X.B.1 (Interchange Key Map) and then shown in detail at each individual intersection as described below: • X.B.2 Immokalee Road • X.B.3 Pine Ridge Road • X.B.4 Golden Gate Parkway • X.B.5 Collier Boulevard 2. The Subject Property should be appropriately zoned for the Automotive Sales and Service, which is either a C-4 or C-5 designation or a PUD that allows that commercial intensity. a. Collier County Zoning GIS was used to identify either a PUD, CPUD, CFPUD or MPUD or C-4 or C-5 zoning. Those areas were each shown and indexed on the individual interchange maps. 3. Subject property must have direct access and high visibility along an Arterial roadway a. Having vehicle display spots next to the arterial is important for the marketing and advertising of the dealership, a frontage road would increase the distance and thus decrease the opportunity to engage drive-by traffic. For commercial in-fill such access from an arterial is required and to follow suit for this project it is also preferred. 4. Subject property must provide the ideal size and layout to allow the most efficient use of space a. It is preferred that the subject property be rectangular in shape with the frontage properly oriented to provide visibility for product placement/display areas along an arterial roadway Property Analysis & Process 11 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) b. Subject property shall be shorter in frontage width as compared to depth. This provides more efficient use of space being that the rear of the site is primarily dedicated to vehicle/product storage, employee parking, and service. c. The analysis looked at properties that were between 7 acres and 10 acres. • The 7-acre threshold is important as it is the minimum lot size to accommodate the proposed dealership, inventory storage and service space. • The upper limit of 10 acres was set in order to maintain a Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment. Greater acreage than this upper limit is not necessary to house the prototype dealership. Other criteria that was not individually quantified in a specific column of the table but was also part of the analysis include: · Subject property must not be located within a franchise service area of another dealership. o Each Automotive Dealership has a designated franchise service area. Each franchise is assigned a specific geographic area in which a dealership can be built and operate within. The ultimate dealership brand has not been established, but Exhibit X.B.5 does show a void in this specific area. Considering the new growth occurring in the eastern portion of the county a legitimate market demand exists for a luxury dealership on Immokalee Road near I-75. · Subject property must provide specified buffer distance to like, or exact nature of business within the area o Roughly a half of a mile buffer distance from another “separately owned” luxury dealership would be preferred so that potential customers at the dealership could not visibly see other competing automobiles.  Separately owned is an important designation in that some automotive dealerships are all part of an owner group whereby competition is not present; all profits are shared in this instance. 12 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) · Subject property should match the surrounding uses and be a logical conversion to commercial use o Ensuring a logical conversion to commercial use would be a property with arterial road access with abutting commercial areas that is either in or abutting an activity center. A breakdown of each site attribute is shown on the Property Analysis Table on sheet 10. The property analysis highlights the following site characteristics: 1. Shape ID 2. PUD Name 3. Ordinance Number 4. Area 5. Zoning 6. Allowable Uses 7. Appropriate area, between 7 and 10 acres 8. Arterial Connection 9. High Visibility 10. Non-Conforming (description of why the parcel does not work) Conclusion After review of all the selection criteria it was concluded that a proposed luxury dealership would need to be an existing property not currently zoned for the C-4 use. Given that the property would need to be rezoned the ideal location needed to be within 1 mile of Interstate 75, on an arterial roadway and preferably along Immokalee road to be more convenient for the growing population in Eastern Collier County, Ave Maria, the Collier Villages and other incoming developments. The evaluation of site criteria in conjunction with the review of the market yielded the selection of the properties shown in the following exhibits. The 67 properties were assessed, and the results concluded that none of them were appropriate or functionally feasible for the specific conversion to an auto dealership with the existing zoning that is already in place. Therefore, the subject property being rezoned is the most appropriate available property that meets the characteristics set forth in this analysis. 13 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Exhibit X.B.1 Interchange Key Map 14 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 15 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Exhibit X.B.2 Immokalee Rd. 16 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 17 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Exhibit X.B.3 Pine Ridge Rd. 18 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 19 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 503 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Exhibit X.B.4 Golden Gate Pkwy. 20 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 21 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Exhibit X.B.5 Collier Blvd. 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 23 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Exhibit X.B.6 Existing Dealership Map 24 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 25 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Exhibit X.B.7 Existing Dealership Map (expanded) 26 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 27 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Property Analysis 28 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Shape IDPUD NameOrd. # Area (ac) Zoned Allowable UsesAppropriate Area Size? (7-10 ac)Arterial Connection?High Visibility?Non-Conforming1Seed to Table CPUD18-49 6.8 CPUDCommercialNOYESYESFuture plans for development 2Carlton Lakes99-75 198.8 PUDRes / C-1, C-2NOYESYESBuilt Out3Pelican Strand.02-57 146.3 PUDRes / C-1, C-2NOYESYESBuilt Out4 Cypress Woods Golf & Country Club 97-36 121.0 PUDRes / GolfNONONOBuilt Out5Northbrook Plaza98-59 42.5 PUD Residential / CommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out / Non-Commercial6Huntington94-38 106.2 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out7Quail II.05-52 144.0 PUDResidential / C3NOYESYESBuilt Out8Longshore Lake93-3 39.5 PUDResidentialNOYESYESNo C-4, Low Visibility9Pelican Marsh.02-71 72.3 PUDResidentialNOYESYESNo Commercial, Built Out10April Circle89-76 9.3 PUDResidentialYESYESYESNo Commercial, Built Out11Eboli97-23 9.3 PUDResidentialYESYESYESNo Commercial, Built Out12Gaspar Station.07-75 18.7 CPUDCommercialNOYESYES1 Out Parcel left, only 1.79ac13Donovan Center97-73 47.1 PUD Residential / CommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out14Breezewood99-88 7.8 PUDCommercialYESYESNOLake (retention pond?) over most of parcel; parcel access located in on-ramp lane to NB I-75; frontage has corner cut off15Livingston Lakes99-18 47.3 PUDResidentialNOYESNONo Commercial, Built Out16The Bosley.04-32 21.7 PUDResidentialNONONONo Commercial, Built Out17Malibu Lake.05-10 173.4 MPUD Residential / CommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out18CPUD15-63 5.1 CPUDCommercialNOYESYESNo C-4 use, only 5.18 ac19Germain Honda15-43 1.8 CPUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out20Cambridge Square.06-01 17.0 CPUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out21Naples Gateway00-14 13.8 PUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out22Ragge.01-07 4.7 PUDCommercialNOYESYES1 Out Parcel, Onlyu 2.87 ac.299.A.3.ePacket Pg. 513Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Shape IDPUD NameOrd. # Area (ac) Zoned Allowable UsesAppropriate Area Size? (7-10 ac)Arterial Connection?High Visibility?Non-Conforming23Angileri97-16 4.7 PUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out24Pine Ridge Corners98-61 4.4 PUDCommercialNOYESYESNoC-4, Only 4.21 ac.25Clesen.05-48 4.3 CPUDCommercialNOYESYESNo C-4, Only 4.18 ac.26The Vineyards.06-49 446.5 PUD Residential / CommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out27Baldridge.02-55 17.2 PUDCommercial (C1-C4)NOYESYESBuilt Out28Brynwood Center.12-37 13.7 CPUDCommercialNOYESNOOut Parcel Only 1.66ac.29Pine Ridge Center West.01-09 9.0 PUDCommercialYESYESYESAlready developed30Pine Ridge Center.01-08 8.0 PUDCommercialYESYESYESAlready developed31Pine View.07-06 15.3 CPUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out32Sutherland Center96-61 19.8 PUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out33Astron Plaza98-110 10.0 PUDCommercialNOYESYESCorner cut off on front parcel by canal; rectangle is situated the wrong way (sideways - longer side fronts the road);34Brynwood Preserve00-73 27.7 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out35Avow Hospice.09-37 20.1 CFPUDCommercialNONONOBuilt Out36Whippoorwill Lakes00-16 77.6 PUDResidentialNONONOBuilt Out37Arlington Lakes00-67 78.3 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out38Whippoorwill Pines00-17 26.3 PUDResidentialNONOYESBuilt Out39Naples Church of Christ.08-62 2.8 MPUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out40Whippoorwill Woods98-64 75.6 PUDResidentialNONONOBuilt Out41Wyndemere98-66 124.5 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out42Naples Jaycees Clubhouse75-25 2.3 PUDRight of WayNOYESYESI-75 Stormwater, Only 2.3ac.43Colonades at Santa Barbara04-35 6.8 CPUDCommercialNOYESYESNot ideal location for Luxury Delaership44C-4n/a 1.9 C-4Commercial (C4)NOYESYESOnly 1.9 Acres, Built Out309.A.3.ePacket Pg. 514Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Shape IDPUD NameOrd. # Area (ac) Zoned Allowable UsesAppropriate Area Size? (7-10 ac)Arterial Connection?High Visibility?Non-Conforming45Parkway Center95-10 0.4 PUDCommercialNOYESYESOnly 0.4 Acres46Briarwood95-33 23.1 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out47Berkshire Lakes98-5 173.2 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out48Berkshire Lakes98-5 51.3 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out49Sherwood Park80-38 13.8 PUDResidentialNONONONo Aerterial Frontage50Magnolia Pond98-49 46.4 MPUDResidentialNONONONo Aerterial Frontage51 Golden Gate Commerce Park 00-15 74.0 PUDRes /Com C-1NOYESYESNot for sale at time of GMPA52 Collier Blvd Mixed Use Commerce Center 01-10 73.5 PUDMixed Use CommerceNOYESYESNot for sale at time of GMPA53Citygate88-93 258.2 PUDCommercialNOYESYESNo Aerterial Frontage54White Lake Industrial Park01-59 150.8 PUDCommercialNONONONo Aerterial Frontage55Sherwood Park80-38 60.2 PUDResidentialNOYESYESBuilt Out56Saddlebrook Village98-16 33.2 PUDResidentialNOYESYESNo Aerterial Frontage57East Gateway.03-11 37.2 PUDResidentialNOYESYESNo Aerterial Frontage58Alligator Alley07-26 40.7 MPUDCommercialNOYESYESNo Aerterial Frontage59Tollgate Commercial Center92-10 97.8 PUDCommercialNOYESYESNo Aerterial Frontage60Woodside Lanes88-31 4.9 PUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out61C-4n/a 2.1 C-4Commercial (C4)NOYESYESBuilt Out62Gallman Olds86-06 4.0 PUDMunicipal - CATNOYESYESBuilt Out63C-4n/a 4.2 C-4Commercial (C4)NOYESYESBuilt Out64Cedar Hammock98-115 77.1 PUDResidentialNOYESYESNo Commercial, Built Out65Westport Commerce Center05-62 95.8 MPUDCommercialNOYESYESBuilt Out66 I-75/Collier Blvd Commercial Center 00-89 19.4 PUDCommercial (Auto)NOYESYESBuilt Out67Forest Glen of Naples99-69 236.1 PUD Residential / CommercialNOYESYESNo Commercial, Built Out319.A.3.ePacket Pg. 515Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 1 Germain Immokalee Road Petitions PL20190000451 & PL20190000454 Planned Unit Development & Growth Management Plan Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting First Congregational Church of Naples 6630 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34119 August 22, 2019 at 6 pm Summary of Meeting A table was set up at the entry door where attendees were asked to sign in (sign in sheets attached as Exhibit 1). There was also a handout for attendees showing the permitted uses of the property (Exhibit 2). The meeting was called to order at approximately 6 pm by Richard Yovanovich, who introduced himself as the attorney for the project. He also introduced others on the team: John Garbo, representing the purchaser; Tom Barber, the Professional Planner; and Dominick Amico, Professional Engineer. He suggested that any questions specific to water management could be answered by Dom Amico; questions regarding operational safeguards that will be taken could be answered by Tom Barber. Mr. Yovanovich then explained how the Collier County Land Development Code requires any project going through the County to have a Neighborhood Information Meeting where surrounding neighbors (500 ft) of the project are mailed a notice and it’s published in the newspaper. The purpose of the NIM is explain the project and to allow those neighbors to ask questions, give feedback, and adjustments made as appropriate. Mr. Yovanovich introduced the two representatives from Collier County: Sue Faulkner, the Planner who is reviewing the Growth Management Plan Amendment; and Tim Finn, the Planner who is reviewing the PUD Rezone Petition. Mr. Yovanovich provided a brief overview of how the NIM would be handled: brief overview and then open it up to questions. He explained that it has to be recorded, so asked people not to talk over each other. He said that the team would identify themselves when they speak for the record. He said the public could identify themselves if they wanted to, but it is not a requirement. Mr. Yovanovich explained there are two petitions going through this process. One is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. The property is less than 10 acres (referred to the yellow shaded parcel in Exhibit 3 attached hereto). He then referred to Exhibit 4 while explaining that the parcel is immediately adjacent to what Collier County calls Activity Centers, which are 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 516 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 2 generally located at the major intersections of roads, this one being at the I-75 interchange and Immokalee Road. Collier County designated the four quadrants around that interchange as activity centers. That means that’s where the County wants the more intense commercial development and more intense residential development to go. This parcel is immediately adjacent to the activity center. Mr. Yovanovich then generally explained the types of uses (office and residential) that would be available for this parcel under the existing comprehensive plan. Our project is asking for a small-scale comprehensive plan to allow for the office uses that are currently allowed and also to allow for a luxury automobile dealership to go on the site (details for rezone for this would be discussed). He stated that this is Sue Faulkner’s petition, so comments would go to her for this petition. The second petition is to rezone the property to the commercial planned unit development zoning district. In the commercial planned unit development district, we identify the uses we want to put on the property, the development standards and identify the intensity of what’s going to go on that property. Mr. Yovanovich referred to the Master Plan (Exhibit 5) and said that we’re asking for an automobile dealership and the typical accessory uses that go with an automobile dealership. He stated that it will be a luxury automobile dealership and that Co llier County is unique in their road impact fee ordinance. Collier County has a different calculation for “regular cars” and “luxury cars” because luxury car dealerships attract less people to the property and it’s a lower intensity use than a normal car dealership. He said most people know what they want, they come and look at it, and they buy it. There’s not a lot of in and out and just walking around doing “window shopping.” So, we’re asking for a luxury automobile dealership on this property which would include service, very limited used cars or trade-ins. The use on this property would be luxury automobile dealership. Mr. Yovanovich then referred to Exhibit 6 (Illustrative Site Plan with Cross Sections) and showed where the preserve area will be on the south end of the property and explained where the sales showroom, service and indoor parking will be on top of the service area. It was explained there will be a Type B Buffer along three sides and a Type D Buffer along the road at the front of the property (typical buffers when you’re adjacent to commercial properties). The preserve will serve as the buffer to the south, which is wider than 25 feet. The County requires that lighting be shielded so that it doesn’t spill off the property, which is a concern for adjacent residential properties. This will be taken care of in the required development standards. We’re not asking for any deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code. We’re focusing our real uses – the perimeter to the north, adjacent to the already existing commercial uses and referred to the parcels surrounding this parcel (Walmart, the undeveloped parcel on the other side, etc.). Mr. Yovanovich advised that Tim Finn is in charge of the rezone petition and referred the public to him for further questions. He also referred to Tom Barber and Dom Amico and said they will provide their contact information for further questions and information. Mr. Yovanovich 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 517 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 3 stated that the purpose of this meeting is to take the public through this process. Germain Automotive is the purchaser of the project, so the public should be aware of their quality of dealerships. He referred to the elevation rendering (Exhibit 7) of what we think the dealership might look like and said it will be architecturally and aesthetically pleasing from Immokalee Road. Other operational standards: required to keep the doors to service closed other than to go in and out. He assured that there are safeguards in place to make sure they won’t be a noisy neighbor. He mentioned that he has the traffic impact statement with him should anyone have any questions and would like to ask him while they’re there. Mr. Yovanovich ended the overview of the project and opened it up to questions from the public. Q: [Unidentified person] What are the hours of the business? A: [Tom Barber] Sales - Monday through Saturday, 8 am to 9 pm; Service - Monday through Saturday, 7 am to 6 pm; Sales and Service – Sunday, 10 am to 6 pm Q: [John Cobb, owner in ______ Palms to the west of the parcel] Will there be any late-night deliveries? Any tractor trailers coming in and delivering cars late a night? A: [Dominick Amico, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage] It doesn’t currently happen at any of their dealerships. There won’t be anyone there to receive the cars. A: [Rich Yovanovich] Referred to Exhibit 3 and told Mr. Cobb that the lot adjacent to where he lives is not part of this acquisition. Q: [Unidentified person] Are you asking for a variance already or have you already been approved for what you want to build? A: [Yovanovich] No, we have not been approved. We’re going through the process now to get the permission to ask for the dealership and then to rezone the property for the dealership. This is part of the approval process. Q: [Unidentified person] I’m concerned about the lighting. If you get approved on yours, the next lot that is not owned yet, or has not been sold yet, what’s to prevent them from putting up another dealership like yours with even more lights? That’s what we’re concerned with. A: [Yovanovich] The process that will have to occur will be the same process that we’re going through now. They would have to go through a public hearing process and ask the Board of County Commissioners to change the comprehensive plan and also get a PUD Rezone. The way you get through this process with Collier County is both petitions require a super majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners – there are five Commissioners, so 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 518 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 4 we have to get four of the five Commissioners to support our petition. I’ve been doing this for a while; my – no guarantee, but if I was a betting man - if this becomes a car dealership, I don’t like the chances of this one also getting that same approval from the County Commission. If I were handicapping it, I don’t think I’d win. I don’t think there’s much of a risk of this being a domino effect. Q: [Unidentified person] You don’t think you’re going to disturb our peaceful quality of life for coming home from work and just want to relax and not hear the commotion , loud speakers, lights in the sky…. A: [Yovanovich] No, the answer to your question is no. A: [Amico] I’ve done all of Germain’s modern dealerships: BMW, Lincoln, Lexus, Toyota, Honda, and they don’t even have a PA system anymore. Everybody carries these [holding up a cell phone]. They don’t broadcast through the parking lot. That will be a restriction on our PUD – no amplified sound outside. A. [Yovanovich] One of our operational prohibitions in the PUD is no amplified sound. There will not be a PA system. Q: [Unidentified person] We live across the street in Carlton Lakes (directly in front of your building). Our main concern is traffic issues. Even coming here today, it seemed like December traffic. There’s just so much traffic. I can understand when you put your Honda establishment at Pine Ridge and Livingston; that’s a major intersection with multiple four- lane roads and you can go in and out. This thing is congested. Plus, we have the Seed to Table in November which is going in over there which is touted as the Disneyland of this area with multiple restaurants and they’re hoping for a thousand people coming. It’s going to create major traffic jams, especially when the snowbirds come, and I know you talked about somebody did a study with it. I know that just from the Carlton Lakes Association talking to the Seed to Table people and Collier County, there were problems with all of the traffic that’s going to be coming in and out, especially going into our facility/place. Just on Immokalee Road and just on Livingston, I can’t believe it’s going to be good. A: [Amico] A little information. When we did the rezone for Honda, what I learned was that the average car buyer makes one trip to the dealership. He takes seven or eight trips to the dealership on the Internet. The Internet experience with regard to buying cars is like all there is anymore. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just go to a dealership on the web, and the first thing that pops up is an Internet salesman. As far as the other uses that could go here, the traffic is going to be small …. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 519 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 5 Q: [Unidentified person] (Interrupted asking about doing a traffic study) A: [Yovanovich] Let me explain about a traffic study… Q: [Unidentified person] No, I mean that doesn’t make any difference because it’s going to change. It’s going to change in November… A: [Yovanovich] Well the traffic studies that we do, we are required to use – the County does trip counts every year on all their roads and they develop what’s called an AUIR (I forget what that stands for) for all of its infrastructure including roads, so they do trip counts during the peak season. So, we’re required to use the peak season trip count in our traffic study and then we use what’s called an ITE manual that studies how many people come and go from our dealerships during the peak, and we have to put those peak hours trips from the ITE manual onto the County’s counted peak hour peak season trips. So, our traffic study is based upon the peak hour, peak season. We don’t go out in the dead of summer and count trips which that would be much lower than you would find during peak season and do our traffic study that way. We’re required to use peak hour peak season trip generation when we’re doing our traffic study. That’s what we’ve done. County staff reviews the trip analysis and they either confirm we did it correctly or they say we didn’t do it correctly. They will then look at those trips and look at what is the adopted level of service or capacity on Immokalee Road, and if we create a failure on Immokalee Road because we’re putting too many trips on Immokalee Road during peak season peak hour, we will not get a permit. So, we go through a very detailed review/traffic analysis in peak season peak hour trip generation. Q: [Unidentified person] I live in Livingston Lakes. At the end of your buffer zone is Butler Lake Drive. On here [referring to mailed notice], you have it as “Buffer” “B-u-f-f-e-r” and I just thought if we are ever concerned about it, it’s not the right name on the map. It says “Buffer.” A: [Yovanovich] It says “Butler Lake Drive” here (refereing to mailed notice of NIM). I apologize if we misspelled it on another exhibit. This is the preserve, you don’t ever have to worry about anything being developed in the preserve. Q: [Unidentified person] Could I get clarification regarding the unloading of cars. You said you won’t have any? A: [Unidentified person] Not during outside of hours A: [Amico] Not during closed hours. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 520 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 6 A: [Yovanovich] The deliveries will be during the typical business hours. I think the question was will we have any late-night deliveries, and the answer is no. There are deliveries that will happen… Q: [Unidentified person] The second question is will there be any curb cuts in the median to get to the dealership? A: [Yovanovich] Everything is a right-in, right-out off Immokalee Road – no curb cuts. There will be no directional left to get in; there will be no way to go west out of this site. There will just be right-in, right-out. Q: [Unidentified person] You guys don’t realize how horrible the traffic is. A: [Yovanovich] Yeah, I think we do. We all live here. [inaudible…multiple people talking at once] This dealership will generate less traffic than if someone were to come in and do a multi-family project on that site. Q: [Unidentified person] How will that affect our value of our homes? A: [Yovanovich] I don’t think it will have an impact … Q: [Unidentified person] [inaudible…] was a study… Putting your dealership, how does that directly affect our home values right next to you? A: [Yovanovich] I can tell you that living in Collier County, you will see very well priced homes next to car dealerships. Q: [Unidentified person] Can you give me an example? A: [Yovanovich] I think the BMW dealership is right behind Collier’s Reserve. Q: [Unidentified person] That’s across the street? A: [Yovanovich] No that’s behind it. You have the shopping center in which the dealership is in immediately adjacent to Collier’s Reserve. You’ll see a lot of high-end real estate in Collier County immediately adjacent to commercial development without an impact on the value of property. Q: [Unidentified person] Are there buffers, trees, lakes … 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 521 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 7 A: [Yovanovich] Absolutely. We’ll be doing all the same thing. We’ll have buffers… Q: [Unidentified person] All the way around? A: [Yovanovich] Yes, sir. [points to the site plan exhibit and indicates where the buffers will be located and the preserve]. We’ll have appropriate buffers, and remember, you’re not next to the dealership; you’ll have this lot right here. Q: [Unidentified person] I just want to ask; you talk about the traffic study and everything. Everything is going to be impacted completely differently in this area when Oaks Farm opens. It’s going to be a massive change for all of us because of the traffic from it. Is this survey going to be done, as far as the traffic survey, is it [inaudible] than last year, or is it going to be done during the peak of season after it opens? A: [Yovanovich] The way the County works is you grow the traffic that exists on the road […..inaudible because of chairs moving around] that you have to grow annually [inaudible] and project out how much more traffic is going to be on that road when you do your study. So, that’s been factored in. Q: [Unidentified person] Which luxury car is it? A: [Yovanovich] I’m not at liberty to tell you the dealership at this time, but it will be a luxury dealership. Q: [Unidentified person] Their luxuries are BMW, Lexus, and what was the other one? A: [Yovanovich] There are a lot of luxury cars out there, so there are a bunch of opportunities. Q: [Unidentified person] I’m a resident of Livingston Lakes. I’m just wondering what is going to be the environmental impact of taking out all of those trees and putting all that asphalt? I’m concerned about all of the animals that live there, like the bears. [inaudible – multiple people talking] A: [Yovanovich] Another document that we’re required to do – and all of this is on the Collier County website – we’re required to do an environmental impact statement. Passarella & Associates is the ecologist, or the firm who did the environmental. They walked the site, they looked for listed species, they looked for wetlands, they looked for listed plants. They go through that process and identify if there’s any impact statement to those listed species and then we deal with Collier County, one regulatory [inaudible] that looks at that. Dom 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 522 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 8 gets to deal with South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers, so that’s the State and Federal agencies that we’re looking at. So, there’s multiple layers of review to determine what impact there will be to bugs and bunnies and critters. Q: [Unidentified person] Okay, and where’s that information located? A: [Yovanovich] It’s on the County website. I don’t have a copy of that report with me, but it’s a detailed analysis … Q: [Unidentified person] I just feel like that’s a lot of green space that is going to be turned into asphalt. A: [Yovanovich] And we are going to need to require retention of the green space that’s in the Collier County Land Development Code. Q: [Unidentified person] Isn’t that where the homeless camp is? On that property? A: [Yovanovich] I drive by it, but …. [interrupted by speaker] [multiple speaking/discussion] Q: [Unidentified person] I just want to know if there’s going to be lit signage in front of the building. A: [Amico] I’m trying to think of the luxury dealers we have now: BMW does not, Lexus does not, Lincoln does not. I can’t tell you yes or no for sure, but … Q: [Unidentified person] Because right now we have the berm, and we have trees and stuff like that, but we see the trees that you’re going to take out. A: [Amico] If there is a lit sign, and I’m not saying there’s going to be, it’s going to orient towards Immokalee Road not towards Livingston Lakes. [inaudible discussion amongst public] Q: [Unidentified person] Repeat the question. A: [Yovanovich] The question was, “Are there going to be any lit signs identifying the dealership,” and Dom basically said the dealerships that they have right now don’t have lit signs. That doesn’t mean there won’t be one, but there are regulations in the County sign code that require that and deals with that as well, and we’re not asking for any deviation 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 523 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9 from that. But, if other competition is an indicator, lit signs is not a priority for luxury car dealerships. Q: [Unidentified person] Three quickies: rooftop storage of cars. A: [Yovanovich] [Referring to one of the site plans and the placement of the showroom and service areas]. Q: [Unidentified person] The proper rendition shows a parapet on the front of the building that blocks the majority of the cars. Will there be a similar parapet protecting the people that are behind from seeing those cars on the second level? Q: [Unidentified person] [inaudible] Because from there, I walk Livingston Lakes. And there I can see the extra storage space and stuff, so I’m just concerned too that vegetation and preserve space that you have there, it’s not going to be enough kind of to block everything from over there. From our side our community, I can see the other buildings if I walk to the far end across the outer perimeter. I just don’t feel like that’s enough space… A: [Amico] There are concept plans. That detail really hasn’t been worked out yet, as far as the parapet wall in the back. Q: [Unidentified person] Is there a reason why you’d have something different in the back than you’d have in the front for aesthetics? A: [Amico] The front ones are probably there to hide the air conditioning units. They’re required to do that when you have your air conditioning units on the roof. And, to make a more attractive storefront. A: [Yovanovich] We understand that the comment is, I’m assuming you would like to see if we can extend the parapet up so you don’t see cars on the top of the second floor. We’ll obviously bring that to – John Garbo’s heard it, so we’ll bring that back to our client and we’ll talk about that … Q: [Unidentified person] Those cars will be 16’ above grade, thereby more visible from the neighboring area residential than anything else. My other question is to the Planner, and I’m sorry, at the introduction I may have been a little bit confused. One of you is working on the zoning, which is the larger request. Is that you, Tim? A: [Yovanovich] Yes, that’s Tim. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 524 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 10 Q: [Unidentified person] Can you explain to us people that may not know your business, you approve based on the highest and best use of the real estate, correct? That’s not a trick question. [laughter] A: [Yovanovich] I can tell you in my experience going through the process that that’s not correct. A: [Sue Faulkner] Tim and I are not the approvers of the project. We can recommend to the elected officials that we think it might be something they would want to approve, but the only people in the entire County that can approve a project are your elected officials and the Board of County Commissioners. Q: [Unidentified person] Thank you, but my understanding of what you just said is you are basically employees of the city or whatever … A: [Faulkner] County… Q: [Unidentified person] that would go back. In light of that, if in fact 40 or 50 homeowners were against this concept, in the ones that you’ve seen being County employees, how often do you see something like this not go through, and, if so, why? And what do the homeowners do in that case? A: [Faulkner] I’ve seen both approvals and disapprovals by public comments being made. You never can tell exactly what is going to influence the Commissioners’ vote and how they will vote. We never try to second guess that. But we can look at what we are basing our recommendations on, which is our experience plus what we work with. In my case, I work with the growth management plan amendments with that growth management plan in front of me. And, I’m looking for things that aren’t consistent that would not make sense with that document. In Tim’s case, you can speak for yourself… A: [Tim Finn] Yeah, I look at all the codes and whatever documentation I can verify – what our codes do allow and what they don’t allow and I make a professional judgment on whether or not to recommend approval or approval with conditions or I reject it. [inaudible – talking over each other] Q: [Unidentified person] In light of your question about 40 or 50 homeowners, can this be re- held in November when more people … 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 525 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 11 A: [Faulkner] It’s not necessary because the two meetings that are in front of the two different governing bodies. The first is the Planning Commission and those are folks that that is their whole job to review development plans coming in and make recommendations again to the Board of County Commissioners. That body meets all of the time, but this particular meeting is unlikely to take place prior to the seasonal people being back, and it is a public hearing. So, therefore, you’re able to come and speak at that meeting and talk directly to the Commissioners of the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners – or both. Q: [Unidentified person] When is that? A: [Faulkner] We don’t have a schedule for this particular… A: [Yovanovich] If I’m going to project out, we’re already basically into September. I have to go to the Planning Commission first. I don’t even have …. I have to respond to comments from staff. My guess is that it will be in the January to March timeframe that we’re in front of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. So, it will be during the season. If I’m projecting out, and I’m pretty good at knowing …. A: [Faulkner] And I think that’s what I think Tim and I would guess as well based on where we are right now today. And we have two public hearings with those meetings, so there’s plenty of opportunity to speak again and be heard by the people who are going to make those recommendations final and recommend them to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the decision. Q: [Unidentified person] Does Germain actually own the property today? A: [Yovanovich] They have it under contract. Q: [Unidentified person] Are there other suitable sites in Collier County that they’re pursuing for this luxury automobile dealership than just this site? A: [Yovanovich] My understanding is right now that this is the site. There’s not a lot of opportunities in Collier County that fit the description and make sense for a luxury dealership. Q: [Unidentified person] In line with his question, is it pending or is it complete? A: [Yovanovich] I told you it’s under contract; it hasn’t been closed yet. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 526 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 12 Mr. Yovanovich asked if there were any other questions. When no one spoke, he thanked everyone for their time. He announced that if you received a notice about this meeting, you’ll get a notice about the Planning Commission meeting. There will also be signs up along Immokalee Road letting you know when the Planning Commission hearing is and the Board of County Commissioners meeting is. There will also be an ad in the newspaper. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:35 pm. This meeting was audio recorded by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; a copy of which has been provided to the County. The meeting summary was also prepared by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 527 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 1 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 528 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 529 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Petitions PL20190000451 & PL20190000454 Planned Unit Development & Growth Management Plan Amendment Parcel No. 00198040008 Permitted Uses The Germain Immokalee CPUD shall be developed as a commercial use project, which will include a Luxury automotive sales facility with associated repair services, limited to 30,000 SF Gross Floor Area (GFA). A. Principal Uses: 1. Luxury Motor vehicle dealers (new and used); SIC Code Group 5511 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by Hearing Examiner or the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Motor Vehicle Dealers, Used Only (Group 5521) 2. Automotive Exhaust System Repair Shops (Group 7533) 3. Tire Repair Shops, not including Tire retreading (Group 7534) 4. Automotive Glass Replacement Shops (Group 7536) 5. Automotive Transmission Repair Shops (Group 7537) 6. General Automotive Repair Shops (Group 7538) 7. Automotive Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified (Group 7539) 8. Automotive Parking for vehicular storage for new and used sales only (Group 7521) 9. Car wash, subject to the provisions of LDC Section 5.05.11. 10. Uses and Structures that are accessory and incidental to an automotive sales facility. 11. Display of new and used automobiles for sale, provided it does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health. Vehicle display is prohibited within any required landscape buffer, and allowed within front, side and rear yard setbacks EXHIBIT 2 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 530 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 3 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 531 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 4 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 532 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 5 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 533 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 6 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 534 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 7 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 535 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Traffic Impact Statement Germain Immokalee Road Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ) Collier County, Florida 07/23/2019 Prepared for: Prepared by: Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34108 Phone: 239-597-3111 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239-566-9551 Email: ntrebilcock@trebilcock.biz Collier County Transportation Methodology Fee* – $500.00 Fee Collier County Transportation Review Fee* – Major Study – $1,500.00 Fee Note – *to be collected at time of first submittal 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 536 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 2 Statement of Certification I certify that this Traffic Impact Statement has been prepared by me or under my immediate supervision and that I have experience and training in the field of Traffic and Transportation Engineering. Norman J. Trebilcock, AICP, P.E. FL Registration No. 47116 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA 2800 Davis Boulevard, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34104 Company Cert. of Auth. No. 27796 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 537 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 3 Table of Contents Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Trip Generation ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................................................. 6 Background Traffic ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Existing and Future Roadway Network ......................................................................................................... 8 Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis ............................................................................ 9 Site Access Turn Lane Analysis .................................................................................................................... 10 Immokalee Road – Main Site Access – Right-in/Right-out Connection .................................................. 11 Useppa Way – Site Access ....................................................................................................................... 11 Improvement Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 11 Mitigation of Impact ................................................................................................................................... 11 Appendices Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan ........................................................................................................ 12 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) ................................................................. 14 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions ...................................... 21 Appendix D: Collier County Transportation Element Map TR-7 – Excerpt ................................................ 25 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 538 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 4 Project Description The Germain Immokalee Road project is located south of Immokalee Road (County Road 846) and approximately 700 feet west of the Immokalee Road and Strand Boulevard/Juliet Boulevard intersection, and lies within Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. The subject property is approximately 8.97 acres in size. Refer to Figure 1 – Project Location Map and Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan. Figure 1 – Project Location Map The project site is vacant and is currently zoned “A” – Agriculture. A purpose of the Planned Unit Development – Rezone project is to change the zoning designation from “A” to Planned Unit Development (PUD). The purpose of this report is to document the transportation impacts associated with the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment (GMPA) and the associated Planned Unit Development Rezone (PUDZ). The proposed development parameters are illustrated in Table 1. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 539 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 5 Table 1 ITE – Development Land Use Designation Development Land Use - [SIC Codes] ITE LUC Size (ITE variable)* Commercial Automobile Sales – [5511] 840 – Automobile Sales (New) 80,000 (square feet GFA) Note(s): *GFA = Gross Floor Area Traffic generation associated with the proposed development is evaluated generally based on ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition and ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition. In agreement with ITE Land Use Code (LUC) descriptions, the ITE land use designations are illustrated in Table 1. The project proposes an access connection onto Immokalee Road and one connection to Useppa Way. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of a Site Development Plan or Development Order application to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters become available. A methodology meeting was held with the Collier County Transportation Planning staff on April 16, 2019, via email (ref. Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting)). It should be noted that the building areas referred to in the methodology were based on preliminary information that has been updated and is reflected in this analysis. Trip Generation The project’s site trip generation is based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition. The software program OTISS (Online Traffic Impact Study Software, most current version, is used to create the raw unadjusted trip generation for the project. The ITE rates and equations are used for the trip generation calculations, as applicable. The ITE – OTISS trip generation calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions. Based on ITE recommendations and consistent with Collier County TIS Guidelines and Procedures, no reductions for internal capture or pass-by trips are considered for this project. The trip generation associated with the proposed build-out conditions is summarized in Table 2. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 540 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 6 Table 2 Project Trip Generation – Build-out Conditions – Average Weekday Daily Two-Way Volume AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Enter Exit Total Enter Exit Total Total Traffic 2,227 110 40 150 66 100 166 In agreement with the Collier County TIS guidelines, significantly impacted roadways are identified based on the proposed project highest peak hour trip generation (net external traffic) and consistent with the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic. Based on the information contained in Collier County 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR), the peak hour for the adjacent roadway network is PM peak hour. The Germain Immokalee Road PUD development shall be limited to a maximum total traffic of 166 two- way PM peak hour trips. Trip Distribution and Assignment The traffic generated by the proposed project is assigned to the adjacent roadways using the knowledge of the area and engineering judgement. The site-generated trip distribution is shown in Table 3 and it is graphically depicted in Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour. Table 3 Proposed Development – Traffic Distribution for PM Peak Hour Roadway Link Collier County Link No. Roadway Link Location Distribution of Project Traffic PM Peak Hour Project Vol.* Enter Exit Immokalee Rd 42.2 Project to I-75 50% WB – 33 EB – 50 Immokalee Rd 42.2 Livingston Rd to Project 50% EB – 33 WB – 50 Note(s): *Peak hour, peak direction traffic volumes are underlined and bold to be used in Roadway Link Level of Service calculations. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 541 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 7 Figure 2 – Project Distribution by Percentage and by PM Peak Hour 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 542 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 8 Background Traffic Average background traffic growth rates are estimated for the segments of the roadway network in the study area using the Collier County Transportation Planning Staff guidance of a minimum 2% growth rate, or the historical growth rate from peak hour peak direction volume (estimated from 2008 through 2018), whichever is greater. Another way to derive the background traffic is to use the 2018 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) volume plus the trip bank volume. The higher of the two determinations is to be used in the Roadway Link Level of Service analysis. Table 4, Background Traffic without Project illustrates the application of projected growth rates to generate the projected background (without project) peak hour peak direction traffic volume for the build-out year 2024. Table 4 Background Traffic without Project (2018 - 2024) Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2018 AUIR Pk Hr, Pk Dir Background Traffic Volume (trips/hr) Projected Traffic Annual Growth Rate (%/yr)* Growth Factor 2024 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Growth Factor** Trip Bank 2024 Projected Pk Hr, Peak Dir Background Traffic Volume w/out Project (trips/hr) Trip Bank*** Immokalee Rd 42.2 Project to I-75 2,580 2.0% 1.1262 2,906 49 2,629 Immokalee Rd 42.2 Livingston Rd to Project 2,580 2.0% 1.1262 2,906 49 2,629 Note(s): *Annual Growth Rate – Historical Growth Rate or 2% minimum. **Growth Factor = (1 + Annual Growth Rate)6. 2024 Projected Volume = 2018 AUIR Volume x Growth Factor. ***2024 Projected Volume = 2018 AUIR Volume + Trip Bank. The projected 2024 Peak Hour – Peak Direction Background Traffic is the greater of the Growth Factor or Trip Bank calculation, which is underlined and bold as applicable. Existing and Future Roadway Network The existing roadway conditions are extracted from the Collier County 2018 AUIR and the project roadway conditions are based on the current Collier County 5-Year Work Program. Roadway improvements that are currently under construction or are scheduled to be constructed within the five- year Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) or Capital Improvement program (CIP) are considered to be committed improvements. As no such improvements were identified in the Collier County 2018 AUIR, the evaluated roadways are anticipated to remain as such through project build-out. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 543 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 9 The existing and future roadway conditions are illustrated in Table 5, Existing and Future Roadway Conditions. Table 5 Existing and Future Roadway Conditions Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2018 Roadway Condition Min. Standard LOS 2018 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume 2024 Roadway Condition 2024 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Immokalee Rd 42.2 Project to I-75 6D/8D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) Immokalee Rd 42.2 Livingston Rd to Project 6D/8D E 3,500 (EB) 6D/8D 3,500 (EB) Note(s): 2U = 2-lane undivided roadway; 4D, 6D, 8D = 4-lane, 6-lane, 8-lane divided roadway, respectively; LOS = Level of Service. Project Impacts to Area Roadway Network-Link Analysis The Collier County Transportation Planning Services developed Level of Service (LOS) volumes for the roadway links impacted by the project, which are evaluated to determine the project impacts to the area roadway network in the future horizon year 2024. The Collier County Transportation Planning Services guidelines have determined that a project will be considered to have a significant and adverse impact if both the percentage volume capacity exceeds 2% of the capacity for the link directly accessed by the project and for the link adjacent to the link directly accessed by the project; 3% for other subsequent links and if the roadway is projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard. Based on these criteria, this project does not create any significant or adverse impacts to the area roadway network. None of the analyzed links are projected to exceed the adopted LOS standard with or without the project at 2024 build-out conditions. Table 6, Roadway Link Level of Service illustrates the LOS traffic impacts of the project to the area roadway network. Table 6 Roadway Link Level of Service (LOS) – With Project in the Year 2024 Roadway Link CC AUIR Link ID # Roadway Link Location 2018 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Capacity Volume Roadway Link, Peak Dir, Peak Hr (Project Vol Added)* 2024 Peak Dir, Peak Hr Volume w/Project** % Vol Capacity Impact by Project Min LOS exceeded without Project? Yes/No Min LOS exceeded with Project? Yes/No Immokalee Rd 42.2 Project to I-75 3,500 (EB) EB – 50 2,956 1.4% No No Immokalee Rd 42.2 Livingston Rd to Project 3,500 (EB) EB – 33 2,939 0.9% No No Note(s): *Refer to Table 3 from this report. **2024 Projected Volume = 2024 background (refer to Table 4) + Project Volume added. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 544 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 10 As illustrated in Collier County Land Development Code (LDC), Chapter 6.02.02 – M.2., once traffic from a development has been shown to be less than significant on any segment using Collier County TIS criterion, the development’s impact is not required to be analyzed further on any additional segments. In agreement with the Collier County Growth Management Plan – Transportation Element – Policy 5.2, project traffic that is 1% or less of the adopted peak hour service volume represents a de minimis impact. Based on the traffic data illustrated in Table 6, the projected traffic impact is de minimis on Immokalee Road west of the project. The analyzed roadway segments are located within the County’s designated Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). The TCMA’s designations are provided in Policy 5.6 of the Transportation Element. In agreement with Policy 5.7 of the Transportation Element, the TCMA concurrency is measured on a system-wide basis such that each TCMA shall maintain 85% of its lane miles at or above the LOS standards. Based on the information contained in 2018 AUIR, the Northwest TCMA percent lane miles meeting standard is 98.9%. As illustrated in Policy 5.8(d) – Transportation Element, no impact will be de minimis if it exceeds the adopted LOS standard of any affected designated hurricane evacuation routes within a TCMA. Any impact to a hurricane evacuation route within a TCMA shall require a proportionate share congestion mitigation payment provided the remaining LOS requirements of the TCMA are maintained. As illustrated in Table 6, no LOS deficiencies are expected for the analyzed roadway network. It is noted that Immokalee Road is a designated hurricane evacuation route as depicted in Collier County Transportation Element – Map TR - 7. For details refer to Appendix D. Site Access Turn Lane Analysis The project proposes an access connection onto Immokalee Road and one connection to Useppa Way. No other new connections are proposed as part of this application. The project accesses are evaluated for turn lane warrants based on the Collier County Construction Standards Handbook: (a) two-lane roadways – 40vph for right-turn lane/20vph for left-turn lane; (b) multi-lane divided roadways – right-turn lanes shall always be provided; and (c) when new median openings are permitted, they shall always include left-turn lanes. Turn lane lengths required at build-out conditions are analyzed based on the number of turning vehicles in an average one-minute period for right-turning movements, and two-minute period for left-turning movements, within the peak hour traffic. The minimum queue length is 25 feet and the queue/vehicle is 25 feet. Immokalee Road (CR 846) is an east-west urban divided arterial roadway under Collier County jurisdiction, has a posted legal speed of 45 mph in the vicinity of the project and has an Access 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 545 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 11 Management Classification of 3. Based on FDOT Standard Plans Index 711-001 (sheet 11 of 13), design speed of 45 mph – urban conditions – the minimum turn lane length is 185 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Useppa Way is an east-west, no outlet local roadway with an assumed speed limit of 30 mph in the vicinity of the project. Based on FDOT Standard Plans Index 711-001 (sheet 11 of 13), for a design speed of 35 mph, the minimum turn lane length is 145 feet (which includes a 50 foot taper) plus required queue. Immokalee Road – Main Site Access – Right-in/Right-out Connection A dedicated eastbound right-turn lane is warranted as the project meets the multi-lane criteria. As illustrated in Collier County Construction Standards Handbook, Chapter III, Section A – Separate Turn Lane Requirements, the developer must provide compensating Right-of-Way (ROW), if the existing County ROW is utilized for a proposed turn lane. Useppa Way – Site Access Due to the no outlet, low volume nature of this local roadway, no turn-lane modifications are recommended at this project access. Improvement Analysis Based on the results illustrated within this traffic analysis, the proposed project is not a significant and adverse traffic generator for the roadway network at this location. There is adequate and sufficient roadway capacity to accommodate the proposed project generated trips without adversely affecting adjacent roadway network level of service. A detailed evaluation of applicable access points will be performed at the time of a Site Development Plan or Development Order application to determine turn lane requirements, as more accurate parameters become available. The maximum total daily trip generation for the proposed development shall not exceed 166 two-way PM peak hour new trips based on the land use codes in the ITE Trip Generation Manual in effect at the time of application for SDP/SDPA or subdivision plat approval, as applicable. Mitigation of Impact The developer proposes to pay the appropriate Collier County Road Impact Fee as building permits are issued for the project, as applicable. 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 546 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 12 Appendix A: Project Master Site Plan 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 547 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 13 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 548Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 14 Appendix B: Initial Meeting Checklist (Methodology Meeting) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 549 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 550 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 16 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 551 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 17 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 552 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 18 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 553 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 19 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 554 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 20 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 555 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 21 Appendix C: ITE Trip Generation Calculations and Land Use Code Descriptions 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 556 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 557 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 23 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 558 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 24 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 559 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 25 Appendix D: Collier County Transportation Element Map TR-7 – Excerpt 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 560 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 26 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 561Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Page 1 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 562 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Page 2 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 563 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 2 • The Project site contains potential habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species including Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). • Specific surveys may be required to refute use of the site by red-cockaded woodpecker, Big Cypress fox squirrel, and Florida bonneted bat. • Potential environmental permitting and compensatory mitigation costs include items listed in the following table. Activity Description Opinion of Probable Cost1 Environmental Permitting and Consulting Environmental consulting costs in support of all permit entitlements including County PUD, SFWMD ERP, and Corps permit. Includes consultation with the USFWS and species-specific surveys for bonneted bat and red- cockaded woodpecker. $75,000.00± Wetland Mitigation Bank 5 UMAM for direct and off-site secondary wetland impacts at $90,000 per credit $450,000.00± Total $525,000.00± 1These findings are based on the Project’s theoretical impacts to all uplands and wetlands. Assumes no cost for on-site mitigation including exotic removal, monitoring, reporting, and perpetual maintenance. Assumes compensatory mitigation for threatened and endangered species will be covered by wetland mitigation bank purchase. ERP – Environmental Resource Permit PUD – Planned Unit Development SFWMD – South Florida Water Management District USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UMAM – Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology Vegetation Communities Vegetation mapping for the property was conducted using November 2016 rectified color aerials. Groundtruthing of the vegetative communities was conducted on February 28, 2018 utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Level IV.1 Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote hydrological conditions and disturbances. To identify levels of exotic infestation (i.e., melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)), “E” codes were used. AutoCAD Map 3D 2017 software was then used to 1Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. Page 3 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 564 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 3 determine the acreage of each mapping area, produce summaries, and generate the FLUCFCS map for the Project site (Exhibit 2). A brief description of the vegetation communities identified within each FLUCFCS Code follows: Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1) The upland habitat contains a canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), melaleuca, dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco). The ground cover consists of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, myrsine (Myrsine cubana), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and muscadine grape (Vitus rotundifolia). Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2) The upland habitat has the same vegetation composition as FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1, but with a higher percentage cover of exotics. Melaleuca, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4241) This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy stratum of melaleuca, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), slash pine, and earleaf acacia. The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover consists of swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), sawgrass, and myrsine. Cypress, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2) This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), earleaf acacia, and melaleuca. The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm. The ground cover consists of buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and swamp fern. Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2) This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy of slash pine, melaleuca, and cabbage palm. The sub-canopy consists of dahoon holly and cabbage palm. The ground cover consists of sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), and rosy camphorweed (Pluchea baccharis). Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3) The potential wetland habitat has the same vegetation composition as FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2, but with a higher percentage cover of exotics. Road (FLUCFCS Code 814) Immokalee Road, including cleared and filled portions of the right-of-way, exists on the north side of the Project. Page 4 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 565 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 4 Jurisdictional Wetlands To assess the current extent of wetlands on the Project, the site was reviewed for both state and federal jurisdiction using the Florida Department of State “Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters”2 and the Corps “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0).”3 Based on the preliminary site review, approximately 5.85 acres or 63 percent of the parcel may be considered SFWMD and Corps jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibit 2). The potential wetland area consists of Melaleuca, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4241); Cypress, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2); and Hydric Pine, Disturbed (25-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Codes 6259 E2 and E3). A large area of wetlands was observed to extend off-site to the west. A small amount of wetlands also extends off-site into a native preserve area located on the southeast side of the Project The property does not contain any areas that would likely be claimed as “other surface waters” (OSWs) by the SFWMD. A determination with the regulatory agencies to verify the current status of wetland jurisdiction was not within the scope of this assessment. Based on review of SFWMD permit files, lands to the east were previously identified to contain jurisdictional wetlands that bordered the Project (Exhibit 3). Assertion of wetland jurisdiction by the Corps is subject to the Corps Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 4 (Guidebook) and supplementary guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps titled Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States 5 (Guidance). Please note that the Corps released a revised guidance in draft form in April 2011, but the revised guidance has not been finalized to date. The Guidebook and supplementary Guidance states that the Corps will assert jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies: – Traditional navigable waters; – Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; – Non-navigable, “relatively permanent waters” (i.e., have continuous flow at least seasonally) tributaries of traditional navigable waters; and – Wetlands that directly abut non-navigable, relatively permanent tributaries. 2Florida Department of State. 2010. Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters. Chapters 62-340, F.A.C. 3U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-20. 4U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. 5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following The U.S. Supreme Court Decision In Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. Page 5 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 566 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 5 The Cocohatchee Canal located on the north side of the Project is considered jurisdictional by the Corps and meets the current definition of a Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) that is a tributary of traditional navigable waters. There was no evidence of either culverts or a direct surface water connection between wetlands identified on the Project and the Cocohatchee Canal. Since the Corps will have to determine a “significant nexus” to the Cocohatchee Canal or other tributaries to traditional navigable waters, it is unclear whether the existing wetlands on the property will be considered within the Corps’ jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of wetlands by the Corps will need to be determined by submission of an application to the Corps. Based on review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) Soils Survey for Collier County 6 and the Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook,7 the subject property is mapped as containing Unit 11 – Hallandale fine sand, a non-hydric soil; hydric soil types identified as Unit 14 – Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum; and Unit 21 – Boca fine sand (Exhibit 4). Areas mapped as hydric soil units correspond with the observed location of wetland vegetation communities. Wetlands Permitting An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required for SFWMD wetland impacts and a federal Dredge and Fill Permit may be required for Corps wetland impacts. The need for a Corps permit is dependent on a jurisdictional determination. The applicant will need to demonstrate to both the state and federal agencies that wetland impacts were first avoided as much as possible, and then minimized where feasible. The remaining unavoidable wetland impacts will require mitigation. The agencies will also consider secondary and cumulative impacts to wetlands as a result of the Project. Secondary impacts include: violations of water quality standards, adverse impacts to wetland functions, impacts to uplands utilized for nesting or denning by wetland-dependent listed animal species, impacts to historical and archaeological resources, and additional phases or activities closely linked to the proposed system. Water quality standards may be addressed in the design of the surface water management system. Adverse impacts to wetland functions may be addressed through preservation of historic wetland flow-ways and structural or upland buffers adjacent to the preserved wetlands. Impacts to uplands utilized by wetland-dependent listed species may be addressed through compliance with listed species guidelines established by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or through appropriate mitigation measures. In addition to secondary impacts, impacts to wetlands on the property must not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and OSWs within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. If wetland impacts are proposed, a cumulative 6Soils Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida. 7Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 1995. (Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition). Victor W. Carlisle Ed. Page 6 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 567 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 6 impact analysis may be required as part of the SFWMD permit. Cumulative impacts will be reviewed based on impacts to water quality and functions of wetlands. Unacceptable cumulative impacts may be avoided if the Project results in minimal or no wetland impacts and if mitigation fully offsets all direct and secondary wetland impacts within the Project boundary or elsewhere within the drainage basin. The SFWMD will review the Project’s effects on historic basin and floodplain storage. Provisions must be made to replace or mitigate the loss of basin storage provided by the Project site. Basin storage issues should be reviewed with a professional engineer experienced with water management system design and construction criteria. The SFWMD will require that a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) analysis be conducted for the wetland impacts and mitigation areas, and the Corps will require that a UMAM or Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) analysis be conducted for the wetland impacts and mitigation areas. Through the UMAM and the WRAP analyses, it will need to be demonstrated that the loss in wetland functions due to the proposed impacts will be offset by a similar increase in wetland functions resulting from the proposed mitigation. Depending on the development size and location, some SFWMD wetland mitigation credit could be generated by granting a conservation easement over Project lands and agreeing to implement a perpetual maintenance plan to control exotic and nuisance plants. If a Corps permit is required, it is unlikely the permittee will be able to provide any wetland mitigation on Project lands. Corps mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will most likely require a credit purchase at a regional wetland mitigation bank. Federal wetland mitigation credits at a regional mitigation bank are currently costing up to $90,000 per credit. Wetland credit pricing is subject to supply and demand and may have periodic limited availability. A rough estimation of mitigation need is one credit per one and one-half to two acres of permitted wetland impact. A wetland functional assessment of an assumed permittable impact would be required to determine Project specific wetland credit value. The “Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I”8 identifies the rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), tri- colored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), wood stork, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Big Cypress fox squirrel, and Florida bonneted bat as wetland- dependent listed wildlife species. Potential impacts to these species as a result of the Project will need to be addressed through the SFWMD permitting process. Through protection of nesting sites and preservation and management of forested wetlands, it may be demonstrated that the Project will not adversely affect wetland-dependent listed wildlife species. 8Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Northwest Florida, Suwanee River, St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, and South Florida Water Management Districts. 2013. Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (General and Environmental); 143 pp. Page 7 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 568 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 7 Listed Species A cursory listed species survey was conducted on the property to determine whether the Project site is being utilized by wildlife species listed by the USFWS and/or the FWCC as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern. No listed wildlife species were observed on the Project site during the February 28, 2018 assessment. A review of FWCC documented occurrences of listed species was also conducted. According to the FWCC, historic records of red-cockaded woodpeckers have been reported within 0.5 mile of the Project site (Exhibit 5). Specific surveys for red-cockaded woodpeckers may be required if a Corps permit is required for the Project. The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies 9 was referenced for the location of breeding colonies of both listed and non-listed wading birds including, but not limited to, the snowy egret, roseate spoonbill, little blue heron, wood stork, and tri-colored heron. There was no reference to breeding rookeries located on or adjacent to the property. The FWCC database for wading bird rookeries shows no rookeries within two miles of the property. The USFWS Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species 10 for the wood stork recognizes a 30 kilometer (18.6 mile) zone surrounding a colony boundary as a core foraging area (CFA). According to the FWCC data, one wood stork colony exists within 30 kilometers of the site and therefore, the Project site is within a CFA (Exhibit 6). The property provides marginal habitat that may be used for foraging by wood storks during the wet season. If future development of wetlands is proposed, mitigation may be required to offset impacts to wood stork foraging habitat. On-site wetland habitat preservation and wetland mitigation credit purchase at a regional mitigation bank will provide wood stork foraging habitat value that can be used to help compensate for required wood stork foraging habitat. The Project includes suitable habitat for the Eastern indigo snake. No Eastern indigo snakes were observed during the assessment in the Project area. Eastern indigo snakes are often closely associated with gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) and gopher tortoise burrows. No gopher tortoises or gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the Project area during the assessment. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the Big Cypress fox squirrel is found within the Project area. No Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed during the assessment of the Project area. The Big Cypress fox squirrel is listed as State-Designated Threatened by the FWCC. The Project area contains habitat that may contain regulated plants as defined by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Chapter 5B- 40. Potential regulated plants include butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) and wild pine 9Runde, D.E. et al. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies. Update 1986-1989. Division of Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife Section, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 10U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species Wood Storks. South Florida Ecological Services Office. Page 8 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 8 (Tillandsia sp.). Regulated wild pine observed in the Project area included stiff-leaved wild pine (T. fasciculata). Plants regulated by the Collier County LDC may be required to be relocated into designated on-site preserves as a condition of development approval. Listed Species Permitting The Imperiled Species Management section in the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation of the FWCC may consult with the state agency responsible for issuing state water quality certification for the the Project, typically the SFWMD. The state listed species that may be consulted on by the FWCC include Eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, Florida bonneted bat, and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Consultation between the FWCC and the SFWMD will run concurrently with the permit processing and typically concludes with a requirement for pre- construction surveys to document the presence or absence of nest sites. If active nest sites are identified, then agency guidelines will need to be followed. Agency permit review for listed species will center on species that are federally listed in addition to being state listed. If federal wetland jurisdiction is established, the Corps will be the lead federal agency in the permitting process. The Corps will consult with the USFWS on threatened and endangered species. The USFWS consultation may include the threatened Eastern indigo snake, threatened wood stork, threatened red-cockaded woodpecker, and endangered Florida bonneted bat if they will be affected by the actions of the Project. The USFWS may require the construction activity to adhere to the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern indigo snake. The Standard Protection Measures typically require the distribution of informational posters and pamphlets advising construction personnel to avoid any direct contact with Eastern indigo snakes. Mitigation provided to offset wetland impacts will provide some foraging habitat for wood storks. A foraging habitat analysis is required to determine if wetland compensation will be sufficient to compensate for the loss of wood stork foraging habitat. The purchase of additional wetland mitigation bank credits can be used to offset any remaining foraging deficit. If mitigation is required, the USFWS will require type-for-type wetland compensation be provided. Surveys may be required to document the presence/absence of the red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida bonneted bat, and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Project construction may be conditioned with protective measures to avoid adverse risk to these species. Protective measures may include implementation of pre-construction surveys and buffers for active nest sites. Summary A review of current wetland conditions identified approximately 5.85 acres or approximately 63 percent of the Project area as potential SFWMD and Corps jurisdictional wetlands. Page 9 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Page 10 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Page 11 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATEOOAAKKMMOONNTTPPKKWWYYIIMMPPEERRIIAALLGGOOLLFFCCOOUURRSSEEBBLLVVDDPPRRIINNCCEESSSSCCTTVVEERRDDEEWWAAYYCCIITTRRUUSSLLAAKKEEDDRRMM AA RR SSAALL AAWW AA YY IISSLLAANNDDWWAALLKKCCII RR TTUUPPEELL OORRDD SSTTRRAADDAA PP LLIIBBIISSWWAAYYSSUUMMMMEERRPPLL VVIIKKIINNGG WWAAYY RRIIDDGGEEDDRRLLEEAARRNNIINNGGLLNN ERIE DRERIE DR EE NN CCOORREE WWAAYY GGRROOVVEESSRRDD WICKLIFFE DRWICKLIFFE DR CCOO RRSSOOMMEEDDIITTEERRRRAA CCIIRRKIRTLAND DRKIRTLAND DR ENTRADA AVEENTRADA AVE OO LL DD GG RROOVVEE SSRRDDPPAALLMMRRIIVVEERRBBLLVVDD GGOORRDDOONNI I AARR DDGGRREEEENNTTRREEEEDDRRMMYY RR TT LL EERRDDMMIILL LL PP OO NNDDCC IIRRAASSHHFFOORR DD LL NN VVIINNEEYYAARRDDSSBBLLVVDDTTRREEEELL IINNEE DD RR PPEERRSSIIMMMM OO NN DDRR TTIIBBUURROONNDDRR WWEESSTT SS TT 111TH AVE N111TH AVE N110TH AVE N110TH AVE N109TH AVE N109TH AVE N108TH AVE N108TH AVE N 106TH AVE N106TH AVE N105TH AVE N105TH AVE N104TH AVE N104TH AVE N TARPON BAY BLVDTARPON BAY BLVD103RD AVE N103RD AVE N102ND AVE N102ND AVE N101ST AVE N101ST AVE N100TH AVE N100TH AVE N OOLL DDEE CC YYPPRREESSSSDDRR99TH AVE N99TH AVE N98TH AVE N98TH AVE N97TH AVE N97TH AVE N96TH AVE N96TH AVE N95TH AVE N95TH AVE N94TH AVE N94TH AVE N93RD AVE N93RD AVE N92ND AVE N92ND AVE N JOHNNYCAKE DRJOHNNYCAKE DR 91ST AVE N91ST AVE N MADISON DRMADISON DR CCRR EEEE KK SS IIDDEE BBLLVVDD PPHHOOEENNIIXX WWAAYYMENTOR DRMENTOR DR DDEELL AA SS OOLL LLNNOLD 41OLD 41PPEE LLIICC AA NN BBAAYYBBLLVVDD BBRRYYNNWW OOOODDDDRR BB AA YY LLAAUURREELLDDRRVANDERBILT BEACH RDVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN OAKS LNGOLDEN OAKS LNWINTERVIEW DRWINTERVIEW DRPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRREEENGLISH OAKS LNENGLISH OAKS LNPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRRWWPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRRSS AUTUMN OAKS LNAUTUMN OAKS LN HIDDEN OAKS LNHIDDEN OAKS LN BUR OAKS LNBUR OAKS LN SHADY OAKS LNSHADY OAKS LN SPANISH OAKS LNSPANISH OAKS LN STANDING OAKS LNSTANDING OAKS LNTHE LANETHE LANEOLDE CYPRESS BLVDOLDE CYPRESS BLVDTRAIL BLVDTRAIL BLVDBBRRAA SS SSIIEEBBNNDDCCYYPPRREESSSS TT RR AACCEECCIIRRHHIICCKKOORRYYRRDDNNOOTTTTIINNGGHHAAMMDDRR AA RR BB OO RR BBLLVV D D WW IIGGGGIINNSS PPAASSSS RRDD 7TH ST N7TH ST N8TH ST N8TH ST NMM IISS SSIIOO NNDDRR HHII GGHHCCRROOFFTT DDRR TTIIBBUURR OO NN BBLLVVDD EECCYYPPRREESSSSWWAAYYEEPIPER BLVDPIPER BLVD VVAALLEEWWOOOODDDDRRVVIILLLLAAGGEE WW AA LLKK CCIIRR NN OORRTTHHBBRROOOOKKEEDDRRPPEELLIICCAANN MMAARRSSHHBBLLVVDD OAKES BLVDOAKES BLVDSSTTRRAANNDDBBLLVVDDGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NLLOOGGAANNBBLLVVDDNNLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD JJUUNNGGLL EETRLTRL CCOOVVEECCIIRRBBAARR CC AA RRMM II LLWWAAYY BBOOCCAACCIIRR RREEGGEENNTTCCII RR CC OOLLLLII EERRSSRREESS EERRVV EE DDRRWWIINNDDIINN GG OO AA KKSS WW AAYY (/41 ;3EXIT111 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico P O L E CROSS IN G RDS AN MARCOD R OIL WELL RD C O RK SCREW RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À951 ¿À82 ¿À858 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À839 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L IER C O L L IER H E N DRYH E N DRY L E E L E E ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VERO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA CITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 30, TWP 48 S, RNG 26 E EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL Page 12 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS Page 13 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 4119E2 (2.57 Ac.±) 814 (0.44 Ac.±) 6259E3 (0.90 Ac.±) 4241 (2.15 Ac.±) 6219E2 (0.28 Ac.±) 6259E2 (2.15 Ac.±) 4241 (0.37 Ac.±) 4119E1 (0.49 Ac.±)J:\2018\18abb2815\2018\PSA\Exhibit 2 Aerial with FLUCFCS and wetlands Map.dwg Tab: 8X11-C TB Mar 08, 2018 - 11:28am Plotted by: DonBSCALE: 1" = 150' DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 DATE DATE 2/27/18 DATE NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF NOVEMBER 2016. PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE. FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999). UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. EXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL LEGEND: SFWMD AND COE WETLANDS (5.85 Ac.±) Page 14 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 3 GASPAR STATION PUD SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACTS MAP (From SFWMD Permit No. 11-02931-P, Application No. 070315-22) Page 15 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Page 16 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 4 SOILS MAP Page 17 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) COUGAR CT NCOUGAR CT N COUGAR CT SCOUGAR CT S EXPEDITION RDEXPEDITION RD IMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD SANDRA BAY DRSANDRA BAY DR1111 1414 2121 REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE            EXHIBIT 4. SOILS MAP H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL 0 75 150Feet ¶ LEGEND  PROJECT LOCATION Soil Unit Description11 HALLANDALE FINE SAND14 PINEDA FINE SAND, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM21 BOCA FINE SAND Page 18 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 5 DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES Page 19 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE                LEGEND  A  !( #* !H  !F  ¶ EXHIBIT 5. DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( #* #* !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A WESTBLVDCRAYTONRDGULFSHOREDRGOODLETTE RD EXTGOLDEN GATE BLVD GREEN BLVDOAKS BLVDRIDGEDRLIVINGSTON RDLOGAN BLVDTERRY S T GOODLETTEFRANKRDOLD US 41VANDERBILT DRAIRPORT-PULLINGRDBONITA BEACH RD PINE RIDGE RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD ¿À951 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L IERC O L L IER L E E L E E PROJECT LOCATION 0 1 2Miles Page 20 of 229.A.3.e Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) EXHIBIT 6 FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS Page 21 of 22 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE kj Gulf of Mexico BECK BLVD GREEN BLVDOAKS BLVDRI DGEDRESTEYAV EGULFSHOREBL VDLIVINGSTONRDOIL W E LL RD LOGAN BLVDTHREEOAKSPKWYTERRY ST CRAYTONRDRA TTLES NAK E HA M M OCK RADIO RDVANDERBILT DRDAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RDOLD US 41GOLDEN GA TE P K W YGOODLETTE FRANK RDESTERO BLVD BONITA BEACH RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVDAIRPORT-PULLING RD¿À850 ¿À849 ¿À951 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L IERC O L L IER L E EL E E 0 3 6Miles ¶         LEGEND  kj    EXHIBIT 6. FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES T.F. A.W. 3/7/18 3/7/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL PROJECT LOCATION AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS Page 22 of 229.A.3.e Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.ePacket Pg. 584Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.e Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: 03_Application-Petition_CPSS-2019-5 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) N'j 111. rI., tl,-'1 -1111 TCritil.; PART OF THE USA TODAY NETWORK Published Daily Naples, FL 34110 BCC COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEV 3299 TAMIAMI TRL E NAPLES FL 34112 Affidavit of Publication STATE OF WISCONSIN COUNTY OF BROWN Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared Joe Heynen who on oath says that he 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 6/26/2020 Subscribed and sworn to before on June 26, 2020: 11_x a Vyl uv, c0_,f C. _6-,.--) Notary, State of WI, County of Brown IARA MONDI OCH Notary Public State of Wisconsin My commission expires: August 6, 2021 Publication Cost: $945 00 Ad No 100440579 Customer No: i11636 1'Otl: 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: 04_Affidavit & Advertisement (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Planning Commission will hold a public meeting on July 16, 2020 commencing at 9:00 A.M. in the Board of County Commissioners Chamber, Third Floor, County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL The purpose of the hearing is to consider: 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 MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TO ADD THE GERMAIN IMMOKALEE COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 80,000 SQUARE FEET OF C-i, COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL AND GENERAL OFFICE DISTRICT AND LUXURY AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY .6 MILES WEST OF 1-75, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 8.97t ACRES. [PL20190000454] 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 AN AGRICULTURAL (A) ZONING DISTRICT TO A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS GERMAIN IMMOKALEE CPUD, TO ALLOW A NEW AND USED AUTOMOTIVE DEALERSHIP UP TO 80,000 SQUARE FEET ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF IMMOKALEE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 0.6 MILES WEST OF INTERSTATE 75, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, CONSISTING OF 8.97t ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PL201900004511 Project Location 0 Z Immokalee-RD- F- 7 c unZ Cl) r` J r c 0 e All interested parties are invited to appear and be heard. Copies of the proposed ORDINANCE(S) will be made available for inspection at the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 N. Horseshoe Dr., Naples, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday. Furthermore, the materials will be made available for inspection at the Collier County Clerk's Office, Fourth Floor, Collier County Government Center, 3299 East Tamiami Trail, Suite 401 Naples, one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Any questions pertaining to the documents should be directed to the GMD Zoning Division, Comprehensive Planning Section. Written comments filed with the Clerk to the Board's Office prior to July 16, 2020, will be read and considered at the public hearing As part of an ongoing initiative to promote social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the public will have the opportunity to provide public comments remotely, as well as in person, during this proceeding. Individuals who would like to participate remotely, should register any time after the agenda is posted on the County website which is 6 days before the meeting through the link provided on the front page of the County website at www.i:olliercuuntyll.yuv. Individuals who register will receive an email in advance of the public hearing detailing how they can participate remotely in this meeting. For additional information about the meeting, please call Thomas Clarke at (239) 252-2526 or email to 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. Edwin Fryer, Chairman Collier County Planning Commission Publication Date: June 26. 2020 9.A.3.f Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: 04_Affidavit & Advertisement (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Opposition Joe Capriotti a/1212019 seasonal resident of Livingston Lakes Request meetings be held in season. (staff note: GIVIPA transmittal public hearin8s were held in Dec. 2019 &.lan. 2020) Albert and Marian Wissa 8/27/2019 15126 Palmer Lake Circle Unit 204 Opposed to project, change the nature from a quiet residential area to a car dealership (commercial) devastating Sally Auletta 8/22120t9 15114 Palmer Lake circle, Unit 203 Continual building affects beauty and charm of Naples, lower property values, Euilding ruining our environment and waterways Jean Auletta 8122/2079 15141 Palmer Lake Circle Lln t 203 Concerned about property value and environment Doreen Zasa 8/22/20t9 Livingston Lakes homeowner Concerned about lighting and wants property area that abuts Livingston Lakes to have no lighting at niBht. I )) Name Date received Address Organization Co m me nts 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) From: Sent: To: Fra ntzJeremy Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:50 PM FinnTimothy Faulkne6ue; WeekDavid; BellowsRa)4 Smithcamden; sjaulet5T @gmail.com FW: Planned Unit Development under P120190000451, Planned Amendment P120190000454 I am rerouting your email to the planners working on these petitions. Respectfully, Jeremy Frantz, AICP Land Development Code Manager Subject: Sally, looing Dlvlslon Ex c e e dl ng Ex p ec I oti o n i Ev et\/ dsy CRff",C.ottttty From: Sally Auletta <sjauletsT@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, Au8ust 22, 2019 3:35 PM To: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl .gov> Sublect: Planned Unit Development under PL2019OO0(M51, Planned Amendment pI2O19OOOO454 I am writing as a concerned homeowner at Livingston Lakes. We oppose the planned unit development under P120190000451, planned amendment PL 20190000454. We are referring to the 9 acre parcel recently purchased by the Germain Automotive Group as a dealership. Too much building is ruining our environment and waterways.-- 1 FaulknerSue 2800 N. Hort.lhoe Drlve, Noplet, flo,Ho 34104 Phone: 23t.252.2315 www.colllercounMl.ogv/ldcqmendmenl! Tell us how we ore dolng by toking out Zoning Divislon SuNey ot hrlp,11bl!llle S!]qZ9!l!E To Jeremy, 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) Building a dealership in our backyard will lower our vproperty values and will be aesthetically displeasing. All of this continual building is affecting the beautification of the area and the charm of Naples itself. We expect you will take our communities concerns into consideration and not move forward with construction of this project. Thank you, Sally Auletta & Bob George 151,L4 Palmer Lake Circle, Unit 203 Naples, FL Under Florida Law. e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response lo a public records request, do not send electronic mail to thas entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in wnting. 2 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) FaulknerSue From: Sent: To: Fra ntzJeremy ThuBday, August 22, 2019 4:00 PM Faulkne6ue; FinnTimothy; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid; Smithcamden; baygenie@verizon.net FW: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment P12019000045. Jean, I am reroutin8 your email to the planners working on these petitions. Respectfully, Jeremy Frantz, AICP Land Development Code Manager I am opposed to the planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment P12019000045. I recently closed on a unit in Livingston Lakes and look forward to moving to Naples in the near future. Since I am currently living out of state, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meetinB August 22 to voice my opposition. I am deeply concerned the propedy value of Ltvin8ston Lakes will be affected as well as the effect on our environment. Regards, Jean Auletta 15141 Palmer Lake Circle unit 203 Livingston Lakes Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail lo this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Subject: From: Jean Auletta <baygenie@verizon.net> Sent Thursday, Au8ust 22, 2019 3:43 PM To: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercounq/fl.gov>; FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment P12019000045. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) FaulknerSue From: Sent: to: Cc: Subject: Mr. Capriotti, We do understand the concerns you have voiced. The Land Development Code does not specifically require that Neighborhood lnformation Meetings (NlM) be held during season. because mail notifications are sent for the hearings and letters of opposition are able to be submitted and then become part of the officially accepted, public record materlals that are part of the public hearing. The NIM is required to be held a second time if the petition is not scheduled within one year of that meeting. With that said, the Germain lmmokalee Road Rezone has a companion Growth Management Plan Amendment application (P120190000454), which is a small scale amendment. This means that the GMPA and the Rezone application must go together and that both applications must be ready in order for this to proceed. Currently, the County is awaiting a re-submittal for the GMP amendment. And the same is true for the Rezone petition. The earliest we anticipate having this heard by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners is January and that is if there is only one more submittal. This is not a guaranteed hearing schedule, but we do not anticlpate thls being heard by either board until after season begins which is after October and beyond. You may reply to this email with a letter of any length outlining your opposition to the petition, and then I will make it part of the official record. Because you were on the NIM mailing list, you will also be on the county's public notification mailing list for the Planning Commission. Please, be aware the County's Administration Code does not require the County to send mailing notices to nearby neighbors within 500ft for the BCC hearing as it does the Planning Commission, but a Naples Daily News ad will be published 15 days prior to the Board of County Commission hearing. Please, feel free to provide me with that previously mentioned letter of opposition. We are happy to answer any further questions you may have. Respectfully, Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at httpi//bit.ly/Collierzoning. Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released ln response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 FinnTimothy Monday, August 12,2019 9:58 AM FrantzJeremy; FaulknerSue joe@capriandassociates.com; carolahendler@yahoo.com; mumford1977 @centurylink.net; Smithcamden; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid RE: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment P120190000454 Zoning Division NOTE: New Email Address as of 12109/2017: Timothy. Finn@colliercountyfl .gov 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples Florida 341(M Phone: 239.252,4312 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) ---Original Message---- From: FrantzJeremy <eremy.Frantz@colliercount'yfl.gov> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 9:03 AM To: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; FaulknerSue <Sue.Faulkner@colliercountyfl.gov> Cc: joe@capriandassociates.comi carolahendler@yahoo.com; mumford1977@centurylink.net Subject: FW: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment P120190000454 Tim and Sue, Could you please respond? l'm not sure of the timin8 of these projects. Respectfully, Jeremy Frantz, AlcP Land Development Code Mana8er Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mailto this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. z ---Original Message---- From: joe capriotti <joe@capriandassociates.com> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 12:06 AM To: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercoun\fl .gov> Cc: Carol Hendler <carolahendler@yahoo.com>; Carol/larry Mumford <mumford1977@centurylink.net> Subject: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment P120190000454 Mr Frantz As a resident of Livingston Lakes I am in receipt of the notification stated above and I along with several of my neighbors are opposed to this application. The notice states that a meetinB will be held on August 22nd to discuss this application. lv' am bewildered why this meetinB would be scheduled while a great deal of our owners as seasonal residents are not currently at Livingston Lakes and do not return until Mid January. This seems to me to be a ploy by the applicant to not have a great deal of our owners in attendance. Not the right approach in my opinion. I am requesting that the meeting be delayed for several months and that there be no further proSress on this application until a significant number of our owners are able to attend this meeting. Thank you for your time and consideration. 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) FaulknerSue From: - sent: To: Subject: Albert and Marian Wissa #20+15126 Palmer Lake Circlev Naples, Florida 34109 Marian Wissa <marianwissa@gmail.com> Wednesday, Augusl 21, 2019 10:,14 PM FinnTimothy; FrantzJeremy FaulknerSue; SmithCamden; WeeksDavid; BellowsRay Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment P120190000454 Dear Sir/Madam: We are writing in reference to the above and the relevant proposed rezoning. As property owners at Livingston Lakes, please be informed that we, together with many, if not all neighbors, at Livingston Lakes Community, are opposed to the above application. The approval of such application by Collier County will have devastating consequences on residents of our community. As residents of Livingston Lakes Community, our decision to purchase a place in this specific community was made with the knowledge that the zoning of this area is all a residential one. We are shocked to learn that an application was submitted to change the zoning from a quiet residential area to include a car dealership, which will change the nature of the area to a commercial zone, and consequently have negative effects on the lives of the residential community. Thank you for your understanding and consideration, !0eranwlssa@srnaiLsano 1 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) FaulknerSue From: S€nt To: CC: Doreen Zasa <dzasa256@yahoo.com> Thursday, August 22, 2019 I 1:10 AM Frantzleremy; FinnTimothy; Faulknersue; SmithCamden; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid doreen Zasa REZONINGSubject: Good morning. I am a homeowner at Livingston Lakes. I received a letter regarding the rezoning for the property aforementioned. I initially had very strong concems regarding a car dealership being built on this property and then I began thinking about what it could be instead - bar, restaurant, garbage bins, rats, loud music, etc- However, as my home sits on the South side of Livlngston Lakes, this dealership will abutt the property line near my home. My big concern is the lightning that usually accompanies a car dealership. I would respectfully ask that should you grant the zoning change that the North area of the properly remain as much preserve as possible and that the dealership be regulated to no lighting in the back of their facility at night. Thank you for considering my concerns when you make your decision on this property. Respectfully, DOREEN ZASA 1 9.A.3.g Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: 05_Emailed Correspondence (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.hPacket Pg. 597Attachment: 06_Opposition Letter_Janice Thompson (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 9.A.3.h Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: 06_Opposition Letter_Janice Thompson (12064 : Germain Immokalee 9.A.3.iPacket Pg. 599Attachment: 07_ Letter to County re virtual public hearing_2020.06.17 (12064 : Germain Immokalee Small Scale) 08/20/2020 COLLIER COUNTY Collier County Planning Commission Item Number: 9.A.4 Item Summary: ***This item was continued from the July 16, 2020 CCPC meeting and is further continued to the August 20, 2020 CCPC Meeting. *** PL20190000451-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 an Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district for the project to be known as Germain Immokalee CPUD, to allow a new and used automotive dealership up to 80,000 square feet on the property located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 8.97± acres; and by providing an effective date. (Companion to PL20190000454) [Coordinator: Tim Finn, AICP, Principal Planner] Meeting Date: 08/20/2020 Prepared by: Title: – Zoning Name: Tim Finn 04/21/2020 2:21 PM Submitted by: Title: Manager - Planning – Zoning Name: Ray Bellows 04/21/2020 2:21 PM Approved By: Review: Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 05/05/2020 10:42 AM Growth Management Operations & Regulatory Management Donna Guitard Review Item Completed 05/14/2020 12:39 PM Planning Commission Diane Lynch Review item Completed 05/21/2020 2:04 PM Growth Management Department James C French Review Item Completed 05/29/2020 5:23 PM Zoning Ray Bellows Review Item Completed 06/10/2020 9:23 AM Planning Commission Edwin Fryer Meeting Pending 08/20/2020 9:00 AM 9.A.4 Packet Pg. 600 PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 1 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING DIVISION – ZONING SERVICES SECTION GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: JULY 16, 2020 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20190000451; GERMAIN IMMOKALEE CPUD COMPANION ITEM: PL20190000454/CPSS-2019-5 ______________________________________________________________________________ PROPERTY OWNER/AGENT: Owners: Hubert Scherer Trust c/o Mary Huckstep 9027 Alturas Ln #3305 Naples, FL 34113 Contract Purchaser: Agent: Flavio Galasso, Vice-President Thomas D. Barber, AICP JAZ Real Estate Holdings, LLC Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 11286 Tamiami Trail North 7400 Trail Blvd, Unit 200 Naples, FL 34110 Naples, FL 34108 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is requesting that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an application to rezone an 8.97+/- acres property from the Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district to a Commercial Planned Unit Development (CPUD) zoning district. The subject property is comprised of one parcel and is owned by Hubert Scherer Trust c/o Mary Huckstep. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is located on the south side of Immokalee Road approximately 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75, in Section 30, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 8.97+/- acres (see location map on page 2). PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: This petition seeks to rezone the property to CPUD to allow for the development of a new and used automotive dealership up to 80,000 square feet of floor area and related accessory uses. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 2 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 9.A.4.aPacket Pg. 602Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 3 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: This section of the staff report identifies the land uses, zoning classifications, and maximum approved densities for properties surrounding boundaries of Germain Immokalee CPUD: North: Collier Boulevard, a six-lane arterial roadway, then developed residential, with a current zoning designation of Carlton Lakes PUD (3.4 DU/AC), which is approved for residential, commercial, recreational, conservation and water management uses East: Developed commercial and water management facilities, with a current zoning designation of Gaspar Station CPUD (26 DU/AC), which is approved for commercial, water management facilities, and hotel/motel uses South: Developed multi-family residential, with a current zoning designation of Livingston Lakes RPUD (6.99 DU/AC), which is approved for multi-family residential units West: Undeveloped land, with a current zoning designation of Agriculture (A) zoning district. Aerial Photo (Property Appraiser GIS) 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 4 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP) CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The approximate 8.97-acre subject site is identified as Urban Designation, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). The FLUE states Urban designated areas will accommodate both residential and a variety of non-residential uses including commercial uses subject to criteria identified in the FLUE. The petition’s site is not consistent with any FLUE provision to allow commercial zoning that will accommodate a car sales use. There is currently a submittal for a companion Small-Scale Growth Management Plan Amendment (SSGMPA) petition (PL20190000454) to create a new Subdistrict intended to allow the proposed use. This rezoning petition cannot be approved until such time as the SSGMPA has been approved and the uses and intensities in this PUD align with those in the GMPA. Based upon the analysis, the proposed PUD may be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP, contingent, in part, upon the companion GMP Amendment being adopted and going into effect. The PUD Ordinance needs to provide for the effective date to be linked to an effective date of the companion GMP Amendment. (See Attachment B – FLUE Consistency Review.) Transportation Element: In evaluating this project, staff reviewed the applicant’s July 23, 2019 Trip Generation Statement (TIS) for consistency with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) using the then applicable 2018 and the current 2019 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 Standard within the five year AUIR planning period, unless specific mitigating stipulations are also approved. A petition or application has significant impacts if the traffic impact statement reveals that any of the following occur: a. For links (roadway segments) directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; b. For links adjacent to links directly accessed by the project where project traffic is equal to or exceeds 2% of the adopted LOS standard service volume; and c. For all other links the project traffic is considered to be significant up to the point where it is equal to or exceeds 3% of the adopted LOS standard service volume. Mitigating stipulations shall be based upon a mitigation plan prepared by the applicant and submitted as part of the traffic impact statement that addresses the project’s significant impacts on all roadways.” 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 5 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 Staff finding: According to the TIS provided with this petition, the requested PUDZ rezone proposes an 80,000 square foot New Automobile Sales development that will generate a projected +/- 166 PM peak hour, two-way trips that will occur on the following adjacent roadway network. The trips generated by this development will occur on the following adjacent roadway link: Roadway Link 2018 AUIR LOS 2019 AUIR LOS Current Peak Hour Peak Direction Service Volume/Peak Direction 2018 Remaining Capacity 2019 Remaining Capacity Immokalee Road Livingston Road to I- 75 D C 3,500/East 871 971 Based on the 2019 AUIR’s, the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed trips for this project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject rezoning can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff has found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 8.97 acres of native vegetation. A minimum of 1.35 (15%) acres of native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions, such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions, or denial of any rezoning petition. This petition is consistent with the GMP. 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 (commonly 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. The CCPC uses the aforementioned criteria as the basis for its recommendation to the Board, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning or amendment request. In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Planning staff has reviewed the petition to address 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 6 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 environmental concerns. The Master Plan illustrates the minimum PUD preserve requirement in accordance with LDC 3.05.07. The required preserve is 1.35 acres (15% of 8.97 acres). No listed animal or plant species were observed on the property. Transportation Review: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval. Utilities Review: The project lies within the regional potable water service area and the north wastewater service area of the Collier County Water-Sewer District (CCWSD). The developer has committed to extending the existing 8” County water main from Useppa Way to the potential future connection point on the western boundary to facilitate future water distribution system connections. Emergency Management Review: Emergency Management staff has reviewed the petition for compliance with the GMP and the LDC and recommends approval of this project. Landscape Review: The landscape buffers on the master plan are consistent with LDC requirements Zoning Services Review: Staff has evaluated the uses proposed and their intensities and the development standards such as building heights, setbacks, and landscape buffers. Staff also evaluated the building mass, building location and orientation, the amount and type of open space and its location, and traffic generation/attraction of the proposed uses. After this review, staff has determined that the proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed CPUD requests a maximum gross area of 80,000 square feet of commercial space for automotive dealers (SIC code 5511). SIC Code 5511 includes sale of both new and used vehicles. The proposed CPUD also includes several accessory uses, including: 1. Automotive Parking for vehicular storage for new and used sales only. (7521) 2. Car wash, subject to the provisions of LDC Section 5.05.11. 3. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with the permitted principal uses and structures, including, but not limited to: Showrooms, carwash, offices, service facilities and repair facilities. 4. Display of new and used automobiles for sale, provided it does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health. Vehicle display is prohibited within any required landscape buffer, and allowed within front, side and rear yard setbacks. The proposed CPUD includes a maximum building height of 55 feet zoned and 60 feet for principal and accessory uses. The property to the north, Carlton Lakes PUD has maximum heights between 35 to 50 for residential uses and 50 feet for commercial uses, the property to the west, Gaspar Station CPUD, has maximum height of 50 feet for commercial uses and 60 feet for motels/hotels. The residential property, to the south, Livingston Lakes PUD, has a maximum height of three stories and the undeveloped property to the west is zoned Agriculture (A) with a maximum height of 35 feet. The proposed CPUD will be required to meet the architectural and site design standards in the LDC at the time of site plan approval. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 7 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 The proposed CPUD includes a front setback from the Immokalee Road right-of-way of 50% of the building height, but not less than 25 feet; however, structures 50 feet or more will require an additional 25 feet plus one additional foot of setback for each foot of building height over 50 feet. The south, west, and east property setbacks will have 25-foot setbacks. Additionally, 30 percent of the property will be designated as open space and included in this open space calculation is a 1.35 acre preserve area, also located along the south boundary that will separate the CPUD from the Livingston Lakes PUD. The Master Plan proposes a 15-foot wide “Type D” buffer along Immokalee Road on the north boundary of the PUD, and a 15-foot “Type B” buffer along the east, west, and south boundaries of the PUD. These buffers are consistent with the required buffers of the surrounding properties. The locations of buildings, setbacks, and open space contribute to the project’s compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation review staff has determined that the proposed CPUD will not exceed Level of Service Standards on Immokalee Road. 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.” Staff offers the following analysis: 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. The subject site fronts on Immokalee Road. Water distribution and wastewater transmission mains are readily available along Immokalee Road and at the eastern boundary of the PUD, on Useppa Way, and there are adequate water and wastewater treatment capacities to serve the proposed PUD. Drainage solutions would be evaluated in connection with SDP/platting and construction permits. 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, which were reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of conformity with the 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 8 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 relevant goals, objectives, and policies of the GMP within the GMP Consistency portion of this staff report (subject to approval of the companion GMPA). 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. As described in the Staff Analysis section of this staff report subsection Landscape Review, staff is of the opinion that the proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The Master Plan proposes the appropriate perimeter landscape buffers. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of ensuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. 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. The CCWSD has sufficient treatment capacities for water and wastewater services to the project. Conveyance capacities must be confirmed at the time of development permit application. Finally, the project’s development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals, including but not limited to any plats and or site development plans, are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure, including readily available County water and wastewater mains, to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner, and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will continuously be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. No deviations are proposed in connection with this request to rezone to CPUD. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 9 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 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 proposed change in relation to the following when applicable”: 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Comprehensive Planning staff determined the subject petition is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the FLUM. (subject to approval of the companion GMPA) 2. The existing land use pattern. The existing land use pattern (of the abutting properties) is described in the Surrounding Land Use and Zoning section of this staff report. The proposed use would not change the existing land use patterns of the surrounding properties. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The subject parcel is of sufficient size and therefore will not result in an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. It is also comparable with expected land uses by virtue of its consistency with the FLUE of the GMP. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. As shown on the zoning maps and aerial included on pages 2 and 3 of this report, the existing district boundaries are logically drawn. The proposed PUD zoning boundaries follow the property ownership boundaries. The boundary of the subject parcel is illustrated in the zoning maps and aerial in this staff report on pages 2 and 3. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed rezone is not necessary but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such changes. It should be noted that the proposed uses are not allowed under the current zoning classification. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD Rezone is consistent with the County’s land use policies that are reflected by the FLUE of the GMP if the companion SSGMPA is adopted. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD rezone should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 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 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 10 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 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. The proposed development will not create a drainage problem. Furthermore, the project is subject to the requirements of Collier County and the South Florida Water Management District. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. The current zoning designation of Rural Agriculture (A) zoning district includes a maximum allowable height for principal uses of 35 feet. The proposed CPUD includes a maximum allowable height of commercial buildings of 55 feet zoned and 60 feet actual. The proposed CPUD also eliminates the potential for numerous manufacturing uses or other uses that could impact light and air to adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent areas. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results, which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however, zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties to the north, east, and south are developed, whereas the property to the west is undeveloped, as previously noted. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the LDC is that sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 11 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 The proposed CPUD does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The proposed uses and development standards are not permitted, according to the existing classification. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed PUD rezone is not out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or County. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed for compliance with the GMP and the LDC, and staff does not specifically review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD Document would require considerable site alteration, and this project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the SDP and/or platting processes, and again later as part of the building permit 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 will have 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 review. The activity proposed by this rezoning will have no impact on public facility adequacy in regard to utilities. 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) PUDZ-PL20190000451 Germain Immokalee CPUD Page 12 of 13 Revised: June 4, 2020 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. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM): The applicant conducted a NIM on August 22, 2019 at the First Congregational Church of Naples located at 6630 Immokalee Road. The meeting commenced at approximately 6:02 p.m. and ended at 6:38 p.m. The applicant’s agent explained the request for the proposed rezone and the companion small-scale GMP amendment. Rich Yovanovich, the agent, conducted the meeting with introductions of the consultant team and staff, and an overview of the proposed CPUD rezoning application. Mr. Yovanovich explained that the small-scale GMP amendment and the PUD rezone will allow for office uses and a luxury auto dealership with associated uses. There will be preserves on the south portion of the property with required landscape buffers. Following the agent’s presentation, the meeting was opened up to attendees to make comments and ask the consultant team questions regarding the proposed development. The concerns the attendees raised were hours of operation, lighting, noise, traffic, deliveries at night, curb cuts, home values going down, environmental impacts, lighted signage, and rooftop storage of vehicles. No commitments were made. A copy of the sign-in sheet, handouts, and NIM summary are included in the backup materials in Attachment C. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) REVIEW: This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney’s Office reviewed this staff report on June 4, 2020. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the CCPC forward this petition to the Board with a recommendation of approval. Attachments: A) Proposed Ordinance B) FLUE Consistency Memo C) Application/Backup Materials 9.A.4.a Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Staff Report - Germain Immokalee CPUD (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.bPacket Pg. 617Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.b Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment A - Proposed Ordinance (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) December 26, 2019 Thomas D. Barber, AICP Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc. 7400 Trail Blvd, Unit 200 Naples, FL 34108 RE: PUDZ-PL20190000451; Germain Immokalee Rd CPUD Dear Mr. Barber: The following comments regarding the above referenced project that was submitted on 11-20-19, are being provided as requested. Please be aware that this is not a comprehensive list and is only being provided as a courtesy. All reviews must be completed prior to resubmittal Rejected Review: County Attorney Review; Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton-Cicko 1. Please make changes per my email to Mr. Barber on 12-23-19. Thank you! Informational Comments: 1. This PUD rezone may only be deemed consistent contingent upon the companion GMP amendment petition being adopted and in effect. 2. The CPUD rezone ordinance effective date must be linked to the effective date of the companion GMPA petition. GENERAL COMMENTS: [Timothy Finn] 1.Additional comments or stipulations may be forthcoming once a sufficient application has been submitted for review. This correspondence should not be construed as a position of support or non-support for any issues within the petition. Staff will analyze the petition and the recommendation will be contained in the staff report prepared for the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) or Hearing Examiner (Hex). 2. Please be advised that pursuant to the LDC, an application can be considered closed if there has been no activity on the application for a period of six (6) months. That six months period will be calculated from the date of this letter. 3. Please ensure that all members of your review team that may testify before the Hex/CCPC and the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) are registered as lobbyists with the county pursuant to the regulations regarding that issue. 4. When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to all comments. 5. Please put revised dates on all exhibits and in the title block of the Site Plan. The PUD document should include a footer that reflects the project name, petition 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Memo (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) number, date and page X of Y for the entire document. Documents without this information will be rejected. 6. A partial resubmittal cannot be accepted; please do not resubmit until you can respond to ALL review comments. 7. Note the adopted fee schedule requires payment of additional fees for petitions that require more than four resubmittals; please contact the appropriate staff and resolve issues to avoid this fee. Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner Cc: Thomas D. Barber, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage, Inc., Heidi Ashton-Cicko 9.A.4.c Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment B - FLUE Consistency Memo (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 1 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ________________ Agricultural 2 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ______ 3 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 4 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 5 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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: ____________________________________________________ 6 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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. 7 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Thomas D. BarberFolio # 0019804000830 48 26 E1/2 OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4, LESS N 100FT R/W 9.24 AC OR 1079 PG 1242CPUD8 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 632Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 633Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 10 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 February 1, 2019 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 *Additional fees to be determined at Methodology Meeting. o Minor Study Review: $750.00 o Major Study Review $1,500.00 $10.750 11 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) X12 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 636Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 13 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 637Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT I GERMAIN IMMOKALEE PUD Project Narrative and Detail of Request Project Background: The Collier County Growth Management Plan currently addresses this property as the suburban residential in the Future Land Use Element. The current land is zoned agricultural. The property qualifies to be rezoned to commercial uses under the Commercial In-Fill Commercial Subdistrict within the GMP. The purpose of these applications is to amend the GMP to allow a rezone which would include automotive dealership as an allowable use and to submit a PUD rezoning request. The site is located on the south side of Immokalee road 0.6 miles west of Interstate 75. The subject site is approximately 8.97 acres. The site is bound on the eastern property line by activity center #4 and on the western side by a similarly zoned agricultural piece of property. Project Narrative and Explanation/Justification of GMPA Approval for Auto Sales The proposed development will consist of a car dealership building facing Immokalee road and a parking and vehicular storage building behind it. A portion of the southern side of the property will be preserved as native vegetation and buffer the residential community that abuts the property. This application will create a new subdistrict to allow the C-4 Motor Vehicle Dealer use as well as the other uses and regulations consistent with the C-1 zoning use. The Traffic Analysis prepared in conjunction with this application addressed a Motor Vehicle Dealer on this parcel (80,000 SF maximum). 14 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 7/19/2019 Details www.collierappraiser.com/main_search/recorddetail.html?sid=241760988&Map=No&FolioNum=00198040008 1/1 $ 0$ 0$ 0$ 0 $ 1,344,050$ 0$ 1,344,050$ 46,857$ 1,297,193$ 1,344,050 $ 1,297,193 Collier County Property AppraiserProperty Summary Parcel No 00198040008 SiteAddress Site City Site Zone*Note Name / Address HUBERT SCHERER TRUST C/O MARY HUCKSTEP 9027 ALTURAS LN #3305 City NAPLES State FL Zip 34113 Map No.Strap No. Section Township Range Acres  *Estimated3B30000100 030 13B30 30 48 26 9.34 Legal 30 48 26 E1/2 OF E1/2 OF NW1/4 OF NW1/4, LESS N 100FT R/W 9.24 AC OR1079 PG 1242 Millage Area 47 Millage Rates   *CalculationsSub./Condo 100 - ACREAGE HEADER School Other TotalUse Code 99 - ACREAGE NOT ZONED AGRICULTURAL 5.049 5.8222 10.8712 Latest Sales History(Not all Sales are listed due to Confidentiality)Date Book-Page Amount06/16/09 4466-107512/13/04 3695-337404/29/84 1079-124202/01/77 675-1483  2018 Certified Tax Roll(Subject to Change) Land Value (+) Improved Value (=) Market Value (-) 10% Cap (=) Assessed Value (=) School Taxable Value (=) Taxable Value If all Values shown above equal 0 this parcel was created after theFinal Tax Roll  15 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 16 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 17 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 18 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 19 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 20 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 21 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 22 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 23 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 647Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 24 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 648Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 25 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 649Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 26 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 650Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 27 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 651Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 28 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 652Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 29 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 653Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 30 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 654Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 31 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 655Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 1 of 3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISCLOSURE FORM This is a required form with all land use petitions, except for Appeals and Zoning Verification Letters. Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. Please complete the following, use additional sheets if necessary. 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: Name and Address % of Ownership b. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each: Name and Address % of Ownership 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 % of Ownership 32 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT 2800 NORTH HORSESHOE DRIVE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT NAPLES, FLORIDA 34104 www.colliergov.net (239) 252-2400 FAX: (239) 252-6358 Created 9/28/2017 Page 2 of 3 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 % of Ownership e. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contract purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners: Name and Address % of Ownership Date of Contract: ___________ f. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership, or trust: Name and Address g. Date subject property acquired _______________ Leased: Term of lease ____________ years /months If, Petitioner has option to buy, indicate the following: 33 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 34 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 658Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 35 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 36 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 660Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 1 Germain Immokalee Road Petitions PL20190000451 & PL20190000454 Planned Unit Development & Growth Management Plan Amendment Neighborhood Information Meeting First Congregational Church of Naples 6630 Immokalee Road, Naples, FL 34119 August 22, 2019 at 6 pm Summary of Meeting A table was set up at the entry door where attendees were asked to sign in (sign in sheets attached as Exhibit 1). There was also a handout for attendees showing the permitted uses of the property (Exhibit 2). The meeting was called to order at approximately 6 pm by Richard Yovanovich, who introduced himself as the attorney for the project. He also introduced others on the team: John Garbo, representing the purchaser; Tom Barber, the Professional Planner; and Dominick Amico, Professional Engineer. He suggested that any questions specific to water management could be answered by Dom Amico; questions regarding operational safeguards that will be taken could be answered by Tom Barber. Mr. Yovanovich then explained how the Collier County Land Development Code requires any project going through the County to have a Neighborhood Information Meeting where surrounding neighbors (500 ft) of the project are mailed a notice and it’s published in the newspaper. The purpose of the NIM is explain the project and to allow those neighbors to ask questions, give feedback, and adjustments made as appropriate. Mr. Yovanovich introduced the two representatives from Collier County: Sue Faulkner, the Planner who is reviewing the Growth Management Plan Amendment; and Tim Finn, the Planner who is reviewing the PUD Rezone Petition. Mr. Yovanovich provided a brief overview of how the NIM would be handled: brief overview and then open it up to questions. He explained that it has to be recorded, so asked people not to talk over each other. He said that the team would identify themselves when they speak for the record. He said the public could identify themselves if they wanted to, but it is not a requirement. Mr. Yovanovich explained there are two petitions going through this process. One is a small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. The property is less than 10 acres (referred to the yellow shaded parcel in Exhibit 3 attached hereto). He then referred to Exhibit 4 while explaining that the parcel is immediately adjacent to what Collier County calls Activity Centers, which are 37 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 2 generally located at the major intersections of roads, this one being at the I-75 interchange and Immokalee Road. Collier County designated the four quadrants around that interchange as activity centers. That means that’s where the County wants the more intense commercial development and more intense residential development to go. This parcel is immediately adjacent to the activity center. Mr. Yovanovich then generally explained the types of uses (office and residential) that would be available for this parcel under the existing comprehensive plan. Our project is asking for a small-scale comprehensive plan to allow for the office uses that are currently allowed and also to allow for a luxury automobile dealership to go on the site (details for rezone for this would be discussed). He stated that this is Sue Faulkner’s petition, so comments would go to her for this petition. The second petition is to rezone the property to the commercial planned unit development zoning district. In the commercial planned unit development district, we identify the uses we want to put on the property, the development standards and identify the intensity of what’s going to go on that property. Mr. Yovanovich referred to the Master Plan (Exhibit 5) and said that we’re asking for an automobile dealership and the typical accessory uses that go with an automobile dealership. He stated that it will be a luxury automobile dealership and that Co llier County is unique in their road impact fee ordinance. Collier County has a different calculation for “regular cars” and “luxury cars” because luxury car dealerships attract less people to the property and it’s a lower intensity use than a normal car dealership. He said most people know what they want, they come and look at it, and they buy it. There’s not a lot of in and out and just walking around doing “window shopping.” So, we’re asking for a luxury automobile dealership on this property which would include service, very limited used cars or trade-ins. The use on this property would be luxury automobile dealership. Mr. Yovanovich then referred to Exhibit 6 (Illustrative Site Plan with Cross Sections) and showed where the preserve area will be on the south end of the property and explained where the sales showroom, service and indoor parking will be on top of the service area. It was explained there will be a Type B Buffer along three sides and a Type D Buffer along the road at the front of the property (typical buffers when you’re adjacent to commercial properties). The preserve will serve as the buffer to the south, which is wider than 25 feet. The County requires that lighting be shielded so that it doesn’t spill off the property, which is a concern for adjacent residential properties. This will be taken care of in the required development standards. We’re not asking for any deviations from the Collier County Land Development Code. We’re focusing our real uses – the perimeter to the north, adjacent to the already existing commercial uses and referred to the parcels surrounding this parcel (Walmart, the undeveloped parcel on the other side, etc.). Mr. Yovanovich advised that Tim Finn is in charge of the rezone petition and referred the public to him for further questions. He also referred to Tom Barber and Dom Amico and said they will provide their contact information for further questions and information. Mr. Yovanovich 38 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 3 stated that the purpose of this meeting is to take the public through this process. Germain Automotive is the purchaser of the project, so the public should be aware of their quality of dealerships. He referred to the elevation rendering (Exhibit 7) of what we think the dealership might look like and said it will be architecturally and aesthetically pleasing from Immokalee Road. Other operational standards: required to keep the doors to service closed other than to go in and out. He assured that there are safeguards in place to make sure they won’t be a noisy neighbor. He mentioned that he has the traffic impact statement with him should anyone have any questions and would like to ask him while they’re there. Mr. Yovanovich ended the overview of the project and opened it up to questions from the public. Q: [Unidentified person] What are the hours of the business? A: [Tom Barber] Sales - Monday through Saturday, 8 am to 9 pm; Service - Monday through Saturday, 7 am to 6 pm; Sales and Service – Sunday, 10 am to 6 pm Q: [John Cobb, owner in ______ Palms to the west of the parcel] Will there be any late-night deliveries? Any tractor trailers coming in and delivering cars late a night? A: [Dominick Amico, Agnoli, Barber & Brundage] It doesn’t currently happen at any of their dealerships. There won’t be anyone there to receive the cars. A: [Rich Yovanovich] Referred to Exhibit 3 and told Mr. Cobb that the lot adjacent to where he lives is not part of this acquisition. Q: [Unidentified person] Are you asking for a variance already or have you already been approved for what you want to build? A: [Yovanovich] No, we have not been approved. We’re going through the process now to get the permission to ask for the dealership and then to rezone the property for the dealership. This is part of the approval process. Q: [Unidentified person] I’m concerned about the lighting. If you get approved on yours, the next lot that is not owned yet, or has not been sold yet, what’s to prevent them from putting up another dealership like yours with even more lights? That’s what we’re concerned with. A: [Yovanovich] The process that will have to occur will be the same process that we’re going through now. They would have to go through a public hearing process and ask the Board of County Commissioners to change the comprehensive plan and also get a PUD Rezone. The way you get through this process with Collier County is both petitions require a super majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners – there are five Commissioners, so 39 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 4 we have to get four of the five Commissioners to support our petition. I’ve been doing this for a while; my – no guarantee, but if I was a betting man - if this becomes a car dealership, I don’t like the chances of this one also getting that same approval from the County Commission. If I were handicapping it, I don’t think I’d win. I don’t think there’s much of a risk of this being a domino effect. Q: [Unidentified person] You don’t think you’re going to disturb our peaceful quality of life for coming home from work and just want to relax and not hear the commotion , loud speakers, lights in the sky…. A: [Yovanovich] No, the answer to your question is no. A: [Amico] I’ve done all of Germain’s modern dealerships: BMW, Lincoln, Lexus, Toyota, Honda, and they don’t even have a PA system anymore. Everybody carries these [holding up a cell phone]. They don’t broadcast through the parking lot. That will be a restriction on our PUD – no amplified sound outside. A. [Yovanovich] One of our operational prohibitions in the PUD is no amplified sound. There will not be a PA system. Q: [Unidentified person] We live across the street in Carlton Lakes (directly in front of your building). Our main concern is traffic issues. Even coming here today, it seemed like December traffic. There’s just so much traffic. I can understand when you put your Honda establishment at Pine Ridge and Livingston; that’s a major intersection with multiple four- lane roads and you can go in and out. This thing is congested. Plus, we have the Seed to Table in November which is going in over there which is touted as the Disneyland of this area with multiple restaurants and they’re hoping for a thousand people coming. It’s going to create major traffic jams, especially when the snowbirds come, and I know you talked about somebody did a study with it. I know that just from the Carlton Lakes Association talking to the Seed to Table people and Collier County, there were problems with all of the traffic that’s going to be coming in and out, especially going into our facility/place. Just on Immokalee Road and just on Livingston, I can’t believe it’s going to be good. A: [Amico] A little information. When we did the rezone for Honda, what I learned was that the average car buyer makes one trip to the dealership. He takes seven or eight trips to the dealership on the Internet. The Internet experience with regard to buying cars is like all there is anymore. You don’t have to take my word for it. Just go to a dealership on the web, and the first thing that pops up is an Internet salesman. As far as the other uses that could go here, the traffic is going to be small …. 40 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 5 Q: [Unidentified person] (Interrupted asking about doing a traffic study) A: [Yovanovich] Let me explain about a traffic study… Q: [Unidentified person] No, I mean that doesn’t make any difference because it’s going to change. It’s going to change in November… A: [Yovanovich] Well the traffic studies that we do, we are required to use – the County does trip counts every year on all their roads and they develop what’s called an AUIR (I forget what that stands for) for all of its infrastructure including roads, so they do trip counts during the peak season. So, we’re required to use the peak season trip count in our traffic study and then we use what’s called an ITE manual that studies how many people come and go from our dealerships during the peak, and we have to put those peak hours trips from the ITE manual onto the County’s counted peak hour peak season trips. So, our traffic study is based upon the peak hour, peak season. We don’t go out in the dead of summer and count trips which that would be much lower than you would find during peak season and do our traffic study that way. We’re required to use peak hour peak season trip generation when we’re doing our traffic study. That’s what we’ve done. County staff reviews the trip analysis and they either confirm we did it correctly or they say we didn’t do it correctly. They will then look at those trips and look at what is the adopted level of service or capacity on Immokalee Road, and if we create a failure on Immokalee Road because we’re putting too many trips on Immokalee Road during peak season peak hour, we will not get a permit. So, we go through a very detailed review/traffic analysis in peak season peak hour trip generation. Q: [Unidentified person] I live in Livingston Lakes. At the end of your buffer zone is Butler Lake Drive. On here [referring to mailed notice], you have it as “Buffer” “B-u-f-f-e-r” and I just thought if we are ever concerned about it, it’s not the right name on the map. It says “Buffer.” A: [Yovanovich] It says “Butler Lake Drive” here (refereing to mailed notice of NIM). I apologize if we misspelled it on another exhibit. This is the preserve, you don’t ever have to worry about anything being developed in the preserve. Q: [Unidentified person] Could I get clarification regarding the unloading of cars. You said you won’t have any? A: [Unidentified person] Not during outside of hours A: [Amico] Not during closed hours. 41 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 6 A: [Yovanovich] The deliveries will be during the typical business hours. I think the question was will we have any late-night deliveries, and the answer is no. There are deliveries that will happen… Q: [Unidentified person] The second question is will there be any curb cuts in the median to get to the dealership? A: [Yovanovich] Everything is a right-in, right-out off Immokalee Road – no curb cuts. There will be no directional left to get in; there will be no way to go west out of this site. There will just be right-in, right-out. Q: [Unidentified person] You guys don’t realize how horrible the traffic is. A: [Yovanovich] Yeah, I think we do. We all live here. [inaudible…multiple people talking at once] This dealership will generate less traffic than if someone were to come in and do a multi-family project on that site. Q: [Unidentified person] How will that affect our value of our homes? A: [Yovanovich] I don’t think it will have an impact … Q: [Unidentified person] [inaudible…] was a study… Putting your dealership, how does that directly affect our home values right next to you? A: [Yovanovich] I can tell you that living in Collier County, you will see very well priced homes next to car dealerships. Q: [Unidentified person] Can you give me an example? A: [Yovanovich] I think the BMW dealership is right behind Collier’s Reserve. Q: [Unidentified person] That’s across the street? A: [Yovanovich] No that’s behind it. You have the shopping center in which the dealership is in immediately adjacent to Collier’s Reserve. You’ll see a lot of high-end real estate in Collier County immediately adjacent to commercial development without an impact on the value of property. Q: [Unidentified person] Are there buffers, trees, lakes … 42 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 7 A: [Yovanovich] Absolutely. We’ll be doing all the same thing. We’ll have buffers… Q: [Unidentified person] All the way around? A: [Yovanovich] Yes, sir. [points to the site plan exhibit and indicates where the buffers will be located and the preserve]. We’ll have appropriate buffers, and remember, you’re not next to the dealership; you’ll have this lot right here. Q: [Unidentified person] I just want to ask; you talk about the traffic study and everything. Everything is going to be impacted completely differently in this area when Oaks Farm opens. It’s going to be a massive change for all of us because of the traffic from it. Is this survey going to be done, as far as the traffic survey, is it [inaudible] than last year, or is it going to be done during the peak of season after it opens? A: [Yovanovich] The way the County works is you grow the traffic that exists on the road […..inaudible because of chairs moving around] that you have to grow annually [inaudible] and project out how much more traffic is going to be on that road when you do your study. So, that’s been factored in. Q: [Unidentified person] Which luxury car is it? A: [Yovanovich] I’m not at liberty to tell you the dealership at this time, but it will be a luxury dealership. Q: [Unidentified person] Their luxuries are BMW, Lexus, and what was the other one? A: [Yovanovich] There are a lot of luxury cars out there, so there are a bunch of opportunities. Q: [Unidentified person] I’m a resident of Livingston Lakes. I’m just wondering what is going to be the environmental impact of taking out all of those trees and putting all that asphalt? I’m concerned about all of the animals that live there, like the bears. [inaudible – multiple people talking] A: [Yovanovich] Another document that we’re required to do – and all of this is on the Collier County website – we’re required to do an environmental impact statement. Passarella & Associates is the ecologist, or the firm who did the environmental. They walked the site, they looked for listed species, they looked for wetlands, they looked for listed plants. They go through that process and identify if there’s any impact statement to those listed species and then we deal with Collier County, one regulatory [inaudible] that looks at that. Dom 43 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 8 gets to deal with South Florida Water Management District and the Army Corps of Engineers, so that’s the State and Federal agencies that we’re looking at. So, there’s multiple layers of review to determine what impact there will be to bugs and bunnies and critters. Q: [Unidentified person] Okay, and where’s that information located? A: [Yovanovich] It’s on the County website. I don’t have a copy of that report with me, but it’s a detailed analysis … Q: [Unidentified person] I just feel like that’s a lot of green space that is going to be turned into asphalt. A: [Yovanovich] And we are going to need to require retention of the green space that’s in the Collier County Land Development Code. Q: [Unidentified person] Isn’t that where the homeless camp is? On that property? A: [Yovanovich] I drive by it, but …. [interrupted by speaker] [multiple speaking/discussion] Q: [Unidentified person] I just want to know if there’s going to be lit signage in front of the building. A: [Amico] I’m trying to think of the luxury dealers we have now: BMW does not, Lexus does not, Lincoln does not. I can’t tell you yes or no for sure, but … Q: [Unidentified person] Because right now we have the berm, and we have trees and stuff like that, but we see the trees that you’re going to take out. A: [Amico] If there is a lit sign, and I’m not saying there’s going to be, it’s going to orient towards Immokalee Road not towards Livingston Lakes. [inaudible discussion amongst public] Q: [Unidentified person] Repeat the question. A: [Yovanovich] The question was, “Are there going to be any lit signs identifying the dealership,” and Dom basically said the dealerships that they have right now don’t have lit signs. That doesn’t mean there won’t be one, but there are regulations in the County sign code that require that and deals with that as well, and we’re not asking for any deviation 44 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9 from that. But, if other competition is an indicator, lit signs is not a priority for luxury car dealerships. Q: [Unidentified person] Three quickies: rooftop storage of cars. A: [Yovanovich] [Referring to one of the site plans and the placement of the showroom and service areas]. Q: [Unidentified person] The proper rendition shows a parapet on the front of the building that blocks the majority of the cars. Will there be a similar parapet protecting the people that are behind from seeing those cars on the second level? Q: [Unidentified person] [inaudible] Because from there, I walk Livingston Lakes. And there I can see the extra storage space and stuff, so I’m just concerned too that vegetation and preserve space that you have there, it’s not going to be enough kind of to block everything from over there. From our side our community, I can see the other buildings if I walk to the far end across the outer perimeter. I just don’t feel like that’s enough space… A: [Amico] There are concept plans. That detail really hasn’t been worked out yet, as far as the parapet wall in the back. Q: [Unidentified person] Is there a reason why you’d have something different in the back than you’d have in the front for aesthetics? A: [Amico] The front ones are probably there to hide the air conditioning units. They’re required to do that when you have your air conditioning units on the roof. And, to make a more attractive storefront. A: [Yovanovich] We understand that the comment is, I’m assuming you would like to see if we can extend the parapet up so you don’t see cars on the top of the second floor. We’ll obviously bring that to – John Garbo’s heard it, so we’ll bring that back to our client and we’ll talk about that … Q: [Unidentified person] Those cars will be 16’ above grade, thereby more visible from the neighboring area residential than anything else. My other question is to the Planner, and I’m sorry, at the introduction I may have been a little bit confused. One of you is working on the zoning, which is the larger request. Is that you, Tim? A: [Yovanovich] Yes, that’s Tim. 45 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 10 Q: [Unidentified person] Can you explain to us people that may not know your business, you approve based on the highest and best use of the real estate, correct? That’s not a trick question. [laughter] A: [Yovanovich] I can tell you in my experience going through the process that that’s not correct. A: [Sue Faulkner] Tim and I are not the approvers of the project. We can recommend to the elected officials that we think it might be something they would want to approve, but the only people in the entire County that can approve a project are your elected officials and the Board of County Commissioners. Q: [Unidentified person] Thank you, but my understanding of what you just said is you are basically employees of the city or whatever … A: [Faulkner] County… Q: [Unidentified person] that would go back. In light of that, if in fact 40 or 50 homeowners were against this concept, in the ones that you’ve seen being County employees, how often do you see something like this not go through, and, if so, why? And what do the homeowners do in that case? A: [Faulkner] I’ve seen both approvals and disapprovals by public comments being made. You never can tell exactly what is going to influence the Commissioners’ vote and how they will vote. We never try to second guess that. But we can look at what we are basing our recommendations on, which is our experience plus what we work with. In my case, I work with the growth management plan amendments with that growth management plan in front of me. And, I’m looking for things that aren’t consistent that would not make sense with that document. In Tim’s case, you can speak for yourself… A: [Tim Finn] Yeah, I look at all the codes and whatever documentation I can verify – what our codes do allow and what they don’t allow and I make a professional judgment on whether or not to recommend approval or approval with conditions or I reject it. [inaudible – talking over each other] Q: [Unidentified person] In light of your question about 40 or 50 homeowners, can this be re- held in November when more people … 46 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 11 A: [Faulkner] It’s not necessary because the two meetings that are in front of the two different governing bodies. The first is the Planning Commission and those are folks that that is their whole job to review development plans coming in and make recommendations again to the Board of County Commissioners. That body meets all of the time, but this particular meeting is unlikely to take place prior to the seasonal people being back, and it is a public hearing. So, therefore, you’re able to come and speak at that meeting and talk directly to the Commissioners of the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners – or both. Q: [Unidentified person] When is that? A: [Faulkner] We don’t have a schedule for this particular… A: [Yovanovich] If I’m going to project out, we’re already basically into September. I have to go to the Planning Commission first. I don’t even have …. I have to respond to comments from staff. My guess is that it will be in the January to March timeframe that we’re in front of the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. So, it will be during the season. If I’m projecting out, and I’m pretty good at knowing …. A: [Faulkner] And I think that’s what I think Tim and I would guess as well based on where we are right now today. And we have two public hearings with those meetings, so there’s plenty of opportunity to speak again and be heard by the people who are going to make those recommendations final and recommend them to the Board of County Commissioners who will make the decision. Q: [Unidentified person] Does Germain actually own the property today? A: [Yovanovich] They have it under contract. Q: [Unidentified person] Are there other suitable sites in Collier County that they’re pursuing for this luxury automobile dealership than just this site? A: [Yovanovich] My understanding is right now that this is the site. There’s not a lot of opportunities in Collier County that fit the description and make sense for a luxury dealership. Q: [Unidentified person] In line with his question, is it pending or is it complete? A: [Yovanovich] I told you it’s under contract; it hasn’t been closed yet. 47 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 671 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 12 Mr. Yovanovich asked if there were any other questions. When no one spoke, he thanked everyone for their time. He announced that if you received a notice about this meeting, you’ll get a notice about the Planning Commission meeting. There will also be signs up along Immokalee Road letting you know when the Planning Commission hearing is and the Board of County Commissioners meeting is. There will also be an ad in the newspaper. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:35 pm. This meeting was audio recorded by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage; a copy of which has been provided to the County. The meeting summary was also prepared by Agnoli, Barber & Brundage. 48 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 672 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 1 49 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 673 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 50 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 674 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Petitions PL20190000451 & PL20190000454 Planned Unit Development & Growth Management Plan Amendment Parcel No. 00198040008 Permitted Uses The Germain Immokalee CPUD shall be developed as a commercial use project, which will include a Luxury automotive sales facility with associated repair services, limited to 30,000 SF Gross Floor Area (GFA). A. Principal Uses: 1. Luxury Motor vehicle dealers (new and used); SIC Code Group 5511 2. Any other principal use which is comparable in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as determined by Hearing Examiner or the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) by the process outlined in the LDC. B. Accessory Uses: 1. Motor Vehicle Dealers, Used Only (Group 5521) 2. Automotive Exhaust System Repair Shops (Group 7533) 3. Tire Repair Shops, not including Tire retreading (Group 7534) 4. Automotive Glass Replacement Shops (Group 7536) 5. Automotive Transmission Repair Shops (Group 7537) 6. General Automotive Repair Shops (Group 7538) 7. Automotive Repair Shops, Not Elsewhere Classified (Group 7539) 8. Automotive Parking for vehicular storage for new and used sales only (Group 7521) 9. Car wash, subject to the provisions of LDC Section 5.05.11. 10. Uses and Structures that are accessory and incidental to an automotive sales facility. 11. Display of new and used automobiles for sale, provided it does not adversely affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic or public health. Vehicle display is prohibited within any required landscape buffer, and allowed within front, side and rear yard setbacks EXHIBIT 2 51 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 675 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 3 52 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 676 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain EXHIBIT 4 53 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 677 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain EXHIBIT 5 54 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 678 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain EXHIBIT 6 55 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 679 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain EXHIBIT 7 56 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 680 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Germain Immokalee Road – GMPA/PUDZ – TIS – July 2019 Trebilcock Consulting Solutions, PA P a g e | 15 57 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 681 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 58 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 682 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 59 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 683 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 2 • The Project site contains potential habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife species including Eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), wood stork (Mycteria americana), Big Cypress fox squirrel (Sciurus niger avicennia), and Florida bonneted bat (Eumops floridanus). • Specific surveys may be required to refute use of the site by red-cockaded woodpecker, Big Cypress fox squirrel, and Florida bonneted bat. • Potential environmental permitting and compensatory mitigation costs include items listed in the following table. Activity Description Opinion of Probable Cost1 Environmental Permitting and Consulting Environmental consulting costs in support of all permit entitlements including County PUD, SFWMD ERP, and Corps permit. Includes consultation with the USFWS and species-specific surveys for bonneted bat and red- cockaded woodpecker. $75,000.00± Wetland Mitigation Bank 5 UMAM for direct and off-site secondary wetland impacts at $90,000 per credit $450,000.00± Total $525,000.00± 1These findings are based on the Project’s theoretical impacts to all uplands and wetlands. Assumes no cost for on-site mitigation including exotic removal, monitoring, reporting, and perpetual maintenance. Assumes compensatory mitigation for threatened and endangered species will be covered by wetland mitigation bank purchase. ERP – Environmental Resource Permit PUD – Planned Unit Development SFWMD – South Florida Water Management District USFWS – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UMAM – Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology Vegetation Communities Vegetation mapping for the property was conducted using November 2016 rectified color aerials. Groundtruthing of the vegetative communities was conducted on February 28, 2018 utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS) Level IV.1 Level IV FLUCFCS was utilized to denote hydrological conditions and disturbances. To identify levels of exotic infestation (i.e., melaleuca (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)), “E” codes were used. AutoCAD Map 3D 2017 software was then used to 1Florida Department of Transportation. 1999. Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System. Procedure No. 550-010-001-a. Third Edition. 60 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 684 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 3 determine the acreage of each mapping area, produce summaries, and generate the FLUCFCS map for the Project site (Exhibit 2). A brief description of the vegetation communities identified within each FLUCFCS Code follows: Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (0-24% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1) The upland habitat contains a canopy of slash pine (Pinus elliottii), earleaf acacia (Acacia auriculiformis), melaleuca, dahoon holly (Ilex cassine), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, earleaf acacia, and cocoplum (Chrysobalanus icaco). The ground cover consists of cabbage palm, Brazilian pepper, myrsine (Myrsine cubana), greenbrier (Smilax sp.), sawgrass (Cladium jamaicense), and muscadine grape (Vitus rotundifolia). Pine Flatwoods, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 4119 E2) The upland habitat has the same vegetation composition as FLUCFCS Code 4119 E1, but with a higher percentage cover of exotics. Melaleuca, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4241) This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy stratum of melaleuca, laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), slash pine, and earleaf acacia. The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm and Brazilian pepper. The ground cover consists of swamp fern (Blechnum serrulatum), sawgrass, and myrsine. Cypress, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2) This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy of bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), earleaf acacia, and melaleuca. The sub-canopy contains cabbage palm. The ground cover consists of buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis) and swamp fern. Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2) This potential wetland habitat contains a canopy of slash pine, melaleuca, and cabbage palm. The sub-canopy consists of dahoon holly and cabbage palm. The ground cover consists of sawgrass, gulfdune paspalum (Paspalum monostachyum), saltbush (Baccharis halimifolia), and rosy camphorweed (Pluchea baccharis). Pine, Hydric, Disturbed (50-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6259 E3) The potential wetland habitat has the same vegetation composition as FLUCFCS Code 6259 E2, but with a higher percentage cover of exotics. Road (FLUCFCS Code 814) Immokalee Road, including cleared and filled portions of the right-of-way, exists on the north side of the Project. 61 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 685 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 4 Jurisdictional Wetlands To assess the current extent of wetlands on the Project, the site was reviewed for both state and federal jurisdiction using the Florida Department of State “Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters”2 and the Corps “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0).”3 Based on the preliminary site review, approximately 5.85 acres or 63 percent of the parcel may be considered SFWMD and Corps jurisdictional wetlands (Exhibit 2). The potential wetland area consists of Melaleuca, Hydric (FLUCFCS Code 4241); Cypress, Disturbed (25-49% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Code 6219 E2); and Hydric Pine, Disturbed (25-75% Exotics) (FLUCFCS Codes 6259 E2 and E3). A large area of wetlands was observed to extend off-site to the west. A small amount of wetlands also extends off-site into a native preserve area located on the southeast side of the Project The property does not contain any areas that would likely be claimed as “other surface waters” (OSWs) by the SFWMD. A determination with the regulatory agencies to verify the current status of wetland jurisdiction was not within the scope of this assessment. Based on review of SFWMD permit files, lands to the east were previously identified to contain jurisdictional wetlands that bordered the Project (Exhibit 3). Assertion of wetland jurisdiction by the Corps is subject to the Corps Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook 4 (Guidebook) and supplementary guidance from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps titled Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States 5 (Guidance). Please note that the Corps released a revised guidance in draft form in April 2011, but the revised guidance has not been finalized to date. The Guidebook and supplementary Guidance states that the Corps will assert jurisdiction over the following categories of water bodies: – Traditional navigable waters; – Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; – Non-navigable, “relatively permanent waters” (i.e., have continuous flow at least seasonally) tributaries of traditional navigable waters; and – Wetlands that directly abut non-navigable, relatively permanent tributaries. 2Florida Department of State. 2010. Delineation of the Landward Extent of Wetlands and Surface Waters. Chapters 62-340, F.A.C. 3U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-10-20. 4U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. 5U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following The U.S. Supreme Court Decision In Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. 62 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 686 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 5 The Cocohatchee Canal located on the north side of the Project is considered jurisdictional by the Corps and meets the current definition of a Relatively Permanent Water (RPW) that is a tributary of traditional navigable waters. There was no evidence of either culverts or a direct surface water connection between wetlands identified on the Project and the Cocohatchee Canal. Since the Corps will have to determine a “significant nexus” to the Cocohatchee Canal or other tributaries to traditional navigable waters, it is unclear whether the existing wetlands on the property will be considered within the Corps’ jurisdiction. Jurisdiction of wetlands by the Corps will need to be determined by submission of an application to the Corps. Based on review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) Soils Survey for Collier County 6 and the Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook,7 the subject property is mapped as containing Unit 11 – Hallandale fine sand, a non-hydric soil; hydric soil types identified as Unit 14 – Pineda fine sand, limestone substratum; and Unit 21 – Boca fine sand (Exhibit 4). Areas mapped as hydric soil units correspond with the observed location of wetland vegetation communities. Wetlands Permitting An Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) will be required for SFWMD wetland impacts and a federal Dredge and Fill Permit may be required for Corps wetland impacts. The need for a Corps permit is dependent on a jurisdictional determination. The applicant will need to demonstrate to both the state and federal agencies that wetland impacts were first avoided as much as possible, and then minimized where feasible. The remaining unavoidable wetland impacts will require mitigation. The agencies will also consider secondary and cumulative impacts to wetlands as a result of the Project. Secondary impacts include: violations of water quality standards, adverse impacts to wetland functions, impacts to uplands utilized for nesting or denning by wetland-dependent listed animal species, impacts to historical and archaeological resources, and additional phases or activities closely linked to the proposed system. Water quality standards may be addressed in the design of the surface water management system. Adverse impacts to wetland functions may be addressed through preservation of historic wetland flow-ways and structural or upland buffers adjacent to the preserved wetlands. Impacts to uplands utilized by wetland-dependent listed species may be addressed through compliance with listed species guidelines established by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), or through appropriate mitigation measures. In addition to secondary impacts, impacts to wetlands on the property must not cause unacceptable cumulative impacts upon wetlands and OSWs within the same drainage basin as the regulated activity for which a permit is sought. If wetland impacts are proposed, a cumulative 6Soils Conservation Service. 1998. Soil Survey of Collier County Area, Florida. 7Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists. 1995. (Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook, Second Edition). Victor W. Carlisle Ed. 63 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 687 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 6 impact analysis may be required as part of the SFWMD permit. Cumulative impacts will be reviewed based on impacts to water quality and functions of wetlands. Unacceptable cumulative impacts may be avoided if the Project results in minimal or no wetland impacts and if mitigation fully offsets all direct and secondary wetland impacts within the Project boundary or elsewhere within the drainage basin. The SFWMD will review the Project’s effects on historic basin and floodplain storage. Provisions must be made to replace or mitigate the loss of basin storage provided by the Project site. Basin storage issues should be reviewed with a professional engineer experienced with water management system design and construction criteria. The SFWMD will require that a Uniform Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM) analysis be conducted for the wetland impacts and mitigation areas, and the Corps will require that a UMAM or Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure (WRAP) analysis be conducted for the wetland impacts and mitigation areas. Through the UMAM and the WRAP analyses, it will need to be demonstrated that the loss in wetland functions due to the proposed impacts will be offset by a similar increase in wetland functions resulting from the proposed mitigation. Depending on the development size and location, some SFWMD wetland mitigation credit could be generated by granting a conservation easement over Project lands and agreeing to implement a perpetual maintenance plan to control exotic and nuisance plants. If a Corps permit is required, it is unlikely the permittee will be able to provide any wetland mitigation on Project lands. Corps mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts will most likely require a credit purchase at a regional wetland mitigation bank. Federal wetland mitigation credits at a regional mitigation bank are currently costing up to $90,000 per credit. Wetland credit pricing is subject to supply and demand and may have periodic limited availability. A rough estimation of mitigation need is one credit per one and one-half to two acres of permitted wetland impact. A wetland functional assessment of an assumed permittable impact would be required to determine Project specific wetland credit value. The “Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I”8 identifies the rivulus (Rivulus marmoratus), American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis), American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), tri- colored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), wood stork, bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Big Cypress fox squirrel, and Florida bonneted bat as wetland- dependent listed wildlife species. Potential impacts to these species as a result of the Project will need to be addressed through the SFWMD permitting process. Through protection of nesting sites and preservation and management of forested wetlands, it may be demonstrated that the Project will not adversely affect wetland-dependent listed wildlife species. 8Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Northwest Florida, Suwanee River, St. Johns River, Southwest Florida, and South Florida Water Management Districts. 2013. Environmental Resource Permit Applicant’s Handbook Volume I (General and Environmental); 143 pp. 64 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 688 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 7 Listed Species A cursory listed species survey was conducted on the property to determine whether the Project site is being utilized by wildlife species listed by the USFWS and/or the FWCC as threatened, endangered, or species of special concern. No listed wildlife species were observed on the Project site during the February 28, 2018 assessment. A review of FWCC documented occurrences of listed species was also conducted. According to the FWCC, historic records of red-cockaded woodpeckers have been reported within 0.5 mile of the Project site (Exhibit 5). Specific surveys for red-cockaded woodpeckers may be required if a Corps permit is required for the Project. The Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies 9 was referenced for the location of breeding colonies of both listed and non-listed wading birds including, but not limited to, the snowy egret, roseate spoonbill, little blue heron, wood stork, and tri-colored heron. There was no reference to breeding rookeries located on or adjacent to the property. The FWCC database for wading bird rookeries shows no rookeries within two miles of the property. The USFWS Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species 10 for the wood stork recognizes a 30 kilometer (18.6 mile) zone surrounding a colony boundary as a core foraging area (CFA). According to the FWCC data, one wood stork colony exists within 30 kilometers of the site and therefore, the Project site is within a CFA (Exhibit 6). The property provides marginal habitat that may be used for foraging by wood storks during the wet season. If future development of wetlands is proposed, mitigation may be required to offset impacts to wood stork foraging habitat. On-site wetland habitat preservation and wetland mitigation credit purchase at a regional mitigation bank will provide wood stork foraging habitat value that can be used to help compensate for required wood stork foraging habitat. The Project includes suitable habitat for the Eastern indigo snake. No Eastern indigo snakes were observed during the assessment in the Project area. Eastern indigo snakes are often closely associated with gopher tortoises (Gopherus polyphemus) and gopher tortoise burrows. No gopher tortoises or gopher tortoise burrows were observed within the Project area during the assessment. Suitable foraging and nesting habitat for the Big Cypress fox squirrel is found within the Project area. No Big Cypress fox squirrels were observed during the assessment of the Project area. The Big Cypress fox squirrel is listed as State-Designated Threatened by the FWCC. The Project area contains habitat that may contain regulated plants as defined by the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC) and Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Chapter 5B- 40. Potential regulated plants include butterfly orchid (Encyclia tampensis) and wild pine 9Runde, D.E. et al. 1991. Florida Atlas of Breeding Sites for Herons and Their Allies. Update 1986-1989. Division of Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife Section, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Tallahassee, FL. 10U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Draft Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species Wood Storks. South Florida Ecological Services Office. 65 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 689 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) Mr. Dominick Amico March 8, 2018 Page 8 (Tillandsia sp.). Regulated wild pine observed in the Project area included stiff-leaved wild pine (T. fasciculata). Plants regulated by the Collier County LDC may be required to be relocated into designated on-site preserves as a condition of development approval. Listed Species Permitting The Imperiled Species Management section in the Division of Habitat and Species Conservation of the FWCC may consult with the state agency responsible for issuing state water quality certification for the the Project, typically the SFWMD. The state listed species that may be consulted on by the FWCC include Eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise, Florida bonneted bat, and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Consultation between the FWCC and the SFWMD will run concurrently with the permit processing and typically concludes with a requirement for pre- construction surveys to document the presence or absence of nest sites. If active nest sites are identified, then agency guidelines will need to be followed. Agency permit review for listed species will center on species that are federally listed in addition to being state listed. If federal wetland jurisdiction is established, the Corps will be the lead federal agency in the permitting process. The Corps will consult with the USFWS on threatened and endangered species. The USFWS consultation may include the threatened Eastern indigo snake, threatened wood stork, threatened red-cockaded woodpecker, and endangered Florida bonneted bat if they will be affected by the actions of the Project. The USFWS may require the construction activity to adhere to the Standard Protection Measures for the Eastern indigo snake. The Standard Protection Measures typically require the distribution of informational posters and pamphlets advising construction personnel to avoid any direct contact with Eastern indigo snakes. Mitigation provided to offset wetland impacts will provide some foraging habitat for wood storks. A foraging habitat analysis is required to determine if wetland compensation will be sufficient to compensate for the loss of wood stork foraging habitat. The purchase of additional wetland mitigation bank credits can be used to offset any remaining foraging deficit. If mitigation is required, the USFWS will require type-for-type wetland compensation be provided. Surveys may be required to document the presence/absence of the red-cockaded woodpecker, Florida bonneted bat, and Big Cypress fox squirrel. Project construction may be conditioned with protective measures to avoid adverse risk to these species. Protective measures may include implementation of pre-construction surveys and buffers for active nest sites. Summary A review of current wetland conditions identified approximately 5.85 acres or approximately 63 percent of the Project area as potential SFWMD and Corps jurisdictional wetlands. 66 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 690 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 67 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 691 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP 68 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 692 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATEOOAAKKMMOONNTTPPKKWWYYIIMMPPEERRIIAALLGGOOLLFFCCOOUURRSSEEBBLLVVDDPPRRIINNCCEESSSSCCTTVVEERRDDEEWWAAYYCCIITTRRUUSSLLAAKKEEDDRRMM AA RR SSAALL AAWW AA YY IISSLLAANNDDWWAALLKKCCII RR TTUUPPEELL OORRDD SSTTRRAADDAA PP LLIIBBIISSWWAAYYSSUUMMMMEERRPPLL VVIIKKIINNGG WWAAYY RRIIDDGGEEDDRRLLEEAARRNNIINNGGLLNN ERIE DRERIE DR EE NN CCOORREE WWAAYY GGRROOVVEESSRRDD WICKLIFFE DRWICKLIFFE DR CCOO RRSSOOMMEEDDIITTEERRRRAA CCIIRRKIRTLAND DRKIRTLAND DR ENTRADA AVEENTRADA AVE OO LL DD GG RROOVVEE SSRRDDPPAALLMMRRIIVVEERRBBLLVVDD GGOORRDDOONNI I AARR DDGGRREEEENNTTRREEEEDDRRMMYY RR TT LL EERRDDMMIILL LL PP OO NNDDCC IIRRAASSHHFFOORR DD LL NN VVIINNEEYYAARRDDSSBBLLVVDDTTRREEEELL IINNEE DD RR PPEERRSSIIMMMM OO NN DDRR TTIIBBUURROONNDDRR WWEESSTT SS TT 111TH AVE N111TH AVE N110TH AVE N110TH AVE N109TH AVE N109TH AVE N108TH AVE N108TH AVE N 106TH AVE N106TH AVE N105TH AVE N105TH AVE N104TH AVE N104TH AVE N TARPON BAY BLVDTARPON BAY BLVD103RD AVE N103RD AVE N102ND AVE N102ND AVE N101ST AVE N101ST AVE N100TH AVE N100TH AVE N OOLL DDEE CC YYPPRREESSSSDDRR99TH AVE N99TH AVE N98TH AVE N98TH AVE N97TH AVE N97TH AVE N96TH AVE N96TH AVE N95TH AVE N95TH AVE N94TH AVE N94TH AVE N93RD AVE N93RD AVE N92ND AVE N92ND AVE N JOHNNYCAKE DRJOHNNYCAKE DR 91ST AVE N91ST AVE N MADISON DRMADISON DR CCRR EEEE KK SS IIDDEE BBLLVVDD PPHHOOEENNIIXX WWAAYYMENTOR DRMENTOR DR DDEELL AA SS OOLL LLNNOLD 41OLD 41PPEE LLIICC AA NN BBAAYYBBLLVVDD BBRRYYNNWW OOOODDDDRR BB AA YY LLAAUURREELLDDRRVANDERBILT BEACH RDVANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN OAKS LNGOLDEN OAKS LNWINTERVIEW DRWINTERVIEW DRPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRREEENGLISH OAKS LNENGLISH OAKS LNPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRRWWPPOONNDDAAPPPPLLEEDDRRSS AUTUMN OAKS LNAUTUMN OAKS LN HIDDEN OAKS LNHIDDEN OAKS LN BUR OAKS LNBUR OAKS LN SHADY OAKS LNSHADY OAKS LN SPANISH OAKS LNSPANISH OAKS LN STANDING OAKS LNSTANDING OAKS LNTHE LANETHE LANEOLDE CYPRESS BLVDOLDE CYPRESS BLVDTRAIL BLVDTRAIL BLVDBBRRAA SS SSIIEEBBNNDDCCYYPPRREESSSS TT RR AACCEECCIIRRHHIICCKKOORRYYRRDDNNOOTTTTIINNGGHHAAMMDDRR AA RR BB OO RR BBLLVV D D WW IIGGGGIINNSS PPAASSSS RRDD 7TH ST N7TH ST N8TH ST N8TH ST NMM IISS SSIIOO NNDDRR HHII GGHHCCRROOFFTT DDRR TTIIBBUURR OO NN BBLLVVDD EECCYYPPRREESSSSWWAAYYEEPIPER BLVDPIPER BLVD VVAALLEEWWOOOODDDDRRVVIILLLLAAGGEE WW AA LLKK CCIIRR NN OORRTTHHBBRROOOOKKEEDDRRPPEELLIICCAANN MMAARRSSHHBBLLVVDD OAKES BLVDOAKES BLVDSSTTRRAANNDDBBLLVVDDGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NGOODLETTE-FRANK RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NAIRPORT PULLING RD NLLOOGGAANNBBLLVVDDNNLLIIVVIINNGGSSTTOONNRRDDIMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD JJUUNNGGLL EETRLTRL CCOOVVEECCIIRRBBAARR CC AA RRMM II LLWWAAYY BBOOCCAACCIIRR RREEGGEENNTTCCII RR CC OOLLLLII EERRSSRREESS EERRVV EE DDRRWWIINNDDIINN GG OO AA KKSS WW AAYY (/41 ;3EXIT111 §¨¦75 Gulf of Mexico P O L E CROSS IN G RDS AN MARCOD R OIL WELL RD C O RK SCREW RD EVERGLADES BLVD¿À951 ¿À82 ¿À858 ¿À850 ¿À837 ¿À839 ¿À846 ¿À29 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L IER C O L L IER H E N DRYH E N DRY L E E L E E ^^^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^^ ^ ^^ ^ ^ MIAMI TAMPA NAPLES ORLANDO KEY WEST SARASOTA PENSACOLA FORT MYERS VERO BEACH LAKE PLACID PANAMA CITY GAINESVILLE TALLAHASSEE JACKSONVILLE DAYTONA BEACH FORT LAUDERDALE¶ PROJECT LOCATIONSEC 30, TWP 48 S, RNG 26 E EXHIBIT 1. PROJECT LOCATION MAP H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL 69 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 693 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 2 AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS 70 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 694 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 4119E2 (2.57 Ac.±) 814 (0.44 Ac.±) 6259E3 (0.90 Ac.±) 4241 (2.15 Ac.±) 6219E2 (0.28 Ac.±) 6259E2 (2.15 Ac.±) 4241 (0.37 Ac.±) 4119E1 (0.49 Ac.±)J:\2018\18abb2815\2018\PSA\Exhibit 2 Aerial with FLUCFCS and wetlands Map.dwg Tab: 8X11-C TB Mar 08, 2018 - 11:28am Plotted by: DonBSCALE: 1" = 150' DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 DATE DATE 2/27/18 DATE NOTES: AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WITH A FLIGHT DATE OF NOVEMBER 2016. PROPERTY BOUNDARY ESTIMATED FROM THE COLLIER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S GIS WEBSITE. FLUCFCS LINES ESTIMATED FROM 1"=200' AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND LOCATIONS APPROXIMATED. FLUCFCS PER FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCFCS) (FDOT 1999). UPLAND/WETLAND LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE. EXHIBIT 2. AERIAL WITH FLUCFCS AND WETLANDS SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL LEGEND: SFWMD AND COE WETLANDS (5.85 Ac.±) 71 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 695 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 3 GASPAR STATION PUD SECONDARY WETLAND IMPACTS MAP (From SFWMD Permit No. 11-02931-P, Application No. 070315-22) 72 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 696 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 73 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 697 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 4 SOILS MAP 74 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 698 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) COUGAR CT NCOUGAR CT N COUGAR CT SCOUGAR CT S EXPEDITION RDEXPEDITION RD IMMOKALEE RDIMMOKALEE RD SANDRA BAY DRSANDRA BAY DR1111 1414 2121 REVIEWED BY DRAWN BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE            EXHIBIT 4. SOILS MAP H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL 0 75 150Feet ¶ LEGEND  PROJECT LOCATION Soil Unit Description11 HALLANDALE FINE SAND14 PINEDA FINE SAND, LIMESTONE SUBSTRATUM21 BOCA FINE SAND 75 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 699 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 5 DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES 76 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 700 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE                LEGEND  A  !( #* !H  !F  ¶ EXHIBIT 5. DOCUMENTED OCCURRENCES OF LISTED SPECIES H.H. A.W. 2/27/18 2/27/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !(!( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!(!(!( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !(!(!( !( !(!(!( !( !( #* #* !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A AA A A WESTBLVDCRAYTONRDGULFSHOREDRGOODLETTE RD EXTGOLDEN GATE BLVD GREEN BLVDOAKS BLVDRIDGEDRLIVINGSTON RDLOGAN BLVDTERRY S T GOODLETTEFRANKRDOLD US 41VANDERBILT DRAIRPORT-PULLINGRDBONITA BEACH RD PINE RIDGE RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD ¿À951 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L IERC O L L IER L E E L E E PROJECT LOCATION 0 1 2Miles 77 of 809.A.4.d Packet Pg. 701 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) EXHIBIT 6 FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS 78 of 80 9.A.4.d Packet Pg. 702 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) DRAWN BY REVIEWED BY REVISED DATE DATE DATE kj Gulf of Mexico BECK BLVD GREEN BLVDOAKS BLVDRI DGEDRESTEYAV EGULFSHOREBL VDLIVINGSTONRDOIL W E LL RD LOGAN BLVDTHREEOAKSPKWYTERRY ST CRAYTONRDRA TTLES NAK E HA M M OCK RADIO RDVANDERBILT DRDAVIS BLVD PINE RIDGE RDOLD US 41GOLDEN GA TE P K W YGOODLETTE FRANK RDESTERO BLVD BONITA BEACH RD VANDERBILT BEACH RD GOLDEN GATE BLVDAIRPORT-PULLING RD¿À850 ¿À849 ¿À951 ¿À846 (/41 §¨¦75 C O L L IERC O L L IER L E EL E E 0 3 6Miles ¶         LEGEND  kj    EXHIBIT 6. FLORIDA WOOD STORK NESTING COLONIES T.F. A.W. 3/7/18 3/7/18SCHERER TRUST 9± ACRE PARCEL PROJECT LOCATION AND 18.6 MILE CORE FORAGING AREAS 79 of 809.A.4.d Packet Pg. 703 Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 80 of 809.A.4.dPacket Pg. 704Attachment: Attachment C - Back up materials - Application (11804 : Germain Finn From: Sent: To: Frantreremy Thursday, August 22,2019 4:00 PM FaulknerSue; FinnTimothy; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid; SmithCamden; baygenie@verizon.net FW: Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment P12019000045.Subject: Jean, I am rerouting your email to the planners working on these petitions. Respectfully, Jeremy Frantz, AICP Land Development Code Manager From: Jea n Auletta <baygenie@verizon.net> Sent: Thursday, August 22,2079 3:43 PM To: FinnTimothy <Timothy.Finn@colliercountyfl.gov>; FrantzJeremy <Jeremy.Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Planned unit development under PL 2019000045L amendment P12019000045. I am opposed to the planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment pL20L90OOO45. I recently closed on a unit in Livingston Lakes and look forward to moving to Naples in the near future. Since I am currently living out of state, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting August 22 to voice my opposition. I am deeply concerned the property value of Livingston Lakes will be affected as well as the effect on our environment. Regards, Jean Auletta 1514L Palmer Lake Circle unit 203 Livingston Lakes Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to apublic records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 1 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 705 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) FinnTimot From: Sent: To: Subject: Sally, lam rerouting your email to the planners working on these petitions. Respectfully, Jeremy Frantz, AICP La nd Development Code Manager C,TF",County Zonlng DlYlsion Exceeding Expecrollo ns Everydqy 2800 N. Horseshoe Drlve, Noples, tlorldo 34104 Phone: 239.252.2305 www.colllercounl1/fl.oov/ldcqmendmenl3 From: Sally Auletta <sjaulet5T@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:35 PM To: FrantzJeremy <Jeremy. Frantz@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: Planned Unit Development under P120190000451, planned Amendment pL2O19OOOO454 To Jeremy, I am writing as a concerned homeowner at Livingston Lakes. We oppose the planned unit development under P120190000451, planned amendment PL 20190000454. We are referring to the 9 acre parcel recently purchased by the Germain Automotive Group as a dealership. Too much building is ruining our environment and waterways. Building a dealership in our backyard wilr lower our Frantreremy Thursday, August 22, 2019 3:50 PM FinnTimothy; FaulknerSue; WeeksDavid; BellowsRay; SmithCamden; sjaulet5T@gmail.com FW: Planned Unit Development under P120190000451, Planned Amendment p120190000454 Tell us how we ore doing by toking our Zoning Division Suruey of http://bit.lvlcollierzoninq 1 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 706 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) property values and will be aesthetically displeasing. AII of this continual building is affecting the beautification of the area and the charm of Naples itself. We expect you will take our communities concerns into consideration and not move forward with construction of this project. Thank you, Sally Auletta & Bob George 151L4 Palmer Lake Circle, Unit 203 Naples, FL Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contact this office by telephone or in writing. 2 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 707 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: BellowsRay Friday, August 23, 2019 8:52 AM FinnTimothy FW: planned unit development FYI R., Roymond V. Bellows, Zoning Monoger Zoning Division - Zoning Services Section Growth Monogement Deportment Telephone: 239.252.2463, Fox: 239.252.6350 Cotr taty From: Magdy Nashat <magdynashat@hotmail.com> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:52 PM To: BellowsRay <Ray.Bellows@colliercountyfl.gov> Subject: planned unit development Dear Sir/Madam As property owners at Livingston Lakes are opposing the change of the zoning from residential area to car dealership which will have a negative effect on the value of our property. Thanks Amira and Magdy Nashat 15145 Palmer Lake Clrcle#203 Naples FL 34109 USA Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. lf you do not want your e-mail address released in response to apublic records requesl, do not send electronic mail to this entity. lnstead, contacl this office by telephone or in writing. 1 Exceeding expecfolions, every doy! Tell us how we are doing by taking our Zoning Division Survey at httos://goo.gl/exivqT. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 708 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) August 20,2019 Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Subject: PL 20190000451 and P120190000454 Mr. Finn, Kelly & Elizabeth Walker 151 Traymore Lane Rose Valley, PA 19063 My wife and I are seasonal residents with a home at 15185 Butler Lake Drive in the Livingston Lakes Development. We received the notice announcing the Neighborhood lnformation Meeting scheduled for August 22 regarding the land acquired by Germain Automotive Group. Livingston Lakes is a residential development abutting the subject lot of land, and currently enjoys the tranquil and esthetically pleasing natural habitat surrounding us. We object to i rezoning allowing a commercial enterprise abutting residential development. lf the subject property is rezoned and developed as a "car dealership and associated uses,, I can visualize any number of gaudy sales promotion displays such as rotating search lights or miniature tethered airships promoting automobile sales. I can also anticipate the noise of loud speakers or announcing systems associated with an automobile repair or body shop. These activities will, in all likelihood, reduce the desirability of Livingston Lakes as a residential community, as well as the financial value of our existing investment. We would like a residential zoning 6f the abutting land. I am very interested to know what Germain will do with this property and what restrictions can be placed on his development to protect the esthetic visual ambiance and investment made be those of us within Livingston Lakes. My wife and I are seasonal and will not be in residence until early December, so are not able to attend the August 22 meeting. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 709 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Jean Auletta < baygenie@verizon.net> Thursday, August 22,2019 3:43 PM FinnTimothy; FrantzJeremy Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 amendment p12019000045. lam opposed to the planned unit development under pl 20190000451 amendment pL2o19oooo45. I recently closed on a unit in Livingston Lakes and look forward to moving to Naples in the near future. Since I am currently living out of state, unfortunately I will not be able to attend the meeting August 22 to voice my opposition. I am deeply concerned the property value of Livingston Lakes will be affected as well as the effect on our environment. Regards, Jean Auletta 15141 Palmer Lake Circle unit 203 Livingston Lakes 1 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 710 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) August 20, 2019 Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104 Subject: PL 20190000451 and P120190000454 Mr. Finn, Kelly & Elizabeth Walker 151 Traymore Lane Rose Valley, PA 19063 My wife and I are seasonal residents with a home at 15185 Butler Lake Drive in the Livingston Lakes Development. We received the notice announcing the Neighborhood lnformation Meeting scheduled for August 22 regarding the land acquired by Germain Automotive Group. Livingston Lakes is a residential development abutting the subject lot of land, and currently enjoys the tranquil and esthetically pleasing natural habitat surrounding us. We object to i rezoning allowing a commercial enterprise abutting residential development. lf the subiect property is rezoned and developed as a "car dealership and associated uses,, I can visualize any number of gaudy sales promotion displays such as rotating search lights or miniature tethered airships promoting automobile sales. lcan also anticipate the noise of loud speakers or announcing systems associated with an automobile repair or body shop. These activities will, in all likelihood, reduce the desirability of Livingston Lakes as a residential community, as well as the financial value of our existing investment. We would like a residential zoning df the abutting land. I am very interested to know what Germain will do with this property and what restrictions can be placed on his development to protect the esthetic visual ambiance and investment made be those of us within Livingston Lakes. My wife and I are seasonal and will not be in residence until early December, so are not able to attend the August 22 meeting. 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 711 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) August 20, 2019 Mr. Timothy Finn, AICP Principal Planner Zoning Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, FL 341 04 Subject: PL 20190000451 and P120190000454 Mr. Finn, My wife and I are seasonal residents with a home at 15185 Butler Lake Drive in the Livingston Lakes Development. We received the notice announcing the Neighborhood lnformation Meeting scheduled for August 22 regarding the land acquired by Germain Automotive Group. Livingston Lakes is a residential development abutting the subject lot of land, and currently enjoys the tranquil and esthetically pleasing natural habitat surrounding us. We object to a rezoning allowing a commercial enterprise abutting residential development. lf the subject propeny is rezoned and developed as a "car dealership and associated uses', I can visualize any number of gaudy sales promotion displays such as rotating search lights or miniature tethered airships promoting automobile sales. I can also anticipate the noise of loud speakers or announcing systems associated with an automobile repair or body shop. These activities will, in all likelihood, reduce the desirability of Livingston Lakes as a residential community, as well as the financial value of our existing investment. We would like a residential zoning of the abutting land. I am very interested to know what Germain will do with this property and what restrictions can be placed on his development to protect the esthetic visual ambiance and investment made be those of us within Livingston Lakes. My wife and I are seasonal and will not be in residence until early December, so are not able to attend the August 22 meeting. Kelly & Elizabeth Walker 151 Traymore Lane Rose Valley, PA 19063 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 712 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) FinnTimoth From: Sent: To: Subject: Marian Wissa < marianwissa@gmail.com > Wednesday, August 21, 20'19 10:44 PM FinnTimothy; FrantzJeremy; FaulknerSue; Smithcamden; WeeksDavid; BellowsRay Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment p120190000454 Albert and Marian Wissa #204-15126 Palmer Lake Circle Naples, Florida 34109 ma ria nwiss a(Ao ma il- com 1 Dear Sir/Madam: We are writing in reference to the above and the relevant proposed rezoning. As property owners at Livingston Lakes, please be informed that we, together with many, if not all neighbors, at Livingston Lakes Community, are opposed to the above application. The approval of such application by Collier County will have devastating consequences on residents of our community. As residents of Livingston Lakes Community, our decision to purchase a place in this specific community was made with the knowledge that the zoning of this area is all a residential one. We are shocked to learn that an application was submitted to change the zoning from a quiet residential area to include a car dealership, which will change the nature of the area to a commercial zone, and consequently have negative effects on the lives of the residential community. Thank you for your understanding and consideration, 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 713 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Jennifer Euler <jedsterl 720@gmail.com > Thursday, August 22, 2019 9:05 AM FinnTimothy; FrantzJeremy; FaulknerSue; SmithCamden; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid Planned unit development under PL 20190000451 planned amendment p120190000454 Good morning. I am a homeowner at Livin8ston Lakes. I received a letter regarding the rezoning for the property aforementioned. I initially had very strong concerns regarding a car dealership being built on this property and then I began thinking about what it could be instead - bar, restaurant, garbage bins, rats, loud music, etc. However, as my home sits on the South side of Livingston Lakes, this dealership will abutt the property line near my home. My big concern is the lightning that usually accompanies a car dealership. I would respectfully ask that should you grant the zoning change that the North area of the property remain as much preserve as possible and that the dealership be regulated to no lighting in the back of their facility at night. Thank you for considering my concerns when you make your decision on this property. Respectfully, Jennifet Euler lfyou believe, allthings are possible! When we limit ourselves to what is comfortable, we lamitoursetves to what as possibte.... S.Vail 1 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 714 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Subject: Sally Auletta <sjaulet5T@gmail.com > Thursday, August 22, 2019 3i44 PM FinnTimothy Planned Unit Development under P120190000451, planned Amendment pL2O.l90OO0454 To Timothy, I am writing as a concerned homeowner at Livingston Lakes. we oppose the planned unit development under PL2019oooo45L, planned amendment PL 20L90000454. we are referring to the 9 acre parcel recently purchased by the Germain Automotive Group as a dealership. Too much building is ruining our environment and waterways. Building a dealership in our backyard will lower our property values and will be aesthetically displeasing. All of this continual building is affecting the beautification of the area and the charm of Naples itself. we expect you will take our communities concerns into consideration and not move forward with construction of this project. Thank you, Sally Auletta & Bob George 1.51L4 Palmer Lake Circle, Unit 203 Naples, FL 1 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 715 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) FinnTimothy From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Good morning. I am a homeowner at Livingston Lakes. I received a letter regarding the rezoning for the property aforementioned. I initially had very strong concerns regarding a car dealership being built on thii property and then I began thinking about what it could be instead - bar, restaurant, garbage bins, rats, loud music, etc. Fiowever, as my home sits on the South side of Livingston Lakes, this dealership will abutt the property line near my home. My big concerh is the lightning that usually accompanies a car dealership. I would respectfully ask that should you grant the 2oni-ng change that the North area of lhe property remain as much preserve as possible and that the dealership be regulated to -no lighling in the back of their facility at night. Respectfully, DOREEN ZASA Doreen Zasa < dzasa256@yahoo.com > Thursday, August 22, 2019 1 1:10 AM FrantzJeremy; FinnTimothy; FaulknerSue; SmithCamden; BellowsRay; WeeksDavid doreen Zasa REZONING Thank you for considering my concems when you make your decision on this property. 1 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 716 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) l-\_:I -:-V --.-t=: t=--= { ,)j $o L '::!i:i inrli I .:1. t::1 ,:;l (r _v (t 2 t-Z Tf^ az d2 L,o u \A 9J oae,.-s k 4,l ) 2 o<- () \, xv d ,+ \j d ,) 5 u1l L & r",1. f^t fietn Ha;,* R: HaEEs* E B=t-)v-'e9E E6E ) - !".?\\\t9.A.4.ePacket Pg. 717Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) l\4arch 13,2020 Dear Property owner: This is to advise you_that because you may have interest in the proceedings or you own propertylocated within 500 feet (urban areas) or 1,000 feet (rural aieas) oi the.following de."rio6o prop"rti, thai a public'hearin!will be held bv the collier county Planning commission at 9:00 Aiy., on-aprli oi,-foi6, iri'tn" aoiro or count"ycommissioners meeting room, third floor, collier Government ceiiJJZEE rast rimiamiriail, i.raples, FL., to consider: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENOINGORDINANCE No. 89-05, AS AMENDED, THE coLLtER couNTy GRowrH MANAGEIJET.iT pLAN FoR THEUNINCORPoRATED AREA oF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SPECIFTCALLY nUeruOrUeJiE iUTURE LANO USEELEMENT AND MAP SERIES BY AMENDING THE URBAN COMMERCTAL DtSTRtCf rO noo THE GERMATNIMMOKALEE coMMERcIAL SUBDISTRICT To ALLOW DEVELOPMENT oF UP To 80,000 aOUARE FEET oF c-i,coMMERcIAL PRoFESSIoNAL AND GENERAL oFFlcE DISTRICT AND LUxURy AUToiroartEbenLensHrp uses.THE suBJEcr PROPERTY ls LocATEo oN THE sourH sroE oF IMMoKALEE RoAo, Ap-iRoxrMATELy .6 MTLESWEST OF I.75, IN SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUrurY, rLOAION, CONSISTINGoF 8.97r ACRES. P120190000454 You are invited to appear and be heard at the public hearing. You may also submit your comments in writing. NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAKON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTEO 1O MINUTES TOSPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHICMATERIALS INCLUDED lN THE ccpc AGENDA pACKETs MUsr suBMtr sAtD MATERTAL A Miruruutrl or 1o DAysPRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING, IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN UNTENIEI-S IruTCNDED TO BEcoNSIDERED BY THE ccPc sHALL BE suBMtrrED To rHE couNry srAFF MEMBER NoiEo eeLow, e i/tNtuut/oF SEVEN DAYS PRIoR To rHE PUBLtc HEARING. ALL MATERTAL usED tN pRESENTATIoNa BEFoRE THE ccpcWILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FoR PRE.ENTATIoN To THEBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Collier County planning Commission will need a record of theproceedings pertaining thereto, and therefore may need to ensure that a verbatinirecord ofihe froceeoings is made, whichrecord includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. lf.you are a person with a disabillty.who needs any accommodation in order to participate in this proceeding, you are entifled,at no cost to you, to the provision of cortain assistance. Please contact the collier county racitrue! ManagemeniDepartment, located at 3335 Tamiami Trail East, Suite '101, Naptes, FL 34112-5356, izasii5-i+e80, at teast two daysprior to the meeting. Assisted listening devices for lhe hearing impaired are available in ihe Bo'aro or county commissionersOffice. This petition, and other pertinent information related to this petition, is kept on file and may be reviewed at the GrowthManagement Department building located at 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, ilaples, florioa 3ai o+-. Flease contact the staffmember noted berow at (239)-2s2-5zl s to set up an appointment if you wish to review the fire.sincererv, -T- c\-o.\_ fLr)F \*_ \-o,o or oFo-_ t ha^qd.d {o. Sue Eoulfrrun Sue Faulkner, Principal Planner Sue. Faulkner@colliercountyfl . gov COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department c.,,r- e- 1n-- Zqi .%r- o- cr,-r \',c-cst i <-- is c,\r re Orr.- frrrt,rv-,i,\'€'t-- ' o r.--- qg 60 -D'e-e-5_I <-\o{lc\_ 9.A.4.e Packet Pg. 718 Attachment: Attachment D - Opposition Letters (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) 9.A.4.fPacket Pg. 719Attachment: Attachment E - Waiver Applicant for hybrid quasi-judicial hearing- Germain Immokalee Rd (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD SIGN POSTTNG INSTRUCTIONS (CHAPTER 8, COLLIER COTINTY ADMINISTRATTVE CODE FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT) A zoning sign(s) must be posted by the petitioner or the petitioner's agent on the parcel for a minimum of lifteen (15) calendar days in advance of the frst public hearing and said sign(s) must be maintained by the petitioner or the petitioner's agenr through thc Board of County Commissioners Hearing. Below are general guidelines for signs, however these guidelines should not bc construed to supersede any requirement of the LDC. For specific sign requirements, please refer to the Administrative Code, Chapter E E. l. 1-he sign(s) must be erected in full view of the public, not mor€ than five (5) feet from the nearest street right-of-way or easement. 2. The sign(s) must be securely affrxed by nails, staples, or other means to a wood frame or to a wood panel and then fastened securely to a post, or other sfucture. The sign may not be affixed to a tree or other foliage.3. The petitioner or the petitioner's agent must maintain the sign(s) in place, and readable condition until the requested action has been heard and a final decision rendered. Ifthe sign(s) is destroyed, lost, or rendered unreadable, the petitioner or the petitioner's agent must replace the sign(s NOTE: AFTER THE SIGN HAS BEEN POSTED, THIS AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE SHOULD BE RETURNED NO LATER THAN TEN (IO) WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST ITEARINC DATE TO THE ASSIGNED PLANNER. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING NOTICE STATE OF FLORIDA COLNTY OF COLLIER BEFORE TTM UNDERSIGNED AUTHORITY, PERSONAILY APPEARED WHO ON OATH SAYS THAT HE/STM HAS POSTED PROPER NOTICE A s REQUIRED By SECTTON 10.03,00 OF TI{E COLI-IER COI-,INTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON TIIE PARCEL COVERED IN PETITION NUMBER l4odIrill 8["J f TURE OF APPLICANT OR AGENT STREET OR P.O. BOX NAME (TYPED OR PRINTED) { SI'ATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF COLLIER lon 0*. Lun /Vn 15 trL 31 tog of---\-rrl:^z 20ZD,byI identification 4 STA The foregoing instrument was sworn to and subscribed before me 4m BarL+ v- .personally knoun to me or who and who did/did not take an oath. My Commission Expires: (Stamp with serial number) Notary 4 ,,,trrt NotrvPudEEt EcrFdr(Ii{i ards"*tJ*f, ErPaIltO:lrlO'2UIs Rev.31412015 otary e/7 *7 L 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 720 Attachment: Attachment F - Property Hearing Sign (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ)) .l * :. i/' {!i I I N' ,.t I i I;ii I t I r I fr ,t '-t I /'I I t ri a t1 I ! i. \€, ,\ ,l r.q .l' I I'i i ;1 ,, +l .. t, I .; '1--.,: tl: I { T t I'a ,i"il .a \ lr'I ,r ,l: I t. .trl o GERMAIN ITUIM OKATEE COMMEBCIAT SU DIST ICT GMPA P eti tion No. PL-2019000045 GEBM AIN IMMOKALEE CPUD Petition No- PL-2019 0 00451 9:00 a-m.CGPC: AUG usr 20, 2020 BGG:Octo ber 13, 2O2O 9:00 a.m. Center, William H. Tur er Bldg.,Gollier CountY Gov ernment n iTr il East, NaPles, F L 34112Third Floor,3299 Tamia m a I Planner: 239-252-5715 t/Sue Faulkner, PrinciPa 239-252-4312TimFinn, AIGP, PrinciPa l.Planner: rl I I aI I .,vNt\\ II i ..: ? : l- 9.A.4.g Packet Pg. 721 Attachment: Attachment F - Property Hearing Sign (11804 : Germain Immokalee CPUD (PUDZ))